By Adrian Furnham and Dr Amanda Potter

At your last departmental meeting, did you join in, or did you zone out? Did you buckle down, or clam up? Well, don’t feel too bad if your participation wasn’t as wholehearted as it might have been. It could just be that you’re a victim of poor psychological safety.

When is it unwise to express your views at work? “Speak now or forever hold your peace” is a sentence that is often heard at Christian wedding ceremonies. There is a difference between using the words “peace” and “piece”. You “say your piece” when you want to speak your mind. You “hold your peace” if you are going to keep quiet.

There are numerous occasions when it is unwise to “pipe up”. One is where you are simply ignorant about the topic. But all too often, most people report on times when they (and others) did not feel confident enough to speak up on an important issue and where they were later proved right. It is not always a matter of confidence or eloquence. It is often about the perceived consequences of airing particular views. In short, you get punished. The situation is that it is simply not safe to air your views.

There is a lot of psychological research on the topic of (not) speaking up in groups. To choose three examples:

1. Brainstorming/Thought-Showering

You must have taken part in a brainstorming session, which now often goes under less misleading and potentially offensive terms. Whatever you call them, these idea-generating sessions can be a lot of fun. They have strict(ish) rules, which include freewheeling, out-of-the-box thinking and speaking, and piggy-backing. They can lead to seriously creative ideas, as well as create a powerful sense of group well-being.

Participants in these sessions are encouraged to be different, to break the mould, to let rip and allow any crazy idea or association into the solution. Silence is discouraged and nothing is unacceptable. The second rule is no criticism. In order to encourage the most creative ideas, participants should not be put off by the disapproval of others. At this stage, all ideas, however way out (indeed because they are unusual), are equally valuable. Be courageous and outrageous.

The third rule is that piggy-backing is OK. This means that it is quite acceptable to jump on the back of others, to run with their ideas and to follow someone down an unusual path. Indeed, this is precisely why this activity is group-oriented. Groups supposedly give one synergy and energy, and provide stimulation.

Brainstorming is used most frequently to generate as many solutions to a particular problem as possible, because quantity is favoured over quality. The product of a session is ideally a wide range of possible conclusions (options, solutions) which can be presented to a third party qualified to pick the best one. The basic assumption is that “two heads are better than one” and that, together, in groups, innovative solutions can be found.

So how are brainstorming sessions different from the average business or staff meeting? Standard business meetings are clearly structured not around fun, but often the complete opposite. There are explicit or implicit rules about who and what can be challenged and criticised – and, more importantly, when it is safe to speak up.

2. Pluralistic Ignorance and Collective Illusions

Ever come out of a meeting when there was supposedly total agreement about a decision, and confessed to a (trusted and close) colleague that you personally did not agree with the decision, only to find that they feel just the same? Then one wonders about the others who all voted in the same way. Did no one have the guts to speak up?

Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others predominantly hold an opinion different from their own.

Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others predominantly hold an opinion different from their own. People don’t speak up or disagree with others out of fear, embarrassment, or social inhibition. In pluralistic ignorance, people often privately reject but publicly support a norm or belief.

This is related to wilful blindness. In decision-making, wilful blindness means choosing to ignore critical information, risks, or perspectives that could challenge your assumptions or make your choice more difficult, even when evidence is available. This is particularly the case if there is cognitive dissonance. It’s refusing to see, because you don’t want to see.

This is all related to the “groupthink”, false consensus, illusion of unanimity, and spiral of silence effects. Pluralistic ignorance has also been cited to explain why majorities remain comparatively quiet about certain issues at work and keep up the collective illusion of consensus.

3. Conformity

Conformity is defined as the tendency to change one’s belief and / or behaviours in ways that are consistent with the group norm or standard. It means yielding to perceived group pressure to behave like the group, even when no direct request or command has been made. In this sense it is different from compliance, which is doing what others request or ask you do to (even if you prefer not to), and obedience (which is following orders).

Some of the most dramatic studies in social psychology have demonstrated how often people conform to the group, even when the group is seen to be wrong.

We also conform because we like to “fit in”, to gain social acceptance. This is the very essence of social pressure.

People look to others for clues on how to behave. What is correct etiquette? The less informed we believe ourselves to be and the more informed we perceive those around us to be, the more we “follow the crowd”. This seems a rational process. We also conform because we like to “fit in”, to gain social acceptance. This is the very essence of social pressure. We do so because of our need to belong. To be a member of the group, we need to follow the rules and norms, even if perhaps we disagree with them. Certain groups allow for rule-breakers and non-conformers. Some make it safe for people not to conform, though that may be the exception rather than the rule.

What Are the Core Elements of Psychological Safety?

Psychological safety is characterised as the belief that individuals feel comfortable speaking up, asking for help, admitting mistakes, or challenging the status quo, all without the fear of negative consequences for their brand, self-image, status, or career. Essentially it is when people feel safe at work, they take smart risks, speak honestly, and contribute fully. This raises an important question: is such openness only for the brave, the naïve, or those already inclined to take risks?

In practice, psychological safety is feeling safe enough in your environment at work to be honest and candid, try new approaches, raise concerns, offer suggestions, make mistakes, and ask for support. These behaviours are distinct yet interconnected. Not feeling able to safely contribute to work issues can cause staff to feel frustrated and also leave good ideas unaired.

Achieving psychological safety requires a team or organisational climate of trust, interpersonal connection, respect, openness, inclusion, and a willingness to learn. These elements, while not identical, reinforce one another and together create the conditions in which people can participate more confidently and constructively.

Most importantly, psychological safety is not just a “nice to have”. There is lots of empirical—not just anecdotal—evidence that demonstrates that psychological safety underpins high performance, innovation, and employee engagement. Of course, it is not binary (have / not have) nor similar across all contexts and situations. One might feel more able to express honest personal views in a team vs in a departmental meeting (complete honesty = high psychological safety). Employers might feel safe enough to confront the CPO but not the CFO or CEO.

In a review, Newman et al. (2017) noted:

In the majority of studies we reviewed, psychological safety was the mechanism through which the effects of these supportive environments were transmitted to desirable outcomes, such as increased knowledge sharing, engagement, creativity, innovation, and ultimately performance … Psychological safety is a valuable resource, especially important in hazardous work contexts where speaking up and providing feedback is imperative in order to reduce errors and improve safety (p. 530).

Facets or Components

Those who have attempted to measure psychological safety have come up with different facets to get a finer-grained understanding of the concept. For example, Plouffe et al. (2023) developed the Psychological Safety Inventory, which has five dimensions. Interpersonal Risk-Taking is defined as a sense of confidence that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (e.g., speaking up about mistakes, asking for help, seeking feedback, and experimentation). Mutual Trust Respect refers to perceptions of the team environment, whereby individuals exhibit trust and mutual trust, care about and are interested in each other. Organisational / Structural Support is characterised by the presence of structural features such as adequate access to resources, information, and rewards to promote a sense of support. Identity and Clarity refers to perceptions of positive individual identity, importance, and security within the team. Supportive Leadership reflects one’s perceptions of positive leadership defined through effective guidance and support, encouraging personal growth, and prioritising the open and efficient resolution of issues.

Our research led to a slightly different model, also with five facets. These were Learning from Mistakes, Being Inclusive, Creating Purpose, Speaking up and Sharing ideas, and being Personally Connected.

Teams that learn from mistakes tend to see failure as a learning opportunity, often report mistakes honestly, and are likely to take time to consider and reflect on errors. For example, a sales team that learn from mistakes may analyse why they missed their sales target so they can improve next quarter. They treat mistakes not as something to hide or be ashamed of but openly discuss them and use the discussion to refine their future strategies.

When the team focuses on being inclusive, they are likely to value equality and often take time to actively listen to their colleagues. For example, during a project launch meeting, everyone may be encouraged to share their ideas, and quieter team members are specifically given space to speak and share their views. Ideally, the project lead ensures that all voices are heard and respected, fostering a sense of belonging and mutual respect.

When a team has a clear purpose, they clarify team roles and responsibilities, set clear standards, and all work toward a common goal. For example, if each team member understands their specific role in delivering the project and everyone aligns their work toward achieving the company’s mission, they are more likely to succeed. They stay focused on shared objectives, ensuring clarity, accountability, and collective progress.

When a team speaks up and shares ideas, they engage openly in conversation and debate, and can be vocal in questioning assumptions. For example, when invited to brainstorm, team members openly challenge each other’s ideas to explore all perspectives before making a decision. They see constructive debate as a strength, using genuinely open dialogue to spark innovation, improve outcomes, and avoid conformity.

At the heart of psychological safety is personal connection. When people invest in each other’s personal and collective success, they tend to understand one another more deeply. When team members check in on each other’s well-being and celebrate both personal and professional milestones together, they build trust through genuine care, compassion, and support, creating a safe environment where everyone feels valued, heard, and understood.

Climate and Culture

It is important to distinguish between organisational climate (the shared perceptions of the day-to-day working environment) and culture (the deeper values and norms). Psychological safety is considered more a climate phenomenon—how people feel in their team’s environment.

It is very apparent to an outsider whether groups experience psychological safety. It can be seen in their everyday interactions. It doesn’t happen by accident; it must be understood, measured, and actively nurtured. In highly competitive, dog-eat-dog cultures, psychological safety really does not exist—indeed the opposite: the office is a battleground with winners and losers, heroes and suckers, the victors and the vanquished. Stick your head above the parapet and you get shot.

But we know the benefits of psychological safety: high-trust teams, inclusion, innovation, better decision-making, employee well-being, retention. Research has found that psychological safety contributes to productivity and team effectiveness. Psychologically safe teams are more likely to achieve financial success. Of course, it is not the only important factor in healthy, happy, and productive teamwork, but it seems to be a prerequisite for many other factors.

The good news is that psychological safety is relatively simple to measure and not too difficult to introduce. But it is a journey and not the destination, a delicate flower that needs constant surveillance and nurturing.

About the Authors

Adrian Furnham is Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School, which is a very safe organisational environment.

Dr Amanda Potter is the CEO Zircon Management Consulting Ltd and the lead author of the “BeTalent Psychological Safety Questionnaire”, and the award-winning host of the “Chief Psychology Officer” podcast.

References:

1. Edmondson, A. C., & Bransby, D. P. (2023). “Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature”. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 55–78.

2. Furnham, A., Horne, G., Ross, J., & Potter, A. (2025). “Assessing Psychological Safety: Correlates of a New Scale”. Psychology, 16, 1298–312.

3. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). “Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature”. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–35.

4. Plouffe, R. A., Ein, N., Liu, J. J. W., St. Cyr, K., Baker, C., Nazarov, A. et al. (2023). “Feeling Safe at Work: Development and Validation of the Psychological Safety Inventory”. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 31, 443–55.

The post Belt Up and Belt Out: Corporate Benefits of Psychological Safety appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

Is the world a just place – or just a place? Then again, should we just pessimistically expect the unjust and so avoid disappointment? As Adrian Furnham explains, a little bit of faith in the ultimate fairness of it all could be your best armour against the arrows of outrageous fortune.

• Fairness is man’s ability to rise above his prejudices. – Wes Fessler
• Win or lose, do it fairly. – Knute Rockne
• Be fair. Treat the other man as you would be treated. – Everett W. Lord
• Justice is a certain rectitude of mind whereby a man does what he ought to do in circumstances confronting him. – Saint Thomas Aquinas
• Nothing can be truly great which is not right. – Samuel Johnson
• It is not fair to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself. – Eleanor Roosevelt
• Fairness is what justice really is. – Potter Stewart
• These men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they, and all others, shall have. – Abraham Lincoln
• Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace. – President Dwight Eisenhower
• Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is a little like expecting the bull not to attack you because you are a vegetarian. – Dennis Wholey
• In our hearts and in our laws, we must treat all our people with fairness and dignity, regardless of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. – President Bill Clinton
• Live so that when your children think of fairness and integrity, they think of you. – H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Count the use of the “F-word” in politicians’ speeches: yes, Fair. Many believe that if you appeal to a voter’s sense of fairness, you can simultaneously provoke enough positive and negative emotions to secure a vote for their party position. We all want to be fairly treated and live in a just world. But can we agree on the what is fair and unfair, just and unjust? And how do people react differently to lack of justice?

Different Perspectives

There are clearly many very different understandings of why there is such manifest and obvious injustice and unfairness in the world.

Ellenbogen (1986), in a very memorable and humorous way, distinguished between how different religions understand injustice. These are rather simple-minded stereotypes, and possibly even “offensive” to certain groups, because of the way they try to encapsulate and distinguish between various conceptualisations of injustice. It illustrates forcefully some of the numerous and profound differences in the ways injustice / evil / sh*t is considered.

It is clear that injustice, here described as “sh*t happens”, is an extremely important issue and that many struggle for an explanation for its existence, but also how to cope with it. It is very big topic indeed. The fundamental “take-away” is to take a much wider view. All peoples have had to confront injustice and explain why it occurs.

The moral of the story? There are clearly many very different understandings of why there is such manifest and obvious injustice and unfairness in the world … and therefore of how you should try to confront and ameliorate it.

Equity and Justice Sensitivity

There are clearly individual differences in the extent to which people are sensitive to events: that are fair, just, and right or the opposite. There are two psychological constructs in this area: the older construct of equity sensitivity and the newer construct of justice sensitivity. The focus of equity sensitivity is on the outcome of an allocation, which limits the construct to distributive justice.

The focus of justice sensitivity is on the role a person can play in any incidence of injustice. A person can be the victim of injustice (victim sensitivity), the observer of injustice (observer sensitivity), the beneficiary of injustice (beneficiary sensitivity), and the perpetrator of injustice (perpetrator sensitivity). Thus, the concept of justice is not limited to distributive justice in the justice sensitivity construct, but includes all kinds of injustice (distributive, procedural, retributive, restorative, interactive, legal).

Researchers have determined three different types of justice-sensitive people: benevolents, equity sensitives, and entitleds. Benevolents are referred to as “givers”, because they are willing to bestow as much as possible on people and organizations but are relatively unaffected by unfair treatment. They are prepared to experience personal discrimination, unfairness, and injustice for a variety of personal reasons, and unlikely to complain or attempt some recompense. Some religions would strongly approve of this behaviour, which is self-sacrificial for the greater good.

The counterparts are entitleds, who are also labeled “takers”. Their ultimate ambition is to maximize their outcomes. They appear selfish, egocentric, and deeply concerned about getting what they can from others. In between, there are “equity sensitives”, who seek to achieve a balance between input and outcome.

As these different categorizations suggest, there are systematic and predictable behavioral differences between the three types. Benevolents are more likely to tolerate unfair payment, whereas entitleds are more likely to react more strongly than benevolents to pay inequities by reducing their job performance. There are interesting questions about the development of justice sensitivity and how it can be appropriately moderated.

Another important difference is the assumed dimensionality. The justice sensitivity construct conceptualizes all facets (victim, observer, beneficiary, perpetrator) as potentially independent components (a person can be victim sensitive and beneficiary sensitive). By contrast, equity sensitivity is a one-dimensional construct (a benevolent person cannot be entitled). These differences have important implications for measurement and research on developmental origins, behavioral outcomes, and correlations (with personality traits, for example).

Justice sensitivity research has shown that all facets have some uniqueness, which means that they overlap only partially and that they have unique relations with other variables. Yet all studies show a systematic pattern of overlap among the facets. Observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator sensitivity correlate highly among each other and seem to reflect a genuine concern for justice for others. Victim sensitivity correlates only moderately with the other factors.

Here are some questions from a measure of equity sensitivity

1. It is really satisfying to me when I can get something for nothing at work.
2. It is the smart employee who gets as much as he / she can while giving as little as possible in return.
3. Employees who are more concerned about what they can get from their employer, rather than what they can give to their employer, are the wise ones.
4. When I have completed my task for the day, I help out other employees who have yet to complete their tasks.
5. Even if I received low wages and poor benefits from my employer, I would still try to do my best at my job.
6. At work, my greatest concern is whether or not I am doing the best job I can.

Belief in a Just World

It is apparent that all people have a need to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve; there is justice in the end. Good deeds are rewarded; bad are punished. This belief enables them to confront the world as though it were stable and orderly. Without these beliefs, it is difficult for people to commit themselves to the pursuit of long-range goals. The BJW has an adaptive function, which is why people are very reluctant to give up this belief. It is very distressing to be confronted with evidence that the world is not really just or orderly after all.

Here are some statements from a classic measure of the just-world beliefs:

1. Basically, the world is a just place (J)
2. People who get “lucky breaks” have usually earned their good fortune (J)
3. Careful drivers are just as likely to get hurt in traffic accidents as careless ones (UJ)
4. Students almost always deserve the grades / marks they receive in school (J)
5. People who keep in shape have little chance of suffering a heart attack (J)
6. The political candidate who sticks up for his principles rarely gets elected (UJ)
7. In professional sport, many fouls and infractions never get called by the
   referee (UJ)
8. By and large, people deserve what they get (J)
9. Good deeds often go unnoticed and unrewarded (UJ)
10. Although evil people may hold political power for a while, in the general course of history, good wins out (J)
11. In almost any business or profession, people who do their jobs well rise to the top (J)
12. People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves (J)

Believing that the world is just seems to provide psychological buffers against the harsh realities of the world, as well as personal control over one’s own destiny. It is a way of eliminating injustice by victim derogation; that is why people blame victims of a range of misfortunes for their plight. People feel less personally vulnerable and have lower perception of risk because they believe they have done nothing to deserve negative outcomes. It seems the BJW developmental and life-span literature suggests that it is fairly stable across the life-span.

It is apparent that all people have a need to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve.

It  possible for some people to believe that the world was just (people got what they deserve), unjust (the good and virtuous were punished) and the a-just or random world where just deeds were randomly rewarded and punished. Also, there are different worlds: the personal, interpersonal, and social world. People can believe in different worlds for different reasons. One might believe the political and economic world to be unjust, but the world of personal relations just. But most of all, for many the world was a-just. It rains on the just and unjust alike (Matthew 5). However, some would argue that whether or not the world is just, it could be made fairer.

It may be more seriously disadvantageous to believe that the world is unjust as opposed to just. Imagine believing that good actions are punished, as opposed to rewarded, or that good people are assassinated while dictators live to an old age. A major development at the turn of the millennium was to view the BJW as a healthy coping mechanism, rather than being the manifestation of antisocial beliefs and prejudice. Studies have portrayed BJW beliefs as a personal resource or coping strategy, which buffers against stress and enhances achievement behaviour. Of course, as pointed out above, one could believe in a just personal world, an a-just interpersonal world, and an unjust political world at the same time. Further, there must be degrees to which the world is just or unjust, not simply a stark binary option.

For the first time, BJW beliefs were seen as an indicator of mental health and planning. This does not contradict the more extensive literature on BJW and victim derogation. Rather it helps explain why people are so eager to maintain their beliefs, which may be their major coping strategy. BJW is clearly functional for the individual. Rather than despise people for believing that the world is (relatively) just, which certainly we teach our children, the BJW may be seen as a fundamental, cognitive coping strategy. However, the directionality is not always clear: Do mentally healthy people believe that the world is just, or do just-world believers deal better with the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”? Or, indeed, is there actually a reciprocal causal relationship? Believing the world is just when it is not may be a maladaptive, bruising experience.

One question is how BJW is related to other coping strategies which are favoured by healthy individuals who have low BJW beliefs. Again, the focus is on how BJW relate to personal experiences, rather than those of others. Is it true that “what goes around comes around”? For the most part, good deeds are rewarded, and vice versa. That the bad are punished and the good rewarded is what we teach our children, though we no doubt all believe that this simple observation needs to carry a caveat and be explained.

Conclusion

Now, more than ever, people seem sensitive to issues of fairness at work – who is promoted, selected, and sacked, and why. Why people are paid what they are. How bullies are dealt with. The psychological research has shown that we can understand how, when, and why people take different positions with respect to what they think is just and fair, which helps explain how they act as they do. And beware the manager who is not able to understand and deal with these issues.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham has always been interested in these issues because he grew up in South Africa, at that time a deeply unjust society. He is currently an emeritus Professor at the Norwegian Business School, situated in a country well known for its attempts to bring fairness and justice to all.

References:

1. Bartholomaeus, J., & Strelan, P. (2019). “The adaptive,
approach oriented correlates of belief in a just world for the self: A review of the research”. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109485.

2. Decety J, & Yoder, K.J. (2017). “The emerging social neuroscience of justice motivation”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(1), 6–14.

3. Ellenbogen, G. (1986). Oral Sadism and the Vegetarian Personality. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

4. Furnham, A. (2023). “Life is not Fair: Get used to it! A Personal Perspective on Contemporary Social Justice Research”. Social Justice Research, 36, 293-304.

5. Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). “Experimental Research on Just-World Theory: Problems, Developments, and Future Challenges”. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–67.

The post Where’s Your Sense of Justice? appeared first on The European Business Review.

University is often treated as the default path to success, yet its value is increasingly questioned. Adrian Furnham challenges conventional assumptions by asking what higher education truly delivers today. The discussion invites reflection on motives, costs, alternatives, and whether vocational guidance and life experience can offer equally fulfilling and effective routes forward.

I, like so many now, can claim to be the first in my family to go to university. My parents were delighted when I was accepted at the local (colonial) university, as all parents are. Alas, I took to university life rather too well and remained for 10 years collecting degrees (five) before I got a job. And according to mother, not a proper job (not a real doctor), as a lecturear and later a professor (of Psychology).

Many universities have changed dramatically in all sorts of ways, often, but not always for the best. It is now a very expensive option; never mind the opportunity cost of not working, or travelling to “broaden the mind”.

Many universities have changed dramatically in all sorts of ways, often, but not always for the best.

And as an academic, I am often asked by parents about universities, particularly how to get into the Russell Group. Many of us recall the Blairite mantra: Education, Education, Education. And since the Millennium, there has been a huge expansion of universities. There are now around 130 universities in the UK, well over twice as many as there were 50 years ago. Many get “upgraded” to university status; some change their name; some go through mergers and acquisitions; and some fold. Universities are big business…and many are now in (serious) financial trouble.

Then there is the question about which university (ideally). I am a graduate of four universities from three countries. I have also taught at half a dozen universities on four continents. There are a number of variables here: prestige, cost, location, specialisms, etc. They offer very different “student experiences” and not always what they say they do.

But, dare one ask the question……why go to university? There are three fundamental questions here: Should one go to university? If so, why? And if so, which?. I shall consider the first two.

There are or were, in my view, three types of reason for going to university.

Orthodox Reasons

To get a qualification that improves job prospects (and a bigger salary). Clearly, this depends on the degree. There are often surveys which show how salaries are linked to later salaries……sociology and zoology near the bottom, finance at the top. Science is better than social science. Economics and maths are tops. Some jobs, like medicine, require it. It certainly is not clear whether a degree in Event Management from a new university increases job prospects, considering the opportunity cost of a degree (3 years’ fees = £30,000; opportunity cost £90,000). Selectors want to know about skills as much as qualifications.

To acquire useful knowledge and, more importantly, employable, transferable, hard and soft skills. This is similar to the above but focuses on specific skills that are taught in some degrees. This is less about college and discipline reputation and more about what you can do.

To understand how to be persuasive with words and numbers…give presentations, understand current affairs, and make wise investments. This usually refers to skills obtained in essay writing and giving presentations. It is all about accessing, critiquing, and summarising knowledge in a specific area.

To build self-confidence, independence, and responsibility. These three may in fact be better obtained by working rather than studying, but that all depends…

Sceptical/Cynical Reasons

To postpone adulthood for as long as possible. Who knows at 18 what they want to do when they grow up….and growing up is so difficult. So why not carry on studying whatever you like and hope you find “your vocation”?

Develop a taste for hedonism and idleness. Ah, the days of punting on the river, watching TV in the morning, following whatever you fancy.

Establish a useful network of professional friends: doctors, dentists, lawyers. If you go to a big and good university and you are extroverted, gregarious, and a networker, you will probably know people from many disciplines who may become very useful friends for life. Think the public school and Oxbridge mafia.

Make your parents happy and proud because they never went to university. As long as they are prepared to pay, you might argue this is a good idea.

Avoid the ‘not-been-to-university’ monkey on the shoulder that impedes confidence and risk-taking. I have come across many very successful adults who, for one reason or another, did not go to university. This is partly a generation effect, but still not that rare. Inevitably, those middle-class professionals have…. I have advised a few to do a postgraduate degree or even become an honorary/special/visiting Professor at a local business school.

Good Reasons

You find out what you are really good at; you can experiment, find out where your talents lie. To find out what really interests and inspires you, so you achieve that person-job fit that alludes people for so long.

To guide and foster an interest/ passion for its own sake. So many disciplines have a “go-nowhere” feel about them, but that is not important. It is really the one chance you have to really explore that which captivates you.

To understand the idea of personal challenge: to (have to) do hard things; take effort, dedication, and sacrifice. Little that is worthwhile, some argue, comes easily. To be able to master complexity

Find out what really interests and inspires you, so you achieve that person-job fit that alludes people for so long.

So… can you be happy, fulfilled, and successful without going to university? Of course. Are they often the happiest days of your life? Seen through a claret-tinged, dissonance-reducing, sentimental-mood retrospective, perhaps. Should you go straight from school? Not sure. Did I waste time getting degrees? Certainly. Are most of my close relationships today based on people I met as a post-graduate? Yes.

But are they a good investment now? Much less so? So many go to so many universities and are confronted with fewer and more disgruntled staff. All are struggling with the power of AI.

So perhaps defer the decision until the dust settles. Try some rich experiences at the University of life and save yourself a bob or two.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham has been a lecturer at Pembroke College, Oxford, and Professor at University College London. He has three doctorates and three master’s degrees, and taught at many universities. He is currently at the Norwegian Business School

The post Why Go to University? Serious Vocational Guidance appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Dr Madeleine Roantree and Professor Adrian Furnham

Although AI-driven monitoring and performance tools are designed to optimise productivity, they may have an adverse effect on how employees perceive fairness, support, and control in the workplace. Attachment theory shines an illuminating beam on how individuals may react to algorithmic oversight.

Attachment Theory in the Workplace

Attachment is defined as the human propensity to seek out and develop close affectional bonds with others. Attachment theory, originally developed to explain interpersonal relationships, offers a valuable lens for understanding these dynamics. This framework posits that individuals’ attachment styles—secure, anxious, or avoidant—shape how they respond to perceived support or threat in relationships, including those mediated by technology.

This article examines how AI-based monitoring systems interact with employees’ attachment styles, influencing their sense of trust, autonomy, and well-being. It proposes a psychologically informed approach to designing AI systems and provides actionable recommendations for fostering workplace environments that prioritise human needs alongside organisational goals.

Attachment theory suggests that individuals develop internal models of relationships based on early experiences with caregivers, which influence their interactions in adulthood. That is, early childhood experiences profoundly shape (all) adult relationships. These attachment styles manifest in the workplace as follows:

• Secure attachment: Individuals are comfortable with interdependence, view support systems positively, and adapt well to feedback.
• Anxious attachment: Individuals seek reassurance, fear rejection, and may perceive monitoring as a sign of distrust or criticism.
• Avoidant attachment: Individuals prioritise independence, may withdraw under scrutiny, and perceive monitoring as intrusive.

Research indicates that attachment styles significantly predict workplace outcomes, including engagement, collaboration, and stress resilience. When applied to AI-based monitoring, attachment theory suggests that employees’ reactions to algorithmic oversight depend on how these systems align with their relational expectations.

Research has demonstrated significant re-lation-ships between attachment styles and job performance, job satisfaction, burnout, feedback-seeking and acceptance, as well as organisational commitment. Attachment styles can be utilised to inform a host of organisational attitudes, behaviours, and other outcomes.

Attachment theory suggests that early childhood experiences profoundly shape all adult relationships.

Over a decade ago, Harms (2011) showed that attachment theory could also explain how the characteristics of leaders foster positive and negative outcomes in their subordinates. He suggested that organisations could utilise attachment dimensions in their selection systems for supervisors. Also, they can be used to inform job design to ensure closer contact with supervisors for anxiously attached individuals who may experience a sense of loss when physically separated from their leaders. Moreover, performance reviews could be conducted and delivered in a way that is mindful of the fact that some followers may be particularly sensitive to feedback that may indicate that their leader has a negative perception of them. That is, they are suggestive of ways to strengthen the relationship rather than simply pointing out past behaviours that were seen to be disruptive or off-putting.

AI Monitoring and Psychological Responses

Securely attached individuals may view AI tools as reliable support systems, whilst those with anxious or avoidant tendencies might interpret such monitoring as intrusive or distrustful. These responses can profoundly affect organisational outcomes—from engagement and innovation to burnout and turnover. We suggest a novel psychological framework for understanding algorithmic management, proposing that workplace technologies must be designed with human attachment needs in mind. By integrating insights from occupational psychology and behavioural science, it sets out principles for developing transparent, autonomy-supportive AI systems that foster trust rather than fear. We conclude with practical recommendations for leaders, HR professionals, and policymakers across Europe: build algorithmic systems not just for efficiency, but for psychological safety—thereby supporting both individual well-being and long-term organisational resilience.

The integration of artificial intelligence into workplace management has transformed how organisations monitor and evaluate employee performance. From tracking keystrokes to analysing communication patterns, AI-based tools promise enhanced efficiency and data-driven decision-making. However, their psychological implications remain underexplored. As organisations across Europe adopt these technologies, they must consider how AI-mediated oversight influences trust, autonomy, and emotional well-being—core components of a healthy workplace.

AI Monitoring and Psychological Responses

AI-driven tools, such as performance analytics and real-time productivity trackers, are often designed to optimise efficiency. However, their implementation can trigger varied psychological responses. Securely attached employees may perceive these tools as neutral or supportive, enhancing their sense of structure and fairness (Neustadt et al., 2011). Conversely, anxiously attached employees may interpret constant monitoring as evidence of mistrust, heightening stress and reducing engagement. Avoidant employees may disengage entirely, viewing AI oversight as an invasion of autonomy.

These reactions have tangible consequences. Studies show that perceived surveillance can reduce intrinsic motivation and increase burnout, particularly among employees with insecure attachment styles (Warnock et al., 2023). Furthermore, excessive monitoring may undermine psychological safety—the shared belief that a workplace is safe for interpersonal risk-taking—leading to lower innovation and higher turnover.

A Psychological Framework for Algorithmic Management 

To mitigate these risks, organisations must design AI systems that align with human attachment needs. This requires a framework rooted in three principles:

• Transparency: Employees should understand how AI tools collect and use data. Clear communication reduces perceptions of threat, particularly for anxiously attached individuals.
• Autonomy-Support: AI systems should em-power rather than control. For example, offering employees access to their own performance data fosters a sense of agency, appealing to both secure and avoidant individuals.
• Psychological Safety: AI tools should be integrated into a broader culture of trust, where employees feel valued beyond their metrics. This is critical for fostering resilience across all attachment styles.

The European Commission’s AI Act (2024) provides a regulatory foundation for such principles, emphasising transparency and accountability in workplace AI. However, organisations must go beyond compliance to address the emotional and relational dimensions of technology use.

Practical Recommendations

To create AI systems that support trust, autonomy, and well-being, leaders, HR professionals, and policymakers should consider the following:

• Co-design with Employees: Involve employees in the development and implementation of AI tools to ensure they meet diverse psychological needs. This collaborative approach can enhance trust and reduce resistance (EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023).
• Tailored Feedback Systems: Use AI to deliver personalised, constructive feedback rather than punitive metrics. For example, dashboards that highlight strengths alongside areas for growth can resonate with securely attached employees whilst reassuring those with anxious tendencies.
• Training for Managers: Equip leaders to mediate between AI systems and employees, fostering open dialogue about monitoring practices. This can mitigate avoidant employees’ withdrawal and support a culture of psychological safety.
• Ethical AI Guidelines: Policymakers should expand the AI Act’s principles to include psychological impact assessments, ensuring that workplace technologies are evaluated for their effects on trust and well-being.

Conclusion   

As AI reshapes the workplace, its psychological implications cannot be ignored. By applying attachment theory, organisations can better understand how employees respond to algorithmic oversight and design systems that foster trust, autonomy, and well-being. Transparent, autonomy-supportive AI tools, embedded in a culture of psychological safety, can enhance both individual and organisational outcomes. For Europe’s business leaders and policymakers, the challenge is clear: build algorithmic systems that prioritise human connection alongside efficiency. In doing so, they will cultivate workplaces that are not only productive but also resilient and humane.

About the Authors

Dr Madeleine Roantree is a UK-based psychologist and relationships expert. She divides her time between the NHS and private practice, working with individuals and couples.

Professor Adrian Furnham is a professor at the Norwegian Business School. He has long had an interest in the concept of attachment and how it applies to the workplace.

References:

1. Berson, Y., Dan, O., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). “Attachment Style and Individual Differences in Leadership Perceptions and Emergence”. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(2), 165–82.

2. Calboli, S., & Engelen, B. (2025) “AI-enhanced nudging in public policy: why to worry and how to respond”. Mind & Society.

3. European Commission. (2024). AI Act: Provisional agreement and guiding principles.

4. EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2023). Trust and technology in the workplace.

5. Fein, E. C., Benea, D., Idzadikhah, Z., & Tziner, A. (2019). “The security to lead: a systematic review of leader and follower attachment styles and leader–member exchange”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 106–25.

6. Kim, B-J., & Kim, M-J. (2024) “How artificial intelligence-induced job insecurity shapes knowledge dynamics: the mitigating role of artificial intelligence self-efficacy”. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), 100590.

7. Harms, P. D. (2011). “Adult attachment styles in the workplace”. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 285–96.

8. Neustadt, E., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2011). “Attachment at work and performance”. Attachment & Human Development, 13:5, 471–88.

9. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. The Guilford Press.

10. Warnock, K. N., Ju, C. S. & Katz, I. M. (2024). “A Meta-analysis of Attachment at Work”. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39, 1239–57 (2024).

The post Algorithmic Attachment: How AI-Based Employee Monitoring Shapes Workplace Trust, Autonomy, and Well-being appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Dr Melissa Dunlop and Professor Adrian Furnham

The remote-working era brought us many challenges in communicating effectively with our fellow humans via a computer screen, but there are surely few contexts where the extreme subtleties of human interaction matter more than that of conversation between therapist and client. Can the relationship really work virtually?

There were many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, but one of the most lasting is the working-from-home phenomenon. We had to do everything online: hiring and firing, teaching and decision making, even partying. Further, some of the most sensitive and personal conversations, like that between therapist and client, coach and coachee, now had to be “virtual”.

Digitally mediated living changes the orienting anchors around which everyday realities are built. Public and private lives are less defined and contained by limitations of the time and space when activities are with people who don’t inhabit our physical location.

In this article, we share some of the things experts think about in supporting the development of safe, trusting relationships where each party is able to take “relational risks”. We look at some of the key differences between online and in-person “relating”, and share some of our experiences of what helps when it comes to really getting to know people online. This explains why many professionals still prefer to develop key relationships in person. We also suggest some considerations and adaptations for communicating more openly and effectively online.

Therapeutic views on space: shared physical environment versus digital window

For the first 100 years of its practice, psychoanalysis and its descendant and related fields of counselling, psychotherapy, and coaching have taken place in real rooms which are managed and cared for by the practitioner to ensure privacy, comfort, and an unchanging backdrop for the work. Since Freud first developed the analytic method, there has been a strong consensus that the predictable and unchanging nature of the meeting time, and the room itself, have a beneficial effect upon the patient or client. Anyone visiting Freud’s rooms in London or Vienna cannot easily forget their uniqueness.

Counselling, coaching, and psychotherapy practitioners usually pay a lot of attention to the space in which they work, ensuring that it is private and calm, with enough detail of interest to engage the imagination, without overwhelming the senses with too much that is specific to the personality of the practitioner. Clients can rely upon the physical environment to be safe and unchanging and so they can relax, their attention freed to focus inward.

Yet meeting in the same location on a weekly basis is impossible for many, like those who are living as “digital nomads”. Meeting online allows access for people whose ability to travel is limited by health conditions, disabilities, a rural location, or one where the professional that they need isn’t available. Others have interesting reasons for choosing to work with someone they can never meet in real life, such as having a high profile in their own social sphere. For people who are especially concerned about privacy, knowing that the person they are working with is completely unrelated to their network can give much-needed reassurance. The potential to have a professional relationship that goes in-depth, yet remains essentially anonymous, can thus be enabled by an online framing.

But by replacing physical presence within the same room with a relationship that is mediated through a screen, online relating profoundly shifts a core foundation of therapeutic theory and practice: the assumption of embodied presence in the same space as an orienting anchor, the place that can be relied upon to stay the same while the people within it make changes. There was therefore a lot of questioning and doubt amongst practitioners about whether a therapy / counselling relationship could really be developed online.

In online meeting spaces, the four walls that contain the people meeting together in a shared environment are replaced by a screen, in fact two screens. While these give a feeling of a relation of closeness, each participant knows that there is distance between them. This dislocation between what is known cognitively and what is felt emotionally is a central feature of online social experience.

The online meeting room is both a digital space itself, and an analogous representation of the attachments and detachments of digital life. It has contributed to enabling the disparate geographies of many people’s lives and loves, for good or ill. In online meetings, we encounter one another within the contemporary relational structure of neither / both, where we each experience both places simultaneously, while at the same time existing together in neither. We are together-apart.

There is no pretending that this condition can provide the same sense of containment as can be found when one person comes into a space where they are hosted by the other, and where they can reasonably expect that the host has ensured that it is private, comfortable, and relatively predictable (there will be chairs, some water, etc.). But we have found that a different sense of containment is possible.

Subtle cues and visual communication

What does the online setting do to that human need for the consistency of physical relational contact which is so reassuring and helps us feel centred and oriented within reality? And can in-depth, emotionally sensitive relating really happen in this context?

Working online changes the “holding container” of therapeutic work from a room managed entirely by one person into something that has to be mutually created and maintained. Each party is responsible for ensuring they can be somewhere private and comfortable, with a stable internet connection and where they feel able to speak without inhibition. How each party meets this challenge will directly affect the quality of the relationship, with some of the immediate circumstances of each person’s life being in evidence, alongside their creative response to any adversity that may be present.

Working online changes the “holding container” of therapeutic work from a room managed entirely by one person into something that has to be mutually created and maintained.

For some people, meeting this initial challenge is a simple matter, as they already have a private study with a computer set up for work. A common difficulty for these people is switching psychologically out of other work modes and into the frame of mind that psychotherapy and coaching encourages: expansive, non-linear, creative, emotionally open, and relationally engaged. To achieve this, some, but certainly not all, will switch off notifications and other distractions coming through on their screens, while many find they need to change the physical device they are working on, a symbolic physical act which signals an internal shift of mode and status. This is an example of an apparently simple, everyday challenge that actually shows a lot about our interlocutor, their capacity for presence of mind, and their willingness to be present with us.

Those without a predefined private space in their home or workplace may find clever ways to adapt. During the pandemic, people often used their cars, as there was nowhere inside where they were able to be alone. People frequently come to online meetings on, or even in, their beds, as the bedroom can be the only private space in their home.

Some online practitioners are very firm about the importance of being formally dressed and presented for therapy and coaching, to be clear that it is a professional arrangement. Yet the choice of a more intimate setting and personal presentation can be interesting in the context of building more emotional authenticity. People’s choices about how to allow themselves to be seen, while usually pragmatic on a conscious level, act as a reminder that deeper relationships also engage with layers of identity and experience that are more private, ephemeral, and fluid than a polished presentation would convey. While, in the early stages of forming a relationship, the lack of good presentation might feel disrespectful or unserious, it is usually a sign of growing trust and confidence that the relationship is well established when someone gradually begins to present more informally with us.

Noticing how the other person is managing their part of the “container” can be part of the work of supporting the growth of a healthy relationship. This includes how they allow its solidity to slip, perhaps by not finding a sufficiently private space or by going somewhere with poor Wi-Fi. This often can’t be helped but, since it makes communication challenging, it also raises questions about whether they might be annoyed or ambivalent about the relationship.

The use of filters that conceal their real backgrounds is also interesting, along with other points of detail around people’s use of the screen as a framing device. We are visually motivated creatures and immersed in visual culture. While most of us have no formal training in visual communication, in online work it is helpful to be attentive to how people make use of visual language to portray themselves. Some appear to think carefully about this, while others seem to give it little thought; we find it interesting how the unconscious finds expression in these choices.

Working thus online introduces aspects of a person’s character that wouldn’t appear when working in-person. The aesthetics of their background give a flavour of their personality, while clothing, shoes, and general physical presentation carry less significance than they would in person.

In psychotherapy and coaching, we are mindful not to overwhelm those who could potentially be experiencing emotional difficulties. When considering having a potentially sensitive conversation online, it is important to think about the mental state. This could be worth clarifying directly, if it isn’t clearly evidenced both in their demeanour and in the way they manage the “online frame”. If these initial prerequisites aren’t sufficiently well met, it is certainly worth considering postponing the meeting to a time when the other person is in a better frame of mind and is more able to make space for an open dialogue with you.

Physical or virtual presence

The other major challenge posed by online working to established theories and practices is the absence of physical co-presence. Being physically present allows for subtle bodily attunement between people, much of it happening outside our conscious awareness. The most obvious of these is what happens around and through eye contact, which may be unobtrusively experienced, with qualities of comfort and connection, or perhaps painfully awkward to engage with or maintain.

In face-to-face interaction, a person feels when the other person’s pupils constrict or dilate, even if they don’t realise it has happened. The sensation of another person having an emotional response is conveyed through this and other biological responses, such as changes of temperature, the precise nature of which typically fall outside conscious awareness but are picked up somatically. We tend to feel it quite clearly when another person becomes sad or angry, and know that something has changed for them.

Psychotherapeutic practitioners working in person are used to relying on this “felt-sense” of the other person’s emotional landscape. Many find their sensitivity to be impaired when working online, to a degree that makes them uncomfortable working at emotional depth. They simply do not feel confident that they are working within their client’s window of tolerance and fear causing undue suffering or re-traumatisation as a result.

Eye contact isn’t possible online, even though we can make close approximations of it. It is also harder to spot when someone is feeling something upsetting. This can be concerning for practitioners who are keen not to overwhelm clients who are sensitised by conflict or trauma. However, clients themselves often report liking the sense of safety they gain from being more able to hide their bodies and bodily responses from their psychotherapist. Many report feeling less anxious, and enjoy the sense of control they experience by retaining some physical distance and being in control of their own personal space.

Sexual tension and the mystery of what can’t be known

Online relating seems to carry less potential to be erotically charged. This is perhaps paradoxical, since the online environment is generally disinhibiting, but no measure of “chemistry” can really be made. The physical sensation of anxiety is much reduced in the absence of embodied presence. However, more of what is usually inhibited can be spoken about, which suits talking therapies very well. There is no fear, for example, that talking about sexual matters could lead to confusion or misunderstanding.

The online environment enables more frankness, particularly where people might be hesitant to bring potentially shameful or taboo content in person. Thus the relationship carries no tension and may not feel very real.

In online work, the potential for crossing a physical boundary is removed, so there is not the same need to contain ourselves in the relationship. Therefore more extreme expression can often be risked without fear of consequence. While that is a problematic issue generally for contemporary culture (vis à vis the prevalence of extreme violent and sexual expression online), in a therapeutic context that disinhibition enables people to get to the heart of what they need to discuss much more quickly.

The “unreal” quality of the online relationship can be experienced as a barrier to true connection, or it can be worked with and used in positive ways, to overcome relational inhibitions. There are risks, however, where these shifts move too fast in psychotherapy, and people can feel destabilised emotionally as a result, so pacing needs careful handling, and it remains part of the skill of the practitioner to ensure that people don’t expose themselves beyond what they can comfortably bear.

In online relating, there is still a great deal of common feeling, be it love and desire for more contact, or fear of loss or abandonment. Online clients are important presences in the lives of therapists and coaches and, even though they may never physically meet, they do develop a sense of meaningful mutual connection.

While certain non-verbal aspects of mutual communication are missing, others can be present. We cannot tell if someone is tapping their foot nervously as they smile but, since part of them is obscured, there is an opening for asking about what is happening offscreen. In other words, we can explore verbally that which is hidden visually, in ways that would perhaps seem rude or inappropriate in person. This can lead the way to exploring other, more psychological parts of the client that they may also tend to keep hidden.

Some advice for relating with sensitivity online

Consider online working to be more, not less, of an embodied practice and pay attention to your presentation on the screen. Make sure you are comfortably seated and have recently had a chance to move around and attend to your own comfort needs. Use a wider-angled camera to show more of yourself physically than just your head and shoulders, and think about your background and how you are communicating visually through the lens. Don’t feel obliged to stare at the camera or screen; no eye contact is being made anyway.

Consider doodling and taking notes, in order to engage your body haptically during meetings and assist your listening. Find your inner focus by attending to your own breath and posture, and notice how the presence of the other person affects your inner feelings and sensation. This is good information about how they are likely to be feeling, too. You may wish to share some of your inner experience, including physical sensations and other impressions that come to you, such as visual images or references to films or other shared cultural objects, to see if these associations are helpful in bridging the physical gap.

Consistency remains necessary, in order to ensure that the person can experience the online relationship as something safe and dependable. The rhythmicity of a regular weekly meeting can help to build this, even when locations and their associated time zones are changing. Try to keep your own location and background the same and think about what your background might represent symbolically for people who are seeing it on a regular basis and how they may associate it with you. Be mindful if travelling yourself that a change of setting can be disturbing to people who are not expecting you to appear in a different environment. You may wish to forewarn them of your plans.

The medium affects the message

Therapeutic change is akin to the Observer Effect in physics, in which the attempts to measure a phenomenon change the phenomenon itself. The quality of our attending to the client is what matters. Working online is likely to work well for those who are happy and comfortable in that environment and less so for people who dislike it for any reason. Colleagues who remain committed to working only in person have valid reasons for upholding the primacy of the embodied, material reality as a core component of therapeutic relating, and human health and well-being more generally.

Those of us in the coaching, counselling, and therapy environments need to be particularly attentive to how the medium influences the message.

About the Authors

Dr Melissa Dunlop is a psychotherapist, supervisor, coach and researcher, mainly online.

Professor Adrian Furnham teaches and coaches people online.

The post Virtual Working: When It Comes to Sensitive Conversations, the Medium Affects the Message appeared first on The European Business Review.

If the very words “Ladies and gentlemen, unaccustomed as I am…” bring you out in a cold sweat, just breathe deeply into a paper bag and take heed of Adrian Furnham’s impeccably delivered advice for those faced with the ordeal of speaking in public.

Business people often have to give lots of talks and interviews. They may have to address the shareholders’ meeting and the annual conference. They have to talk to their department regularly and may have to attend and talk at many conferences. Some do podcasts to their staff on a regular basis. The talented and confident ones do TED talks. Hence the popularity of presentation skills courses.

Further, being an “inspirational speaker” may generate a very lucrative income. Corporate conferences in exotic locations, after-dinner yarns with famous people present, and high-powered international groups – all want lively speakers. At minimally £10k a talk, plus expenses, it can be a very nice little earner. Top speakers can command over £100k for a simple talk, some five times that. It is the preferred money-spinner of retired politicians.

Speech-making is often pure theatre.

Public speaking is a skill. Speakers need to know P-words – pitch, poetry, pause, and pace. They need to understand metaphor and repetition. They also need the C words – confidence, cadence, conviction, and colour. Speech-making is visible thought. It is performance, and the performer often needs to be inebriated with zeal and exuberance.

Speech-making is often pure theatre. The orator has to be at once proud and humble, powerful and powerless. The talk needs to be both visceral and intellectual. Most of all, it needs to be personal and emotional, exclamatory and climactic. Great oratory is usually poetry. The writer must understand alliteration and imagery. It is important to use and understand symbolism and meter. No wonder so many great speech-makers are often classically trained.

The message goes from the heart to the head and – note – vice versa. Speakers need exploit the “Rule of Three”. They need to use alliterations and pronounce the difficult words clearly.

Many speakers, particularly politicians, practise their gestures, their eye contact, and all their movements. Many “psych” themselves up before a great speech so that they come across well.

Television has changed oratory and made it more difficult. Close-ups mean that every small eye movement, every drop of sweat, every wrinkle is seen and commented upon. The orator is in up-close, intimate, feet away from you. Further, sound bites dictate the ultra-importance of catchphrases. Speeches are often rehearsed and timed – the gestures, the voice, and the pauses. Some speakers revise up to the last moment.

Sometimes the audience has “plants” who clap, yelp, and holler at the right time with euphoric, orchestrated hand-clapping. The cameras know when the speaker moves; gestures have been synchronised with speech. Cuts to the crowd are pre-planned by the camera crew.

The paradox is that authenticity and naturalness cannot easily be taught. Speeches have to be clear, simple, and genuine but that is often the problem. It takes a lot of effort to be natural!

Good speeches can, and often should, be spellbinding, mesmeric, hypnotic. Hitler knew the secret of oratory before scriptwriters and make-up artists. He wasn’t young, but nor were Churchill and Mandela when their greatest and most memorable speeches were given. Youth is energy, hope, the future. Youth is passion, optimism, and idealism. Hence the importance of pace of speaking and moving.

Great speeches are about journeys. They need to capture a sense of destiny and destination. They create tension by specifying a challenging problem but then they offer a solution. They must inspire trust. Many speakers make recognisable gestures like “hand on heart” or “praying hands”.

Great speeches are about journeys. They need to capture a sense of destiny and destination.

Many researchers have studied great orators and, indeed, great speeches. Equally, famous people who have to give many speeches and who are poor orators are often teased for their inadequacies. Because speaking to great crowds is often highly anxiety-provoking, the non-verbal behaviours contrast with the verbal behaviours. This includes sweating, self-touching (particularly around the mouth), and clearly faked and rehearsed smiles. Indeed, anxiety management is one of the most important tasks for business and other speakers.

Presentation techniques

Giving a presentation is one of the most daunting prospects for many. According to some often-quoted popular research, a large percentage of UK citizens would rather have their leg cut off than speak in public. Public speaking is inherently different from social conversations. There is no turn-taking, often no verbal feedback, and no safety net. You feel vulnerable, tense, and lonely standing in front of a malicious audience. One starts to wonder how these other people do it so well (or not, as the case might be).

There are two components to a successful presentation: the content of the speech, and its delivery. It is both what you have got to say and how you say it that matters. Acting skills might not be as necessary in order to report your company’s third-quarter performance figures. But they do help, if for no other reason than to gather confidence and lose inhibitions. On the other hand, it is words that paint pictures, not gestures or facial expressions, so make sure you’ve got ideas worth listening to.

Public speaking and presentation-giving is a monologue, well-practised, often manically rehearsed and logically organised. Because one party of the communication process (the audience) has to keep silent for prolonged periods of time, the other party has to ensure that it keeps the interaction engaging or attention-worthy.

Types of speakers

Many businesses employ motivational speakers. Many countries have organisations (speakers bureaux) with dozens of speakers “on their books”. They tend to be academics, media stars, politicians, and successful business people (entrepreneurs) who get handsomely paid for relatively short after-dinner or conference speeches. In one sense, there is nothing new about the concept of a motivational speaker. Our parents had Billy Graham, Lord Soper, and, of course, Churchill. Such speakers were nearly always found in religious, political, or military contexts. They had the ability to uplift the heart, to perk up the dispirited, to energise the weary, and to convert the indecisive.

More importantly is, how do motivational speakers actually perform and what can we learn from them?

There are versions of the genre: the manic evangelist, the sincere believer, the serious comic. They are curiously very different in style but similar in content. The manic evangelist is really an American export. They require lots of audience participation. One is required to jump, clap, scream, sing, and perform other crypto-cheerleader activities in the course of the day. Their speech is often musical and full of rhythm. The sincere believer is the street-corner preacher who tells his moving tale with timing, passion, and anecdote. The serious comic is a night club act that is full of riotous humour but interspersed with the serious message, which may be delivered in a quite different tone.

Of course, there are other types. The studious professor does not always go down too well. Nor does the braggardly entrepreneur or the past-sell-by-date sports personality. TV presenters can keep going years after retirement because they are recognised by the public, who believe they know them personally.

Content and style of talks

To “deconstruct” a talk is an interesting challenge. There are similar metaphors and techniques in all motivational talks. There is a lot of “I believe” talk and repetition. Phrases that somehow “taste good” are often repeated; for example, “Talent is not enough”, or the very famous “Ask not what your country can do for you …”, and “I have a dream …”.

But most of all, one notices the metaphors in the story. People seem best attuned to stories, called case studies in business schools. From early childhood, we learn about this world and its rules through stories that have structure, believable characters, and often a moral. The first is the journey or, often, the race. This emphasises both the past and the future. It is about having goals, and the journey to reaching them.

All good stories have structure: beginning, middle, and end. They can contain puzzles and dilemmas. But they need resolution – ideally a victory for the truth, the right, and the virtuous.

The stories are also, of necessity, about fortitude, tenacity, and endurance in the face of setback. What is inspiring is how the obstacle was overcome, how the failure turned into success, how the lesson to overcome the disappointment was the key factor. It’s the solution to the problem of evil in theology: evil is there to teach us a lesson.

Another theme is the fall of the proud, how cockiness and egotism led to failure. There is a lot of talk about the best / worst experience of one’s life and how one learned life’s lessons that later enabled one to be a success. Parents and friends sometimes appear in the talk. This is the social support / teamwork bit that managers like their staff to hear. There is reference to synergy, interdependence, and the necessity of give and take in teams.

Nearly all stories have happy endings. They have to be upbeat, positive, moral tales. They are full of homilies, heartwarming stories of “little people” whose simplicity, essential goodness, and wisdom won the day. They call for acting, to let the voice, the gesture, and the posture match the themes in the story.

In the case of motivational talks, they are deeply anti-fatalist in the sense that we make our destiny. We make our beds and we lie in them. We are, and can be, captains of our fate and masters of our ship. And at the heart of everything is the C-word uttered so often everywhere nowadays: change or, better, progress. The theme is how, if you change your goals, change your strategy, change your lifestyle, change your foolish ways, you too can win an Olympic gold medal, become the top salesman, etc. Life is not a dress rehearsal. Unlike with Marks and Spencer, you can’t get a refund. With only the talent you have, enthusiasm, determination and a good team, you can win big.

Great orators never ignore “pitch, pace, and pause”. Hit the right notes, vary speed, pause for effect. Learn rhetorical devices, such as the power of repetition, the magic number three, the influence of body language to punctuate and emphasise. Get the pace and timing right, tickle the heart strings with stories of joy and sadness. and have a happy ending … and you too could be a motivational speaker.

Speech-giving and emotions

Giving speeches and presentations is stressful for most people. It is the most common of all phobias. People vary in their reaction to the prospect of public speaking. It ranges from the “buzz”, nervousness, anxiety, all up to utter panic. However, often the tension is good. It is known that experienced presenters would deliberately recreate the conditions of apprehension before and during the performance (for example, Enoch Powell would not visit the toilet before giving speeches).

Physiologically, public speaking is related to rising blood pressure, increased heartbeat, and sweating. Adrenalin rushes through the body. Muscles in the neck and chest constrict, sometimes affecting the voice and causing it to tremble. Relaxing breathing exercises should take the tension away and, generally, taking a few deep breaths should also do the job.

Emotions influence speech rate. Some “belt through it” to get it over with. Speed of delivery is also very important. To communicate effectively, you need to slow down substantially, from the conversational rate of 170-180 words per minute to 120-130. Although that might feel too slow in the beginning, it makes your message digestible to your listeners.

To keep your audience going, you need to alternate between tones, swing the notes, and switch tempo.

Fear of the audience is usually (but not always) irrational. It stems from the phobia of being ridiculed or intimidated by the audience, thus creating a “me against them” confrontational attitude. Generally, however, listeners do not want you to make a fool of yourself in front of them so they can laugh.

Good public speaking needs to be melodic, like singing. Our brain seems “wired” in the way that any novel stimulus, auditory, visual or kinesthetic, gradually dissolves in the surrounding noise some time after the initial exposure. Thus, motionless, monotonous speech loses the audience’s attention very fast. To keep your audience going, you need to alternate between tones, swing the notes, and switch tempo. In other words, you need to conduct your speech as if you are telling a story or singing a song, building up the suspense and intriguing the listener. To do that, exaggerate your pitch and create an exciting sequence.

The more senior you become in business, the more often you have to talk in public to both friends and foes, colleagues and shareholders, the local and international media. It has been said that a company owner or a shareholder could, by their performance alone, influence the share price. A conspicuously calm, clear, and confident speaker can allay the fears of investors. Equally, a bumbling, nervous, rattled speaker can lose the trust of everybody.

Body language of the speaker

The presenter has to be engaging and entertaining, they have to both lead and be led by the audience. Gestures, movements, facial expressions, and eye gaze patterns are the most common non-verbal signals during speeches. Non-verbal signs in speech-making and presentations can be broadly divided in two categories: affirmative and negative. Affirmative gestures emphasise, stress, and highlight the verbal message; they engage the audience and keep it focused and interested. Negative signs are those associated with tension, anxiety, and nervousness; they are distracting, unnecessary, and generally best avoided at all times.

Positive body language signs are either explanatory or evaluative. Explanatory gestures clarify the meaning of what is being said, accentuate viewpoints, and call attention to the message. They can also serve the purpose of sustaining audience’s attention or help the speaker elucidate their verbal communication. Evaluative gestures and facial expressions comprise those types of non-verbal cues that are exhibited by the audience. Public speaking is a credibility exercise; it takes both guts and ability. It is an art and a science, a performance and a lecture.

Max Atkinson, academic, author, and researcher, who was an expert researcher in public speaking, suggests some non-verbal tips:

One has to display open body language signals. This projects both the confidence of the speaker and the trustworthiness of the message. Folded arms and the associated closed, hunched posture will influence the quality and the projection of your voice and articulation by making your chest constrict. It makes sound projection more problematic. Open posture is also said to communicate the honesty and sincerity of both the speaker and their communication.

One of the first things a speaker has to learn is to open up and be less rigid on stage. Stand up straight, legs apart, head up. Use clear gestures and always make eye contact.

The public tends to interpret a folded-arms gesture as defensiveness, comfort, missing armrests, and feeling cold. Consequently, Atkinson advises not folding your arms during speech, be it an interview or a talk. However, that is because of the widely spread belief propagated by the mass media and the like that it signals defensiveness and hostility, not because it actually does. Just keep your arms open and you are much more likely to create a favourable impression.

Anxious non-verbal body language not only distracts the speaker from the delivery, but also diverts the audience from attending to the message. Again, such speakers are judged as lacking ability and, for that reason, cannot keep their audience’s attention. Non-verbal cues that communicate anxiety are fiddling with objects or hair, nervous pacing, “white knuckle syndrome” (clenching fists or gripping objects too hard), and self-touching.

Some gestures can be a potential distractor, while others are good to capture and sustain attention, such as sudden pointing, a sharp raise of the arm, etc. Think Elon Musk and the Nazi salute. They show excitement and energy, and break the routine. On the other hand, repetitive movements – swinging, swaying, pacing up and down – can be annoying.

While gestures are natural to conversation and can be used for various reasons, conscious inhibition of movements is likely to interfere with the flow of speech. If you would like to either use or not use a particular gesture or facial expression while speaking in public, you could try practising speaking in front of the mirror. This would allow you to learn when you use this particular gesture and how undesirable it is. It is good to seek the opinion of close, truthful friends. Rehearse the speech with the movements until the new pattern becomes literally second nature. Otherwise, allow the original gesture to be as it is, as conscious monitoring would only impair your performance.

The bigger the audience is, the more you should exaggerate the gesticulation. Theatre actors know well about the power of dramatisation of one’s message. The same clearly goes for voice; the larger the room and the more people listening, the louder the volume should be.

So …

Whether it is giving the “best man” speech, pepping up your staff, facing the shareholders, or giving a big conference speech, you need to learn the art of public speaking. Some people are “naturals”, most are not. But it is pretty impossible to do well in business without having to do talks, interviews, and presentations. However good you are at business, if you can’t persuade and charm others by your rhetoric, you will never reach the top.

Choose your hero and analyse their text and performance. Sign up for a drama course. Get honest feedback from “critical friends”. And practise, practise, practise.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham enjoys public speaking. He has spoken at events for up to 15,000 people in different countries from Azerbaijan to Uganda. In doing so, he exploits his sub-clinical histrionic personality disorder and has very exotic and sometimes well-paid holidays through conference speaking. He currently lectures at BI: Norwegian Business School.

REFERENCES

• Atkinson, M. (1984) Our Masters’ Voices: the Language and Body Language of Politics. Routledge.

• Atkinson, M. (2004). Lend Me Your Ears: All You Need to Know About Making Speeches and Presentations. London: Vermilion

• Atkinson, M. (2008). Speech-Making and Presentation Made Easy, London: Vermilion.

• Cairns, C. (2019). Public Speaking Without Fear: How to Overcome Anxiety and Present with Confidence (1^st ed.).

  Publishers Press.

• DeWaele, J-M., & Furnham, A. (2025). “Facing Argus: Personality and Public Speaking Anxiety”.

• Furnham, A., & Petrova, E. (2011). Body Language at Work. London: Routledge

• Tewari, M. (2022). Ten Ways To Master Public Speaking and Effective Communication (1^st ed.). New York Notion Press

The post Presentations, Speeches, and Talks: Getting the Gift of the Gab appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

Many of us, at one time or another, may have thought, “One day, they’re going to see through me.” If you’re one of them, perhaps improving your self-evaluation skills could come in handy, as Adrian Furnham describes.

The Impostor Syndrome describes high-achieving individuals in any area of endeavour, from business to sport, who, despite their objective successes, do not accept and internalize their accomplishments. They have persistent self-doubt and fear of being exposed as a fraud or impostor, somehow not deserving of their success. They might sabotage, consciously or unconsciously, their performance, hence confirming their self-appraisal. The concept has been around for over 40 years and is much discussed when clearly brilliant people “go off the rails” at the peak of their success.

Studies on the Impostor Syndrome

A recent review found that the syndrome was relatively common among both men and women and across a range of age groups (adolescents to late-stage professionals). Also, it is often comorbid with depression and anxiety and is associated with reduced job performance, job dissatisfaction, and burnout. In short, talented people can underachieve because of their erroneous self-beliefs.

Typical “symptoms” include self-doubt, an inability to realistically assess personal competence and skills, attributing personal success to external factors, berating and being hyper-critical about personal performance, fear of not living up to expectations, a sense of overachievement, sabotaging personal success, and setting very challenging, almost impossible, goals and feeling disappointed when they are not achieved.

People with Impostor Syndrome struggle with accurately attributing their performance to their actual competence. They attribute successes to external factors such as luck or receiving help from others.

Essentially, people with Impostor Syndrome struggle with accurately attributing their performance to their actual competence. They attribute successes to external factors such as luck or receiving help from others and attribute setbacks as evidence of their professional inadequacy. Research has moved beyond early studies with high-achieving white women. It is now linked to multiple academic fields (mental health, sport, and STEM), antecedents (e.g., perfectionism and discrimination), outcomes (e.g., career burnout and depression), and many populations (e.g., men and racial minorities).

The Impostor Syndrome describes an individual’s experience of intellectual phoniness and fear of exposure – people who are clearly competent and talented, yet for some reason cannot accept their success. Rather than acknowledging their effort and competency, they believe their success was due to luck or favoritism. They discount their intellectual or physical capabilities, attributing their success to external factors (e.g., luck) which in time will eventually be discovered. Early researchers suggested a clear cycle: first, worrying that others will expose their self-perceived incompetence, then imposing high expectations and performance standards on themselves, which in turn demand excessive effort and energy.

There are standard tests to measure the syndrome. They include questions such as: Do you agonize over even the smallest mistakes or flaws in your work? Do you attribute your success to luck or outside factors?

These are 10 items from a well-known test:

1. I have often succeeded on a test or task even though I was afraid that I would not do well before I undertook the task.
2. I can give the impression that I’m more competent than I really am.
3. I avoid evaluations if possible and have a dread of others evaluating me.
4. When people praise me for something I’ve accomplished, I’m afraid I won’t be able to live up to their expectations of me in the future.
5. I sometimes think I obtained my present position or gained my present success because I happened to be in the right place at the right time or knew the right people.
6. I’m afraid people important to me may find out that I’m not as capable as they think I am.
7. I tend to remember the incidents in which I have
   not done my best more than those times I have
   done my best.
8. I rarely do a project or task as well as I’d like to do it.
9. Sometimes I feel or believe that my success in my life or in my job has been the result of some kind of error.
10. It’s hard for me to accept compliments or praise about my intelligence or accomplishments.

According to leading expert Valerie Young, people who feel like impostors hold themselves to unrealistic, unsustainable standards of competence. Through her work with tens of thousands of people from a wide range of occupations and levels, five distinct competence types emerged each with its own unique focus.

• The perfectionist: The primary focus is on “how” something is done, how the work is conducted, and how it turns out. One minor flaw in an otherwise stellar performance or 99 out of 100 equals failure.
• The expert: As the knowledge version of the perfectionist their primary concern is “what” and “how much” they know. Because they expect to know everything, even a minor lack of knowledge makes them feel less competent.
• The soloist: They care mostly about “who” completes the task. Because they think they should be able to succeed entirely on their own, needing help, tutoring, or coaching is a sign of incompetence.
• The natural genius: They also care about “how” and “when” accomplishments happen. But for them, competence is measured in terms of ease and speed. If they have to struggle to understand or to master a skill or success does not happen on the first try, makes them feel less competent.
• The superhuman: Measures their competence based on their ability to excel across skill sets and roles, e.g., scientific discovery and leadership, big picture strategic planning and detailed execution. For some this includes the expectation that they are the best at parenting, sports, or other activities. Falling short in any role can evoke shame because they think they should be great at everything they do.

There are many suggestions for dealing with the Impostor Syndrome. These include ideas such as “Confront your Inner Critic” and dispel the “Whispering-Monkey-on-the-Shoulder”. Clearly this  means attempting to refute the false narrative about yourself by comparing self-perceptions with some objective reality. Young maintains that since feelings are the last to change, instead of  attempting to “fix” yourself that you change your thinking about competence instead. Other recommendations such as “Change your Personal Narrative”  “Increase your Self-Awareness”,  and replace rumination with reflection are essentially the same. The aim is to get some explicit and objective comparison between personal beliefs and the “actual” state of affairs.

Other suggestions include “Celebrating Success” in the sense that people should recognise and celebrate every time they are successful in a particular endeavour.

Fear of Success

Martina Horner over 50 years ago described the concept of Fear of Success when she studied stereotypes and biases that were discouraging women from pursuing a career in medicine, at a time when fewer than 10 per cent of doctors were female. She argued that women had “a motive to avoid success or a ‘fear of success’” because they feared the negative consequences of succeeding in traditionally male domains. This included a loss of femininity, self-esteem, and social identity.

These women saw having successful personal relationships as a great success, but having a professional job less so. The conclusion from this early work was that women needed to exhibit the masculine trait of competitiveness if they wanted to succeed. Hence they feared rejection, thus inhibiting aspirations, capabilities, and performance, which in turn affects the potential for women to develop a career. Moreover, if women did succeed, this was not seen to be due to their ability and effort, but luck or some other reason.

The same idea has been applied to social class, suggesting that individuals from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds fear that success will lead to alienation from their community, the loss of identity, and loss of the overall sense of belonging within their culture.

These are the types of self-beliefs that early studies on fear of success considered: Often the cost of success is greater than the reward; for every winner there are several rejected and unhappy losers; it is more important to play the game than to win it; in my attempt to do better than others, I realize I may lose many of my friends; a person who is at the top faces nothing but a constant struggle to stay there; I think “success” has been emphasized too much in our culture; in order to achieve, one must give up the fun things in life; the cost of success is overwhelming responsibility.

Perfectionism

There is a well-established “dark side” to perfectionism. It is associated with depression and many health issues, such as suicide and eating disorders. Hence it is linked to obsessive and compulsive disorders, eating disorders, substance abuse, and “workaholism”.

It has been observed that the Impostor Syndrome has been closely linked to perfectionism, which is a trait that can influence all aspects of life. It is possible to see these on a dimension, variously labelled active and passive perfectionism, positive and negative perfectionism, and adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Clearly, setting high standards and achieving them in many aspects of life is often very desirable and takes much effort. However there is a well-established “dark side” to perfectionism. It is associated with depression and many health issues, such as suicide and eating disorders. Hence it is linked to obsessive and compulsive disorders, eating disorders, substance abuse, and “workaholism”. It is usually treated by quite different approaches.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) aims to help perfectionists in reducing social anxiety, public self-consciousness, etc. Next comes dynamic-relational therapy, which concentrates on the maladaptive relational patterns and interpersonal dynamics underlying and maintaining perfectionism. Others include Acceptance-based Behavior Therapy.

Hubris vs Humility

The Dunning–Kruger Effect is a form of overconfidence in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities; people with low ability are unaware of their comparative score. It is essentially about false assessment; they are biased in their assessment for various reasons, from laziness to an inability to calibrate correctly. In short, many believe they are talented when they are not. They are not bright enough to know how dim they are.

Overconfidence is a judgemental error in which individuals overestimate their performance accurately. It has been linked to deficiencies in decision-making and risky behavior. It is possible to differentiate between three facets of overconfidence: 1) over-placement; 2) over-estimation; and 3) over-precision. Over-placement occurs when an individual possesses a positively biased self-view in relation to others. Over-estimation refers to inflated self-view of a person’s ability level or performance. Over-precision results when an individual has exaggerated confidence concerning the accuracy of their beliefs.

The Impostor Syndrome is the exact opposite, where people with a range of abilities (and proven successes) underestimate their talents.

The Psychology of Self-Estimated Intelligence

I have worked in this area for some time. The idea is simple: do people know how bright they are? One way of assessing this is to compare their self-assessed intelligence with their scores on thorough and validated IQ tests. This can be done with overall IQ or very specific multiple intelligences. So people can dramatically underestimate their score, manifesting humility, or overestimate their score, manifesting hubris.

It is not known who said, “Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right,” which suggests the powers of your self-estimates.

See below how these ideas are tested

How Intelligent Are You?

IQ tests measure a person’s intelligence. The average or the mean score on these tests is 100. Most of the population (about two-thirds of people) score between 85 and 115. Very bright people score around 130, and scores have been known to go over 145. The graph below shows a typical distribution of these scores.

But there are different types of intelligence. We want you to estimate your overall IQ and your score on 14 basic types of intelligence. Give your estimated score (e.g., 110, 105, 95, 120) for each of these.

The results of the research in this area can be summarized thus:

First, males of all ages and backgrounds tend to estimate their (overall) general intelligence to be 5 to 15 IQ points higher than do females. Always those estimates are above average and usually around one standard deviation (15 points) above the norm.

Second, when judging “multiple intelligences”, males estimate their spatial and mathematical (numerical) intelligence higher, but emotional intelligence lower than do females. On some multiple intelligences (verbal, musical, body-kinesthetic), there is little or no sex difference.

Third, people believe these sex differences occur across the generations: people believe their grandfather was/is more intelligent than their grandmother, their father more intelligent than their mother, their brothers more intelligent than their sisters, and their sons more intelligent than their daughters. That is, throughout the generations in one’s family, males are judged more intelligent than females.

Fourth, sex differences are cross-culturally consistent. While African men tend to give relatively higher estimates, and Asian men relatively lower estimates, there remains a sex difference across all cultures. Differences seem to lie in cultural definitions of intelligence, as well as norms associated with humility and hubris.

Fifth, the correlation between self-estimated and test-generated IQ is positive yet low (in the range of r=.2 to r=.5), suggesting that you cannot use self-estimated test scores as proxy for actual scores.

Sixth, with regard to outliers, those who score high on test-generated IQ, but who give low self-estimates, tend nearly always to be female, while those with the opposite pattern (high estimates, low scores) tend to be male.

Seventh, most people say they do not think there are sex differences in intelligence.

So: Both the Impostor Syndrome and the Dunning-Kruger Effect are the consequence of poor insight into personal abilities and strengths. One solution lies in sustaining rigorous, consistent, and accurate feedback on personal strengths and weaknesses, and then finding a way to address any issues. It is very sad to see highly talented people not exploring and exploiting their talents. Equally, it is surprising how less-talented and deluded people can convince others, as well as themselves, about their actual abilities.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham, perhaps naively, thinks he is relatively well-calibrated with regards to his modest talents. He is currently Professor at BI Norwegian Business School.

References

1. Bravata, D. M., Watts, S. A., Keefer, A. L. et al. (2019). “Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: a systematic review”. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(4), 1252–75

2. Clance PR. (1985) The Impostor Phenomenon: When Success Makes You Feel Like a Fake. Atlanta: Peachtree Publishers

3. Gullifor, D. P., Gardner, W. L., Karam, E. P., Noghani, F., & Cogliser, C. C. (2024). “The impostor phenomenon at work: A systematic evidence-based review, conceptual development, and agenda for future research”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2), 234–51

4. Hu, K. S., Chibnall, J. T., & Slavin, S. J. (2019). “Maladaptive perfectionism, impostorism, and cognitive distortions: threats to the mental health of pre-clinical medical students”. Academic Psychiatry, 43(4), 381–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-0

5. Stone-Sabali, S., Bernard, D. L., Mills, K. J. et al. (2023). “Mapping the evolution of the impostor phenomenon research: A bibliometric analysis”. Current Psychology,42, 32097–109

6. Szymanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). “Gender differences in self-estimates of general, mathematical, spatial, and verbal intelligence: Four meta-analyses”. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 493–504

7. Young, V. (2023). The Secret Thoughts of Successful Women: And Men, Why Capable People Suffer from Impostor Syndrome and How to Thrive in Spite of It. (2^nd edition) Crown Business

The post The Impostor Syndrome: Fraudulence, Fear of Success, and Perfectionism appeared first on The European Business Review.

Although AI-driven monitoring and performance tools are designed to optimise productivity, they may have an adverse effect on how employees perceive fairness, support, and control in the workplace. Attachment theory shines an illuminating beam on how individuals may react to algorithmic oversight.

Attachment Theory in the Workplace

Attachment is defined as the human propensity to seek out and develop close affectional bonds with others. Attachment theory, originally developed to explain interpersonal relationships, offers a valuable lens for understanding these dynamics. This framework posits that individuals’ attachment styles—secure, anxious, or avoidant—shape how they respond to perceived support or threat in relationships, including those mediated by technology.

This article examines how AI-based monitoring systems interact with employees’ attachment styles, influencing their sense of trust, autonomy, and well-being. It proposes a psychologically informed approach to designing AI systems and provides actionable recommendations for fostering workplace environments that prioritise human needs alongside organisational goals.

Attachment theory suggests that early childhood experiences profoundly shape all adult relationships.

Attachment theory suggests that individuals develop internal models of relationships based on early experiences with caregivers, which influence their interactions in adulthood. That is, early childhood experiences profoundly shape (all) adult relationships.  These attachment styles manifest in the workplace as follows:

• Secure attachment: Individuals are comfortable with interdependence, view support systems positively, and adapt well to feedback.
• Anxious attachment: Individuals seek reassurance, fear rejection, and may perceive monitoring as a sign of distrust or criticism.
• Avoidant attachment: Individuals prioritise independence, may withdraw under scrutiny, and perceive monitoring as intrusive.

Research indicates that attachment styles significantly predict workplace outcomes, including engagement, collaboration, and stress resilience. When applied to AI-based monitoring, attachment theory suggests that employees’ reactions to algorithmic oversight depend on how these systems align with their relational expectations.

Research has demonstrated significant relationships between attachment styles and job performance, job satisfaction, burnout, feedback-seeking and acceptance, as well as organisational commitment. Attachment styles can be utilised to inform a host of organisational attitudes, behaviours, and other outcomes.

Over a decade ago, Harms (2011) showed that attachment theory could also explain how the characteristics of leaders foster positive and negative outcomes in their subordinates. He suggested that organisations could utilise attachment dimensions in their selection systems for supervisors. Also, they can be used to inform job design to ensure closer contact with supervisors for anxiously attached individuals who may experience a sense of loss when physically separated from their leaders. Moreover, performance reviews could be conducted and delivered in a way that is mindful of the fact that some followers may be particularly sensitive to feedback that may indicate that their leader has a negative perception of them. That is, they are suggestive of ways to strengthen the relationship rather than simply pointing out past behaviours that were seen to be disruptive or off-putting. 

AI Monitoring and Psychological Responses

Build algorithmic systems not just for efficiency, but for psychological safety.

Securely attached individuals may view AI tools as reliable support systems, whilst those with anxious or avoidant tendencies might interpret such monitoring as intrusive or distrustful. These responses can profoundly affect organisational outcomes—from engagement and innovation to burnout and turnover. We suggest a novel psychological framework for understanding algorithmic management, proposing that workplace technologies must be designed with human attachment needs in mind. By integrating insights from occupational psychology and behavioural science, it sets out principles for developing transparent, autonomy-supportive AI systems that foster trust rather than fear. We conclude with practical recommendations for leaders, HR professionals, and policymakers across Europe: build algorithmic systems not just for efficiency, but for psychological safety—thereby supporting both individual well-being and long-term organisational resilience.

The integration of artificial intelligence into workplace management has transformed how organisations monitor and evaluate employee performance. From tracking keystrokes to analysing communication patterns, AI-based tools promise enhanced efficiency and data-driven decision-making. However, their psychological implications remain underexplored. As organisations across Europe adopt these technologies, they must consider how AI-mediated oversight influences trust, autonomy, and emotional well-being—core components of a healthy workplace.

AI Monitoring and Psychological Responses

AI-driven tools, such as performance analytics and real-time productivity trackers, are often designed to optimise efficiency. However, their implementation can trigger varied psychological responses. Securely attached employees may perceive these tools as neutral or supportive, enhancing their sense of structure and fairness (Neustadt et al., 2011). Conversely, anxiously attached employees may interpret constant monitoring as evidence of mistrust, heightening stress and reducing engagement. Avoidant employees may disengage entirely, viewing AI oversight as an invasion of autonomy.

Studies show that perceived surveillance can reduce intrinsic motivation and increase burnout.

These reactions have tangible consequences. Studies show that perceived surveillance can reduce intrinsic motivation and increase burnout, particularly among employees with insecure attachment styles  (Warnock et al., 2023). Furthermore, excessive monitoring may undermine psychological safety—the shared belief that a workplace is safe for interpersonal risk-taking—leading to lower innovation and higher turnover.

A Psychological Framework for Algorithmic Management

To mitigate these risks, organisations must design AI systems that align with human attachment needs. This requires a framework rooted in three principles:

1. Transparency: Employees should understand how AI tools collect and use data. Clear communication reduces perceptions of threat, particularly for anxiously attached individuals.
2. Autonomy-Support: AI systems should empower rather than control. For example, offering employees access to their own performance data fosters a sense of agency, appealing to both secure and avoidant individuals.
3. Psychological Safety: AI tools should be integrated into a broader culture of trust, where employees feel valued beyond their metrics. This is critical for fostering resilience across all attachment styles.

The European Commission’s AI Act (2024) provides a regulatory foundation for such principles, emphasising transparency and accountability in workplace AI. However, organisations must go beyond compliance to address the emotional and relational dimensions of technology use.

Practical Recommendations

To create AI systems that support trust, autonomy, and well-being, leaders, HR professionals, and policymakers should consider the following:

1. Co-design with Employees: Involve employees in the development and implementation of AI tools to ensure they meet diverse psychological needs. This collaborative approach can enhance trust and reduce resistance (EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023).
2. Tailored Feedback Systems: Use AI to deliver personalised, constructive feedback rather than punitive metrics. For example, dashboards that highlight strengths alongside areas for growth can resonate with securely attached employees whilst reassuring those with anxious tendencies.
3. Training for Managers: Equip leaders to mediate between AI systems and employees, fostering open dialogue about monitoring practices. This can mitigate avoidant employees’ withdrawal and support a culture of psychological safety.
4. Ethical AI Guidelines: Policymakers should expand the AI Act’s principles to include psychological impact assessments, ensuring that workplace technologies are evaluated for their effects on trust and well-being.

Conclusion

As AI reshapes the workplace, its psychological implications cannot be ignored. By applying attachment theory, organisations can better understand how employees respond to algorithmic oversight and design systems that foster trust, autonomy, and well-being. Transparent, autonomy-supportive AI tools, embedded in a culture of psychological safety, can enhance both individual and organisational outcomes. For Europe’s business leaders and policymakers, the challenge is clear: build algorithmic systems that prioritise human connection alongside efficiency. In doing so, they will cultivate workplaces that are not only productive but also resilient and humane.

About the Authors

Dr Madeleine Roantree is a UK-based psychologist and relationships expert. She divides her time between the NHS and private practice, working with individuals and couples.

Professor Adrian Furnham is a professor at the Norwegian Business School. He has long had an interest in the concept of attachment and how it applies to the workplace.

References

Berson, Y., Dan, O., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). “Attachment Style and Individual Differences in Leadership Perceptions and Emergence”. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(2), 165–82.

Calboli, S., & Engelen, B. (2025) “AI-enhanced nudging in public policy: why to worry and how to respond”. Mind & Society.

European Commission. (2024). AI Act: Provisional agreement and guiding principles.

EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2023). Trust and technology in the workplace.

Fein, E. C., Benea, D., Idzadikhah, Z., & Tziner, A. (2019). “The security to lead: a systematic review of leader and follower attachment styles and leader–member exchange”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 106–25.

Kim, B-J., & Kim, M-J. (2024) “How artificial intelligence-induced job insecurity shapes knowledge dynamics: the mitigating role of artificial intelligence self-efficacy”. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), 100590.

Harms, P. D. (2011). “Adult attachment styles in the workplace”. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 285–96.

Neustadt, E., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2011). “Attachment at work and performance”. Attachment & Human Development, 13:5, 471–88.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. The Guilford Press.

Warnock, K. N., Ju, C. S. & Katz, I. M. (2024). “A Meta-analysis of Attachment at Work”. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39, 1239–57 (2024).

The post Algorithmic Attachment: How AI-Based Employee Monitoring Shapes Workplace Trust, Autonomy, and Well-being appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

A good education is all very well, but there are some lessons you can’t learn in the classroom. Adrian Furnham recounts his most valuable extra-curricular experiences – in the world of employment.

I had the same job at the same place for nearly 40 years – a whole working life. I was lucky; I found a job which suited my ambitions, temperament, and values. But, like everyone else, I had short, holiday, and part-time jobs which taught me a great deal about the world of work. They helped me find my real vocation, passions and, more importantly, dislikes. They taught me about skiving, liberating stock, and what good supervision and management looks like.

I went to university too young; I was 16 when I arrived. When parents come to me now for advice about their children’s choice of course or university, I recommend what used to be called a “gap year” between school and university. I recommend the same between under- and post-graduate degree. The University of Life has a lot to teach one. Work, of all sorts, helps one reflect on, and understand, one’s personal preferences and strengths.

Book Warehouse Worker

It was expected by my parents (and, indeed, the society in which I grew up) that one spent the long summer university holiday (December to early February in South Africa) at work, saving some money for the year ahead. At the end of my first year, I got a job in a local publisher warehouse at the other end of town. It was situated among light industry, including Nestlé chocolates and Gilbey’s gin. I cycled there in about 20 minutes. I do not recall how I got the job or what the pay was like, but I had some surprises.

The first was that my boss was black – unheard of, and probably illegal in apartheid South Africa. The company (Shuter and Shooter) were very liberal publishers, printers, and booksellers with a big market in school books. The owners were educated, kindly, but shrewd progressives who had the opportunity in a small way to practise what they preached.

My Zulu-speaking boss was called Gideon and was a confident and educated middle-aged man. He was firm but fair, slightly distant but very eager to show who was boss. I was impressed. He commanded respect and got it.

I slowed down, nattered to co-workers, began to understand how to be a “good worker”.

The second lesson was about rate-busting and productivity. One of my first tasks was to write the price of a huge pile of books in pencil on the inside page. That dates me; the year was 1971. It had to be clear and neat. I did as I was instructed and reported back to the boss in two hours. This caused consternation in the whole team. The job I had been given was for “the whole day”, perhaps a day and a half. I was clearly naïve and shocked but learned the lesson. I was a rate-buster. I slowed down, nattered to co-workers, began to understand how to be a “good worker”.

The third was about “skiving off”. One day, three of us were asked to deliver some books in the country. It involved driving the old delivery van to some rural outposts, a round trip of around 80 miles. We set off at 08:00 and had finished all our tasks at 12:15. We could not go for much of a “jolly” because the mileometer was checked. But we were not far from a lovely country town in the foothills of the great Drakensburg mountains. One of the group knew a hotel with a jolly outdoor pub. So we spent three hours drinking beer and later put in a claim for lunch. Drink-drive restrictions were unheard of. What a wheeze.

Male Nursing Assistant

My mother wanted me to become a doctor. I expressed no interest. But, because she was the matron in the local hospital (Greys, Pietermaritzburg), I had a job for three summers as a male nursing assistant. The job was male orderly, expected to do a range of menial, physical jobs. On my first day, I had to “shave a male” (it was called a “nipple-to-knees”) and I carried an amputated leg to the mortuary.

The job was very varied. I had to hold down patients having ECT. I enjoyed putting on, and cutting off, plaster on arms and legs. But being located in A&E, it was a bit like being a pilot – long periods of boredom interspersed with emergencies. I had to deal with drunks, aggressive patients, and visitors who would not follow the rules.

I witnessed great compassion and what looked like great callousness by the nursing staff. I learned how to protect myself from the events I witnessed: a patient “dying on the table”; a woman giving birth to a “child asleep”; and patients in wards who never had visitors.

I made contact with people from very different backgrounds compared to my own. I saw what my father called “how the other half live”. I certainly saw how hierarchies worked, from the surgeons to cleaners. Our tea room was for orderlies, painters, and other “skilled craftsmen”, who were in protected jobs in a whites-only hospital. We liberated “left-over” sandwiches from the doctors’ tearoom and swam in the hospital swimming pool reserved for nurses.

After two months, I longed to get back to university, to spend time in the library and, yes, even to write essays. I found the hospital work both boring and emotionally taxing. It certainly confirmed to me that I was not cut out to be a doctor.

School Teacher

I had a friend in my honours year who became a school teacher and school counsellor straight after graduation. He was older than us (early 30s), English by birth and upbringing, and rather eccentric. In retrospect, I would diagnose him as a vulnerable narcissist, with a few schizotypal tendencies. He lived in a shabby caravan and (as I discovered from the website of his wife) went on to a variety of jobs (HR, teaching) but ended up as a “pastor” in a local church and having six children.

He suddenly left his job, telling me about it a few days before resigning. It was my old school and I knew people there. It was a relief for them that I could easily slip into the role – a win-win.

I had two roles: I was a school counsellor and taught English. I was not very good at either. I learned probably more from the boys than the teachers. Most of the teachers were totally committed, many being obsessed with sport. Apart from a short time at university, they returned to the “total institution” nature of the school. They liked the structure, the rules, and the predictability of everything. I did not.

I got to know a few of the “problem boys” quite well because of my job. I diagnosed and helped a few dyslexics, at which point I found I was marginally dyslexic myself. I wanted to test the boys on a range of psychological tests, but the headmaster resisted this

I coached cricket and tennis, without much enthusiasm or skill. And I certainly was not an inspirational English teacher. I had done one year at university and never enjoyed it, except for poetry. Interestingly, all the senior staff (head and two deputy heads) were maths teachers, but the heroes were those who coached the first fifteen rugby team.

I saw how the game worked: become head of a discipline, leave for a rural school as deputy head, and return to a bigger, better cosmopolitan school in one’s late fifties. Perhaps pick up an education degree as you went.

It wasn’t for me. Some of the children were delinquently obstreperous. I hated marking essays and I wasn’t sporty enough to fit in.

British Rail Bouncer

I was not a happy student in Glasgow. I did not enjoy the course, which did not challenge me, and, as I was about to go to Oxford the next academic year, I guessed I would certainly need quite a lot of money to enjoy myself in the city of dreaming spires (or spiralling dreams, as we got to call it). I worked out that I could easily do evening shifts and set out to get a National Insurance number, a basic requirement for work in the UK.

My hall of residence was in the centre of town and I saw an advertisement for a “security officer” at the local railway station dining area (Glasgow Central), a five-minute walk away. My hours were 18:00 to 23:30, which suited me just fine. I could go to lectures, and then walk to and from work. The place had two bars, each staffed by two people, and a “restaurant”, which had three people (all late-middle-aged women) in the kitchen and two serving at a counter.

One lesson involved understanding the power of friendship at work. What I learned from the kitchen ladies was that, after a recent political change in tax, insurance, and social security, each would have been financially better off quite legitimately staying at home and claiming benefits than coming to work, often at anti-social hours. But work gave them a structure to their lives, and a friendship network.

Interestingly, I witnessed the same thing as a student at Oxford. The psychology department was very large and designed as a hotel. There was a cleaning staff of around eight people and I befriended two, who were responsible for my section: Betty and Fred. Fred had been in the Great War and had been a head gardener somewhere nearby. A lovely man – warm, kind, and deeply respectful. A new manager had looked at the staff and noticed that most were in their 70s and some in their 80s. He “suggested” they retire. I had never seen a grown man, an old soldier, weep. He pleaded to stay but was refused and died less than a year later.

Work is good for you. I had understood the social function of work. Understood why people worked even though worse off.

Perhaps unexpectedly, the bouncer job required that I join the National Union of Railwaymen. Soon after I joined, there was a strike concerning “flexible rostering”. I had tended to be antagonistic to a number of rail strikes, being a “helpless victim”. However, when I learned what this was about, I joined my fellows and the station was practically closed. The issue was that staff had to be flexible with regard to their work timetable. This meant you could never plan ahead, as you had no idea which days you were working in the next month. Good for the managers, sure, but not the staff. The strike worked.

I learned again that everyone was “on the make” in a small way, exploiting what opportunities came their way.

Thirdly, I learned something about “ladies of the night”. The station was a “pickup joint”. The ladies were divided into three categories, according to their charges. The cheapest could be literally physically removed, the most expensive charmed away. The really difficult ones were those in the middle group, particularly if drunk. They would shout at me from being a ‘horrid Sassenach’ or a customer who did not pay for their services. I had to learn how to be firm and persuasive.

I also learned how tedious and menial certain jobs were. I learned that dealing with members of the public was no fun. I learned again that everyone was “on the make” in a small way, exploiting what opportunities came their way.

Part-Time Lecturer

I was a foreign student. All my friends were on student grants which were, I thought, incredibly generous. But I had no source of income and no capital, except for what I saved. So when some “part-time / occasional” lecturing jobs came up I jumped at them. I gave lectures to firemen, nurses, occupational therapists, policemen, and supervisors.

I learned first how different this was from academic teaching; they did not want theory, evidence, critique, but some pretty straightforward ideas and skills. I learned the power of anecdotes, stories, and case studies, which was harder for an inexperienced 25-year-old.

I learned that, for some, training was a punishment, while for others it was a reward. Some were sent on a course (because they had low EQ or motivation) to miraculously acquire some skill in three hours. Others were let off the tedium of the job to be amused by an aspiring academic. I learned that you need a rich mix of lecturing, discussion, exercises, videos.

I got better and became a sort of part-time lecturer at what was then Rewley House, in Oxford. Many of the people on the course were “general workers” (yes, that was their title).

But I remember one event best. I got better and was trusted to do a day-long course. It was in Banbury and the pay was excellent. I hired the departmental van and got there early. My class were night-time supervisors at the local biscuit factory, and the course ran at a central hotel. I soon learned that the day was seen as a “jolly”. There were about 12 people and my topic was supervisor skills.

Tea was brought on a trolley, as was lunch. To my surprise, two trolleys were brought in at 12:30 – one food, the other booze – beer, wine, spirits. I had negotiated with the group that we had a shorter lunch and finished earlier. Everyone tucked in and most took a bottle of beer.

After lunch I showed a video, one of those wonderful Video Arts John Cleese films. After a few moments, one delegate went up to the trolley, poured himself a generous whisky, and joined the group. Clearly, he was used to “watching the box with a bevvy”. A few joined him and I did not know what to do, so ignored the issue.

The course finished around 16:30 and I left immediately, as it was a difficult drive. I later discovered that after I left they had all stayed and drunk the trolley dry, so wiping out all profits for the university. Naturally they rated the course as excellent.

I learned the idea of “edutainment” and that people want stories. I know the plural of anecdote is not evidence, but I have seen how a number of well-paid gurus perform with bravado and bluff. It was a useful skill.

Business Consultant

I got my career position (1981) at a time when there was a serious financial situation, particularly so at universities. A number of my very talented colleagues could not get jobs. A few resigned from their academic jobs soon after they took them up, disillusioned with the academic life. They started business consultancies and they needed “contract staff” or “associates” in busy periods or for big projects. It was ideal for me and for them. They liked the fact that I was an academic with a PhD and the daily rate was about what I got a month as an academic.

I had this type of relationship with different groups for many years. It often involved exotic travel, as one group specialised in airlines. I travelled to Hong Kong over 100 times (nearly always in a first-class seat) and New Zealand half a dozen times. I was an associate of three different consultancies, all doing well, so I was kept quite busy.

There were essentially three types of assignments: on-stage, inspirational lectures; day- to week-long training courses; and individual assessment and coaching exercises.

I certainly learned that the academic training I had was of little use. Consultancies used tests and procedures that had been shown to be unreliable and invalid. They seemed quite uninterested in evidence, particularly if it went against the zeitgeist, or clients did not like it. This made it difficult for me. I was teaching students the importance of test validity, but learned that if the client wanted a particular well-known yet discredited test, they got it.

I learned that giving an upbeat keynote business conference speech was rather different from a lecture. The lecture was slide- and reference-heavy, full of doubt and critique. A good keynote must be inspirational, which means making statements and promises that are upbeat, simplistic, and perhaps evidence-free.

I learned that many businesses want magic dust. They want a “culture change” in a few months with no pain. They want on-the-spectrum technical managers to acquire emotional intelligence after a couple of hours of coaching. They want the organisation to have a “resilience sheepdip” to reduce job stress, and absenteeism will dramatically decrease.

I learned that the client / customer is king, as they paid your salary. I learned also that they differed dramatically in terms of insight, sophistication, and expectations.

And the Moral of the Story

It is not easy to find that sweet spot between what you are good at, and what organisations suit you best. The more early experience you get, the better. As Bill Gates says, “Life is not fair – get used to it.”

So, while at school and university, do holiday jobs. Think of it as vocational guidance. Of round and square pegs and holes.

Postpone university, so that you can gain some real-world experience before studying. If you can find an activity that you love and that speaks to your talents and values – and that pays you (enough) – you are lucky indeed.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham, a chartered work psychologist, lectured at University College London for 37 years, as well as at different universities, including the Norwegian Business School, where he taught for 15 years. He founded a still-successful company in 1986 and has written 100 books.

The post Jobs – and What They Taught Me appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Georgie Fienberg and Adrian Furnham

If you want the best from your car, it helps to have some idea of how it all works. But do you know what’s going on under the bonnet of your team? What’s that weird rattling at the back? Why have we slowed down? And where’s that smoke coming from? Here’s an owner’s guide.

Most of us work in teams; we have to. The psychology of teamwork has been extensively studied. Successful teams, particularly and inevitably the board (the grown-ups), improve all business outcomes – morale, revenue and performance. Working in a happy, safe, and healthy team is a primary driver of employee engagement at all levels.

Equally, unhappy, inward-looking, back-stabbing, and politically devious teams cause mayhem. We know that boards often experience problems that render them dangerously ineffective. This includes bloated membership, naked ambition, conspiracies of silence, an ambiguity of roles and, despite this, resisting help.

But teamwork does not happen by chance. Teams are made of individuals with quirks and passions, blind spots and insights, foibles and strengths. We study the three cornerstones of individuals: their ability, (bright- and dark-side) personality, and motivation. They “come to the party” with complex needs, hopes, and contributions and set up complex dynamics, just like families. Some have an insight into their dynamics but most are focused on other things. Many fail and need help.

Team types

Over the years, we have observed and worked with teams in many organisations. Some come to us for help; others have been referred. Our research has led us to come up with a taxonomy of teams. This has always been based on a mixture of individual difference data from robust psychometric tests, as well as observation and … data. We believe our list is both comprehensive and insightful. What have tried to do is first describe the behaviours they display and what they think they’re great at. We have been particularly interested in the reality of how they actually operate and, critically, the consequences of their habits. Most important of all, we have noted around three actionable recommendations for each to improve team functioning.

1. The PLU (people like us) team

Behaviour:

They stroll into the meeting room mid-laugh, reminiscing about last night’s drinks or that one legendary offsite way back that no one else was at. Their inside jokes and shared history are thicker than concrete. These are the “People Like Us” – and, if you’re not “us”, good luck getting a word in.

There’s a lot of nodding, a lot of “great point”, and an alarming amount of back-slapping (sometimes metaphorical, sometimes physical). Their loyalty to each other is admirable – until you realise that it extends to never meaningfully challenging each other, ever.

Their energy is warm, their connection is genuine, but they use language, humour, and metaphors that unwittingly exclude people – private jokes, shared references, even an unwritten set of rules about how things get done. Outsiders don’t get it, but that’s fine, because PLUs don’t really notice outsiders.

What they think they’re great at:

“We have an amazing culture – there’s so much trust and support in this team.”

Reality:

The trust is real, but it’s selective. Challenge is rare, because deep-rooted patterns of friendship complicate the candour in conversation. Diversity of thought is limited, because anyone who “doesn’t fit” either stays silent or exits. The team reinforces its own perspective, making it an echo chamber rather than a high-performing unit.

Consequences:

• Strong “groupthink”, with ideas rarely sc
• Exclusion of outsiders, severely limiting diversity of thought and decision quality.
• Lack of honest feedback, leading to strategic blind spots.

How to Fix It:

• Introduce structured debate. Assign a “devil’s advocate” in discussions to challenge consensus thinking.
• Rotate team dynamics. Switch up project groups to mix people who don’t normally work together.
• Seek external / outsider input. Bring in different perspectives to challenge and test ideas.

2. The big-character team

Behaviour:

This team moves fast, because their leader moves fast, and often loudly. Every idea is met with enthusiasm, momentum is non-negotiable, and meetings feel more like TED Talks, except that no one else is allowed on stage. The leader speaks and heads nod, perhaps too enthusiastically. They may even clap. The introverts are left staring at their notepads, waiting for this to be over.

The leader finishes making their point. “Thoughts?” they ask expectantly. Silence. No one actually disagrees. Or at least, no one is willing to be the one who does. The Big-Character Team follows momentum, not scrutiny. The leader is magnetic, articulate, and convincing. The result is that ideas get nodded through without being tested.

What they think they’re great at:

“We have a strong, visionary leader who keeps us moving forward.”

Reality:

There’s movement, but not necessarily progress. The “spectators” in the team don’t contribute, and dissenting voices are drowned out. The leader assumes agreement but, in reality, many people are just nodding along.

Consequences:

• The loudest voices dominate decision-making.
• Over time, rather than challenge or contribute, team members disengage, and valuable perspectives are lost.
• Ideas aren’t stress-tested, leading to poor execution.

How to Fix It:

• Reverse the hierarchy. The Leader speaks last to prevent premature alignment.
• Build psychological safety. Explicitly ask
  for opposing views and acknowledge
  dissent positively.
• Balance airtime. Introduce a “no repeat contributions” rule to force new voices into the conversation.

3. The false-harmony team

Behaviour:

This team is suspiciously polite. Meetings run smoothly, decisions come quickly, and consensus is reached without friction. But the real conversations happen later, in side chats, carefully worded emails, and coffee break venting sessions.

On the surface, everything looks seamless, but tension simmers beneath. People nod along, not out of true agreement, but because challenging ideas feels risky. They have opinions, but they’ve learned to share them elsewhere, where it’s safer.

The fear of being seen as negative or “not a team player” keeps people from speaking up when it matters. Concerns get whispered in corridors, frustrations surface in vague Slack messages, and disagreements turn into passive resistance rather than open discussion.

The fear of being seen as negative or “not a team player” keeps people from speaking up when it matters. Concerns get whispered in corridors, frustrations surface in vague Slack messages, and disagreements turn into passive resistance rather than open discussion.

No one is outright lying, but no one is being fully honest either. It’s an organisation-wide game of pretend consensus, where silence is mistaken for alignment, and discomfort replaces productive debate.

What they think they’re great at:

“We’re all on the same page. We don’t waste time on unnecessary conflict.”

Reality:

Disagreement hasn’t disappeared; it’s just been relocated. People conform in meetings but save their concerns for corridor conversations or passive-aggressive email threads. This team mistakes silence for alignment and, as a result, they miss out on the healthy tension that actually improves decision-making.

Consequences:

• Superficial alignment, with issues bubbling under the surface.
• A reluctance to challenge weak ideas, leading to poor decision-making.
• Passive resistance; people agree publicly but don’t execute properly.

How to Fix It:

• Introduce accountability. Before a decision is finalised, each person must write down their view and classify it as “green” (fully aligned), “amber” (some concerns), or “red” (not aligned). The leader sets a minimum number of greens before proceeding. Writing it down forces people to reconsider what they’re truly prepared to back.
• Encourage enquiry over direct challenge. Instead of outright disagreement, prompt discussion with open questions like, “That makes sense from an operational perspective. How would it play out for our customers?”
• Require pre-submitted input. Have team members submit concerns in advance, ensuring that issues are surfaced before discussions, not after.

4. The bright-sparks team

Behaviour:

If ideas were currency, this team would be billionaires. They don’t just brainstorm; they erupt with creativity, throwing out new concepts, angles, and innovations at breakneck speed. Meetings are a whirlwind of inspiration, sticky notes pile up, whiteboards overflow, and the air crackles with excitement.

But, while they excel at the art of conception, they flounder in execution. They make ephemeral progress on multiple fronts, but nothing ever truly lands. There’s always a new idea, a better approach, or an even more exciting opportunity just around the corner. And so, the cycle repeats.

They are always creating, but they aren’t prioritising. And creativity without prioritisation, pragmatism, and follow-through? That’s just expensive procrastination.

What they think they’re great at:

“We’re a highly creative, innovative team.”

Reality:

They are creative. But in their world, the spark is more exciting than the fire. The thrill of ideation trumps the discipline of delivery. And, while they may pride themselves on being idea generators, without execution, all that brilliance is wasted potential.

Consequences:

• High energy but little tangible progres
• Chaos and burnout in the layers below; good people leave.
• Lack of impact because nothing is executed properly.

How to Fix It:

• Prioritise ruthlessly. Not every idea deserves time and resources.
• Set execution deadlines. Hold people accountable for completing what they start. If there’s no deadline, it’s not real.
• Appoint a “closer”. Someone needs to own delivery. This person ensures that at least some of the brilliance makes it out into the real world.

5. The rapid-responder team

Behaviour:

This team don’t just react; they overreact. They’re always in motion, “always on”. Emails are answered in milliseconds, Slack messages get immediate replies, and meetings are more like triage units than spaces for meaningful discussion. The pace is relentless. They take pride in their ability to handle anything but the truth is that they mistake constant activity for actual productivity.

They thrive in crisis mode and, in fact, they unconsciously seek it out. If things are too calm, they get twitchy. Stillness feels like inefficiency. They measure their value in how fast they solve problems, not whether those problems should exist in the first place.

There’s little patience for reflection, big-picture thinking, or long-term strategy. They fight fires all day but never build fire prevention systems.

What they think they’re great at:

“We are the most efficient team in the company. If there’s a problem, we’ll fix it – fast.”

Reality:

They get things done, but often the same things, over and over again. There’s no space for strategic thinking, because they’re so busy reacting to urgent (often trivial) issues; long-term projects suffer.

Consequences:

• Problems are solved on the surface, but deeper issues remain unaddressed, creating an endless cycle of reactivity.
• Short-term fixes dominate. Success is measured by speed, not impact—leaving no space to evaluate whether the right problems are being solved at all.
• The rest of the organisation learns to rely on them as a rapid-response unit instead of taking ownership of their own responsibilities.

How to Fix It:

• Create a pause mechanism. Ask, “Is this urgent or just loud?”, “Are we solving the same problem again?”
• Introduce reflection time. Set aside time to identify patterns, think strategically, and improve processes.
• Instead of always being the first responder, the team should coach others to solve their own problems.

6. The overthinkers

Behaviour:

This team is addicted to complexity. Every decision is a masterpiece of analysis, dissected from every conceivable angle, with every risk painstakingly documented. Nothing moves until every possible scenario has been explored, stress-tested, and debated into submission.

Their meetings are exercises in intellectual endurance. The phrase “Let’s take a step back” is used 10 times per discussion. PowerPoints swell to 60 slides, often with more footnotes than main content. Decisions aren’t made; they are monumental events requiring weeks of prereading, stakeholder alignment, and a multi-step approval process.

Questions are answered with more questions. There is always another variable to assess, another risk to mitigate, another layer of nuance to peel back.

The result? Progress grinds to a halt. A simple “yes or no” becomes a research project. While other teams are executing, this team is still debating whether the decision should even be made at all.

What they think they’re great at:

“We are rigorous, data-driven, and highly analytical.”

Reality:

They believe that their meticulous approach ensures bulletproof decisions but, in practice, it just slows everything down. While they scrutinise every detail, braver (and sometimes less competent) teams are already executing. In their pursuit of perfection, they overlook the cost of delay.

Meanwhile, the rest of the organisation is watching – and waiting. Stakeholders grow frustrated. Colleagues stop bringing them into conversations because they know it will lead to delays. Over time, the team becomes known less for its analytical rigour and more for its inability to get things done.

Consequences:

• Missed opportunities due to slow decision-making.
• Team fatigue from excessive analysis.
• Frustration from stakeholders waiting for action.

How to Fix It:

• Impose deadlines. Force decisions at key moments.
• Set “good enough” thresholds. Define what level of certainty is actually required.
• Appoint a decision driver. Make it someone’s job to move things forward.

7. The martyrs

Behaviour:

They are hardworking, dedicated, and visibly exhausted. Emails at 11 pm – standard; working through lunch – of course; logging in on holiday – only if they take a holiday, which they won’t, because who else would hold the place together? Classic maladaptive workaholism.

The Martyrs pride themselves on their commitment – but it’s not just about dedication. There’s an underlying resentment brewing beneath the surface.

The Martyrs pride themselves on their commitment – but it’s not just about dedication. There’s an underlying resentment brewing beneath the surface. If you leave on time, they notice. If you take a proper lunch break, they see you. And if you dare set a boundary? Expect a pointed “must be nice” comment at some stage.

They say they want better work-life balance. They say they want efficiency. But, deep down, they believe that suffering is a sign of commitment, and anyone who isn’t suffering is somehow letting the side down.

What they think they’re great at:

“We are the backbone of this company. We do whatever it takes.”

Reality:

They are hardworking – too hardworking. But at what cost? Productivity, burnout, passive-aggressive Slack messages?

Their exhaustion doesn’t actually make them more effective; just more resentful. And, ironically, their non-stop work often results in less strategic thinking, more mistakes, and an increasing sense of “what is even the point?”

Consequences:

• Chronic burnout and stress, leading to high turnover.
• A toxic culture of guilt around setting boundaries.
• Short-term wins at the expense of long-term sustainability.

How to Fix It:

• Kill the “busyness badge”. Stop celebrating overwork as a sign of dedication.
• Enforce real boundaries. Leaders need to model leaving on time, taking breaks, and not responding at 11 pm.
• Measure output, not hours. Reward impact, not just effort.

8. The mavericks (aka: the sales team)

Behaviour:

If this team had a LinkedIn bio, it would be: “Breaking records. Breaking rules. Breaking 100 on the golf course.” If they had a WhatsApp group, it would be filled with unread messages and the occasional GIF of a wolf pack.

They are dealmakers, rainmakers, and headline-makers. They win big, because they move fast, take risks, and refuse to be constrained by bureaucracy. Process is for other people. Governance is a suggestion. HR policies? Cute.

They operate on a heady mix of instinct, charisma, and sheer audacity. They don’t just sell an idea, they sell the belief that it will work, often before the details are figured out. They can out-negotiate, out-network, and out-manoeuvre almost anyone, and they thrive in high-pressure, high-stakes environments.

But competition isn’t just external, it’s internal, too. Every win is celebrated but also measured against their peers. Collaboration happens only if there’s an edge to be gained. If you slow them down, they’ll bulldoze past you. If you try to rein them in, they’ll argue their way around the rules. Banter is their love language, and they can charm, hustle, or bluff their way into (or out of) anything.

What they think they’re great at:

“We bring in the business. Without us, there’s no company.”

Reality:

They do bring in business. But their relentless win-at-all-costs approach leaves chaos in its wake. Deals get closed, but the fine print gets overlooked. Targets get hit, but at the cost of client relationships, internal trust and, occasionally, their own integrity.

They resent rules, but the truth is that some of those rules exist to protect them – from lawsuits, reputational damage and, in extreme cases, each other.

Consequences:

• High turnover – burnout, stress, or getting poached by a competitor.
• Risk exposure – regulatory issues, angry clients, “misunderstandings” in contracts.
• Toxic internal competition – every win is someone else’s loss.

How to Fix It:

• Create structure without killing autonomy. Give them flexibility, but with clear guardrails.
• Align incentives with long-term impact. Reward sustainable growth, not just quick wins.
• Manage the internal competition. Channel their drive into collective wins, not just individual battles.

9. The diversity mirage

Behaviour:

On paper, this team is a poster child for diversity. Different backgrounds, different experiences, different perspectives – it looks great in a company brochure. They should be the most innovative, forward-thinking, high-performing team around.

But in reality? It’s not working. Meetings are a minefield. Communication styles clash. Decisions take forever, because no one quite knows how to navigate the differences. Some people dominate, while others retreat.

There’s diversity, but no inclusion. Instead of harnessing their differences, they’re tripping over them. Some feel unheard. Others feel misunderstood. And a few are just quiet-quitting from the whole experience.

What they think they’re great at:

“We are a diverse, progressive team with a wide range of perspectives.”

Reality:

They are diverse, but diversity without inclusion is just optics. The team is fragmented, misunderstood, and struggling to work together effectively.

Instead of leveraging their differences, they’re either avoiding them altogether or fighting over them constantly.

Consequences:

• Great ideas never surface because the loudest voices win.
• Some members feel excluded despite the appearance of diversity.
• Tension, misalignment, and unintentional silos.

How to Fix It:

• Teach the team how to work together, not just exist together. Facilitate real conversations about communication styles and decision-making preferences.
• Equalise airtime. Don’t let dominant voices control discussions; create deliberate opportunities for everyone to contribute.
• Move beyond tokenism. Ensure that diversity translates into meaningful inclusion, where differences are actually valued (not just tolerated).

10. The rotten core

Behaviour:

This team should be unstoppable. They’re bright, good at what they do, respect each other, and challenge ideas without ego. They’ve cracked the code on high performance.

Except there’s a problem. One person – just one – is subtly poisoning the well.

Meet The Rotten Core, who is not overtly aggressive or blatantly insubordinate. That would be too easy to spot. Instead, they operate in the shadows. They roll their eyes in meetings. They make “just saying” comments that undermine decisions. They plant tiny seeds of doubt – about leadership, about a colleague’s competence, about whether this whole thing is even going anywhere.

They excel at plausible deniability. They never outright criticise, just imply. They’re just “raising concerns”. They’re just “playing devil’s advocate”. They’re just “saying what everyone’s thinking”.

And the worst part? They’re not entirely wrong. Every high-performing team has cracks – natural tensions, frustrations, moments of uncertainty. But The Rotten Core amplifies these, distorts them, and makes them fester. The team, once cohesive and driven, starts second-guessing itself. Trust erodes. Motivation dips. And somehow, no one can quite pinpoint why.

What they think they’re great at:

“I just tell it like it is. I’m not afraid to speakthe truth.”

Reality:

They mistake cynicism for insight. Their “truth-telling” is actually selective, designed to stir discontent without offering solutions.

Consequences:

The rot spreads; cynicism is contagious. Once one person starts rolling their eyes or casting doubt, others pick up the same behaviours. Negativity becomes the norm.

Decision paralysis; people hesitate to commit, because they’re worried they’re missing something or, worse, about to be criticised for it.

Instead of focusing on performance, leaders waste time managing politics and emotional fallouts. Energy that should go into growth and problem-solving is spent firefighting internal trust issues.

How to Fix It:

• Make negativity accountable. Ask them, “What solution do you suggest?” every time they raise an issue. If they have none, they’re just stirring the pot.
• Call out the pattern. Not in an aggressive way, but in a “Hey, I’ve noticed a lot of concerns being raised without constructive next steps. What’s going on?” way.
• Reinforce the culture. Remind the team what makes them great and refuse to let one person’s cynicism erode that. If necessary, have a direct, clear conversation about the impact of their behaviour.

11. The Institutional Guardians (AKA: “Tenure is Everything”)

Behaviour:

If you’ve only been here five years, you’re still the new kid. This team runs on history, hierarchy, and a deep respect for “the way things have always been done”.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things, and, conveniently, the right way just so happens to be exactly how they’ve always done it. New ideas are met with polite scepticism. Fresh perspectives are not needed, thanks. Change only if it was first proposed in 1998.

This team takes immense pride in their legacy; they’ve built something enduring, and they’re not about to let some bright-eyed, MBA-waving newbie come in and ruin it with their modern nonsense. New hires get the message that they can earn their place over a decade or two.

What they think they’re great at:

“We have deep expertise and institutional knowledge. We know what works.”

Reality:

They do have valuable knowledge and experience. But legacy isn’t a strategy. They are so busy protecting the past that they’re stifling the future.

Instead of evolving, they’re preserving. And, instead of leading the industry, they’re watching it move past them, one unapproved change at a time.

Consequences:

• Stagnation – new ideas struggle to take root, and innovation is stifled.
• High turnover of younger talent who feel ignored and undervalued.
• The team feels stable but, in reality, it’s slowly becoming irrelevant.

How to Fix It:

• Separate “valuable legacy” from “outdated tradition”. Audit why things are done a certain way and whether it still makes sense.
• Create structured ways for new ideas to be tested. Pilot fresh approaches without threatening existing systems.
• Mentorship, not gatekeeping. Help long-tenured employees transfer their knowledge instead of just protecting it.

12. The Hub-and-Spoke Crew (AKA: A Group, Not a Team)

Behaviour:

This isn’t really a team. It’s a collection of individuals who all report to the same leader but don’t actually work together. The leader is the hub, and each team member is a spoke – connected to the centre but not to each other.

Meetings feel like a series of 1:1 updates, where each person talks to the leader and no one else says a word. If someone asks for input from another team member, you can physically feel the awkwardness in the room.

They don’t even know what each other does. If someone left tomorrow, half the team wouldn’t even notice, because their job has zero overlap with anyone else.

Collaboration, they believe, is not their problem; alignment is unnecessary; cross-functional projects are irrelevant.

What they think they’re great at:

“We are efficient and focused, and everyone knows their role.”

Reality:

They might be individually productive, but they’re not actually a team. They miss out on: shared learning (because no one talks to each other); efficiency (because information isn’t flowing between them); better solutions (because no one is building on anyone else’s work).

The real irony? The leader is overloaded, because every single issue has to be routed through them.

Consequences:

• The leader becomes the single point of failure, overloaded with decisions, while the team remains disconnected, operating in isolated silos rather than as a cohesive unit.
• Because there’s little collaboration or shared accountability, work gets duplicated, inefficiencies creep in, and valuable insights that could strengthen the team’s output are lost.
• Without a real sense of belonging or interdependence, team members disengage from the bigger picture, focusing only on their own tasks while innovation, problem-solving, and collective progress suffer.

How to Fix It:

• Make meetings about the team, not just the leader. Introduce peer-to-peer discussions instead of just leader check-ins.
• Force some strategic overlap. Design projects where people actually have to work together.
• Get clear on shared purpose. Define why this group exists as a team, not just as direct reports.

Conclusion: the patterns you don’t see

Every team thinks they’re unique. Indeed they are – different industries, different people, different challenges. But, after years of working with teams across the world, we’ve learned that they are far more predictable than they think.

Teams go wrong, and with various serious consequences. They focus on where they want to be, without first getting an honest, objective view of where they are now.

The most important job of a leader is to build a high-performing team. It’s not an HR function or a side project. It is the job. Leaders try to drive performance without first understanding the behaviours, mindsets, and cultural undercurrents that are shaping their team’s trajectory.

We use the Hogan Assessment, not just to describe a team, but to predict how they will behave and perform if nothing changes. It reveals the hidden patterns at play, the unconscious habits shaping decisions, and the risks that could derail progress. We might triangulate that data with broader reviews – team diagnostics, stakeholder feedback, and real-world observations – that make up a very clear picture.

Forewarned is forearmed. Once a leader understands their team – not just their intentions – they face a choice. If they don’t manage it with intention, their team’s effectiveness will be left to chance.

Team-building models, roadmaps, charters and various tools can all help a leader to harness the best of what they have to meet their goals. But, it starts with self-awareness (what do you have?), intention (how will you make the best of it?), courage (to do the right thing, not the easy thing), and discipline (to keep doing it, consistently).

Because great teams don’t just happen. They need to be built, nurtured, and developed – deliberately, thoughtfully, and with full awareness of where they’re starting from.

If you understand the predictability of your team and choose not to act, then performance becomes accidental. But if you take charge, if you own the responsibility of building a high-performing team, then your team’s success is no longer a gamble. It’s a strategy. And that is leadership defined succinctly as the “ability to form, maintain and motivate a team, more adapted and successful than your competitors”. Amen.

About the Authors

Georgie Fienberg is a business speaker and leadership adviser. She works with global clients ranging from FTSE 100 C-suites to the British Parliament, specialising in applying behavioural science to building high-performing teams and cultures.

Adrian Furnham is a business speaker and consultant. He is Professor at Birkbeck Business School and the Norwegian Business School. He has written 100 books translated into 40 languages.

References

• Allen, N.J. & West, M.A. (2017). “Selection for Teams”, The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection. Oxford: (pp. 476-94).

• Belbin, R.M. (2012). Team Roles at Work. Abingdon: Routledge.

• Furnham, A. (2018). “The Dynamics of the Boardroom: Typical Problems and How to Fix Them”, The European Business Review, Oct-Nov, 51-5.

• Johnson, S.S.(2021). “The Science of Teamwork”, American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(5):730-32. doi:10.1177/08901171211007955a

• Kets de Vries, M. (2011). The Hedgehog Effect. London: Wiley

• McCann, D., & Margerison, C. (1985). “Team Management Profiles: Their use in management development”, Journal of Management Development, 4(2), 34–47.

• Mathieu, J.E., Hollenbeck, J.R., Van Knippenberg, D.L., & Ilgen, D. (2017). “A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452-67.

• Salas, E., Reyes, D.L., & McDaniel, S.H. (2018). “The science of teamwork: progress, reflections, and the road ahead”, American Psychologist, 73(4):593–600.

• van Dierendonck, D., & Groen, R. (2011). “Belbin revisited: A multitrait-multimethod investigation of a team role instrument”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 345-66.

The post Business Teams: Bad, Sad, and Mad… and How to Fix Them appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

As one of the seven cardinal sins, greed is a trait no one wants to be accused of. While people detest and avoid greedy people by default, this exposition into the psychology of greed will show how greed can sometimes be beneficial.

• “Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.” – Erich Fromm
• “Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed.” – Albert Einstein
• “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies and cuts through to the essence of the evolutionary spirit.” – Gordon Gekko
• Greed is a powerful emotion that can blind even the most level-headed of us, causing us to ignore both morality and logic in its pursuit.” – George Bernard Shaw
• “The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm: capitalism is that kind of a system.” – Milton Friedman
• “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” – Luke 12:15
• “Selfishness and greed, individual or national, cause most of our troubles.” – Harry S. Truman
• “He who dies with the most toys wins.” – Uncertain
• “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” – Matthew 8: 36-38.
• “My desires are simple: I want everything.” – Uncertain

Money, possessions and happiness

How much money, expressed as annual income from all sources, do you need to maximise your happiness? Greedy people say they expect to be happier with more money and more possessions. But then they readjust their desire and expectations, so they never have enough: they cannot be satisfied. This gives them great drive, but also great frustration.

Greed is one of the deadly sins. It is defined as a consuming desire for wealth or affluence, causing one to think of little else. It is about being covetous and ravenous. Greed is closely associated with the more serious terms of avarice and covetousness. Nearly all religions, in all periods of history, have condemned avarice and greed. In many cultures, greedy children are admonished and punished for their selfishness and indulgence. Greed is about self-ISH-ness rather than self-LESS-ness.

Greed is about getting more (and more) of what you want. It is supposedly an insatiable desire for more of everything: income; possessions; influence; power; sex; and privileges. It means wanting more of anything judged to be desirable to the individual.

There are many definitions of greed: “an insatiable desire for more resources, monetary or other”; “a desire to acquire more and the dissatisfaction of never having enough”; “a desire to get more at all costs”. One theme identifies it as addiction to having, as seen in compulsive shopping, gambling and eating.

Greed can be highly motivating…which may not be a bad thing.

Greed can be highly motivating…which may not be a bad thing. But greed is also about being self-interested and not caring for others, even one’s family and personal health. Hence, it is often associated with antisocial, unethical and deviant behaviours. Greed may be characterized by chancing potentially negative consequences that result from one’s own actions: an excessive desire for more at all costs that may be at the expense of others. So it’s a dark trait and it has serious drug-like qualities.

Greed is also related to impulsiveness and self-control. When people have willpower they can resist the urge to act upon their impulses. However, when willpower is limited, people usually give in to these urges.

Thus clinical, personality and social psychologists have tended to see greed as essentially pathological: bad for the greedy person and all who encounter them. It is sometimes seen as a “clinical” condition associated with such disorders as kleptomania, depression and low self-esteem. The idea is that accumulating “stuff” is a poor substitute for other things like friendship. Greedy people get into a negative spiral where their behaviour leads them to be shunned by others, the very people whose respect they want!

Many questionnaires have attempted to measure greed. The statements that greedy people endorse are pretty self-evident: One can never have too much money; As soon as I have acquired something, I start to think about the next thing I want; My life motto is ‘‘more is better’’; I can’t imagine having too many things, etc. Surprisingly, greedy people tend to be proud of their greediness, seeing it as competitiveness and achievement orientation.

Positive and negative views

Greed is Good 

Gordon Gekko: Wall Street was a 1987 film about a corporate psychopath who was the epitome of all that is brash and vulgar about greed. It was much admired in the “greed is good” 1980s.

Obviously, not everyone thinks that greed is necessarily bad. From an economic viewpoint, it is even possible to argue that “greed is healthy” because people always prefer more of a desirable good: “the axiom of maximization/greed”. It has been seen as a virtue that leads to economic development and prosperity. Thus, greedy people may generate more personal and business income than less greedy ones. Greed has been associated with positive economic outcomes such as more employment, wealth, and well-being. And because whatever is achieved is not enough, it is a deeply motivational force.

Also, greed has an evolutionary benefit: it helps in coping with resource insecurity and scarcity. Greed thus motivates people to acquire more; which is good for their and others’ survival. Greed can be seen as a form of “adaptation to resource uncertainty”.

A Dutch team led by Seuntjens et al. (2015) notes “In situations where our behavior affects the outcomes of other people, such as in the economic games…. greedily striving for more for oneself could easily lead to worse outcomes for the people around us. Indeed, it is especially because greed may be harmful to others that many religions and philosophers have condemned greed. However, in situations where no such inter-dependencies exist, greed can actually be beneficial. For example, in situations where huge amounts of effort are necessary to achieve excellence, such as athletes striving to ever improve their performances, scientists striving to ever further our understanding of the world, or artists striving to achieve ever higher peaks of expression, greed may be productive. In addition, greed may lead individuals to create economic surplus because they aggregate more goods or wealth than they need.” (p 929)

Thus, it is possible to put a positive spin on the concept of greed. Many greedy behaviours could be considered to be a manifestation of ambition, success or achievement orientation. There is considerable psychological work on the Need for Achievement or Achievement Motivation which can be traced back to the personality theorist, Murray, who included Achievement as one of his 20 basic needs. It was defined as: The desire to accomplish something difficult; to master, manipulate, or organize physical objects, human beings, or ideas; to do this as rapidly and independently as possible; to excel oneself and to rival and surpass others. This need was seen to be a largely unconscious, dispositional tendency, general in nature, not specifically linked to situations and stable over time.

There are many questions about ambitiousness. Ambitious for what? Money? Power? Recognition? Where does ambitiousness come from? Who are the pathologically over-ambitious? Why do some people simply lack ambition? Why are some people not able to match their abilities and ambitiousness? Are self- and observer-reports of ambitiousness correlated?

Greed is Bad 

Greed is also related to emotional instability, neuroticism, lower self-esteem, and less trust in others. Greedy people are not attractive; not good to be around. But why are greedy people not happy people? It is because they compare themselves frequently with others who are better off, and they feel envious and deprived as a result. Greedy people seem always envious.

The psychological literature shows that greed also correlates with various (dark) traits, such as Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and antagonism. Greedy people are also bad company: bad in your work team, bad in your social group, bad in your community. One does not have to be always selfless but certainly never selfish.

There are a number of significant questions in this area:

1. Is greed a personality trait? That is, is greediness stable over time (once greedy, always greedy) and across situations (at work, in the home)? If there is a trait, what are its biological and environmental determinants? Are people “made greedy” by their early environment; or is it somehow linked to other (pathological) traits such as narcissism? Can you inherit greediness? At this stage, there is insufficient data to answer the question, though it does seem that greed has trait-like characteristics.
2. What behaviours are associated with greed? Various studies have tried to answer this question. There appear to be three traits associated with greed: first, ambition, competitiveness and drive; second, unhappiness, unfulfillment and (paradoxically) self-doubt; third, egocentrism, selfishness and being unempathetic. Some greedy beliefs and behaviours seem quite simply sad and pathological, but others could be seen to be associated with success in certain fields.
3. Are greedy people attracted to different jobs and industries? Clearly, different jobs attract different people based on their motivation. Some people are driven by service and personal sacrifice while others are driven by success, measured by money and acclaim. Some jobs in business, law and finance offer significant monetary rewards and it may be expected that greedy people would be more attracted to them.

Materialism

Materialism is the importance a person attaches to possessions. The ownership and acquisition of material goods that are believed to deliver major life goals and desired status like happiness. Possessions, for the materialist, are central to their lives, a sign of success and a source of happiness.

A materialist orientation is generally associated with less generosity, and caring less about other people. The underlying goal of all materialism, psychologists say, is to overcome insecurity by attaining social prestige, which is driven by total extrinsic materialism.

Different societies at different times have expressed very different attitudes to materialism. The ancient Greeks and the nineteenth-century romantics were against the pursuit of material goods because they believed it ‘‘interfered’’ with the pursuit of virtue. Thus some see it as associated with envy, possessiveness and non-generosity while others see it as relating to happiness and success. Self-control and success vs. spiritual emptiness, environmental degradation and social inequity. This is why ‘‘post-materialism’’ is seen as a good thing. Equally, there is the emergence of the new materialists who buy goods for durability, functionality and quality and who have an ambiguous, even hypocritical attitude to possessions.

Materialism is seen as an outcome and driving force of capitalism that benefits society because it drives growth. Materialism for certain individuals can increase their sense of belonging, identity, meaning and empowerment. We are what we own. Others argue that the ideology of materialism is misplaced and leads to individual and social problems such as compulsive buying, hoarding, and kleptomania. Materialism is really about self-enhancement.

Some researchers have suggested that peer influence is important in determining adolescents’ materialistic attitudes along with parental communication, parental materialism and religious beliefs.

Materialism is seen as an outcome and driving force of capitalism that benefits society because it drives growth.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand materialism is to see how it is measured by psychologists. Scales for use with children such as the Consumer Involvement Scale with three dimensions: Dissatisfaction (“I feel like other kids have more stuff than I do”; “I wish my parents earned more money”); Consumer Orientation (“I care a lot about my games, toys and other possessions”; “I like shopping and going to stores”); and Brand Awareness (“Brand names matter to me”; “Being cool is important to me”). It has been shown that the more materialistic children were, the lower their self-esteem, the more conflict they had with parents and the more engaged they were in the consumer society.

Consumption, some argue, is good for the development of identity, a sense of belonging and meaning. Others point to the evidence of reduced wellbeing among those most materialistic and the data on compulsive buying.

There is disagreement also about the correlates of materialism. Some studies suggest males are more materialistic than females – others the opposite. Equally, the data on age, education and income correlates of materialism are unclear.

Many researchers have demonstrated materialists are selfish and self-centred and more dissatisfied and discontent with life. It is linked in adolescence to television and computer usage, negative attitudes to parents, lack of time doing homework and household chores, and lower self-esteem.

To have or to be

Fifty years ago, Erich Fromm wrote a best seller called To Have or to Be. He contrasted two ways of living. He argued that many modern societies were based on two erroneous principles: first, the aim of life is to maximize pleasure and happiness; and that egoism, selfishness and greed lead to the opposite of harmony and peace.

He argued we need to be, not have. His list of recommendations included security, sense of identity, and confidence based on faith in what one is; one’s need for relatedness, interest, love, and solidarity with the world around one; instead of on one’s desire to have, to possess, to control the world, and thus become the slave of one’s possession. He opined that joy comes from giving and sharing, not from, hoarding and exploiting.

Greed at work

Greed, when left unchecked, can have detrimental effects on team success in sports and organizational settings. Greedy people are selfish; takers not givers. Many feel resentfully under-benefited, demanding to be given more recognition, promotion and salary.

Greed, when left unchecked, can have detrimental effects on team success in sports and organizational settings.

They seem marked by a lack of cooperation and collaboration: a hyper-competitive mindset, prioritizing personal success and gain over the collective goals of the team. Many greedy workers exaggerate their contribution to their team and the organisation.

In essence, individual greed leads to distrust and conflict: It can breed distrust and create an atmosphere of competition, conflict and animosity, as it elicits a deep sense of unfairness and inequity in teams. It may also lead to diminished teamwork and communication. Greed can prevent honest communication by withholding information, and deceitful practices aiming at personal advantage. Personal greed often leads to reduced performance and goal attainment: Greed comes at the expense of team success by failure to fulfil roles. Most of all, greed can easily lead to a negative team culture: greed can cause a toxic team culture by backstabbing and selfishness.

Conclusion

Being ambitious and competitive is good, being greedy and selfish is bad. We rightly admire the hard-working entrepreneur, the person eager to “better themselves” and the sportsperson prepared to sacrifice a lot to be “the winner”. But we don’t admire them if their means to success are deeply egocentric and unfair.

People on their deathbed hardly say they wished they had accumulated more possessions (toys) and accolades. Indeed, it seems the case that many very ambitious, competitive and successful people spend the second part of their lives giving away all they strived for, partly because of guilt and partly from the realisation that they have enough to live well on.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is a Professor at Birkbeck Business School. He likes to think he is competitive but not greedy.

.

References

1. Haynes, K.T., (2021). The Psychology of Greed. In The Psychology of Extremism: A Motivational Perspective. Edited by Kruglanski, A.W., Kopetz, C., Szumowska,E. p. 203–229, (London: Routledge).

2. Krekels, G., and Pandelaere, M. (2015). Dispositional Greed. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, p. 225–230.

3. Razen, M., and Stefan, M. (2020). Greed: Taking a Deadly Sin to the Lab. Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, 81, p. 164–171.

4. Sekhar, S., Uppa, N., and Shukla, A. (2020). Dispositional Greed and Its Dark Allies: An Investigation among Prospective Managers. Personality and Individual Differences, 162, 110005.

5. Seuntjens, T.G., Zeelenberg, M., Van De Ven, N, and Breugelmans, S.M. (2015). DispositionalGreed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108: p. 917–933.

6. Zeelenberg, M., and Breugelmans, S. M. (2022). The Good, Bad and Ugly of Dispositional Greed. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, p. 1–5.

The post The Psychology of Greed appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

Friendly, dramatic, and attention-seeking, they are difficult to miss. You may find them entertaining in social settings, but what happens when you have to work with them? In this article, Adrian Furnham explains how to understand and deal with people with Histrionic Personality Disorder.

We have all had dealings with the Drama Queen Manager: flirtatious, mercurial, show-offs. In psychiatric terminology, they often have clinical or subclinical Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD), sometimes referred to as Dramatic Personality Disorder.

The HPD term is derived from the Latin word for actor, but the original term was hysterical from the Latin root meaning uterus. This disorder is found more frequently in women. These people are attracted to “limelight” jobs and strive for attention and praise, but setbacks can easily lead to serious inner doubts and depression. Histrionics are certainly emotionally literate: they are open with all their emotions. But these emotions can change very quickly and unexpectedly.

People with HPD tend to be self-centred and have little room for self-doubt.

Most of us have encountered these characters at school, university or work. They tend to have a pattern of excessive attention-seeking and exaggerated emotional displays. Most have an intense desire for approval which can cause many problems. They often seem “over-the-top”, “theatrical”, and “emotional time-bombs” at inappropriate times and places, such as at work. Their flirtatious behaviour causes them multiple problems in the world of work today.

People with HPD tend to be self-centred and have little room for self-doubt. Of course, if mixed with good looks, articulateness and a handful of qualifications, this can seem very advantageous. Think of the conference talk, the media appearance, and the Tik-Tok clip. The ability to exhibit and touch the emotions of others can be a serious advantage. As all orators know, the message travels from the heart to the head, not the other way around.

But their sense of self-worth hinges on how others view them: even the slightest social rejection or criticism can feel incredibly devastating. Many feel  “close to people”, only to later discover those feelings are unrequited. Colleagues learn regularly to question the authenticity of their words and actions. Are they being sincere or exaggerating?

Flirtatious, mercurial, show-offs

Drama Queens seem uncomfortable in social situations where they are not the centre of attention. They delight in making a drama out of a crisis. Their interaction with others is often characterised by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behaviour. Needless to say, this causes more of a reaction in women than men, though this may be changing.

They display rapidly shifting and shallow expressions of emotions. They are, as a result, difficult to read. Most use physical appearance (clothes, hair) to draw attention to self, and this may include body piercing or tattooing. They certainly get a reputation in the office for their “unique apparel”.

Histrionics do not make good managers. They get impatient with and anxious about, details and routine administrative functions.

Many have a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail. Always they show self-dramatisation, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion… usually negative.  Even the dullest topic is imbued with drama. They are easily influenced by others or circumstances and therefore, are both unpredictable and persuadable. Many Drama Queens consider relationships to be more intimate than they actually are. Being rather dramatic, they feel humdrum working relationships more intensely than others.

Histrionics do not make good managers. They get impatient with and anxious about, details and routine administrative functions. They prefer gossip to analysis; and tend not to be good at any sort of detail. They are highly sociable and have intense relationships. They live to win friends and influence people and can do so by being very generous with compliments, flattery and appreciation. They hate being bored: life with them is never staid and dull. Most don’t like being alone for any period.

Interestingly, the definition of themselves comes from the outside: they see themselves as others say they see them. They therefore lack a consistent sense of who they are. They need constant reassurance and positive feedback from others. And because their heart rules their head they can be impulsive, impetuous and impatient. They live not in the real world, but in a storybook world.

At work, they can be persuasive and insightful. They enjoy the world of advertising, PR, sales and marketing, but need a strong back-up for things like plans, budgets and details. They are often volatile and known for being moody. They can be effusive with both praise and blame. But everything is an emotional drama and emotionally, they can be both childlike and childish. They don’t do stable relationships. At work, they need to be the star, the centre of attention otherwise they can feel powerless or desperately unworthy. They are not introspective. And it is important not to overreact to their overreactions.

Different descriptions

1. Muller (2014) argued that histrionic managers can cause “considerable suffering in the workplace, as well as lost productivity and revenue” (p. 402). Histrionic managers operate primarily based on emotion. Reason takes a backseat. They often tend to: “not see to the heart of things”; exaggerate information; overreact to matters that could be handled more easily by rational discussion; have flawed understandings; have trigger points that set them off “sometimes angrily and aggressively”; have “hyper suspiciousness”; be a source of stress, frustration, anxiety for others.

2. De Haan and Kasozi (2014) have talked about the healthy and unhealthy sides of the histrionic They call the former the Accomplished Thespian and the latter the Prima Donna. They provide a short sketch of a typical person who is the latter:

“The Accomplished Thespian becomes the Performing Prima Donna when his focus is more on the performers than on the reason for the performance. Instead of paying attention to doing what is needed, instead of listening to his counterparts, his energy goes into holding his own performance and ensuring that he is looking good in it. In that sense the performance becomes the purpose and the reward, and the wider function or organizational requirement is increasingly missed. The Accomplished Thespian’s tough resolve tips over into being unhelpful when his performances no longer elicit the longer-term outcomes and achievements that the organization seeks. Experiencing the challenge and criticism of others, he becomes less connected with their needs and becomes more concerned with showing that he is delivering or at least doing his best. Paradoxically his attention to performance per se and ignorance of wider circumstances can create a situation where he’s seen as irascible and self-absorbed. He is then experienced as being closed off to reality and not open to constructive feedback. At his most challenged, the Performing Prima Donna is experienced as a self-obsessed and unpredictable loose cannon, a superficial talking shop, and an organizational liability. Those who work with him try to avoid his worst excesses of showing off, and to protect others from his most embarrassing outbursts.” (p 190-191) 

3. Hogan and Hogan (2009) call these types Colourful: people who seem persuaded that others will find them interesting, engaging and worth paying attention to. They are good at calling attention to themselves – they know how to make dramatic entrances and exits, they carry themselves with flair and self-consciously pay attention to their clothes and the way others react to th

Histrionics are marked by their stage presence or persona, their self-conscious and distinctive aura – they perform extremely well in interviews, assessment centres, and other public settings.

“They are great fun to watch, but they are also quite impulsive and unpredictable; everything that makes them good at sales (and selling themselves) makes them poor managers – they are noisy, distractible, over-committed, and love to be the centre of attention. They are not necessarily extraverted, they are just good at calling attention to themselves. At their best, they are bright, colourful, entertaining, fun, flirtatious, and the life of the party. At their worst, they don’t listen, they don’t plan, they self-nominate and self-promote, and they ignore negative feedback”.  (p. 49)

Histrionics deal with stress and heavy workloads by becoming very busy; enjoying high-pressure situations when they can then be the star. Breathless with excitement, they confuse activity with productivity and evaluate themselves in terms of how many meetings they attend rather than how much they actually get done. A key feature of these people that others may not appreciate is how much they need and feed off approval, and how hard they are willing to work for it. And this explains why they persist in trying to be a star after their lustre has faded. To work with them, colleagues have to be prepared to put up with missed appointments, bad organisation, rapid change of direction, and indecisiveness. This will never change, although it can be planned for.

To be specific:

• Appearance: As noted, they are likely to dress provocatively or with attention-seeking features. This can include revealing clothing, suggestive or extensive tattoos, brightly coloured hair, and eccentric hairstyles, and they may wear multiple accessories.
• Behaviour: They have eccentric and disinhibited behaviours. They may have “splitting behaviors” depending on how an interview is proceeding. Splitting is a mental mechanism in which the self or others are viewed as all good or all bad, without integrating the positive and negative qualities of the self and others into cohesive images. Other behaviours can include dramatic storytelling, hypersexual gestures, and acting out to become the centre of attention.
• Speech: They are likely to speak loudly and dramatically. Their speech is generally impressionistic and lacking in detail. Deficits with speech initiation or vocabulary are not expected.
• Thought process: Usually their thought process is expected to be linear yet limited in range and logic. These individuals tend to be easily suggestible and easily persuaded by others around them.
• Impulse control: They often have poor impulse control, which results in the engagement of many of their pathological behaviours.
• Insight: They are ego-syntonic, where behaviours, values, and feelings are consistent with one’s ideal self-image. Thus so, individuals with HPD typically have poor insight into their condition and how their behaviours impact their social and occupational functioning.

4. In 2000, Theodore Millon suggested six subtypes of histrionic personality disor Any individual histrionic may exhibit one or more of the following:

5. Oldham and Morris (2000) noted seven charac-teristics of this type, which they call Dramatic.

A person who reveals a strong Dramatic tendency will demonstrate more of these behaviours more intensely than someone who has less of this style.

1. Feelings

Dramatic men and women live in an emotional world. They are sensation-orientated, emotionally demonstrative, and physically affectionate. They react emotionally to events and can shift quickly from mood to mood.

2. Colour

They experience life vividly and expansively. They have rich imaginations, they tell entertaining stories, and they are drawn to romance and melodrama.

3. Spontaneity

Dramatic individuals are lively and fun. Their joie de vivre leads them to act on impulse to take advantage of the moment.

4. Attention

Dramatic people like to be seen and noticed. They are often the centre of attention, and they rise to the occasion when all eyes are on them.

5. Applause

Compliments and praise are like food and water to persons with Dramatic style: they need them to go on.

6. Appearance

They pay a lot of attention to grooming, and they enjoy clothes, style and fashion.

7. Sexual attraction

In appearance and behaviour, Dramatic individuals enjoy their sexuality.  They are seductive, engaging, charming tempters and temptresses. (p.  126-127)

Oldham and Morris also offer six tips on dealing with them.

You are attracted to the Dramatic person’s spontaneity, passion, sensuality, and ability to have a good time. Allow the Dramatic person his or her emotional freedom, and enjoy the range of experiences that will result.

Appreciate, praise, flatter, and give feedback. The Dramatic person needs you to react openly and verbally, especially about your positive feelings, at all times. Don’t hold back; there’s no such thing as too much of a good thing with this personality style. But be sure to be honest.

Be romantic. Even if the Dramatic person in your life is a friend, relative, or parent, these sentimental attentions will delight and thrill him or her.

Be realistic about this person’s relative inability or reluctance to handle certain responsibilities, including money. Handle the finances or the financial planning yourself, if need be. Better, supervise or double check essential details.

Don’t hold grudges. Dramatic persons don’t hold things in, and the Dramatic person in your life may be emotionally tempestuous. Try to let go of your own anger or annoyance. Don’t take the Dramatic person’s emotional reactions personally and don’t be frightened by the drama.

Avoid jealousy. Dramatic individuals like to charm other people. Try feeling flattered and turned on by the warm attentions of others to your mate and have a good time at the party. (p. 139-140)

There are drama-queens in all sectors though they are likely to be found in the more human resource orientated world. They can do very well in PR, marketing and training particularly if they are talented. But they certainly remain hard work for their ever-suffering reports.

Three Important Caveats

Dimension not type

Psychiatrists have long given up on the typological approach in the sense of believing that you are, or are not histrionic. It is a matter of degree. You may be low, average, high or very high. Some situations may bring out the less desirable aspects of the disorder. Most of the descriptions are of those very high on the dimension.

Advantage not disadvantage

It is possible that in the right job and with other benefits (like being good-looking, bright, well supported by others) a small dose of histrionic behaviour may be very beneficial. Think of the performing arts, sales, and public speaking. If they have a colleague, PA or trusted advisor to calm them down, reassure and give timely feedback they may thrive.

Front not Back Stage

Goffman, the famous sociologist argued that social life is a “performance” carried out in three places: “front stage,” “backstage,” and “off stage.” All social interaction is influenced by the time and place in which it occurs as well as by the “audience” present to witness it. Thus some people might look a tad histrionic because the situation calls for it, but it is just a show. The histrionic however hates the backstage and likes to live their whole life on the front stage, preferably in the lead role.

Interestingly, of personality disorders like Borderline, OCD, and Narcissism, there appears to be much less academic or clinical interest in Hysterical Personality Disorder. Perhaps it is not such a problem for the client/patient after all, though it may be for their colleagues.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is an Emeritus Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at BI: Norwegian Business School. Recognising that he has more than a touch of Histrionic Personality Disorder himself, he does as all psychologists must do: namely study themselves.

References

• De Haan E. and Kasozi A. (2014). The Leadership Shadow– How to Recognise and Avoid Derailment, Hubris and Overdrive. London: Kogan Page.

• Furnham, A. (2014). A Bright Side, Facet Analysis of Histrionic Personality Disorder. Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 527-536.

• Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan Development Survey Manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems.

• Millon, T. (2004). Personality Disorders in Modern Life. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

• Muller, R. (2014). Histrionic Managers Wreck Havoc in the Workplace: Identifying the Phenomenon. The Humanistic Psychologist, 42, 402-412

• Oldham, J. M., & Morris, L. B. (2000). New Personality Self Portrait. New York: Bantam Book.

The post The Drama Queen Leader: Theatricality and Inappropriate Behaviour appeared first on The European Business Review.

One sure way to disgruntle your customers is to oblige them to fritter away their valuable time in queues – whether in the real world, online, or on the phone. However, if there’s really no other way, there are strategies to take the sting out of queues, as Adrian Furnham reports.

We queue all the time: at traffic lights, in shops and surgeries, and government offices. Airlines, banks, and shops know how upset the modern consumer can become if asked to queue for even a short time. And now we queue online, being told we are nth in a queue and that the organisation values your custom – but not enough to employ more staff to reduce the queue.

Most of us have witnessed “queue rage”, which is physical and verbal abuse as a function of sometimes rather minor delays. It can get quite nasty, particularly if fuelled by drink.

People now tweet their frustration. There are occasional revolts of well-behaved, otherwise well-behaved, mild-mannered people, who have simply “had enough”. They shout, they sing, they rush the barricades to humiliate their tormentors. Some get into serious fights overwhelmed with frustration rage. Others simply leave and vow never again to darken the doors of that particular organisation.

Delay is often the most important factor influencing service evaluation. It is a serious problem for management, who know the cost of hiring extra people. So what do we know about the subject?

Ten Observations:

1. Occupied time feels shorter. Give people something to do and/or distract their attention. Make them walk round and round on maze-like paths. Give them television to watch, music to listen to, puzzles to solve.
2. Uncertainty makes waiting seem longer. Tell them (roughly) how long they have to wait and people are more accepting of the delay. The “guesstimations” need not be accurate; precision does not matter. Information takes away the ambiguity and gives a person the confidence that the system is still running.
3. Anxiety makes the wait seem longer. People worry and fret: “Will it ever come?”; “Will I make my next meeting?”; “Will I make the connection?”. Thus, explanations and reassurance work, but don’t overdo it.
4. Unanticipated and unexplained waits are worse. Try giving an explanation that sounds reasonable: weather, computer breakdown, etc.
5. Unfair waits are much more aggravating than equitable waits. People hate the “fast-trackers” who buy their way out; the cabin crew who get some privileged exit; the locals who have twice as many people manning the desks as the aliens. Being “all in it together”, suffering equally, helps.
6. Solo waits seem longer than group or social waits. The idea of a waiting room or one of those holding pens at airports helps people feel less bewildered or victimised.
7. Preprocess waits seem longer than in-process waits. Waits seem longer if you are waiting for your service to begin than if you’re already waiting as you’re being served. Thus, waiting in line at a bar normally seems worse than waiting for the bartender to make you your drinks.
8. People wait longer for more valuable services. Clearly, people wait longer for medical attention in A&E than to buy a pint of milk at their nearest corner shop. But different things are valuable to different people.
9. Individual difference in waiting makes a difference. The anxious, the impulsive, and the self-important don’t make good queuers. The rule-following introvert copes much better.
10. And, yes, there are cultural differences. Some countries are time-bound (Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Scandinavia), whereas others are time-blind (Spain, Portugal, Greece). Time-bound societies emphasise schedules, deadlines, time-waste, time-keeping – a fast pace of life. Time-blind societies are more relaxed and casual about time. Time-bound societies see time as linear, time-blind as cyclical. Time-bound societies centre work around clocks, schedules, delivery dates, agendas, deadlines.

There are other types of waiting: anticipatory waiting (waiting for something that is hoped for, for example waiting for Christmas through Advent); inefficiency-based waiting (waiting for slow management processes or due to human error); scarcity-based waiting (caused by lack of availability of resources, e.g., Black Friday queuing); time-delay-based waiting (natural or inevitable processes, e.g., defrosting your car windscreen); waiting caused deliberately by another party (deliberate withholding of information or other resources which causes delays).

Some data

On average, a British person spends over a fortnight a year in queues; just over a week (7.2 days) in physical queues, and about a week and a half (9.4 days) queuing online. Despite our time spent in them, Verge reports that we really do not like queuing at all. Time spent waiting in a queue is number 2 on both our least enjoyable activities (63% dislike) and on activity we see as a waste of time (72%) (Verge magazine report: 2023).

Direct Line group reported Opinium research that found that we spend 4.5 months over a life waiting in queues. Opinium’s research also explored what we do while we wait. The top five answers were as follows: 1. daydream; 2. scroll through social media; 3. read the news; 4. reply to messages; 5. complain / curse about waiting. Notably, the top three of these are all about disassociating from the present moment in some form or another. In a context as unpleasant as waiting around, we look to distance ourselves from our reality. Naturally, queues can also exist when calling call centres and seeking customer service. ICMI’s summary reports that 13 minutes is the maximum time, on average, that people are willing to wait on the phone. Fifty-seven per cent of US people have been so frustrated with customer service that they hung up without their query being solved. Fifty per cent of people have stopped mid-purchase due to bad customer service. And 75 per cent of people felt very annoyed when they could not contact someone on the phone. These feelings go on to affect brand perception and how much people are willing to spend, as well as resulting in bad reviews to friends and an almost immediate loss in sales.

Social Norms in Queuing

Queuing has rules, norms, and obligations. Anger, frustration, and upset occur when these norms are violated. Illegitimate intrusion sparks outrage, as it appears to violate the socially accepted norms of the queuing environment. It usually sparks a chorus of tutting, eye-rolling, and groaning in the direction of the queue-jumper.

Social justice in queues is defined and measured with adherence to the “first-in-first-out” principle, which holds that because I was here first, I get to be served first. First-order justice is maintained when the first-in-first-out principle is upheld. Second-order justice, however, states that people should wait an equal amount of time to you, regardless of its effect on your waiting. At restaurants, servers may decide to open a new seating area to accommodate diners. This means that people who have waited longer (those at the front of the queue) may be served at the same time as those who have just arrived. Whilst those who arrived first are still seated first, evidence demonstrates that second-order justice violations nevertheless reduce positive affect and increase negative affect.

The excuse given by queue-jumpers makes a (small) difference, as well as ameliorating their relationship with those in the queue.

Queuing as a loss

Time spent in a queue has an opportunity cost for all members, taking up time that could be used to do something else. The time spent is valued subjectively for each queuing member. For self-perceived high-status people, waiting in queues can be seen as submission; for productive people, queuing means they can’t get work done; and those who tightly schedule themselves and the more time-conscious may be more aware of the time they are losing. This could be why younger people are more tolerant of longer wait times, and why people were more likely to leave restaurant queues in the afternoon and on weekdays, typical work hours where customers’ time is likely to be more pressured.

What is the optimum length of time to queue for before we get itchy feet?

When we are in need of a service, for example shopping, posting a letter, or using the toilet, we appreciate that there is a psychological cost that we may incur in the process of obtaining that service.

In situations where the service is non-essential, the consumer will make trade-off judgements whilst they are in the queue. Consumers will engage in an economic analysis of the opportunity cost of waiting, the psychological cost that could be used elsewhere.  How much additional psychological cost, for example waiting time, hassle, financial cost of moving through the queue quicker, is the consumer willing to expend in order to complete the queue situation? Consumers decide to “renege” and abandon the queue if the additional cost needed exceeds the threshold of what the consumer is willing to “pay”.

These thresholds will vary depending on certain situational factors of the queue.  The optimal length of time we are willing to wait depends on several factors: the absolute time the consumer has been waiting; the number of people ahead of us in the queue; and the number of people behind us in the queue.

Time spent in the queue

The optimal amount of absolute time a consumer is willing to spend in a queue before reneging varies depending on the service they are waiting for. For instance, the average time people will queue for an ATM before reneging is three minutes, whilst people will queue for 59 minutes on average for a Paul Gauguin art exhibit.  Of course, these numbers may be different in different cultures and different times, as expectations and experiences of waiting have changed.

Disneyland and Disney World have been experimenting with queuing and customer satisfaction for decades. They found that, to alter how long a customer is willing to wait, it is most effective to influence the expectations of the customer. Disney resorts will always generously overestimate the waiting times for their attractions, meaning that customers come away grateful for getting through the queue in a much shorter time than they expected.

Consumers have been found to be consistently inaccurate at estimating how long they think they have been waiting. One study found that consumers retroactively estimate that they waited 78 per cent longer than they actually have. However, wait estimations dropped significantly to 22 per cent when consumers could see an electronic clock that gave an estimate for how long their wait would be.

Previous research has demonstrated how mood (e.g., frustration, boredom, anxiety) predicts a greater likelihood of abandoning a queue.  As time had no effect on the mood of high-importance queuers, it demonstrates the significance of goal-importance on reneging from a queue; the more important it is to get to the end of a queue, the less affected you are by queuing and the longer you are willing to wait.

Finally, consumers are also susceptible to the sunk-cost fallacy when waiting in line. As such, the time a consumer has been queuing influences the amount of time they are willing to wait. Consumers will feel that the psychological cost of waiting further in the queue is reasonable given the amount of time that they have already waited, despite having inaccurate perceptions of how long they have waited and how long it might take to reach the end of the queue.

Counterintuitively, there are conditions where time spent queuing can increase customer satisfaction. In cases where customers’ main motivation is quality (not convenience), queues for restaurants act as a proof of quality and increase customer satisfaction and demand. In familiar restaurants, however, there was a negative trend in perceived quality. While insignificant, this suggests that when quality is known, queues may be attributed to poor customer management, rather than good service quality.

Customers create expectations of wait time from the waiting environment, whether that is from crowdedness, visual estimates, or otherwise. As such, giving queuing customers a 25 per cent wait-time buffer may positively affect their experience when the actual wait time is shorter, in addition to protecting against negatively breaking customer expectations by exceeding the predictions.

Number of people in the queue

A key factor in deciding whether to remain or renege from a queue depends upon the number of people who are ahead of us in the queue. Consumers will estimate how long they expect to be waiting by the number of people ahead of them. When this number appears too high, consumers will either renege or refuse to join the queue in the first place; the latter is far harder to measure and could even have caused many researchers to underestimate the negative effect that queuing has on business revenue.

However, the number behind us also influences our likelihood of reneging from the queue. Consumers will make social comparisons with others behind them, deriving some form of comfort from looking behind and realising that they do not have to wait as long as them. When people are feeling anxious and unhappy about their current status, downward comparisons (looking at those behind you) are more likely to occur over upward comparisons (looking at those ahead). As a result, individuals will feel a more positive and less negative affect when there more people behind them in the queue.

The number of people behind has a significant impact on how long it takes before queuers get itchy feet and renege. A longer queue behind us causes two psychological changes in the queuer: firstly, it acts as social validation that the queue is worth waiting for; secondly, it leads the consumer to expect a longer queue if they renege and rejoin at a later point in time.

What is the ideal amount of personal space?

Queues are, by definition, social in nature. Most queues involve the strategic and logical positioning of people who are trying to achieve the same goal in physical proximity to each other. The question is whether the amount of personal space we are given impacts our queuing experience.

There are social norms about the interpersonal distance that should be maintained in social environments. Personal comfort when waiting is also affected by the environmental space provided. As queuers feel more crowded, their discomfort grows. This evidence is further supported by the distinction that people make between preprocess and in-process crowding.

When we are stood closer to others, these evaluations are made more quickly and with greater impact, affecting our chances of leaving the queue.

 What is the ideal queuing environment?

1. Retail distractions: Having distractions like a TV reduces the amount of time that consumers feel they have waited, and make it more palatable. But the nature of a distractor does make a difference.
2. Music: Music influences both the mood of the queuer as well as their perception of time. Fast music is associated with positive emotions (happiness and excitement), whilst slow music is associated with feelings of sadness. Familiar music (e.g., contemporary pop music) has been recommended as the most appropriate for waiting situations, since unfamiliar music has been noted to create the perception that time is slowing down.
3. Scent: Certain scents, even in fairly low concentrations, can affect people’s moods. Concentrations so weak that they are below the threshold of consciousness still can affect people’s moods subconsciously. Some research suggest that scents such as vanilla and lavender seem more effective in reducing wait anxiety than scents of mango, lemon, magnolia, and orange.
4. Colour: Colour researchers generally have categorised colours as being either warm (e.g., red, orange, yellow) or cool (e.g., blue, green). In real-life settings, it has been observed that the passage of time tends to be overestimated in a room painted with warm colours, and underestimated in a cool-coloured room.
5. Lighting: Light level has been found to predict the comfort experienced by individuals, with increased (decreased) comfort in relatively low (high) levels of light. It seems that people overestimated time duration under conditions of higher illumination compared to under lower illumination, and estimated longer time duration under higher-intensity lights compared to under lower-intensity lights.
6. Employee visibility: The patience of queuers has also been known to fluctuate depending on the visibility of employees – in particular, whether the queuers perceive the employees to be working hard to serve all those who are queuing.

Conclusion

Changes in technology, especially the self-service machinery available widely now in supermarkets and travel places (airports, railway stations), mean that people may be even less tolerant of queues. Indeed, the development of biometric markers has made identification of individuals much faster, often significantly reducing waiting time at country borders. Thus, expectations change.

We know that queuing behaviour is a function of many factors: what people are queuing for and their choices available; the length of the queue; the behaviour of people in that queue; and distractions and environmental factors. For both consumers and providers, “time is money” and both want to minimise waiting in queues. Hence, experimentation with new devices and strategies that minimise time spent in queues.

There are, of course, many areas of future research, such as looking at how to get people to evaluate queues differently, trying to understand when customers renege, and the optimal number of paid staff to prevent financial loss resulting from queues being abandoned.

This article relies heavily on an earlier report: Furnham, A., Treglown, L., & Horne, G. (2020).

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is an honorary Professor at Birkbeck Business School in London. He spends his time in queues watching and chatting to his fellow sufferers.

References

• De Vries, J., Roy, D., & De Koster, R. (2018). “Worth the wait? How restaurant waiting time influences customer behaviour and revenue”. Journal of Operations Management, 63, 59.

• Efrat-Treister, D., Cheshin, A., Harari, D., Rafaeli, A., Agasi, S., Moriah, H., Admi, H. (2019). “How psychology might alleviate violence in queues”. PLoS ONE, 14(6), e0218184.

• Furnham, A., Treglown, L., & Horne, G. (2020). “The Psychology of Queuing”. Psychology, 11, 480-98.

• Garaus, M., & Wagner, U. (2019). “Let me entertain you – Increasing overall store satisfaction through digital signage in retail waiting areas”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 331-8.

• Kim, H., Lee, Y. S., & Park, K. S. (2018). “The Psychology of Queuing for Self-service: Reciprocity and Social Pressure”. Administrative Sciences, 8(4), 75.

• Lee, Y. G., Chen, A. N., & Hess, T. (2017). “The online waiting experience: using temporal information and distractors to make online waits feel shorter”. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(3), 1.

• Liang, C.-C. (2019). “Enjoyable queuing and waiting time”. Time and Society, 28(2), 543-66.

The post “Your Call is Important to Us”: The Business Psychology of Queuing appeared first on The European Business Review.

The “season to be jolly” is once more looming, and with it comes the uncomfortable sensation that one really ought to start considering what gifts to buy for one’s nearest and – perhaps – dearest. Fortunately, Adrian Furnham is here to offer us some timely perspective on the subject.

Christmas is a festival of considerable religious and social complexity. It is a time of ambiguity, inconsistency and, some would say, hypocrisy. Christians fill their homes with pagan symbols, and shoppers discuss the real meaning of Christmas. It is a time of excess, stress, and family pressure – and many business opportunities – all around the world.

It is not clear whether murders and suicides are more frequent at Christmas, although it is popularly believed to be the case. Being cooped up with relatives with whom one does not get on and fuelled by booze all day can certainly can lead to murderous thoughts. Similarly, extra financial demands, together with the community and family spirit of Christmas, can alienate and isolate people who have neither.

For some people, the festival is so problematic that they go abroad to try to escape it. However, as many discover, it is difficult to avoid the festival even in avowedly non-Christian countries

The Business of Christmas

It is agreed that we spend a lot more over the Christmas period than in the rest of the year, but there is disagreement on how much we spend and even how long the “Christmas Period” lasts. For example, a 2020 report from the Bank of England noted that, while a typical UK household usually spends ~£2,500 a month in total, spending in December rises by 29 per cent, an additional £740. Normally, UK citizens’ biggest non-food retail expenses are clothing and footwear (10 per cent) and furniture (3.5 per cent), while books, alcohol, music, and electronic devices together make up less than 2 per cent of annual expenses. However, during December, spending on books doubles, music almost doubles (+95 per cent), electronic devices rises by more than half (+63 per cent), but trade and DIY equipment such as paint and hardware reduces by 21 per cent.

Data and research by Aviva of 2,000 consumers in 2023 found that the British spend an extra £1,565 at Christmas. This bill is split across socialising and partying (£355), travelling and holidays (£320), and gifts (£247). About half of people (49 per cent) have accessible money in their current account for the festivities, while 21 per cent of people will be using savings. The remainder will be hoping that their Christmas funds come from loved ones or work.

Aviva surveys also asked people how they felt about Christmas. Of those who were Christmas fans, the most popular parts of Christmas were the food (66 per cent) and spending time with family (65 per cent), with buying presents for others only liked by 49 per cent, and receiving gifts from others rated even lower at 34 per cent. More highly rated were aspects of Christmas culture such as decorating the house 44 per cent, feeling nostalgic 38 per cent, and seeing children excited 35 per cent.

American data are not that different. Based on GoBankingRates and YouGov statistics, US households spent an average of $998 over Christmas in 2021. Similarly, data from the WorldRemit 2022 Cost of Christmas study showed that the Lebanon and Canada pay the most for Christmas. Lebanese households paid the highest compared to the monthly income ($2,058; +688 per cent), while Canada paid the highest total amount ($2,100).

Who spends most on Christmas? Data from Enterprise Today show that, on average, men spend 10 per cent more on holiday purchases than women, which in the US at the time accounted for $94. Data from Enterprise Today also reported that  US millennials plan to spend the most on holiday gifts ($855), edging out Gen X ($832) and baby boomers ($769), and far exceeding Gen-Z spending ($558).

The UK cooks around 10 million turkeys every Christmas, one for about every seven people. Brussels sprouts in the vegetable section see a festive boom, with 25 per cent of the year-wide sales being in the two weeks approaching Christmas.

From the whole meal itself and what gets left uneaten, we end up throwing away 230 million tonnes of waste, including 7.5 million mince pies and 740,000 portions of Christmas pudding. This is the equivalent food weight of 30 blue whales.

Beyond food, Peak AI reports that, on average, people in the UK take their first sip of their festive alcoholic drink at 11:07 on Christmas Day.

Stock markets also tend to do well during Christmas time, although it is debated whether this is truly due to Christmas boosting the economy, or whether more investment decisions are made towards the end of the year.

Christmas is an important time for marketeers. With Christmas being the season of giving, many companies invest in their marketing to attract festive customers. In 2023, UK companies spent a record £9.5 billion on advertising in the Christmas season, an increase of around 5 per cent from the previous year’s £9 billion, partly because half of UK adults (48 per cent) say that Christmas adverts inspire gift ideas. This year, Christmas ad spending is projected to again be a record-breaking £10.5 billion, an approximately 10 per cent increase from last year. Indeed, 59 per cent of UK adults love Christmas ads, and customer approval is at the highest it has ever been.

Festive cheer is good for our charity organisations, too. The season of giving puts people in the mood to give to people they know and people they do not. Work for Good and many others call this the “December Effect”. According to UK fundraising research, more than 7 in 10 people planned to donate to charity causes in 2023, with popular causes being children’s charities (50 per cent), homelessness (43 per cent), and health (30 per cent). Moreover, 42 per cent say they are more likely to give money over the Christmas period than the rest of the year. Sadly, though, it seems that the cost-of-living crisis in the last couple of years has slowed charity spending and donations, even if people are more empathetic with others’ troubles. Yet charity shops have benefited from a change to how people spend their money.

Gift-Giving Psychology 

But what of the mystery of Christmas? There are three big mysteries: first, the Virgin Birth; second, how Father Christmas gets down the (non-existent) chimney; and third, what on earth to buy for your wife?

Gift-giving, in any society, is a way of consolidating important (and not-so-important) relationships. A gift is a symbol of commitment; accepting a gift symbolically indicates a willingness and obligation to continue a relationship with the gift-giver. More significant gifts usually symbolise greater commitment by both giver and receiver.

Yet gift-giving is dictated by a complex set of rules and behaviours: subtle dynamics of reciprocity and obligations, psychological and economic debts, and understanding and obeying rules and conventions. What makes a gift special is the ability of the giver to show that they really know the recipient – the characteristics that make us uniquely valuable.

Gifts show, rather than tell, others what you think about them, so it is important to be sufficiently socially aware to know what to give to whom and when, to have confidence in your taste, and to know that your motives will be interpreted correctly.

Socially, women still take more responsibility for Christmas shopping and gift-wrapping, and give more gifts in their own names, than do men. But men give twice as many substantial gifts and many fewer token gifts than females. Young, unattached men often view giving gifts as “fiscal foreplay”; however, there is a strict sliding scale of the value and size of the gift in relation to the stage of the relationship. Too expensive a gift too early in the relationship can feel like a sexual bribe, while small, cheap, inappropriate gifts well into the relationship can be the sign of an insensitive cheapskate.

The Ideal Gift

A gift is the outward manifestation of understanding. The better that people know each other, in terms of values, personality, humour, and hopes, the more special and subtler they can be in choosing the perfect gift. A perfect gift is the one the recipient really wants, enjoys, and appreciates, and possibly would not buy for themselves. Above all, it shows the depth of understanding which the giver has for them.

Ideal gifts are those which are still treasured after many years. The perfect gift is wanted, needed, deserved, and appreciated. It has to be chosen very thoughtfully and carefully.

Cost vs Value 

There is no relationship, however, between the cost of a gift and the extent to which it is liked or preferred. The best predictor of how much a gift is appreciated is the amount of time and mental and physical effort put into choosing, making, or preparing it.

Christmas presents can be simply categorised by two factors: sentiment and substance. “Sentiment” refers to carefully personally chosen (even handmade) presents, as opposed to mundane, everyday gifts such as appliances or catalogue items. “Substance” refers to how substantial (usually in terms of cost) the gift is.

People cite “high sentiment, low substance” as the ideal gift. An example is the handmade gift of a child. A well-chosen comic gift that reflects a common experience between the giver and recipient may also fall into this category. At the other extreme is the low-sentiment, high-substance gift, where the poor relationship overwhelms the substantial object and sours the gift exchange. Gifts to in-laws often fall into this category, where monetary value and effort are expended to clear the giver’s conscience and save face.

In a continuing romantic relationship, sentiment is high and the expectations are usually that substance should also be significant. Jewels, expensive clothing, or personalised gifts that require time and insight are expected. These gifts serve as beacons to the future of the relationship or touchstones to its past. Both parties expect these gifts to be retained as mementoes and possibly heirlooms.

Finally, there is low sentiment with low substance. Examples are gifts put in the office pool; these are blindly given and blindly received. The lack of personalisation reduces them to generic gifts. They are frequently recycled into other “grab bag” events.

Does the value of a gift reflect the degree of affection? If the giver has little money, the answer is yes. But if the giver is wealthy, it is harder to tell. Some sociologists have talked about commodity noise; if you have the means to buy everything and it is all available to you, a small-gift message may be lost. One solution is to increase the number of signals in the hope that the repetition will ensure that the message is received loud and clear. Giving multiple gifts may thus be a means of ensuring that a message concerning the recipient’s significance to the donor is received and properly understood.

The Rules of Giving

An important rule of giving is reciprocity in approximate worth, exchanging gifts of roughly the same monetary value. Gifts can be an important source of dominance, particularly if one party cannot reciprocate. As the proverb has it: “Small gifts make friends, great ones make enemies.” Occasionally, adults can embarrass each other by the generosity of the present and so (often quite deliberately) incur a debt.

Some families and groups of friends are ingenious about placing a limit on how much is spent on gifts; for example, no gift is to cost more than £50. Another way is to designate certain gifts, such as confectionery or gift tokens, as undesirable. Many organisations that allow a “surprise gift” (“Secret Santa”) ritual put a limit on the cost – say £20.

Acceptance and Rejection 

To accept a gift is (at least in part) to accept the identity it imposes. But gifts fortunately can be rejected, or at least exchanged. Gifts can be rejected because they are perceived as unfriendly acts. Thus, a giver may express contempt by presenting one individual with a gift that is inferior to those openly given to others.

Gifts may have symbolic qualities – a gold watch for “good riddance”, travel luggage encouraging a long journey. Hint-type presents may be rejected – deodorants for those with odour problems, cosmetics for those with bad skin, a watch for the habitually late.

Many “joke” presents are of this kind. Joke gifts may reflect a rather insecure relationship as well as a hint. But gifts may be an expression of guilt about neglect shown over a year or more, or attempt to compensate for some other deficit, such as woeful inattentiveness. Gifts make excellent items to use in the atonement of sins, but they can be easily rejected as not being sufficiently compensatory.

Exchanging presents for a more suitable item is another, more acceptable form of rejection. There are so many people returning presents to the stores after Christmas (and clearly not always because the size is wrong) that you might wonder if anybody received a gift they actually want to keep.

Types of Gifts 

Broadly, gifts fall into five categories:

1. Gifts with a personal history

Gifts that are nostalgic or a memento of a special time, place, or event are very special. They may be an heirloom or have been owned by a famous person, and acquire a sort of sacred status if carefully restored. They can provide a great sense of family continuity which extends beyond death.

2. Gifts that have taken time and effort

Some gifts, such as handmade items, take considerable time and effort to produce. The hand-carved, sewn, embroidered, or painted item may be of limited monetary value, but of enormous personal value to the recipient. It often represents a great investment of time by the giver.

3. Surprise gifts

The unexpected gift is special and valued precisely because it was not anticipated. The surprise might relate to when the gift is given, how it is given, or by whom. It can lead to the recipient really puzzling about the motive of the giver.

4. Exotic gifts

More and more people are buying gifts from abroad. These gifts can make the recipient feel as if they were being thought of in the absence of the giver and are particularly important for families / girlfriends / boyfriends left behind for business trips, as they strengthen ties in separation. These gifts are difficult to get and have a rarity value and foreign cachet at home, which increases the “special” factor of the gift.

5. Monetary gifts

Nearly all money gifts are given by parents or grandparents to children or grandchildren, which appears to be the only acceptable way to give money. In fact, it accounts for 50 per cent of all gifts received from grandparents. Small money gifts used to be given to dustmen, newspaper boys, milkmen, and postmen in appreciation of their services throughout the year.

There are many reasons why people dislike receiving money as a Christmas gift. No thought has been devoted to choosing a present; cash or a cheque places an explicit monetary value on you and your friendship; money can be used up on general expenses rather than something special; it can seem like a comment on your financial situation; it removes the surprise element involved in receiving a gift. Then there is the time and effort needed to bank the cheque or buy your own gift; money does not reflect the personality of the giver or the receiver; and the value of the present is upfront, unlike a physical gift. If fact, money or gift vouchers represent only half a gift – the monetary value without the thought.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is an Honorary Professor at Birkbeck Business School. His idea of a good Christmas is a beach barbecue on an Indian Ocean beach with like-minded old hippies. He does not need socks, pens, or whisky, but is rather partial to expensive soap and Japanese lacquerware.

The post The Psychology of Christmas appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

We might not care to admit it, but most of us have a dark side. Although it’s tempting to view that as an unreservedly bad thing, as Adrian Furnham points out, it could be that our demons are just what make us the ideal candidate for a given job.

Vocational guidance, a bit of a neglected backwater in psychology, has been described as finding the ideal fit between the person (job seeker) and the job (occupation). The idea is to make an assessment of an individual’s abilities, personality, and motivation (values) and, on the basis of that profile, suggest a number of different jobs / occupations that may suit. The desired outcome is about optimal fit.

There are some simple models. So, you may ask people two straightforward questions about the types of jobs they like. Do you like most to work with people (individuals / teams) or things (technology / machines)? Are you most interested in ideas (theories / concepts) or data (numbers / facts / figures)? This creates four simple quadrants: the “things-data” group would be attracted to technical and engineering-type jobs and the “ideas-people” group would be attracted to and successful in artistic endeavours and therapy roles.

There is, however, one dominant theory in the area, developed by John Holland almost 50 years ago. He suggested that individuals’ interest patterns can be best described in terms of their resemblance to six major interest types: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. The realistic type has a preference for technical or outdoor activities and occupations, involving the use of equipment / technology and requiring mostly manual skills. The investigative type is interested in thinking and research activities and enjoys theory-building and abstract problem-solving. The artistic type enjoys creating and developing new things that have beauty and a desirable design. The social type enjoys interacting with people, in jobs involving educating, training, caring, and nursing activities. The enterprising type prefers action and doing, expressed in jobs that involve implementing, organizing, and leading. The conventional type enjoys activities concerned with the correct application of rules and standards; think accountant or quality controller.

Individuals’ interest patterns can be best described in terms of six major interest types: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional.

These six types are best represented in a circular hexagonal structure, also called the RIASEC calculus. Both people and jobs can be described in the same terminology. Moreover, the Euclidian distance between the types is an indication of fit. It’s best to have an “R” person in an “R” job but the worst fit is where they are opposites (A and C, I and E). An individual’s interest pattern is described using a three-letter code reflecting the individual’s primary, secondary, and tertiary interest fields. There are all sorts of measurement issues, but suffice it to say there is good evidence for the theory and a mountain of research behind it. But a major problem for the theory and vocational guidance in general is the rapid changes in the nature of work. For instance, where would all the modern IT jobs appear in the structure? As we have seen, the new world of work has eliminated and created jobs and changed others. AI has accelerated this, presenting unique problems for “job-people fitters”.

Problematic People

What about problematic or “dark-side” people? Are there jobs suited to them? Over the past 20 years, there has been huge interest in the dark side of personality. For many, these are essentially sub-clinical personality disorders. Although both disputed and prone to regular revision, the list below is still used. “DSM” stands for the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which classifies the personality disorders.

Robert Hogan, world expert on personality assessment, has developed his own Hogan Development Survey (HDS), which seeks to assess a person’s dark side. It is important to acknowledge that these dysfunctional dispositions emerge when people encounter stress or stop considering how their actions affect others. Over time, these dispositions may become associated with a person’s reputation and can impede job performance and career success. The HDS is not a medical or clinical assessment instrument but assesses self-defeating expressions of normal personality.

Table 1 describes these, hopefully in non-technical language.

A few important observations. First, we (nearly) all have a dark side; indeed, some people have many. Next, it is a matter of degree. It is not categorical or binary; you are not one thing over another. Third, the dark-side features may not always be a handicap. Indeed there may be jobs where a good pinch of dark-side behaviours and preferences could be beneficial. That is where vocational guidance comes back in. So, what advice to give job hunters with knowledge of their dark profile? I have done some research that explores this question.

Two Studies

A few years ago, I conducted some studies on what can be called “the dark fit”. I was interested in what ordinary people thought were “good / ideal / fitting jobs” for those with specific dark sides. It was quite simple. I gave people “rich descriptions” of an individual based on the psychiatric literature (see table 2). One study used 11, another 10. These are examples of the descriptions. They were all males.

In our studies, our primary question was, “What sort of job do you think he will be particularly good at?” But we also asked, “Do you think he will make a good manager at work?” “Do you think you would like to work for him?” “Do you think he will have a very successful work career?” “In general, how happy do you think he is?” “In general, how successful at his work do you think he is?” “How satisfying do you think his personal relationships are?”

In Study I, we interviewed 230 people with an average age of 35 years. The results of the study are in table 3. The first task was to suggest a job that may suit each individual – one in which he would thrive and be both happy and successful. A “content analysis” then put their ideas / suggestions into similar categories.

We (nearly) all have a dark side; indeed, some people have many.

It was interesting that they thought that narcissists would do well in management, and psychopaths (anti-social) in sales. And there was a tendency for people to believe those with obsessive-compulsive disorder to be suited to accountancy, narcissism and paranoia to general management, histrionic to being an actor, and schizotypal to be an artist. Surprisingly, paranoid and sadistic people were judged to be the best managers, and histrionic, passive aggressive, and schizotypal the worst.

Our participants correctly identify subclinical schizoid people as “cold fish”, unwilling or unable to establish and maintain close relationships. They also correctly identified others with similar problems, particularly the depressive, avoidant, and schizotypal types. One of the more obvious and debilitating characteristics of the clinical schizoid condition is the interpretation and display of emotion.

An expert with a full understanding of the dark-side features would be impressed by what these lay people came up with.

In the second study, respondents were 92 people with an average age of 37. The results are in table 4 and essentially confirm the first study. It was particularly amusing to see that they thought psychopaths (anti-social) would do well in banking and finance, and narcissists as management executives.

The results of the two studies are broadly compatible. And what they show is insightful, frightening, and amusing. What job did they think a psychopath was possibly suited to? Banking, sales, and politics, where perhaps swagger and a light conscience might suit them well. Narcissists were also thought of as suited to management and sales.

There are a number of interesting conclusions:

First, ordinary people are pretty good at vocational guidance. They obviously understand the concept of fit. There are jobs which suit all types, but people pick up some of the distinctive characteristics of the “dark-side” personality. Of course, there are stereotypes involved here and there can be many different “varieties” of every job. Thus, for “management” it depends on the size, purpose, and history of the institution.

Second, there seem to be plenty of (reasonable) job possibilities, even for the “darkest of the dark side” people. The quiet, solitary, low-EQ person quite uninterested in people can thrive in IT jobs, although they may not be ideal managers of others. The self-confidence of narcissists can make them be, or at least appear to be, ideal for lots of executive roles. Histrionics absolutely thrive under the spotlights on stage.

Third, light and dark-side personality tells us about choice and preference and, to some extent, about motivation. But vocational guidance also requires an assessment of ability. Some jobs are simply more glamorous than others; they are higher-profile and better paid. But they require particular skills. Fit in terms of personality alone is not enough.

Caveat

It is very important to point out, however, that psychologists and psychiatrists have mostly dropped the previously held categorical scheme in favour of a dimensional approach to diagnosis. That is, they reject the diagnosis / claim that a person either is or is not a psychopath / narcissist, etc. We are on a dimension (like height) from not at all to very psychopathic. Essentially, the dark side is not binary, as in you are or you are not. There are shades of grey. And, like all dimensions (think height or IQ), the more extreme you are, the more certain particular problems arise.

This means that people with quite a lot of darkness in a certain area can thrive in an environment that requires it. Rejoice that your accountant is a touch diligent, your top designer a tad imaginative, and your favourite actor histrionic. Again, those with a very high (dark) score on any dimension might easily self-destruct. It’s like intelligence; you need to be bright enough to do well, yet extra “fire power” adds little.

Also, many people are co-morbid, meaning that they have more than one dark side at the same time. Indeed, the dark-sides do cluster. The psychiatric manuals place all these dark-side people into three categories: (a) odd and eccentric: paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal; (b) dramatic, emotional, and erratic: antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic; (c) anxious and fearful: avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive. Another schema for doing this is based on the idea of managing interpersonal anxiety: moving away (i.e., detaching and withdrawing from others), moving against (i.e., influencing and charming others), and moving towards (i.e., obeying and getting close to others). Often, it’s the “moving against” cluster that sees the most successful and highest-profile business people having a good fit of “personality”.

Finally, and most crucially, good-fit personality is necessary but not sufficient for success in all jobs. You also need talent. The “wannabe” theatrical borderline or schizotypal person will only succeed in theatre, the arts, and the creative industries if they actually have talent. And for this there is no substitute.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School. His scores on “histrionic” are elevated, but he thinks he is in the right job.

References

• Dotlich, D. & Cairo, P. (2003). Why CEOs Fail. New York: Jossey Bass.

• Furnham, A. (2016). Backstabbers and Bullies: How to Cope with the Dark-Side of people at Work. London: Bloomsbury

• Furnham, A. (2023). “Have you ever met a psychopath? The anatomy of the corporate psychopath”, European Business Review,

• Furnham, A., & Petropoulou, K. (2019). “Mental health literacy, sub-clinical personality disorders and job fit”, Journal of Mental Health, 28, 249-54.

• Furnham, A., Abajian, N., & McClelland, A. (2011). “Psychiatric literacy and personality disorders”, Psychiatric Research, 189, 110-14.

• Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

• Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey Manual. Tulsa: HAS.

• Harrison, S., Grover, S., & Furnham, A. (2018). “The perception of sub-clinical personality disorders by employers, employees and co-workers”, Psychiatry Research, 270, 1082-91.

The post Fitting the (dark-side, problematic) person to the (ideal) job appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

Many believe that the young generation is not interested in working, with some calling them the Lazy Generation. The concept of the Great Resignation seems to corroborate this claim. Is this really true or are young people pickier about the quality of jobs and their prevailing conditions?

This is a relatively new concept. It has also been known as the Big or Quiet Quit or even the Great Reshuffle. It is associated with the idea that over the last five years, large numbers of people in Western countries have resigned from their jobs. It is a unique, sustained, and very worrying mass exodus of, typically, young people from their (mainly full-time) jobs. Some call it a general strike. It is primarily the Millennials and Generation Z who resign.

It has been particularly noticeable over the COVID-19 period and associated with poor national economic performance, with a simultaneous rise in the cost of living, wage stagnation and slow economic growth. The demographers suggest that it is mainly younger and less skilled workers in low-wage sectors such as education, healthcare, retail and service industries that are doing this, partly as a reaction to new working conditions dictated by changes in technology. It is suggested that as many as 2/3 of young people in the workplace were looking for new jobs in the past 5 years.

Many have asserted that workers, particularly young people, are very dissatisfied at work through a combination of factors such as deskilling, poor career advancement, a hostile work environment (bosses, customers and peers), inflexible and often non-remote work requirements and policies, reduced benefits and overall disenchantment. In short, an unexpected and sizeable number of people have resigned from their jobs, though how many, and why remains debatable.

Decent work provides an opportunity for skill use and development, social contact and having a valued social position.

Certainly, the pandemic encouraged many people to re-evaluate their jobs. This was greatly influenced by remote working requirements, which found many debating their work-life balance. Everybody wants more money, flexibility and meaning in their jobs, as well as less stress, but these issues have recently come to a head.

There are, of course, questions of why this has occurred. Was it a short-term blip associated with other political and economic events (e.g. Brexit) or is it a trend? Were people in this period laid off in higher numbers, or was it because they quit their jobs? Has it simply petered out, or is there an underlying trend in areas where automation, AI and robotics deskilled jobs?

Is it primarily due to new technology, new working conditions, an economic downturn, or a major change in the attitudes to work? Has it led organisations to provide better working conditions to attract and keep their employees?

What it has done is highlight two psychological issues: what is a good (decent, fulfilling, stimulating) job? And second, are there important generation differences in attitudes to work?

Decent Work

Decent work has well-known psychological benefits. Decent work provides an opportunity for skill use and development, social contact and having a valued social position. It gives a sense of collective purpose, social status and money (Agency). Psychologists have long documented the psychological benefits of good work. Freud said there were only two basic requirements for happiness: Lieben und Arbeit (Love and Work).

In a review paper, Aitken et al (2023) describe the psychological benefits of work: Time structure (The degree to which individuals perceive their use of time to be structured and purposive); Collective purpose (The degree to which individuals perceive their lives to be purposeful in relation to a greater collective); Social contact (The degree to which individuals are socially engaged beyond their own family); Social status (The degree to which individuals perceive their social identity as higher or lower in relation to their employment status) and Enforced activity (The degree to which individuals are able to sustain regular activity as a function of their employment status).

This is not to deny the importance of a decent, living wage, but we have known for a long time about the psychological factors at work that lead to good jobs. There are clear benefits of all jobs, but better jobs have more of them.

• Work structures time. Work structures the day, the week and even longer periods. A predictable pattern of work, with well-planned “rhythms”, is what most people seek. If you are a morning person and choose to work in the morning, all the better. Even on holiday, people can discover the benefits of the regularity of activities that work brings. Shift work is often very problematic.
• Work provides regularly shared experiences. Regular contact with co-workers provides an important source of social interaction. Often, it is a primary source of friends of all types. Working with people of your own age and stage, values and passions is enormously satisfying. Likewise, being deprived of these social opportunities is significant.
• Work provides the experience of creativity, mastery, and a sense of purpose. Work, even not particularly satisfying work, gives some sense of mastery or achievement. Creative activities stimulate people and provide a sense of satisfaction. Some jobs offer this more than others. The more you can learn, show your skills and make a contribution, the better.
• Work is a source of personal status and identity. A person’s job is an important indicator of personal status in society. Particularly for men, who you are is what you do. Some jobs are clearly valued more than others in society. Decent work is better respected. Hence all the interest in job titles.

Non-work or bad work provides none of these benefits and indeed can be an additional source of stress. In short, people resign from bad jobs, not good ones.

Intrinsic Motivation

Psychologists have long distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The former is about pay and conditions, and the results are pretty clear. Pay people fairly, according to factors such as their skills, input, loyalty, and – if possible – above market rates. There are many sorts of constraints on people with respect to this: how much you can pay: what hours need to be worked.

But perhaps more importantly, there is intrinsic motivation. The work of psychologists was highlighted by Daniel Pink in his book Drive. The message is clear: carrot-and-stick motivation does not work anymore. Everyone has an innate drive to be autonomous, self-determined and yet connected to each other. Thus, organisations should concentrate on these drives when managing their staff by creating settings that focus on our innate need to direct our own lives (autonomy), to learn and create new things (mastery), and to do better by ourselves and our world (purpose). People seek out and do not quit from intrinsically motivating jobs.

So, for decent fulfilling jobs, concentrate on three things:

1. Autonomy and Empowerment by providing employees with as much autonomy over some (or all) their work: In particular: when they do it (time of day/week); how they do it (techniques used) whom they do it with (team); what they do (task). One could add to this Where they do it: (home/workplace). Of course, many of these are not in the gift of the employer. The nature of the work often constrains this. Indeed, if the majority of great resignation jobs are considered, it is apparent that they do not afford much opportunity for autonomy.
2. Mastery and Competence which allow employees to become better at something that matters to them. This is about giving people tasks where they can increase their skills and competencies. It is always motivating to have particularly interesting challenges that lead to increased expertise. To do what you like and what you are good at is fundamentally motivating. Next, foster an environment of learning and development, where employees have clear stretch goals, with immediate feedback.
3. Purpose and Mission which is about “believing in the cause”: the idea that people want to believe they are working for a greater good. It means taking steps to fulfil employees’ natural desire to contribute to a cause greater and more enduring than themselves. People who understand the purpose and vision of their organisation and how their individual roles contribute to this purpose are more likely to be satisfied in their work. It means placing equal emphasis on purpose maximisation as opposed to profit maximisation. So, the advice is to use purpose-oriented words – talk about the organisation as a united team by using words such as “us” and “we”, this will inspire employees to talk about the organisation in the same way and feel a part of the greater cause.

The moral of the story is people might be drawn to the publicized (or believed) extrinsic job benefits but it does not ensure they stay; employers often have as much control over intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic factors. Interestingly there is some evidence that young people are more sensitive to intrinsic factors compared to older people, which in part explains the Great Resignation.

Generational Differences

Another issue relevant to the Great Resignation and still much discussed is the issue of generational difference. Some have implied that, quite simply, many young people have lost their work ethic. It has been asserted that “the modern generation” are not interested in traditional jobs and working their way up, as their parents might have done.

Some have asked what attracts young people to jobs:  “sexy brands”, autonomy more than money, playing to their particular skills and values, flat, rather than tall organisations. More importantly, the stated values and mission of the organisation.

Some have implied that, quite simply, many young people have lost their work ethic. It has been asserted that “the modern generation” are not interested in traditional jobs and working their way up, as their parents might have done.

Talk about generations is everywhere and particularly so in organisational science and practice. Recognizing and exploring the ubiquity of generations is important. It is very difficult to do research to answer this question as one needs comparable data which is very difficult to acquire. However, comprehensive studies have been done and they come essentially to the same conclusion that there is no truth in the assertion that “the modern generation” has lost the work ethic.

In an impressive analysis ten years ago, Costanza et al. (2012) showed that any changes in work-related attitudes were not the result of generation differences. They concluded that “The pattern of results indicates that the relationships between generational membership and work-related outcomes are moderate to small, essentially zero in many cases” and that “…differences that appear to exist are likely attributable to factors other than generational membership.”

Most interestingly, they argued that the commonly advanced generational explanation of work attitudes neglects two alternative explanations, both of which explain work motivation better than cohort membership and thus alleged generations. The Life Course Hypothesis suggests work first becomes more important to individuals (until approximately age 40) and then less so, irrespective of birth cohort or period. Middle-aged people are less interested in work, which gives rise to the erroneous view “that later-born generations are work-averse as a generation when in reality, younger individuals have never assigned as much importance to work as those who are middle-aged, which is an age effect.”

The Historical Hypothesis is that the historical period during which a measurement takes place explains work motivation irrespective of an individual’s age and birth cohort. People become work averse over time, which is a period effect related to the passing of historical time, not a cohort effect. “However, because later-born cohorts have been asked later in historical time, the mistaken impression arises that later-born cohorts are work averse as a generation when in reality everyone who is asked later in historical time is less inclined to consider work important.”

Another excellent study explored and “bust” ten common myths about the science and practice of generations and generational differences. Zabel et al. (2017) debunked 10 myths.

Myth #4

Generations are easy to study. They note that the conceptualization of generations as the intersection of age and period makes them impossible to study. There exists no research design that can disentangle age, period, and cohort effects. Artificially grouping ages into “generations” does nothing to solve the confounding of age, period, and cohort effects.

Myth #8

Generations explain the changing nature of work (and society). Generations give a convenient “wrapper” to the complexities of age and aging in dynamic environments. It is more rational and defensible to suggest that individuals’ age, life stage, social context, and historical period intersect across the lifespan.

Myth #10

Talking about generations is far from benign as it promotes the spread of generationalism, which can be considered “modern ageism.” They argue that generationalism is defined by sanctioned ambivalence and socially acceptable prejudice toward people of particular ages. The use of generations to inform differential practices and policies in organisations poses a great risk to age inclusivity, and the legal standing, of workplaces.

The research, as always, highlights that things are more complicated than most people think. Trying to explain the Great Resignation by the Generation Difference hypothesis is essentially simplistic and misleading.

Debunking the Gen-Myth

The Great Resignation has stimulated, as expected, a lot of recent research on worker preferences. The question is simple: are there consistent and important temporal differences in the factors that influence job choice, motivation and retention? In an important research paper by McKinsey consultants, De Smet at al. (2023) reported on two large surveys, one of 13,386 and one of 16,246 international workers. Their top-line conclusion was:

“Among those who plan to leave their jobs, the main reasons are the same across age groups: inadequate compensation, lack of career development and advancement, and uncaring leadership. What’s more, the top reasons for leaving their previous jobs are the same for both younger and older workers, and are the same reasons different age groups gave for why they might leave their current jobs. These results suggest that many organizations still struggle to address the same issues that their employees care most about: fair and adequate compensation, career development, and caring leaders.

They did find some nuanced findings: The Gen Zers, compared to older employers, placed more emphasis on career development and advancement potential, and less on compensation. Both groups placed importance on work flexibility, but for different reasons (the young for social reasons, the older for family reasons).

The Gen Zers, compared to older employers, placed more emphasis on career development and advancement potential, and less on compensation.

What their report does is address management issues today, and how generation-based research suggests how organisations can do better through staff recruitment, management and hence retention. The focus on better management will prevent demotivation leading to the Great Resignation.

Conclusion

Talk about and interest in the Great Resignation has led to a renewed focus on what is good (decent, motivating) work, as well as age and generational differences in work preferences. There is little new in our understanding of the features of a good job for all people. We know how to describe and therefore design good jobs although we accept there are many constraints on employers always to provide them. People will always choose decent work and try to avoid dead-end, badly paid, menial jobs.

There is however some evidence of, albeit small, differences, in particular job features which are explicable in terms of different factors like age and life stage.

What the debate has done most beneficially is to focus on how to manage people of all ages. It has shown changes in the workplace as a function mainly of the Covid crisis and technology have highlighted the factors that are associated with good management. Rather than scapegoat any group, we need to refocus on how to manage all people in a rapidly changing work environment.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School.

References

• Aitken, J.A., Cannon, J.A., Kaplan, S.A., and Kim, H. (2023). The Benefits of Work: A Meta-Analysis of the Latent Deprivation and Agency Restriction Models. Journal of Business and Psychology.

• Costanza, D.P., Badger, J.M., Fraser, R.L. et al. (2012). Generational Differences in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology. 27, 375–394.

• De Smets, A. et al. (2023). Gen What? Debunking Age-Based Myths about Worker Performance. Philadelphia

• Marks, A. (2023). The Great Resignation in the UK – Reality, Fake News or Something in Between? Personnel Review, 52(2) 408-414

• Nourafkan, N.J., and Tanova, C. (2023). Employee Perceptions of Decent Work: A Systematic Literature Review of Quantitative Studies. Current Psychology, 42, 29772 – 29800.

• Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us. (New York: Riverhead Books).

• Rudolph, C.W., Rauvola, R.S., Costanza, D.P. et al. (2021). Generations and Generational Differences: Debunking Myths in Organizational Science and Practice and Paving New Paths Forward. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36, 945–967.

• Serenko, A. (2022). The Great Resignation: The Great Knowledge Exodus or the Onset of the Great Knowledge Revolution? Journal of Knowledge Management, V

• Zabel, K.L., Biermeier-Hanson, B.B.J., Baltes, B.B. et al. (2017). Generational Differences in Work Ethic: Fact or Fiction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 301–315.

The post The Great Resignation appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Adrian Furnham

There is Freudian psychological and psychiatric business literature on narcissism. We are now used to discussing our politicians as well as business leaders, movie stars, and models in these terms. PR-hungry narcissistic CEOs and politicians are clearly driven to gain power, glory, and the admiration of others. They can be visionaries and risk takers, seeing the big picture whilst downplaying the rules, laws, and conventions that handicap them. They can also be amazingly self-absorbed, deluded, and destructive.

Narcissists can be energetic, charismatic, leader-like, and willing to take the initiative to get projects moving. They can be relatively successful in management, sales, and entrepreneurship, but usually only for short periods. Although they are arrogant, vain, overbearing, demanding, self-deceived, and pompous, they can be so colourful and engaging that they often attract followers. Their self-confidence is attractive. Naively, people believe that they have to have something to be so confident about.

Narcissism, like all the personality disorders, must be understood as a spectrum, not a type. It is a matter of degree: confident, very confident, overconfident, sub-clinically narcissist, pathological narcissist. Confident – good (if an accurate assessment of talents); narcissism – bad. When they have some insight and self-awareness of their preferences and abilities and which organisational forces are in place to restrain them, they can act as great drivers for positive change and advancement. If articulate and educated as well as physically attractive, they can become great leaders. But many are insufferably egotistical, self-absorbed, and deluded.

Narcissists overall are boastful, pretentious, and self-aggrandising. They overestimate their own abilities and accomplishments while simultaneously deflating others.

Several versions of the myth of Narcissus survive. They are warnings about hubris and pride. At the heart of the myth is the caution of misperception and self-love, the idea that inaccurate self-perceptions can lead to tragic and self-defeating consequences. There appears to be a moral, social, and clinical debate about narcissism. The moral issues concern the evils of hubris, the social issue the benefits or otherwise of modesty, while the clinical debate is about the consequences of misperceptions.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Many researchers list narcissism-arrogance as the first (probably major) cause of why CEOs fail. It is a case of “I’m right and everybody else is wrong”, a blinding belief in your own opinions. Thus, many have a diminished capacity to learn from others or previous experience.

They show an outright refusal (ever) to be accountable and, hence, responsible. They are resistant to change because they know that “my way” is best and always show an inability to recognise their (manifold) limitations.

Narcissists seem never to be defensive or embarrassed about their ambition and supremely confident in their ambitions. However, because they are so aware of, comfortable with, and grateful for, their strengths, they are easily and profoundly wounded by any suggestion that they might  have serious weaknesses or shortcomings.

At work, they tend to be high-energy, outgoing, and competitive. They seem instinctively drawn to office politics and how to find and use power. They will charm those in authority or those from whom they believe they have something to gain.

The psychiatric manuals list the manifestations of this disorder: 

1. Reacts to criticism with feelings of rage, shame, or humiliation (even if not expressed)
2. Interpersonally exploitative; takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends
3. Grandiose sense of self-importance, e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, and expects to be noticed as “special” without appropriate achievement
4. Believes that their problems are unique and can be understood only by other special people
5. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
6. Sense of entitlement; unreasonable expectation of especially favourable treatment, e.g., assumes that he or she does not have to queue
7. Requires constant attention and admiration, e.g., keeps fishing for compliments
8. Lack of empathy; inability to recognise and experience how others feel
9. Preoccupied with feelings of envy

It is important to differentiate between two rather different types of narcissists: grandiose (e.g., manipulative, egotistical, exhibitionist, psychopathic) and vulnerable (e.g., craving, thin-skinned, hyper-vigilant). Grandiose narcissism is associated with immodesty, interpersonal dominance, self-absorption, callousness, and manipulativeness; they are confident and suffer little stress. Vulnerable narcissists are often distressed, with low self-esteem and feelings of inferiority, yet also egocentric and hostile.

Narcissists overall are boastful, pretentious, and self-aggrandising. They overestimate their own abilities and accomplishments while simultaneously deflating others. They compare themselves favourably to famous, privileged people, believing that their own discovery as one of them is long overdue. They are surprisingly secure in their beliefs that they are gifted and unique and have special needs beyond the comprehension of ordinary people.

Paradoxically for some (the vulnerable, as opposed to the grandiose narcissist), their self-esteem is fragile, needing to be bolstered up by constant attention and admiration from others. They expect their demands to be met by special favourable treatment. In turn, they often exploit others, because they form relationships specifically designed to enhance their self-esteem. They need worshippers and acolytes.

They are also paradoxically envious of others and begrudge them their success. They are well known for their arrogance and their disdainful, patronising attitude. As managers, their difficult-to-fulfil needs can lead them to have problematic social relationships and make poor decisions.

Many are exceptionally sensitive to setbacks, feeling both degraded and humiliated. They mask this with defiant counterattacks and rage. They may withdraw from situations that led to failure or try to mask their grandiosity with an appearance of humility.

At work, narcissistic individuals have a grandiose sense of self-importance (for example, they exaggerate their achievements and talents, and expect to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements). Inevitably they believe that they rightly deserve all sorts of markers of their specialness: bigger offices and salary, inflated job titles, a bigger budget dedicated to their needs, more support staff, and greater liberty to do as they wish.

Most individuals with NPD are preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, and money. They believe that they are “special” and unique and can therefore only be properly understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

They may try to “buy” themselves into exclusive circles. They often require excessive admiration and respect from people at work for everything they do. This is their most abiding characteristic. They usually have a sense of entitlement, that is, unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with their manifest needs. They are unsupportive but demand support for themselves. All are unwilling to recognise or identify with the feelings and needs of others in and out of work. They have desperately low emotional intelligence.

Essentially, narcissism is a disorder of self-esteem; it is essentially a cover-up. People with NPD self-destruct because their self-aggrandisement blinds their personal and business judgement and managerial behaviour. At work, they exploit others to get ahead, yet they demand special treatment. Worse, their reaction to any sort of criticism is extreme, including shame, rage, and tantrums. They aim to destroy that criticism, however well-intentioned and useful. They can be consumed with envy of, and disdain for, others, and are prone to depression as well as manipulative, demanding, and self-centred behaviours. Even therapists don’t like them.

Many researchers have tried to “unpick” the essence of the paradoxical, fragile self-esteem of the narcissist. The narcissist’s self-esteem is at once unstable and defensive. It seems that their self-esteem is utterly contingent on others’ feedback. Further, it is dissociated between explicit (overt) and implicit (covert) views.

What is most distinctive about narcissists is their self-assurance, which often gives them charisma. They are the first to speak in a group and they hold forth with great confidence, even when they are wrong. They so completely expect to succeed, and take more credit for success than is warranted or fair, that they refuse to acknowledge failure, errors, or mistakes. When things go right, it is because of their efforts; when things go wrong, it is someone else’s fault. This is a classic attribution error and leads to problems with truth-telling, because they always rationalise and reinterpret their failures and mistakes, usually by blaming them on others.

Narcissists handle stress and heavy workloads badly, but seemingly with ease; they are also quite persistent under pressure and they refuse to acknowledge failure. They are unable to learn from experience as a result of their inability to acknowledge failure or even mistakes and the way they resist coaching and ignore negative feedback.

Oldham and Morris note four tips for working with narcissists:

1. Be absolutely loyal. Don’t criticise or compete with them. Don’t expect to share the limelight or to take credit. Be content to aspire to the number-two position.
2. Don’t expect your self-confident boss to provide direction. Likely, he or she will expect you to know what to do, so be sure you are clear about the objectives before you undertake any tasks. Don’t hesitate to ask.
3. You may be an important member of the boss’s team, but don’t expect your self-confident boss to be attentive to you as an individual. Don’t take it personally.
4. Self-confident bosses expect your interest in them, however. They are susceptible to flattery, so if you’re working on a raise or a promotion or are trying to sell your point of view, a bit of buttering-up may smooth the way.

This is advice for those working with narcissists. It clearly takes an optimistic perspective, never considering that a narcissistic boss could be both abusive and deeply incompetent.

There are many markers of narcissism. Here is a checklist for someone you might suspect of NPD:

1. REACTIVE ANGER: Concerning anger and rage in response to perceived slights, criticism, failure, or rebuke.
2. SHAME: Concerning shame or humiliation in response to perceived slights, criticism, failure, or rebuke.
3. INDIFFERENCE: In response to perceived slights, criticism, failure,
   or rebuke.
4. NEED FOR ADMIRATION: Involving a sense of inner weakness, uncertainty, and insecurity with respect to a desired or perceived greatness.
5. EXHIBITIONISM: A seeking of constant admiration, showing off when in the presence of others, and attention-seeking, without reference to feelings of insecurity.
6. THRILL-SEEKING: Expressing a tendency to engage in high-risk behaviour for the sake of thrills and excitement.
7. AUTHORITATIVENESS: Expressing a tendency to take charge of situations, to authoritatively take responsibility for making decisions, and to perceive oneself as a leader.
8. GRANDIOSE FANTASIES: Expressing fantasies of grandeur and success, preoccupation with fantasies of future glory, and a tendency to distort reality to achieve an overly positive view of past, current, or future accomplishments.
9. CYNICISM / MISTRUST: Expressing a sense of cynicism and mistrust concerning the motives, intentions, and reliability of others.
10.  MANIPULATIVENESS: Expressing a tendency to skilfully and characteristically manipulate, ply, shape, beguile, machinate, or manoeuvre the feelings or opinions of others.
11. EXPLOITATIVENESS: Expressing a tendency to exploit, take advantage of, and use others for their own gain.
12. ENTITLEMENT: Involving feelings and actions of entitlement, presumptuousness, not being satisfied until they get what is perceived to be deserved, or expectation of favourable treatment.
13. ARROGANCE: Assessing haughty, snobbish, imperious, pretentious, conceited, pompous, and disdainful beliefs and behaviours.
14. LACK OF EMPATHY: Assessing the extent to which the person fails to be aware of, appreciate, or acknowledge the feelings of others, displaying attitudes that are generally uncaring and unsympathetic.
15. ACCLAIM-SEEKING: Assessing narcissistic aspirations, working toward acclaim, and an excessive driving ambition to achieve.

The Narcissistic Leader

It should not be assumed that narcissism is necessarily a handicap in business. Indeed, the opposite maybe true. If a manager is articulate, educated, and intelligent, as well as good-looking, their (moderate) narcissism may be seen to be acceptable.

Bright-side narcissists can be good delegators, good team builders, and good deliverers. They can be good mentors and genuinely help others. However, subordinates soon learn that things go wrong if they do not follow certain rules.

• Everyone must acknowledge who is boss and accept rank and hierarchical structure.
• They must be absolutely loyal and never complain, criticise, or compete. They should never take credit for something but acknowledge that success is primarily due to the narcissist’s talent, direction, or insights.
• They should not expect the narcissist to be interested in their personality, issues, or ambitions but they must be very interested in the narcissist’s issues.
• They have to be attentive, giving, and always flattering. They need to be sensitive to the whims, needs, and desires of the narcissistic manager, without expecting reciprocity.
• Narcissistic managers can be mean, angry, or petulant when crossed or slighted, and quickly express anger, so subordinates have to be careful when working with them.
• They must ask for help, directions, and clarity about objectives when they need it.
• They need to watch out that a narcissistic manager’s self-preoccupation, need for approbation, and grandiosity do not impede their business judgement and decision-making.
• They need to find ways of giving critical feedback in such a way that the manager both understands it and does not get offended.

The dark-side narcissistic manager tends to have shallow, functional, uncommitted relationships. Because they are both needy and egocentric, they tend not to make close supportive friendship networks in the workplace. They can often feel empty and neglected as a result.

Narcissistic leaders may have short-term advantages but long-term disadvantages, because the narcissist’s consistent and persistent efforts are aimed at enhancing their self-image, which leads to group clashes.

Freudian Contributions

Whilst a “touch” of narcissism can be good for leaders, it can be problematic in the long run, particularly if the problem is severe.

The business psychoanalyst Manfred Kets de Vries believes that a certain degree of narcissism is essential, a prerequisite for leadership. Narcissism is traced to childhood. It is seen as a problem associated with two related issues – how they perceive themselves, as well as salient others, and, more specifically, how they come to cope with the reality that one is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and nor are parents all-powerful and perfect. The child’s life-long quest for admiration and approbation is often a mask for self-doubt or self-hatred, or feeling that one is never properly loved for one’s own sake alone.

Whilst a “touch” of narcissism can be good for leaders, it can be problematic in the long run, particularly if the problem is severe. Because of their selfishness and egocentricity, narcissistic managers are more committed to their own welfare than that of their team or, indeed, the whole organisation.

Followers of narcissistic leaders encourage two types of behaviour in their leaders that are very bad for both leader and follower. First, there is the process of mirroring, where followers use leaders to reflect what they want to see. Narcissists get the admiration they crave and there occurs mutual admiration. Second, there is idealisation, in which followers project all their hopes and fantasies onto the leader. Thus, leaders find themselves in a classic hall of mirrors, which further reduces their grip on reality.

Where narcissistic leaders become aggressive and vindictive, Kets de Vries claims that some followers, in order to stave off their anxiety, do identify with the aggressor. Followers impersonate the aggressor, becoming the tough henchman of the narcissistic manager. Inevitably, this only exacerbates the problem and begins to explain the vicious cycle of narcissistic management failure.

The central question is how organisations can set up processes, apart from careful selection, that help prevent narcissistic-induced management failure occurrences.

Can the possibility of appointing, promoting, or encouraging narcissistic managers be reduced? Clearly, this has a great deal to do with selection policies. However, Kets de Vries offers three other strategies that may help to “downsize” the narcissist.

• Ensure distributive decision-making to ensure checks and balances. Do not combine roles like CEO and chairman.
• Educate the CEO and board to look out for signs of narcissism and to have strategies to put in place when they do spot the signs. This involves clear systems of accountability and involving stakeholders in crucial decisions.
• Offer coaching and counselling to those clearly identified as reactive narcissists, although few seem willing to accept help, because, by definition, they rarely take personal responsibility for their failure.

Perhaps certain organisations attract narcissists more than others. It is therefore highly recommended that these organisations become aware of the psychological processes associated with narcissism and be willing and able to do something about them.

Hubris And Nemesis In Politicians

A British politician (once Foreign Secretary) and a trained doctor, Lord David Owen has paid particular interest to narcissism in politicians. Rather than use the term “narcissism” or “megalomania”, he used the word “hubris” (overconfidence and exaggerated pride, and a contempt for others).

He noted that the unique features of the hubris idea are fourfold. First, a very strong identification with a group (“my people”), be they an institution, nation, or organisation. Second, a related conspicuous tendency to speak in the (royal) third person. Third, an unrealistic, yet unshakeable, belief that any (dodgy) action will be vindicated in any court. Fourth, a strong assertion that their moral rectitude should and does override mundane, trivial, and often legal considerations.

In his writings, he has provided a long list of behaviours considered typical of the hubris syndrome. Think of some high-profile politicians at the moment. The behaviour is seen in a person who:

1. Sees the world as a place for self-glorification through the use of power
2. Has a tendency to take action primarily to enhance personal image
3. Shows disproportionate concern for image and presentation
4. Exhibits messianic zeal and exaltation in speech
5. Conflates self with nation or organisation
6. Uses the royal “we” in conversations
7. Shows excessive self-confidence
8. Manifestly has contempt for others
9. Shows accountability only to a higher court (history or God)
10. Displays the unshakeable belief that he or she will be vindicated in that court
11. Loses contact with reality
12. Resorts to restlessness and impulsive actions
13. Allows moral rectitude to obviate consideration of practicality, cost, or outcome
14. Displays incompetence, with disregard for the nuts and bolts of policy-making.

Conclusion

Many researchers have pointed out that the paradox of narcissism at work is that many traits and processes associated with narcissism can seem positive and beneficial, while others are the precise opposite. This paradox has been “solved” by trying to distinguish between the adaptive and maladaptive narcissist, though it is not clear whether this is merely a linguistic tautology. Can a constructive narcissist really be called a “narcissist”? In this sense, it is also an oxymoron.

Conceiving narcissism as a self-esteem trait disorder does imply, as many personality psychologists have argued, that there is a clear continuum between healthy and unhealthy. However, the issue remains where to draw the line.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School.

References

• Dotlich, D & Cairo, P. (2003). Why CEOs Fail. New York: Jossey Bass.

• Furnham, A. (2016). Backstabbers and Bullies: How to Cope with the Dark-Side of people at Work. London: Bloomsbury

• Hogan, R., Hogan &, J. & Kaiser, R. (2009). “Management derailment”. In S. Zedeck (ed.), American Psychological Association Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: APA.

• Kets de Vries (2012). “Star Performers: Paradoxes wrapped up in Enigmas”. Organisational Dynamics, 41, 143-82.

• Miller, J.D., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., & Campbell, W.K. (2012). “Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality trait model”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(3), 284-90

• Oldham, J. M., & Morris, L. B. (2000). New Personality Self Portrait. New York: Bantam Book.

• Owen, D. (2009). In Sickness and in Power. London: Methuen

• Wright, K., & Furnham, A. (2014). “What is Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Lay theories of narcissism”. Psychology, 5(9), 1120-30

The post Arrogance, Hubris, and Narcissism: The Overconfident Leader appeared first on The European Business Review.

You must have met a few or maybe you are working with one right now. Who are passive-aggressive individuals and what makes them tick? Adrian Furnham explores the disorder in this article. 

How to cure a major (mental) illness? The cure does not involve years of painful soul searching, psychotherapy, or complex cognitive behaviour therapy. The cure is cheap, effective and instant. Now that should get the attention of the NHS executives as well as the medical profession! The secret? Abolish the illness category. This is what has happened to the diagnosis of being Passive-Aggressive. 

Psychiatric diagnosis has always been difficult and unreliable. It was said years ago that the best way to cure schizophrenia in America was to bring “patients” to England, where they might be considered only “eccentric” or “somewhat quirky”. Schizophrenia is, or was, diagnosed less frequently here than in the USA. 

Christopher Hitchens pointed out that the Catholic Church has abolished the concept of “limbo”, the place certain souls will dwell until Judgement Day. At the stroke of a pen, possibly accompanied by the plainchant and the whiff of incense, a mythical theological location disappears. That is what has happened to Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. 

The background 

Psychiatrists have manuals that describe in detail, the behaviours associated with a range of psychiatric disorders. This is true of what are called Personality Disorders. And, every so often, the manual is updated. From 1952 to 1987, there was a Personality Disorder called Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder (PAPD). 

The history of the PAPD suggests the concept originated in the American military soon after the Second World War to describe difficult, childlike soldiers who were in effect, social dissidents.  

The disorder originally described typical behaviours like shirking duty by wilful incompetence. These ideas were then applied by psychiatrists to those in civilian life.  

In the original conception, seventy years ago, three related types were identified:  

• Passive-dependent individuals, who were described as clingy, helpless and constantly indecisive;  
• Passive–aggressive individuals, who were inefficient, pouty, stubborn, prone to procrastination and very obstructive; 
• Aggressive individuals, who were destructive, irritable and resentful.  

Sixteen years later the latter two types were merged into PAPD. It was suggested that people with PAPD snipe rather than confront, and mask their opposition to, and rebellion against, authority. They shirk responsibility and sabotage others. The list of symptoms grew as the manuals were updated to include behaviours such as apparent forgetfulness, dawdling and intentional inefficiency. 

PAPD was described as a pervasive pattern of passive resistance to demands for adequate social and occupational performance, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least five of the following: 

1. procrastinates, i.e., puts off things that need to be done so that deadlines are not met 
2. becomes sulky, irritable, or argumentative when asked to do something he or she does not want to do 
3. seems to work deliberately slowly or to do a bad job on tasks that he or she does not want to do 
4. protests, without justification, that others make unreasonable demands on him or her  
5. avoids obligations by claiming to have “forgotten” 
6. believes that he or she is doing a much better job than others think he or she is doing 
7. resents useful suggestions from others concerning how he or she could be more productive 
8. obstructs the efforts of others by failing to do his or her share of the work 
9. unreasonably criticises or scorns people in positions of authority 

The Freudians thought passive-aggressive behaviour is an immature defence mechanism due to its negativistic and covert nature thereby contributing to the suppression of emotional conflicts and impaired problem-solving capabilities. 

However, by the late 1980s, PAPD was dropped because it was thought of not as a syndrome or disorder, but as a specific behavioural response to particular (work) situations. That is, it was situation-specific, not a trait, a response pattern possibly with its origins in childhood socialisation. People were taught it, and reinforced by these behaviours which were “normal” and “adaptive” in certain contexts. 

Later the syndrome was renamed Negativistic, but was appendicised rather than put in the main text. Many of the behavioural descriptions remained the same, such as resistance to routine tasks, consistent complaints about being misunderstood, sullen argumentativeness, scorning of all those in authority, envy and resentment of the relatively fortunate, and perpetual and exaggerated complaints of personal misfortune. 

Describing the problem 

This personality type is very concerned about “doing their own thing”. They demand the “right to be me”. They demand a right to do their thing in their way and no one has the right to deprive them of it. They believe at work, and in private relationships, nobody has the right to “own them”.  They like the companionship of others but need strong defences against being ill-used. They are particularly sensitive to fairness, equity, and equality: pretty hot topics these days. 

They also do not find the workplace of great importance. They can be good managers and workers. But they do not work overtime, take work home or worry much about it. They certainly will not do any more than their contract specifies. They do not work to please their boss or feel better about themselves. They are often heard saying “It’s not my job” and they tend to be suspicious of all workplace authority. If their boss asks them to work harder, faster, or more accurately, they feel unfairly treated, even abused. They are super-sensitive to their rights, fairness, and exploitation avoidance. They also seem leisurely; they believe success is not everything. They tend not to be above middle-management levels because they are not ambitious enough. For them, the game is not worth the candle.   

Passive-aggressive types are not usually stressed. They sulk, procrastinate, and forget when asked to do things they think are not reasonable. They are called Passive-Aggressive because they are rarely openly defiant, yet they are often angry. They snipe rather than confront. And they are often quietly and surreptitiously furious. They can be needy yet resentful about those moods.  They are in essence oppositional: not assertive. They often have downward job mobility, precisely because of their beliefs and behaviours. 

They are often late for meetings: they procrastinate; they work at around 80% of their capacity; and they are very stubborn and hard to coach. They will rarely directly confront others. Their prickly sensitivity, subtle un-cooperativeness, resistance, and deep self-absorption make them both unpredictable and unrewarding to deal with. As a result, they have trouble building and maintaining a business team. 

Passive-aggressives handle stress and heavy workloads by slowing down, simply ignoring requests for greater output, and finding ways to get out of work. Because they seem overtly cooperative and agreeable, it can take a long time to realise how unproductive and refractory they can be. They are self-centred, they focus on their own agendas, and they deeply believe in their own superior natural talent and their right to leisure. They believe they have nothing to prove to themselves, are quite indifferent to feedback from others, and therefore become so annoyed and resentful when criticised or asked for extra effort. 

Colleagues need to be aware that Passive-Aggressive types are not nearly as cooperative as they seem, and that they are only pretending to agree with you about work and performance issues.  Also, they should get them to commit to performance goals in public, in front of witnesses, so that a community of people can hold them accountable. Social pressure won’t change their views of the world, but it will serve to make their performance deficits less easily deniable. 

Miller (2008), a clinical psychologist, named the passive-aggressive leader a Spoiler. He argued that they feel disadvantaged, vulnerable, and as if life has been rigged against them so they carefully and surreptitiously attack others. In essence, they carefully mask their opposition to, and rebellion against, authority. Thus, they shirk responsibilities, while demanding others do so too. He notes that their ‘‘martyred mewling’’ is mixed with great skill at deflecting blame. They easily destroy team morale and generate a lot of animosity among co-workers. They are also, he concluded, masters of procrastination.  

Hogan and Hogan (2001), leading business psychologists, call these people Leisurely. They argued that these types ‘‘March to the sound of their own drum’’; they are confident about their skills and abilities; cynical about the talents and intentions of others (especially superiors), and insist on working at their own pace. They tend to get angry and slow down even more when asked to speed up. They tend to feel mistreated, unappreciated and put upon, and when they sense that they have been cheated they retaliate, but always under conditions of high deniability.  

Oldham and Morris (2000) in their book describing all the Personality Disorders claim the following five traits and behaviours are clues to the presence of what they too call the Leisurely Style. A person who reveals a strong Leisurely tendency will, they suggested, demonstrate more of these behaviours more intensely than someone with less of this style in his or her personality profile. They noted various characteristics:  

• First, Leisurely men and women believe in their right to enjoy themselves on their own terms in their own time; they value and protect their comfort, their free time, and their individual pursuit of happiness.  
• Second, they agree to play by the rules; deliver what is expected of them and no more, but expect others to recognise and respect that limit.  
• Third, they cannot be exploited and can comfortably resist acceding to demands that they deem unreasonable or above and beyond the call of duty.  
• Fourth, they are relaxed about time and feel haste makes waste and unnecessary anxiety.  
• Fifth, they are easygoing and optimistic that whatever needs to get done will get done, eventually. 
• Sixth, they are not overawed by authority.  

Inevitably, different schools of psychotherapy react very differently to the construct of a Passive-Aggressive person, and, if they do not wish to abolish it, how to treat it. Thus, those from a more psychotherapeutic and psychoanalytic tradition wish to explore the childhood and parental origins of the disorder, while cognitive behaviour therapists would advocate confronting and changing everyday cognitions about how they are treated and perceived, and thence modify their behaviours. 

In their book aimed at helping CEOs understand their “dark side” Dotlich and Cairo (2003) noted that PAPD people thrive in a culture where no one says what they think. To help people self-diagnose they ask four questions “Is saying one thing and doing another your standard operating procedure”; “Do you have a private agenda you share with no-one?”; “Do you avoid conflict at all costs and rarely express disagreement?” and “Do you know or care what others expect of you?” They argue that PAPD people often have angry and confused reports/subordinates who are deeply cynical. They seem incapable of developing and sustaining alliances, partnerships and teams. And they have a reputation for only giving lip service to many issues. 

So, they are advised to focus on the gap between what they say and what they feel; to try some empathy by putting themselves in the shoes of those they work with; to learn how to deal with conflict; and to study successful leaders. They concluded that PAPD behaviour was “part of the leadership repertoire in the big, slow-moving bureaucracies of the past” but now you have transparently to align and commit. Perhaps because it was/is so common it was thought of as normal and OK. 

So, what to do 

Oldham and Morris (2000) 

They offer eight tips on dealing with the leisurely passive-aggressive type: 

1. Accept the Leisurely person as he or she is. Don’t approach a relationship with such a person with the expectation of changing him or her to suit your needs. Rather, ask yourself what it is in this person that you like and are attracted to.   
2. If you are having difficulty with a Leisurely person, ask yourself whether the problems arise because you two have different value systems. Perhaps you come from a pushhard, getahead, makea successofyourself tradition, while the Leisurely person sees more value in doing his or her own thing. Instead of judging one system as better than the other, ask yourself whether your two value systems can coexist or merge.   
3. Be realistic. Life with a Leisurely person may demand more sacrifices from you than from him or her. Can you make these without bitterness or resentment?
4. Make life easier for yourself. People with the Leisurely personality style don’t automatically tune in to what’s important to you. Instead of waiting for this person to figure it out, let him or her know your basic, essential expectations.
5. Leisurely types can be stubborn about protecting their rights to do or to be as they please.  Offer to assist in projects that need doing and/or make a deal.  
6. When the Leisurely person in your life starts stalling, refusing, or forgetting, ask, “Are you angry about something?” People with this personality style have a hard time expressing their anger directly.
7. Try to share in the Leisurely person’s pleasures. Observe his or her habits and routines and join in.  
8. Take good care of him or her. Leisurely people are suckers for pampering and loving attention. (p. 208-209)

There are many middle managers, but more likely specialists (think IT) with this rather unattractive profile. Their “pathology” may have served them well, even if the burden of it has been “borne” by their long-suffering staff. 

I have friends who say the disorder should not be re-introduced to the psychiatric manuals because it is now so widespread, and even growing because of its social acceptability as not to be pathological or even unusual. Some argue modern “woke” attitudes actually endorse many PAPD behaviours and beliefs. 

One thing is clear: they are not ideal people to work with or for.  

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is a Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School. He has had to work with too many Passive-Aggressive people in his career, for his own good. 

References 

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: APA. 
• Dotlich D, & Cairo P. (2003). Why CEOs Fail. New York: Jossey Bass. 
• Furnham, A. (2022). The Bright and Dark Side of Personality: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Personality Disorders. In: Lusk, D. & Hayes, T. (Eds). The Good, the Bad, and the Human Dark Side at Work: New York: Oxford, pp 51-74 
• Furnham, A., & Crump, J.  (2017). Personality Correlates of Passive-Aggressiveness. Journal of Mental Health, 26:6, 496-501, 
• Hogan R, Hogan J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey Manual. Tulsa, OK: HAS.  
• Lane C. (2009). The Surprising History of Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. Theory and Psychology, 19, 55–70.  
• Miller L. (2008). From Difficult to Disturbed. New York: Amazon.  
• Oldham, J., & Morris, L. (2000). Personality Self-Portrait. New York: Bantam. 
• Schanz, C.G., Equit, M., Schäfer, S.K., Käfer, M., Mattheus, H.K. & Michael, T. (2021) Development and Psychometric Properties of the Test of Passive Aggression. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:579183.  
• Sprock, J., & Hunsucker, L. (1998). Symptoms of Prototypic Patients with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 39, 287–95. 

The post The Passive-Aggressive Individual  appeared first on The European Business Review.

When we think of psychopaths, we think of blood-thirsty crazed killers who spend their lives in chains at maximum security prisons after getting caught. But there is another type of psychopath, the type that makes waves in business and careers and is often very successful. Here is how to recognise and deal with them.

Background

Corporate Psychopaths

1. Comes across as smooth, polished, and charming.
2. Turns most conversations around to a discussion of him or herself.
3. Discredits and puts down others in order to build up own image and reputation.
4. Lies to co-workers, customers, or business associates with a straight face.
5. Considers people he or she has outsmarted or manipulated to be dumb or stupid.
6. Opportunistic, hates to lose, plays ruthlessly to win.
7. Comes across as cold and calculating.
8. Acts in an unethical or dishonest manner.
9. Has created a power network in the organisation and uses it for personal gain.
10. Shows no regret for making decisions that negatively affect the company, shareholders, or employees.

Psychopaths at Work

Dealing with Psychopaths

1. Get paid upfront. If you lose the case, you will be blamed and unpaid. If you win the case, the client will take the credit and you will still be unpaid.
   
2. Be very careful about boundaries. The client is not your friend and will collect and use against you whatever information is obtained. (This includes information related to the case and related to you personally.)
3. Remain in charge. A psychopathic client will attempt to run the show and manipulate you and the system, making your job much harder.
4. Don’t take at face value the client’s description of events or interactions with others. Check everything out.
5. Be aware that the client will distort and minimize his or her criminal history. When confronted with the inaccuracies, the client will offer excuses that place the blame on a defence attorney, a corrupt system, or others.
6. The client will flatter you as long as things are going smoothly. If the case goes sideways, often because of the client’s tendency to take charge and ignore advice, you will become the enemy.
7. Keep copious notes on everything.” (p. 314)

1. Build, nurture and maintain your (true) reputation as a good performer.
2. Keep records of everything and put it in writing.
3. Make use of and be very wary of the performance appraisal process.
4. Avoid confrontation by minimising contact and never responding to their bait.
5. Be very wary about making a formal complaint, as anonymity is not always assured and retribution is very likely to follow.
6. If you have to leave (by transfer or resignation), do so on good terms.
7. Move on remembering the lesson.

Conclusion

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is a Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School. He has bumped into a number of Corporate Psychopaths in his career.

References

1. Babiak, P. (1995). When Psychopaths Go to Work: A Case Study of an Industrial Psychopath. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44(2), 171–188.
2. Babiak, P. and Hare, R. (2006). Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, New York, NY, Regan Books.
3. Cleckley, H. (1941). The Mask of Sanity; an Attempt to Reinterpret the So-called Psychopathic Personality. Mosby.
4. Boddy, C. (2011). Corporate Psychopaths: Organisational Destroyers, New York, NY, Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Dotlich, D. and Cairo, P. (2003). Why CEOs Fail. New York, NY, Jossey-Bass.
6. Furnham, A. (2015). Backstabbers and Bullies: How to Cope with the Dark Side of People at Work, London, Bloomsbury.
7. Furnham, A. (2022). The Bright and Dark Side of Personality: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Personality Disorders. In: Lusk, D. & Hayes, T. (Eds). The Good, the Bad, and the Human Dark Side at Work: New York: Oxford, pp 51-74
8. Hare, R. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. New York, NY, Guildford Press.
9. Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
10. Oldham, J. and Morris, L. (1995). The New Personality Self-Portrait: Why You Think, Work, Love, and Act the Way You Do. New York: Bantam Books, 1995.
11. Smith, S.F. and Lilienfeld, S.O. (2013). Psychopathy in the Workplace: The Knowns and Unknowns, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 204–218

The post Have You Ever Met a Psychopath? The Anatomy of the Corporate Psychopath appeared first on The European Business Review.

Are physically attractive people seriously advantaged at work?

Are they more likely to be selected, promoted, and given higher salaries? Does being physically attractive count more than being competent at work?

Does physical attractiveness advantage females more than males, or does it depend on the job, the gender of the selector and the culture of the organisation?

Does intelligence moderate the relationship between attractiveness and work success?

Is there a physiognomy of leadership: meaning do certain looks get you to the top?

Can you judge the success of an organisation by the facial attractiveness of its CEO? Should you do all you can (legally) not to be influenced by a person’s looks?

Do you agree with some evolutionary psychologists that brighter people tend to be more physically attractive…and vice versa?

 Is there wide variability in what people think is attractive: the eye of the beholder hypothesis?

Is this whole issue simply “too hot to handle”?

Most people agree that physical attractiveness is a significant economic and occupational benefit. More attractive people seem to get better jobs, make more money, and supposedly have happier lives.

Indeed, the money spent on cosmetic surgery can be thought of as a good investment for many people. Yet this assumes that (a) cosmetic surgery always makes you more attractive (not true), (b) that outcomes of cosmetic surgery are always positive (not true), and that (c) those who have cosmetic surgery are psychologically stable (not true).

So how to explain the “what is beautiful is good” and vice versa phenomenon?
The academic literature has (as usual) confirmed what we all know, that physical and facial attractiveness as well as weight, height and hair colour are related to all sorts of positive evaluations (and actions) at work.

We know that attractive adults and children are judged to be more intellectually competent, emotionally adjusted and socially appealing. Paper after paper has confirmed that attractive people are rated as more altruistic, competent, confident, friendly, persuasive and sincere, though there are some cultural differences in this. There have been studies of politicians to see whether their physical appearance plays any role in whether they are likely to be elected, as well as studies in educational settings that have shown the manifold benefits of being good looking. This shows the power of perceptions.

There is much interesting research in this area. Evolutionary theorists have argued that height is strongly associated with intelligence in both males and females. In one study of over 20,000 American adolescents, there was a significant association between height and intelligence even after controlling for the following long list of potentially confounding variables, physical attractiveness, age, race, education and earnings.

Physical attractiveness seems to influence all aspects of life. One Finnish study on the attractiveness of politicians found for every one standard deviation in their measure of beauty, non-incumbent parliamentary candidates received a 20% increase in the number of votes! Another study found “baby-facedness” in politicians predicted inferred competence but not electoral success.

So what do we know? First, there is cross-cultural reliability and agreement about attractiveness. That is, beauty is much the same in all cultures, being associated with health, youth, symmetry and self-confidence. Second, both attractive children and adults are judged more positively compared to less attractive controls but, interestingly, not necessarily by those who know them. Third, attractive people are treated more positively, and fourth without any evidence they are believed to show more positive behaviours.

One theory is that attractive people are more confident and positive because they are beneficiaries of a virtuous circle. People treat more attractive people differently from early childhood and this leads them to acquire a number of beneficial characteristics like confidence, social skills and persuasiveness.

Yet research has shown that this effect is limited to popularity, social skills, and sexual experience but disappeared for workplace-related traits including intelligence, sociability, sense of control, manipulativeness, etc. Indeed, it could even lead to misplaced self-confidence, complacency, and entitled arrogance.

The Workplace

The question is whether, when or why physical attractiveness reliably and powerfully predicts occupational outcome variables like income, career progress and performance.

There are two competing theories in this literature:

1. Attractive people are better: their attractiveness is simply a marker of their ability and fitness. This taps into the world of evolutionary psychology. But there is no reliable evidence suggesting a strong association of physical features with workplace competencies.
2. Lookism, prejudice and discrimination unfairly (and unscientifically) link physical attractiveness and success at work. Two separate theories have been put forward to account for this: (a) implicit personality: positive stereotypes allow attractive individuals a greater space to perform better at work (more affordances, employers more forgiving, etc.); (b) developmental trajectory: employees conform to stereotypes over occupational time. Both could be true.

The ‘‘what is beautiful is good’’ finding is so widely accepted that some organisations attempt to put in place processes and procedures which try to eliminate or reduce the possible influence of attractiveness. Some forbid the attachment of photographs to application forms; others try to ensure selection boards are made up equally of males and females; still others attempt, through very strict competency-based, structured interviewing, to focus on getting evaluations based only on work-based competency evidence.

Most selectors attempt to find people with the appropriate skills, aptitudes, attitudes and motivation to do the job well. It is very rare (very unwise and possibly illegal) to see physical attractiveness as a criterion of selection or competency. However, there are certain jobs, particularly in sales, customer service, theatre, fashion or the media where physical attractiveness is seen to be a very distinct advantage and related to job performance contrary to the evidence. Hence it seems to some that it is quite reasonable, indeed desirable to consider this in the selection process, albeit unofficially. Yet if decisions are made based on body weight alone, then this would be classified as a form of discrimination. Body weight discrimination remains legal, but again there is no evidence that body weight is associated with workplace competencies.

But the cry goes up Can something be done to prevent discrimination sometimes called ‘‘lookism’’ or ‘‘facism’’ or ‘‘weightism’’? In most developed societies, there are laws against discrimination in the workplace based on sex, age, race and religion. These are often more driven by morality and ideology than scientific evidence. Many believe that physically less attractive people already carry a burden compared to their attractive peers, penalising them further in the workplace, which is simply unjust. Hence some call for legislation that outlaws decisions made on the basis of attractiveness.

One problem with this issue is whilst things like age and gender are objectively verifiable; judgements about attractiveness are more subjective. There is usually considerable agreement at extremes but less so in the middle of the scale. Moreover, it is possible to separate the face from body ratings of attractiveness or look at very specific features like height or hair colour. In this sense, it may be difficult to defend a discrimination case where it is alleged that attractiveness discrimination has occurred.

There are three distinguishable theoretical/ideological positions in this area:

A. Unfair, stereotypic and warranting intervention

Some argue that the ‘‘beautiful is good’’ belief is unfair, often denied and is an empirically unverified supposition and stereotype. As there is no evidence that physical attractiveness at any level (face vs. body) and/or associated with any physical feature (i.e. height, hair colour) is related to job performance, steps need to be taken to reduce this bias at work. Any evidence of an association between attractiveness and work performance is attributed to social processes rather than biological realities and ends up unfairly discriminating against those less physically attractive. It is a wrong that urgently needs to be righted; even if it may be problematic to do so.

B. An evolutionary fact and reality

Others argue that there are both good theoretical reasons and empirical evidence to suggest that various physical features are associated with psychological factors and processes that directly relate to performance at work. This is an issue of considerable debate and controversy and most reviews of the literature suggest there is no evidence for this approach.

C. An association that develops

This position holds that physical attractiveness has developmental advantages which influence an individual’s personality and social behaviour. For instance, attractive people are treated differently from unattractive people from an early age; by parents, peers and teachers and later by employers. Hence attractive people are likely to become more self-confident, assertive and socially skilled, which in turn means they become more able at work, particularly in interpersonal relations. Moreover, there is a very simple counter-argument here: that people should be trained to be aware of their inherent biases. Most employers already offer this sort of training.

Weight-Based Discrimination

Overweight people are seen as disagreeable, emotionally unstable, incompetent, sloppy, lazy and lacking in conscientiousness. These stereotypes have a large impact on selection, promotion and remuneration. Overweight people are consistently discriminated against in the workplace. This is an example of the ‘‘what is ugly is bad’’ stereotype. For instance, in a survey of 2,838 Americans of whom 40% were of normal weight, 38% overweight and the remainder obese or severely obese, researchers found overweight people were 12 times, obese people 37 times and severely obese people 100 times more likely to report discrimination at work compared to those of normal weight. Young, more than old, and females, rather than males, reported more weight-based discrimination. And, of course, there are negative consequences for larger-bodied individuals, including poorer psychological well-being, fewer educational opportunities, poorer physical health, and premature mortality.

There have also been, over the years, several experimental studies that show stigmatising attitudes and anti-fat bias such that overweight and obese people are discriminated against before, as well as at, selection interviews. Some studies used written descriptions of hypothetical people, while others used photographs and video recordings.

In a celebrated American study, researchers looked at the relationship between weight and income for both sexes. They predicted and found that as people got heavier, men tended to get better paid (until they began to get obese or 15-20 Kg above the norm) while the opposite was true of women where there was a decline in salary as a function of getting heavier. They showed that women are punished financially for weight gain but that very thin women receive the most punishment.

The dramatic increase in Body Mass Index globally means this issue will be more and more discussed in work settings.

Height

Whilst there is some early evidence that taller people are judged as more attractive, persuasive and ‘‘leader-like’’, few studies have examined this literature. However, one study set out to test a model that linked height to career success. They suggested various processes that occur.

The first, was that height predicts social esteem: the perceived stature or ascribed status of people. The second was that height also predicts self-esteem (the way we regard ourselves) which impacts on adjustment. Further, social and self-esteem are linked because if tall people are consistently viewed and treated with respect by others their self-worth or self-confidence increases in a self-fulfilling way. Third, it is reasonable to assume that social esteem predicts both objective and subjective work performance.

The reason for both subjective and objective performance is, they posit, due to possible self-fulfilling processes such that people are both more likely to help taller people and also the confidence of the manager in their performance leads to them actually doing better. Inevitably, it is not difficult to see the link between objective and subjective performance in career success. In three studies, two celebrated American researchers tested their ideas. They found height was significantly related to career success for both men and women. Moreover, height was positively related to income even after controlling for age, sex and weight.

Work Outcome Variables

Physical attractiveness appears to have consistent and important effects at work. From selection through to evaluation, to reward, there seems sufficient evidence that physical attractiveness is advantageous. Research has concentrated on some very specific areas:

A. Incomes, Salaries and Wages

Thirty years ago, a study that looked at MBA students over time showed that more attractive men had higher starting salaries and continued to earn more over time. Over a 10-year period, they were found to earn $2,600 (1983 exchange rate) more on average for each unit on a 5-point attractiveness rating scale. This was less for women ($2,150).

In another study of over 15,000 people, researchers were able to demonstrate that attractiveness is positively associated with earnings in high school graduates even when controlling for ability. Specifically, a one-standard-deviation increase in ability brings about a 3-5% increase in wages, while above-average or very attractive people earn 5-10% more than average-looking individuals: i.e. there is a 2-5% plainness penalty. Whilst for very attractive individuals, an increase in ability is associated with a wage increase, for below-average levels of attractiveness ability may even yield negative results.

B. Pre-Interview Selection

In an experimental study where participants were asked to judge a fictitious resume (high/low qualifications) and photograph (attractive/unattractive). Researchers showed that attractiveness rating consequences are moderated by experience and job. Highly qualified people were accepted irrespective of attractiveness or job whilst less qualified but attractive applicants were only judged more favourably than less-qualified and unattractive ones in jobs involving relational skills.

C. Career Progression

In one early American study, researchers looked at the effect of five variables: gender, family structure, attractiveness/appearance, staff relations and technical ability, on promotions. They found, as predicted, that females married with children and generally unattractive were less likely to succeed as measured by promotions.

D. Sales Performance

The role of attractiveness seems more relevant in some jobs rather than others. One group that has been investigated is salespeople. One study looked at the physical attractiveness and regional accent of salespeople in purchase intention decisions. As predicted, attractiveness played a very significant role.

But there are some other important considerations: what is beautiful is sex-typed: attractive women are negatively judged when occupying roles traditionally occupied by men. Also, attractiveness can sometimes be bad: when employees fail at a task, attractive employees are more likely to be blamed for lack of effort. Less attractive employees are more likely to be blamed for bringing bad luck. Also, attractiveness biases in the workplace are stronger in individualist vs collectivist cultures. Attractiveness biases in the workplace also appear to have become weaker in the West since the 1990s compared to the 1970s and 1980s.

So: This is a seriously “hot” area for researchers, practitioners and all those in the workplace. Evidence based on surveys, archival data as well as experiments using written descriptions, photographs and videos all point to the power of attractiveness at work. What is beautiful is good and what is good is rewarded in the workplace….Not quite that simple but something that needs to be understood and acted upon.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is a Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School. He believes that he would have been more successful had he been more attractive

References

1. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking People Are Not What We Think. Psychological Bulletin 111, 304–341.
2. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L. E., Rubenstein, A. J., et al. (2000). Maxims and Myths of Beauty: A Meta-analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin 126, 390–423.
3. Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and Income: Preliminary Test of a Theoretical Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 428–441.
4. Judge, T.A. & Cable, D. M. (2011). When It Comes to Pay, Do the Thin Win? The Effect of Weight on Pay for Men and Women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 95-112.
5. Maheshwari, B. (2022). Discrimination Based on Physical Attractiveness: Causes and Consequences A Critical Perspective. Psychological Reports
6. Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The Psychology of Physical Attraction. London: Routledge.

The post A Beauty Premium and a Plainness Penalty: Attractiveness at Work appeared first on The European Business Review.

In the midst of the razzmatazz surrounding AI, we hear a lot about its potential for the recruitment process. But is it really the silver bullet that recruitment-tech start-ups claim? Adrian Furnham advises caution.

I am a Professor of Psychology with a long-time interest in psychometric testing. I have published books on the topic (the latest last year, Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel, Cambridge University Press), and developed a number of tests sold to test publishers (e.g., High Potential Trait Indicator).

Over the past three years, a number of young entrepreneurs (perhaps half a dozen) have contacted me to help them develop new tests. They wanted to be part of the new, and potentially very lucrative, AI-inspired wave of talent management and person profiling. They were small business start-ups —some with good backing, others not.

They had a lot in common and, as far as I can tell, they all failed financially, like so many other testing-tech start-ups. One main issue was that they competed with the traditional tests on scalability, candidate experience, and time and cost, but neglected both evidence of validity, surely the most central feature, and clients’ willingness to invest in training the algorithms to suit the business needs.

Disruption

For well over 50 years, the test-publishing “model” went something like this. Authors and academics with ideas and theories devised tests (usually of personality, motivation, and values). Think of the famous MBTI, which apparently is taken by somebody every 10 seconds somewhere in the world. They then sold these tests to the few test publishers that existed. These publishers, who might or might not be very sophisticated or technologically inclined, sold the published tests to institutions and consultants, who used them in various ways, often in the process of selection. Paper-based tests started to be replaced by electronic tests about 20 years ago, but the model persisted.

It was a “nice little earner” for a few, and the test-publishing world was a small, quiet oligopoly, happy to potter on. There were rises and falls in the enthusiasm for tests but social media often made them more popular. Big American publishing firms dominated the world. Many still exist after 50 to 70 years.

Then the AI revolution sprang into action with its ready-made solution for this field, as well as numerous others. AI comes in two formats: a simple scoring engine to dynamically improve the algorithm (as opposed to a fixed syntax), and also the more experimental approaches that don’t rely on self-report assessment, but rather scrape internal or external big data, mine interview voice and video, use natural language processing, etc.

Companies are attracted to using AI resumé-scraping tools to “search and match” candidates based on their hard skills, just parsing CVs and looking at similarities with past candidates or job vacancies.

Small business start-ups

Young entrepreneurs, in particular, were excited by the potential. There were three aspects to this. The first was the still-prevalent belief and hope that selection could be much more efficient and “scientific” with the application of AI. So, the aim is to give people a test online, and the results are fed into a smart algorithm which spits out an accurate, reliable, unbiased, and valid score which can easily and very simply be used in the accept/reject or rank-ordering of candidates. The “white heat” of the new digital world!

The second was that one could “cut out the middle men”. You don’t need test publishers taking a big cut and controlling access to their products (e.g., for the “necessary” training). Consultants can now devise tests and sell them to other consultants or to clients directly (B2B, B2C). All sorts of people may want to assess themselves and their friends—a potentially huge new market.

The third was that tests could be done on a mobile device, phone, or even a smart watch. Indeed, all have the advantage that they can also be used to gather behavioural data, which could supplement what the testee has to say about themselves.

Indeed, five years ago, a friend of mine who started and ran the biggest test-publishing company in Britain sagely made the following predictions: Smartphones will replace computers for employee assessment. High-quality psychometric testing services will be sold direct to consumers. Advances in the neuroscience of personality will reveal which are the most valid individual differences to measure and how best to measure them. The digital badging movement, coupled to the use of big data and new forms of digital CV, will render many of the current applications for high-stakes testing redundant. The basis for employee development will in the near future be derived from the data yielded by wearable devices and not from psychometric tests. The Brave New World was just around the corner.

AI-based methods have expanded the market for “assessment”, and traditional methods remain a very niche market. Things are still a bit better for traditional assessments when it comes to feedback for development, self-awareness, coaching, and leader selection, but this could change very quickly. AI-based scraping of Zoom coaching sessions could produce a dynamic bright-and-dark-side profile that feeds into the coaching session, and you could replace the 360 with simulations.

Various smart young entrepreneurs suddenly became aware of a very big opportunity to create value and to make money. The testing world seemed absolutely ripe for disruption and digitalisation. And it seemed so easy.

My experience

The various groups who approached me, from four different countries, had many features in common. All were groups of three or four young, hungry, and very clever mainly (but not always) men. They had met in business school or consultancy businesses. They were smart, super tech-savvy, hungry, and not risk-averse. For most, it was not their first venture or success. Indeed, they knew a lot about venture capitalists and they shared a very similar goal. Start-up to billionaire in a few years, because the total addressable market (“TAM”, in the VC world) is “huge”.

Some had done their homework more than others, but all were shocked by the expensive, lazy, and inefficient world of HR and recruitment – something they had seen themselves along their professional careers in large organisations. They found that there were a surprisingly limited number of tests that had been around for 30 to 50 years and that people wanted some new ones, as well as to know which of the more established tests was the most accurate.

What they wanted to say (and often did, without much evidence) was that their new tests had better psychometrics, particularly predictive validity, because the research sample size would be significantly larger, allowing for some iterations while being used to change the weighting of questions, correlate answers between tests, and add data that was never collected before. They argued that their tests reduced or avoided “older method” artefacts or problems like impression management (i.e., lying) because of the way the tests were administered, often over time.

They said that testees like them; there was a good reaction from them, which meant a better candidate experience. They tried to persuade HR buyers that sexy new tests were good PR for the tester, being up to date and fairer, in a society where discrimination bias had become more widely acknowledged and challenged. And, of course, they argued that there were many savings in terms of time, effort, and cost. What more could the HR world ask for?

They were certainly all clear about the “schtick”. You hear (without any evidence) claims like “next-generation technology”, “twenty-first-century generation”, “digs deeper”, “powered by neuroscience”, “state-of-the-art”, “has less adverse effect”, “leads to more diverse choices”, “authentic” and, not to be left out, “disruptive”.

They all came to me for the same reason: they had come across my name because of academic papers, popular articles, conference talks, and workshops that I had run. They wanted to know if I could develop tests for them or advise on how existing ones could be applied in business for the specific purpose of selecting the people who “fit” the organisation, in terms of both predispositions and preferences.

What they got wrong

They all failed as far as I know, one spending $2 million of their investor’s money without generating sufficient traction to continue their journey. And they did so for all the classic reasons.

First, they were not that clear about the true cost of getting their potential clients to start using a solution. The concept of on-boarding a new technology in businesses that have developed over decades to achieve a structured recruiting process today is not easy to accept, when the risk of breaking what they have is so high – regardless of how many benefits it might possibly bring.

Second, most seemed to know very little about the multiplicity of decision makers in the process of selection and none had any real idea of how the market for HR solutions functions. They became obsessed by their PR and what their super-designers could do, but they “forgot” to find out what “their clients” wanted.

Third, and most important, in their rush to get sexy-looking feedback, they forgot the hardest bit: collecting real evidence that the test works, namely by predicting behaviour. Asserting validity is not enough. Collecting anecdotes from old professors and happy clients is not enough. Clients want proof-as-you-go as much as hype. The candidates deserve it, and the courts may demand it.

When I told them about validity and how you achieve it, some seemed surprised. I explained that of the two tests I have sold to a customer, it was easy enough to devise the tests, but it took three to five years to collect enough “real-world” data to get the evidence to make the claims that clients wanted, and needed, to hear. It’s called “the criterion problem”, and it involves looking at the relationship between test scores and actual job performance over time. As much as the validation process of such relationships can be done across all potential clients of such a start-up, for the client the validity for their employees is all that matters.

All were blinded by their own propaganda – how the AI revolution has, could, and will change testing. They all thought that testing was a sleepy backwater where “swashbuckling” disruptive experts could bring some sexy science and “make a killing”.

So, the lesson is not “Don’t try to disrupt or don’t try to innovate.” The real problem is that entrepreneurs often don’t try to learn from others’ experiences. They thought that the reason for not using the tests was only the channel to reaching the testees and they often failed at the same point. In the development of their businesses, they did not use the so-called AI that would have learnt over time from the many other entrepreneurs who faced the same challenges and failed.

I would like to thank a number of entrepreneurial friends for their insights, comments, and critique: Simmy Grover, Robert McHenry, and Alexandre Gruca.

About the Author

Adrian Furnhamis a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School, Oslo. He has taught on leadership courses on five continents.

The post Why Many Modern Psychology Test Publishers Fail appeared first on The European Business Review.

Can you turn a brilliant technical person (accountant, engineer, lawyer) into a manager and a competent, even inspirational, leader of that function? This is a simple question but one which has exercised many in business, most of all those responsible for helping select, promote, and assess leaders (often HR), as well as those who work out costs and return on investment (finance). In short, is it really a waste of money?

Hence there are enthusiasts and sceptics. The former believe that leadership, like anything else, is perfectly learnable and trainable. They are to be found, of course, among the many groups offering this service, especially business schools, coaching academies, consultants, and trainers. They used to quote the 10,000-hours idea that anyone can be “super-proficient” at anything with enough practice. The question is, are you prepared to sponsor 1,250 days to achieve that for a “super-leader”. For many, it is self-evident that leadership can be trained, so there is no need for any accurate, dispassionate empirical evidence.

The sceptics believe that, with someone around 25 years old, “What you see is what you get.” They talk about going to school reunions, often many decades later, and finding that the only change in the classmates was that they became wider, greyer, and wrinklier. Some are cynics who were once sceptics—sort of atheists who were once agnostics. The argument is usually from personal experience; they have seen one fad after another, large amounts of money spent, and little if any result. How can you teach something you can’t even define?

But nearly all agree that leaders need to have specific skills—of appraisal, influencing, negotiation, strategic planning, etc. Yet the concept of leadership—creating high-performing teams, having clear strategies, tumbling numbers — is bigger and vaguer than a collection of specific skills. It is an art or a science? Or perhaps a gift?

The question is how, when, and where to teach potential leaders. Some organisations are completely committed to leadership training. The military often assume that everybody, whatever their rank, is always potentially on a training course. Skills training never ends. Indeed, it gets more intense as you climb the military hierarchy. This is in stark contrast with the complacent executive who believes that his three-week course at a famous business school has equipped him for life.

For some, training is a reward—a jolly—while for others, it is a punishment. Are you sent on a (leadership) training course because you can’t hack it? Or to top up and polish your potential?

Of course, we all know that the real benefit of a residential training course is the post-dinner conversations in the bar with the tutors, people from other companies, and one’s colleagues. These real conversations, which are often very disclosive, can give real insights into all sorts of issues. It may be the best way to bond with colleagues. But is this leadership training, or a mixture of personal benchmarking, networking, and “shooting the breeze”?

As regards business leadership, some favour differentiating between the high-talent group and the rest. To him who hath shall more be given. So, if you are talented, you receive invested in, while those with less of this mysterious quality have to try a bit of self-help. Some argue that it is the less talented (talentless) who, by definition, need the most training. And anyway what are the “talents” associated with leadership?

A preferred way for the recipients, although not the finance department, is a two-week course at a prestigious business school, perhaps topped up by a personal coach. The cost of this possibly exceeds £20k per person. Some organisations have their own “business school” and a menu of internally approved, if not delivered, courses. So to get to middle- or senior-management positions, a person needs to have attended the core courses, perhaps even with some electives. It becomes an HR “tick-box” exercise to check if you have been appropriately “sheep-dipped” into accepting the role.

Those with less talent (dare one admit it) may be encouraged (or mandated) to go a number of short courses in a local hotel, usually led by a consultant. They get “processed” and have their card marked “done all the courses, and is therefore a competent leader”. If only!

Leadership training is a huge business. Guesstimates reach many millions. But does it work? Is it a good investment? The paradox is that, although we know a lot about what works and what doesn’t, training purchasers still fall for business-school and consultant hype and marketing and neglect the academic literature.

Make things worse?

Can leadership training actually backfire and make things worse? It is all very well trying to improve self-awareness by a number of exercises or sexy psychological tests, but can trainers deal with the consequences of “opening a can of worms”? Could it lead to a breakdown, and then costly litigation?

In three careful studies conducted by my colleagues in Norway, their data suggested that some organisations enter a dysfunctional relationship with external third-party providers, namely business schools, consultancies, etc. The client’s organisation is usually ready to pay considerable sums of money for a process in which the professional requirements are left entirely to the external service provider: teacher knows best. They promise to understand what is required and how to do it. Can you check this? And how?

However, because they need to justify their exorbitant fees, some leadership consultants turn up the emotional heat, but with questionable effects for the participants. They can certainly take things apart —teams, processes, managers—but can they put them back together again?

My colleagues concluded from their carefully collected and analysed data that, in order to secure useful, beneficial effects from leadership development activities, organisations need to start using in-house competence to ensure sufficient contextual relevance. They must then subject the processes to qualified evaluation routines that match the resources invested. Start with some clear, well-thought-through objectives and then find the people to deliver them. Beware the gurus who offer magic through quirky psychobabble!

The effectiveness of training

So how do you measure the effectiveness of training? Does training work? This is the same question asked by therapists and consultants from all backgrounds, including medicine. This is why we have something called “evidence-based medicine”. What would “evidence-based leadership” training look like?

First, start by deciding on some outcome. Many will know Kirkpatrick’s four levels:

1. Did participants like the programme? Reactions. The questionnaire, or “happy sheet”,

is the most common method of evaluating training. The advice in order to get better results is to word questions carefully, measure only one topic at a time, and leave room for comments. But we all know that an “entertrainer” gets top scores for funny stories, sexy slides, and riveting videos. Learning takes effort, it can hurt, and some don’t do it very well. Enjoying a course is not the same as acquiring a skill. “Happy sheets” are not enough. Indeed, some argue they may be an indicator of how challenging the course was: easy, fun, low challenge, little learning — but very positive feedback.

2. Did participants learn skills?

Here you need to do a before/after analysis: assess skill level before the course and then afterwards. A job or task simulation is an excellent way of validating training. This involves a lot of effort, so it is not often done. People who teach presentation skills do this. They video-record you before the training, and then at the end. People love it; it is a clear record of their improvement. You can do the same for training in appraisal skills. But it is not so easy for negotiation skills. Of course, having or showing a skill at the end of a course does not mean it will be manifest in the workplace some time later. But at least it is behavioural evidence of learning.

3. Did participants use the skills on the job? Generalisability from classroom to workplace.

That is, is there good behavioural or observational evidence that when people come back from a training course, they do things differently, hopefully better? To obtain objective opinions, it is important to choose managers and subordinates who know, and regularly interact with, the trainee. Do they detect differences as a function of the training? It’s best if they did not know anything about the course, or even that the person in question had been on one. The advice is, take pre-training measurements 30 to 90 days in advance, maintain confidentiality, measure only what is actually taught, and measure all the skills taught, not just a few. This is very difficult to do, which explains why it is so seldom done.

4. Did the programme affect the bottom line?

This validation demands observable, quantifiable, tangible, and verifiable facts that show specific profit or performance results. That is, in the ideal world, people on three sites doing the same job undergo three types of activity: specific training, a placebo group doing something irrelevant, and the third no training. Six months or a year later, the output on those sites is measured, given that all other factors are constant. The trouble, of course, is that there are so many factors, some controllable, some predictable, but most of which affect the bottom line, that it is impossible to disentangle the training from other factors. But, after all, that is what the training is for, isn’t it? To improve the bottom line?

What does the science say?

Over the years, academics have asked about and tested some important features of all types of training. Some questions: does much depend on the learning content —are you teaching ideas, skills or motivation? What is the best training method—information-giving, practice, combination? How important is feedback — yes/no, single-source/360? Should you begin with a needs analysis – yes/no? What about the length and frequency of training, called spacing effect — longer/shorter, spaced/massed? Which is the best setting —virtual/face-to-face? Where should the training location be – on/off site? And what about attendance — voluntary/compulsory?

This is what the research literature suggests:

• Use multiple delivery methods. Always a good idea. Lectures, discussions, videos, games, etc. But don’t get too gimmicky and don’t expect the delegates to do all the work. A nice, well-thought-through combination of chalk-and-talk, individual assessment, and group exercises. The trouble is that trainers have their personal preferences. Some think you can drone on with PowerPoint, others that it is best taught in muddy fields. Some put people into groups to discuss things and simply record their opinions. The method should fit the learning expected, not the personal preference of the trainer.
• Conduct a needs analysis first. Beware of guru hype, fad and fashion, magic-bullet training. Be clear – with evidence – about who needs what. What do the future leaders need: understanding how teams work, understanding themselves, improvements in personal resilience? Don’t look at training courses like a Chinese takeaway menu. Decide, and be able to articulate and defend, what the training needs are.
• Hold on-site, not at some expensive hotel or business school. Yes, that may involve some inconvenience but it massively affects generalisation. You remember most and find it easier to apply where you learned it. This may involve having areas dedicated to training, subject to appropriate occupancy levels. Consider using carefully written situational judgement tests that describe sticky, complex situations, directly relevant to the client group.
• Provide as much feedback as you can on skill development. This means recording behaviour and getting assessors to give quality, detailed feedback to each individual. This may be done by peers as well as teachers. The feedback needs to explain what behaviours need to change, be maintained, and be improved.
• Mandatory attendance. No excuses, no exceptions. Yes, and that means the board and the most senior managers. The military have always done this. In so many businesses, the “grown-ups” can provide a myriad of reasons why they can’t attend. It not only sends the wrong message but assumes that it is only second-level leaders (who may well leave the organisation) that require or deserve training. Compulsory, not optional: amen.
• Have multiple sessions; always spread it out. A three-day-long, weekend or three-week business school is very suboptimal. Monday, Monday, Monday is much better than Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. And a three-week course should be split into six two-and-a-half-day sessions. Yes, the hotel does not like this and there are other costs, but the data are very clear: spaced not massed learning is better. Preferably with a homework exercise.
• Provide as much training as possible (longer is better). Don’t go for the half-day intensive sheep dip, however attractive the cost and promise. Remember the 10,000-hour rule. It is not like a driving licence—passed at 21, still driving at 71. Business, technology, competition, and clients change. This means updating insights and skills regularly. Have a target — say, 12 days a year.
• Include soft skills (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal). The paradox is that it is harder to teach soft skills than technical skills. And yet they certainly count for much. You can teach people to be more perceptive of their own and others’ emotions, to be more resilient, etc. It takes time and effort, but it is a course requirement for leadership.

So … if you want any training to work …

Start with some learning objectives. What skills and insights do people need? Conduct a needs analysis and identify the desired outcome(s) based on stakeholder goals before designing the programme. Use multiple delivery methods when possible (e.g., information, demonstration, and practice) and if limitations prevent this, choose practice instead of other delivery methods. Provide multiple training sessions that are separated by time, rather than a single, massed training session. Make the training mandatory and conducted at the workplace. Make training a reward and not a punishment. Leadership skills can be taught, but only under specific circumstances.

This article is originally published on November 06, 2022.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School, Oslo. He has taught on leadership courses on five continents.

References

• Arnulf, J.K., Glasø, L., Andreassen, A.K.B., & Martinsen, Ø.L. (2016). “The dark side of leadership development: An exploration of the possible downsides of leadership development”. Scandinavian Psychologist, 3, e18.
• Furnham, A., Humphries, C., & Zheng, E.L. (2016). “Can successful sales people become successful managers? Differences in motives and derailers across two jobs”. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68, 252-68.
• Lacerenza, C., Reyes, D., Marlow, S., Joseph, D., & Salas, E. (2017). “Leadership training, design, delivery and implementation: A Meta Analysis”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1686-718.
• Lilienfeld, S.O., Ritschel, L.A., Lynn, S.J., Cautin, R.L., & Latzman, R.D. (2013). “Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: root causes and constructive remedies”. Clinical Psychology Review. 33 (7): 883-900.

The post Can You Teach Leadership? appeared first on The European Business Review.

Vladimir Putin appears to be firmly in control of his country, able to bend it to his will and send it and its people in any direction of his choosing, all the while responding to no one. Does Putin have anything to teach business leaders?

Can we learn anything useful from bullies, dictators, and tyrants to
inform business leadership? Does the study of good and bad political leaders help inform our understanding of leadership in the commercial realm?

Powerful leaders are often admired, even by those who disagree with their policies. Prime Minister Thatcher is still venerated by many in her party and remembered with respect by others. She was, and still is, a leader remembered all over the world, mostly with respect, if not affection.

President Putin has written himself into the history books. The consequences of his leadership will be more significant than any leader in the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of this century. He enjoys strong popular support in his country and there are many heads of government who offer their backing. Academics, journalists, and government advisors are occupied by trying to forecast what Russia will do next.

There is, however, a significant difference between President Putin and the likes of Mrs Thatcher and other powerful leaders such as Churchill, de Gaulle, and Mandela. President Putin is a dictator and has none of the checks and balances which other political leaders endure.

This means that decisions are not subject to scrutiny by peers (a cabinet or politburo) or, as happens in genuinely democratic nations, by the public in elections with a functioning opposition. Putin is at the top of a tall and narrow pyramid of power. There are organisations like this!

But it was not always like that in the Soviet Union. When Leonid Brezhnev was the leader (general secretary of the Communist party and chairman of the praesidium of the Soviet Union, to give him his full title), he had to work with a politburo which contained many powerful people, such as Yuri Andropov (head of the KGB), Andrei Gromyko (foreign minister), and Mikhail Suslov (head of the International Department of the CPSU).

President Putin has no such constraints. He has surrounded himself with sycophants, eliminated the opposition, accumulated hard power to his own office, and is effectively the ideologue of Russia. Does this never happen in business?

Most western analysts, academic, journalistic and political pundits, analyse Russia and its leadership as if the decision-making process is based on a rationality which is recognisable in our liberal and functioning political systems.

Sometimes it may be, but we contend in this article that, given Putin’s extraordinary power, we need also to look at his psychological profile to understand and forecast his decisions. We argue that it is important to understand the psychology of Putin, given his power, his aims, and his threat to the peace of the world.

The Six Dimensions

There are six dimensions which influence the behaviours and decisions of people. The first of these relates to cultural background. Putin is proud of his Russian heritage, and many of his speeches and written work have significant references to the greatness of Russia. Most politicians like to proclaim their patriotism; Putin takes it to an imperial level.

There are some significant aspects of Russian culture which are apparent in Putin’s personality.

Russia is the largest country in the world and is highly centralised. There is a huge discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people. Status symbols are important, and Putin loses no opportunity to demonstrate his power status. The layout of the room for the security council meeting in February 2022 demonstrates this well.

Russia is a country with a pragmatic mindset. Truth depends very much on situation, context, and time.

Analysts are frequently mystified by Putin’s current actions, destroying the Russian economy and apparently strengthening NATO and the EU against him. Putin and many Russians will look to the long term. They will be willing to take a short-term hit for glory in the future. Putin is certainly playing the long game, believing that NATO and its liberal and democratic friends will falter and weaken. He clearly longs to re-establish Russia as a, if not the, superpower

The second dimension is about upbringing and early experiences in life. We need to understand the forces that moulded and shaped him.

Putin’s father was badly wounded in the war and suffered great pain from his injured legs. His mother, Maria, also nearly died. By the time the siege was lifted, she was no longer able to walk on her own. Many describe Putin’s birth in 1952 as a miracle.

The Putin family lived on the top floor of a five-storey block in Leningrad. Their flat was a single room with a shared toilet and a stove in the corridor which passed as a kitchen. This, however, was the experience of many people in Russia at that time. His parents doted on him and made many sacrifices for him.

In his youth, Putin was involved in many fistfights. He is small in stature and was bullied but he learned to fight back and strike first. He also had a fierce temper, to the extent that he was excluded from joining the Young Pioneers, part of the communist party’s grooming process.

He worked hard to gain entry to Leningrad University in 1970. He kept to himself at university, staying out of the community and the Komsomol, and mostly out of trouble, though there are reports of some fisticuffs. Aged 22, Putin was approached by the KGB in his last year of university and started his training in Leningrad in 1975.

His 16 years in the KGB did make a significant impression on him. He was a half-colonel by the time he resigned but his career does not appear to have been enormously successful.

His time in East Germany working with the Stasi will have been instructive. He will have learnt from their methods of monitoring the population, the importance of keeping information on people, and how to use that information to his personal advantage.

He will also have learnt much from his time there about how to develop instrumental relationships, and how to use information to “control” people. In Russian, the word kontrol’ means “to monitor” or “to check”, as well as the English meaning, which is to be in charge. It also encompasses the importance of when and how to release information and what should not be released and, finally, manipulation through the use of information and the careful control of its release.

Putin’s intellectual ability (the third dimension in our model) in his early years was never described as anything more than “modest”. He did, however, have determination and, believing he needed to go to a prestigious institute to get into the KGB, he applied to Leningrad University.

He has a reputation as a hard worker and he seems to have kept himself to himself at Leningrad and worked hard at his exams. He is, we believe, “bright enough” but he is not an intellect, and his judgements are questionable.

The fourth dimension is about personality. Using the five-personality trait classification, we assess Putin as having the following personality traits:

1. Not strongly introvert or extrovert. Essentially an ambivert. Enjoys the company of others but also values privacy.
2. Borderline neurotic. He is not empathetic and can be anxious and bad tempered. He complains and is not trusting.
3. Tough, hard-headed, sceptical, proud, and competitive. Tends to express anger directly. There is little or no evidence of warmth, empathy, or kindness
4. Closed, down-to-earth, practical, traditional, and pretty much set in his ways. There is little sense of curiosity, openness, or imagination.
5. Conscientious, well organised, has high standards, and always strives to achieve goals.

But what of the dark side of his personality – evidence of personality disorders? We believe there are indicators of paranoia, sadism, and sociopathy.

There is clearly evidence of Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD). This is a pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others, such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. Consider the following characteristics:

Paranoids avoid the limelight and keep their own council.

Putin does not court big events. He does the minimum needed for a leader, unlike a narcissist. Public speeches are carefully orchestrated and edited videos are provided. But, for the most part, Putin only appears when it is necessary to do so as president. He is famously secretive. He is also very guarded about his private life, his daughters, lovers, former wife, etc.

Paranoids are motivated by needs for power and control.

Since he came to presidential power in 2000, Putin has accumulated all power around himself. He presides over one of the highest and narrowest pyramids of power in the world and in Russian history. In addition, he has eliminated all others with power, particularly oligarchs.

Paranoids take ideas very seriously.

This is because the core of paranoia is a complex and comprehensive delusional system that is impossible to challenge with data or logic. He takes his intellectual inspiration from right-wing, populist, and Russian nationalistic writers and broadcasters who are frequently quoted and appear on the state-controlled TV.

They often believe they are the chosen one who can save their people.
Putin does everything he can to diminish the status of those around him, leaving him as the only possible leader. Famously at the National Security Council meeting at the end of February 2022, he positioned himself many metres from his cabinet and chose to embarrass the head of his intelligence service (the SVR). At the same time, he doesn’t change his team. Putin also does not admit mistakes.

Paranoids attract followers through vision (make Russia great again).

He is critical of some aspects of the old Soviet Union, citing the granting of independence to countries such as Ukraine as a major mistake. He reaches back to imperial Russia under the tsars to promote the “greater Russia”. Putin is less about money and more about the big Russian world mission. Money is almost a religion in itself in Russia.

Paranoids respect others who are strong.

Putin has not developed many relationships with international politicians. He had a friendship of sorts with the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi. Both he and President Trump were “strong” but unpredictable. He shows no sign of respecting leaders such as Macron or Merkel, who have sought compromise. Macron is made to wait and has to sit at a great distance; Merkel, well known for her dog phobia, had to endure a roaming large, black dog during their meetings.

When paranoids are frustrated, they plot revenge.

Putin has consistently chosen brutality and military strength in response to perceived attacks on Russia or his own position of power.

Paranoids want to win.

Putin’s fortunes in Ukraine so far have been mixed. At present (spring 2023), Russia is fighting a bloody battle in the Donbas but making little progress, if any. He may be able to claim some kind of victory, but it will hardly be convincing.

Paranoids are very insightful about other people.

They tend to be surrounded by a small number of long-term “trusted” advisors. Putin has few trusted advisors, and those that do exist come mainly from his KGB/Leningrad days. The bunker mindset has solidified and is being reinforced by others. His team are not allowed to disagree with him.

Paranoids can only be controlled by the threat of superior force.

The war in Ukraine is still being played out. The consequences of perceived weakness are, however, clear. We have seen Putin’s ruthless nature not just in laying waste to vast areas of Ukraine, he has also been brutal in Chechnya, Georgia, and with individuals. He needs victory and that is not guaranteed. His reaction to potential defeat will not be to retreat. He will want victory and will take revenge.

And more disorders

Psychologists use the term “co-morbidity” to indicate that a person may be suffering from more than one disorder/malady at the same time.

Sadistic people like Putin use physical or mental cruelty in relationships to establish dominance. They like to humiliate and demean people in the presence of others. They operate through intimidation or terror to get others to comply and they have a fascination with violence, weapons, and torture/injury.

He also appears somewhat antisocial/psychopathic, being callous, manipulative, and free of conscience. Such individuals see others as merely to be exploited and, therefore, have problems maintaining commitments and are unconcerned about violating expectations. Many are self-confident to the point of feeling invulnerable and have an air of daring and sang froid that others often find attractive and even irresistible.

They are highly rewarding to deal with, but unpredictable. They can be impulsive, reckless, faithless, remorseless, and exploitative. They have problems with telling the truth. President Putin has demonstrated many of these facets.

He is also hubristic or narcissistic. He is surprisingly vane, particularly about his physical prowess. Putin’s combination of paranoid, sadistic, and antisocial dark side personality is unusual (Hitler is the closest previous example we have). It means that Putin will be ready to authorise violent and extreme actions to further his beliefs and causes. The question is how far is he willing to go? We judge that he is some way from admitting defeat and pulling back his forces.

Motivation is the sixth and final dimension which influences people’s behaviour. There are many motivations which drive people. We believe President Putin is driven by the following.

Power and influence – These people like to be thought of as leader-like; they are assertive, competitive and ambitious for success. They enjoy being influential and wielding power. Think Thatcher and Trump: the thrill, the goal is to have as much power as possible to do things.

Putin has held on to power for 20 years. He has changed the constitution and acquired increasingly autocratic powers to ensure that he now runs Russia unchallenged and for as long as he wishes.

Recognition and vanity – For people with this profile, the positive attention of others spurs them on and makes them work harder. It helps their self-esteem and satisfies a desire or need to feel valued. For them, fame, visibility, and publicity are important.

At the extremes, these tip over into exhibitionism and narcissism. The quiet approval of their peers does not suffice; they are peacocks and want constant adulation, acknowledgment, praise, and prizes, often outside their immediate work environment. Without them, they can become angry and disruptive.

There are some indicators of narcissism in Putin. He wants to be taken seriously on the international stage, but he has disqualified himself from that position by his actions in Ukraine. The dangers of increasing anger are therefore more profound now.

Conclusion

There is little disputing that President Putin is a dictator who has few of the checks and balances to mould or restrain his decisions. We have argued in this article that Putin’s decision-making is more likely influenced by his personality and, in particular, the disorders which we believe he suffers: paranoid, anti-social, and sadistic.

Analysts would be wise, in our view, to look more closely at the consequences of his psychology than the traditional political and military factors which normally influence our leaders.

The question is what is the relevance of all this to business? One answer lies in the analysis of leaders and the top team. Using our six-factor model, it is possible to draw up a much richer profile of people than is often got through head-hunters and typical psychometric analysis.

There are enough CEOs in jail as well as generally disgraced to indicate that many organisations are not aware of how to spot potential tyrants and dictators. Money and time spent doing careful profile analysis is rarely wasted.

About the Authors

John Taylor joined the British Foreign Office in 1971 and is now a senior research fellow in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, where he lectures on their master’s course.

Adrian Furnham was previously a lecturer at Pembroke College, Oxford, and Professor of Psychology at University College London, and is now Professor of Management at BI, Norwegian Business School.

The post Tyrant Leadership: Putin and the Psychology of Power appeared first on The European Business Review.

It is often said that honesty is the best policy. But if we apply that maxim invariably and unquestioningly, does that automatically make us better people, or just naive and incapable of evaluating our situation? In business, for example, is unfailing bluntness a quality to be espoused or eschewed? Adrian Furnham gives us an honest assessment.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Many people say they value authenticity at work. They want to be themselves and express their real emotions. And they want all others to do likewise, particularly their boss and colleagues.

The word “authentic” implies that one always gives a faithful, honest, and accurate account of personal beliefs, preferences, and desires. It means genuine, bona fide, and honest, while the antonym implies dodgy, dishonest, and insincere.

We are told by the gurus that “authentic” leaders have all sorts of virtues: they tend to be more self-aware, more disciplined and inspiring, and more liked and trusted by all stakeholders. Thoroughly good egg; very desirable type.

Being authentic with others always and everywhere seems like a good idea, even a fundamental right. But is this possible in business, particularly the service industry? What if you don’t like, admire, or trust a colleague or customer? Are you being inauthentic if you don’t show it or – worse – if you express the opposite?

It is a “course requirement” to understand that, as we used to say, “the customer is king” and to do everything to please him or her. To be professional often means covering up your “personal circumstances” when you are at work.
There are a number of psychological concepts that relate to the idea of authenticity that are worth exploring.

Impression management

The sociologist Erving Goffman coined the term “impression management” 70 years ago. It is the act of presenting a favourable public image of oneself, so that others will form positive judgements. It is used by some psychologists as a synonym for “dissimulation” or, more crudely, lying. It is what people do at selection interviews and sometimes when filling out questionnaires.

Most people try to create a good impression which may, at the very least, mean being “economical with the truth”. This is why the selection interview is a hall of smoke and mirrors where both sides try to get behind the (carefully presented) façade and find the truth.

Can, or indeed should, one be “authentic” at a job interview or a press conference? Is that not a recipe for failure, rejection, or humiliation? Ever heard a politician saying they are unsure, paralysed with fear, or simply overwhelmed?

Goffman is also well known for his dramaturgical model which makes three distinctions. Being on the “front stage”, where people are conscious or aware of their behaviour while (performing) “on stage” in front of others. It means playing a part for the public, whoever they may be. The opposite situation is called “backstage”. Being backstage is where the person is not acting or performing for others – no make-up, no lines, no pretence. In this sense, authentic. Third, there is “offstage”, which occurs when a person is neither front nor backstage. They are unaware of others observing them and are not conscious of being watched.

So does the authentic person not distinguish between being front stage and backstage? Are they the same whoever they are with? Is that healthy or desirable? Discuss.

Self-Monitoring

For 50 years, psychologists have talked about “self-monitoring” which is defined as the tendency to notice (visual, vocal, verbal) cues for socially appropriate behaviour. And, more importantly, to be able and willing to modify one’s behaviour accordingly.
High self-monitors are characterised by sensitivity to social cues indicating socially appropriate behaviour and use those cues to modify self-presentation. Low self-monitors are relatively insensitive to social cues and tend to maintain a consistent self-presentation across different situations.

High self-monitors emphasise the public self and, like actors, seem to be asking, “What role should I be playing in this situation?” Low self-monitors are more interested in their personal value systems and private realities. The central question asked by the low self-monitors is, “How can I be the person I truly am in this situation?”

High self-monitors choose careers in politics and PR, theatre and diplomacy. They are happy selling things and themselves. They do presentations, in every sense of the word, well. Low self-monitors choose the helping professions and prefer being in groups like themselves.

Clearly, high self-monitors are better at reading non-verbal cues and adjusting their behaviour accordingly. They are highly socially flexible and adaptable. Some would say social chameleons, inauthentic, all things to all people. Low self-monitors are honest to themselves and their beliefs and can be seen as stubborn and socially unskilled.

These two types respond to people and products rather differently. High self-monitors rate image-oriented advertisements and products as more appealing and effective, and seem willing to pay more for the product. By contrast, low self-monitors react more favourably to product-quality-oriented advertisements.

A useful distinction in selection and promotion? The serious-minded, low self-monitor who wants at all times to be able to be authentic at work. The flashy high self-monitor who can fit in as the occasion demands.

Political Skill

Office “politics” is a bad word, but office “savvy” or “political skill” are good. American and German psychologists have shown that you can assess the extent to which a person is politically skilful and that this predicts success at work.

Political skill has been defined as the ability to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organisational objectives. It has four distinct components. Social astuteness: This is about being perceptive, insightful, attuned to all the vagaries and nuances of everyday interactions. Interpersonal influence: This is about being persuasive in different contexts. It inevitably means being adaptable and flexible. Networking ability: This is understanding the usefulness of, and more importantly to be able to establish, a range of alliances, coalitions, and friendship networks.

The fourth component is Apparent sincerity: Being able to look authentic and genuine on all occasions irrespective of what you really think or feel. It is the ability not to show coerciveness, manipulation, or that one has hidden motives. Thus, what you see is not always what you get! Sincerity is therefore part of showmanship. It is good acting and really understanding and displaying appropriate emotions, even if you do not feel them.

There is a questionnaire which measures this. Items include the following: “It is important that people always believe I am sincere in what I say and do”; and, “I try to show a genuine interest in other people.”

The message is clear: being able to look interested, committed, and sincere is a useful skill, particularly when you are not. In this, being authentic might simply indicate a lack of skill in this department.

Emotional Labour

There are three types of labour: physical or manual labour, intellectual or cognitive labour, and emotional labour. Even before the craze for emotional intelligence, it was recognised that many workers were required to display certain emotions as part of the job. This has been called “emotional labour”, which means hiding or suppressing real feelings while displaying other, even opposite emotions. The job may require “appropriate emotions” which have to be displayed more or less intently than would come naturally. Waiters and nurses, gardeners and fitness trainers, accountants and attorneys, psychotherapists and independent financial advisers all have to fake emotion: concern, interest, enthusiasm, and so on.

The term was first used in a book called The Managed Heart and subtitled Commercialization of Human Feeling. It was published 40 years ago and was a study of commercial jet flight crew.

Those who work in the field have distinguished between “surface acting”, which occurs when employees display the emotions required for a job without changing how they actually feel. On the other hand, “deep acting” is an effortful process through which workers change their internal feelings to align with organisational expectations, producing more natural and genuine emotional displays.

The objective of both is typically to show positive emotions, which are presumed to influence the satisfaction of customers and bottom-line outcomes, e.g., sales, positive recommendations, and repeat business. So questionnaires that assess this concept ask questions such as: “I put on an act in order to deal with people at work in an appropriate way”; “I just pretend to have the emotions I need to display for my job”; “I make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display toward others”; and, “The emotions I express to people at work are genuine.”

The question is, therefore, whether emotional labour is essentially an effort to conceal, rather than reveal, true thoughts and feelings. A requirement to be inauthentic!

Superficial Charm

Then there is the dark side of inauthenticity. One of the key markers of a genuine psychopath is their superficial and glib charm. This is why they are most successful and lethal if they are educated, good-looking, and intelligent.

There are, in the literature, dozens of cases where otherwise serious “grown-ups” have been conned by the sweet-talking psychopath.

Psychopaths are often considered to be charming, engaging, and smooth, due to a lack of self-consciousness which frees them from the inhibitions and worries about saying the wrong thing that can cause others to be more socially awkward. However, it is not this, but lack of conscience (super-ego) that is the problem. They are deeply inauthentic liars … all the time.

Studies show that chief executives with high psychopathy scores tend to be seen as charismatic, creative, and adept at communicating. They tell people what they want to hear, and are praised for their perspicacity, insight, and courage … until they are found out.

The essence of psychopathy, as oppose to Machiavellianism, is that the former have no guilt, no still, small voice of conscience. The bright, talented, high self-monitoring psychopath learns to appear authentic, not simply to smooth social intercourse, but to further their own ends. They are particularly dangerous the more skilful they are and rejoice in letting others believe how authentic they are.

A major book on psychopaths at work is entitled Snakes in Suits. Most people when they hear the word “psychopath” think of the shower scene murder in the film Psycho. The trouble is that the sweet-talking colleague at work is more likely to be one. Indeed, it is not clear how or whether a psychopath could be authentic, even if they wanted to be!

so…

Can you be authentic and tell “white lies”, which are usually defined as being harmless to others – a minor “porky” that maintains politeness, social manners, and important courtesies?

Originally, white lies were seen as being nothing more than harmless fibs told in the service of embellishing tall tales.

People tell white lies when telling the truth would be too complicated, uncomfortable, or hurtful. The argument is that white lies function to censor harmful, socially awkward facts, and prevent the hurt that would result from cold, unflinching honesty.

So is the white-lie-evading “authentic” person to be admired? Are they being so authentic because they don’t have the skills to tell white lies?

Being a grown-up and a success at work requires tact and diplomacy. It requires knowing your audience and communicating appropriately.

There is all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, a high self-monitoring, politically skilled person with emotional intelligence and, on the other, a cynical, manipulative psychopath. Is a person authentic because they don’t have the insight and skill to behave otherwise? In this sense, they have no option, but could they be a liability to themselves and others?

Or is the authentic leader one who knows when and how and where to express what they really feel. As George Burns the elderly comic said, “Sincerity – if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

In short, authenticity has its place; it is situationally defined and constrained.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School, Oslo. His latest book with John Taylor is on The Psychology of Spies and Spying.

The post Authenticity at Work: Be Honest, is it a Good Thing? appeared first on The European Business Review.

But it was just “workplace banter”! Another pale, stale, frail male attempts to defend himself against a range of accusations of “inappropriateness” in the workplace. Do you dare to tell a joke, make a pun, offer a witty observation in the office? You have to know the company you keep well before offering a clever witticism or topical joke these days.

Comedians themselves are very worried about the massive rise in complaints and threats from all quarters. Satire mocks people and institutions that are too rigid and pompous. It points up stupidity, hypocrisy and social injustice (hoping to promote change). It is the very essence of political humour and is hated by dictators everywhere. It, too, is under attack.

We all know that a sense of humour can operate as a defence against adverse, inescapable circumstances, e.g., disability or mortality. It helps us to screen out negative aspects of reality and promotes optimism. The British, in particular, use humour as a coping method that is thought to be healthy.

Psychobabble

It might come as a surprise to many that humour, at least since Freud, has been a respectable area of psychological research and enquiry. Researchers have asked and tried to answer questions such as: What is the psychological function of humour? Are there different types of jokes: funny ha-ha, funny pathetic, funny peculiar? What is the psychological profile of comedians? Why do some people seem to have no “sense of humour”? Does humour travel across countries and cultures? What, indeed, about cruel, racist, sexist or tasteless jokes? What is it like to be laughed at? Does the use of humour in advertising help sales? Are there sex differences in humour? What about “canned laughter” and why is it now banned?

We all know that humour preferences relate to personality and social attitudes. Liberals like sexual, aggressive and disparaging cartoons; conservatives prefer “safe”, word-based, intellectual jokes, especially those that provide “incongruity resolution” (feelings of closure).

It certainly has been noticed that comedians make better psychologists than psychologists make comedians. But psychologists have studied the psychological profile of stand-up comedians as well as popular entertainers. Despite one or two famous examples (Bob Hope and George Burns), comedians, and other performers, actually die younger than comparable professions. The health benefits of humour may apply more to the audience than the clowns.

The psychological literature suggests that joke-telling techniques are pleasurable in themselves; they can allow for childish, irrational thinking (what psychologists call “id” – primary process or regression in the service of the ego). They are very often the expression of unacceptable sexual and aggressive impulses in a socially acceptable manner. In short, they relax inhibitions.

For the Freudians, humour releases emotions and drives that are normally repressed, particularly sex and aggression. Obscene wit stimulates sexual drives; witty invective – aggressive drives. These drives are normally kept in check by the superego (the “moral censor”). But the release of drives allows release of energy normally used for repression, expressed as laughter. So the spoilsports and party poopers are right: humour is often about sex and violence.

Humour is a safety valve. Its emotional power often derives from an instinctive, libidinal element (e.g., sex, aggression, fear of death). Tension is relieved by some trick or twist that makes clear it is all “just in fun”, what Freud well over a hundred years ago called the joke technique. If people are sexually aroused (e.g., by viewing erotic movies), they find most jokes funnier.

One form of hostility is disparagement (assertion of superiority over others, often an out-group). This may be directed against an individual or type of person (e.g., ethnic and sexist jokes). Put-downs are enjoyed by the in-group (those who “get the joke” share the stereotype) but are usually unfunny or offensive to the victims. People smile at the misfortune of others (schadenfreude), especially when the victim is disliked, high-status and envied, like bankers, politicians from the “other side”, traditional enemies of the country.

Some jokes are neither libidinous nor targeted at out-groups but focus on the intellectual: conceits, wordplay, juxtaposition and surprise. A cognitive puzzle-solving aspect is central to many forms of humour, though not appreciated by all. Mirth arises from a sudden debunking of expectation or restructuring of perception (a reward for exercising an important survival skill).

Business

The idea that humour and laughter may be good for people has not escaped managers and gurus. If it has been shown that humour provides short- and long-term positive emotional, social and physiological effects, it is no surprise that businesspeople are interested. If humour can reduce absenteeism and increase productivity, we certainly need it. So, do we have to hire humour consultants, or arrange humour workshops and/or use humour as an essential competency in hiring and promotion decisions?

The business boffins say humour is an important stress buster. To see the funny side of all those daft corporate activities does help. It keeps things in proportion and may even boost morale among the “little people” who are often victims of head-office madness.

Humour may have other functions. It can help engender a sense of playfulness, which in turn can help creativity. It can boost morale and help bind teams together. It certainly can help in all social occasions like dreary meetings. It can defuse conflict, open dialogues and allow difficult and subtle things to be said while allowing everyone to save face. It can help people connect quickly and build rapport. And it is particularly important in customer service situations.

Those blessed with a sense of humour seem to be able to do things with a lighter touch, to develop trust and to communicate more effectively than their humour-challenged colleagues. Or can they? The business hype about the use of humour at work may have forgotten something rather important: the “politically correct” police.

Advertising

Humour is used in advertising to gain attention and to build warm, playful associations with a product. Advertisers want you to remember brand names and buy the product. There are many ways of getting your attention, such as sex and humour.But studies show, paradoxically to many, that sex does not sell, but humour does.

Programmes and the ads within them can both be classified as humorous and non-humorous. Is it a good idea to place a humorous ad in a non-humorous programme? It depends on many factors: the type of humour and the type of programmes, but only when the ad is likeable, not irritating. Humour operates to combat people’s natural resistance to aggressive marketing through a process of distraction.

Viewers of funny ads do not necessarily remember the brand afterwards but make the positive association with the right product once in the store.

Funny is sexy

The research, though possibly now a little a dated, is clear: men tell more jokes than women. Men are more drawn to libidinous and competitive themes; women to clever wordplay. People laugh at men’s jokes more than women’s jokes. Women laugh much more at men’s jokes than vice versa. GSOH (good sense of humour) is a code for intelligence in the online dating world and thought to be very attractive in a man.

Many men have worked out that humour has mating value – signalling intelligence and creativity (good genes). That is why online dating profiles often have GSOH as something men boast or women want. Funny people tend to be clever, socially self-confident, emotionally intelligent – don’t they?

Attractive people are seen as funnier and humour boosts attractiveness, particularly for short-term flings. Some studies have shown that women are three times more likely to give their phone number to a suitor they have just heard tell a joke to a friend. Women want a partner who is both receptive to humour and funny; men just want a partner who will laugh at their jokes.

Humour in marriage has also been studied. Constructive, affiliative and self-enhancing humour went with happy and stable marriages. Antisocial, sarcastic and vulgar humour went with poor relationships and divorce.

Humour and health

Humour and laughter are, quite simply, good for you. Laughter lowers blood pressure and oxygenates the blood, thereby increasing energy levels and the feeling of well-being. It reduces hormones released in response to stress and helps prevent lethargy. Further, over time, it has been shown to boost the immune system. So it is true: laughter is the best medicine.

The ultimate health benefit might be an increased life expectancy. Some studies suggest that a sense of humour correlates with subjective health and independently improves survival, at least up until age 65.

Laughter is “good medicine” but the exact process or mechanism that explains longevity is, of course, more complex. For instance, people with a sense of humour probably have a better support system (more friends), which explains a lot.

Types of humour

The problem is that humour may be rather idiosyncratic. Those who praise the use of humour seminars and workshops skip over this all-important point. What one person finds very funny either “passes over” or “pisses off” his or her colleagues.
Those psychologists interested in taxonomising humour have found very different groups. Whether it is visual or verbal humour, there appear to be quite different categories of jokes and stories that are thought of as funny. Four groups seem very clear:

• Nonsense humour: jokes, shaggy dog stories or cartoons, that rely on tricks like puns or incongruous inconsistent situations.
• Satire: jokes or stories that are funny because they “take the mickey” out of, and attempt to ridicule, particular people, groups, organisations or institutions.
• Aggressive humour: this works for certain people and can show (particularly in cartoons) pictures of violence, torture and even sadism, as well as verbal insults.
• Sexual humour: this, of course, refers to subtle or explicit sexual jokes from simply suggestive to crude and vulgar, depending on your taste and definition.

It is, of course, possible to find other categories and split the above. Those social scientists who research humour have also been interested in the correlates of humour. Are there culture, gender, intelligence and personality correlates of humour? Why does some humour not travel while other types seem universal? Do more intelligent people like puns, spoonerisms and wordplay more than less intelligent people? Do people grow out of some types of humour?

Yet the use of any sort of humour has come under the spotlight because of the growing right of offence. Tell a joke (from any of the above categories) and you can be sure that someone, somewhere will be offended. They may not like you, or perhaps they have had a sense of humour bypass, but it does not matter. They complain and instigate an investigation. And there is nothing as problematic as explaining a joke and why it is funny.

So humour has become more and more constrained and verboten in the workplace. Unless it is completely anodyne and therefore, by definition, not very funny, it may be very unwise to try humour to diffuse a situation or communicate something rather subtle.

Whether it is funny ha-ha, funny peculiar or funny pathetic, it is now unwise to say it. For some, this robs them of a primary coping strategy they have relied upon. If humour is a stress buster, surely we should encourage it.

But most of us have learned to be very careful with jokes, puns and off-the-cuff remarks meant to be funny. It is sometimes called banter. It is too easy to offend and get into trouble these days. So, if in doubt, desist! It seems, to some, that there is an army of people just waiting to be offended.

Best keep to good jokes for those you know and trust and share your view of the world. And probably better to show and appreciate humour out of the workplace rather than in it. Funny, isn’t it?

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Professor of Psychology at the Norwegian Business School, and frequently in trouble for his humour. He acknowledges the research work and writings of Willibald Ruch and Glenn Wilson for his understanding of the topic.

The post Laugh and the World Complains to HR: Humour at Work appeared first on The European Business Review.

“In the world of intelligence, it is trust not betrayal which dominates the mindset”

What exactly do spies do? What attributes and skills are they selected and trained for? How accurate is the popular “James Bond” description of what spies and spying are all about? How psychological is the spying business?

Driving fast cars, mixing smart cocktails, and mastering whizz-kid gadgets are not central to the job. The essential business of spies is obtaining secret intelligence. Indeed, MI6 is officially known as the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). It is the job of spies to obtain accurate and secret intelligence about particular issues of relevance to their governments.

Spies have to find, charm, befriend and motivate agents effectively to commit treason. Many of the best secrets come from people who are betraying their country or terrorist organisation. The spies’ job is to find people who have secrets they want (they call these people ‘agents’), assess their potential motivation to spy, understand their personality and motivation (will they be reliable?), recruit them as a secret source, and then manage them as they pass their secrets, often in very dangerous circumstances. This is a deeply complex and sophisticated task.

It follows that agents are recruited not because they have the desirable skills and attributes necessary for such a demanding job, but for one reason alone – do they have access to secrets that the spies and their masters want?

Spies, that is the professional intelligence officers, have therefore to have excellent judgement and influencing skills. It is a skilful business using a range of sophisticated psychological techniques. It is often said that they need the combined skills of an actor, salesman, counsellor and journalist.

The world of espionage is necessarily secret. Organisations like the CIA, the SVR and Mossad reveal nothing about their sources. The literature shows there are leaks, betrayals and defections and the most valuable sources are always people who have critical information (i.e., secrets). It is a world of shadows and rumours and intrigue. The costs are high; treason is a capital offence in many countries. We hear about the failures and mistakes but rarely about the successes.

So spies search out people who have the information their organisation and country want: military developments and plans; nuclear weapons and energy; powerful political organisations and individuals.

Recruiting Agents

The essential requirement is that agents have access to information the spies want. Increasingly in counter-terrorist and criminal operations, they need to penetrate specific organisations. Some offer the information by walking into embassies in foreign countries. Others have to be bribed, seduced and induced to reveal their secrets. Some are angry and vengeful whistle-blowers; others are motivated by ideology. Some are not very likeable or emotionally well adjusted.

The first and most obvious problem for the spy (often called a “handler”) is to understand, motivate and reward people they might not like and who are very different from them. This is where the psychology comes in. The task is to befriend (cultivate) an individual, maybe from a very different culture and background, to give up their secrets. In doing so, many agents take great risks with their own life and that of their family. And so do the spies, for if they are caught, they may well be executed, or “disappear”.

Recruiting and Running Agents

The real motivation of the agent is not the only challenge facing the handler. They must be able to identify personality traits that might affect the agent’s performance and reliability. They also need to assess whether they can be debriefed efficiently so as to enable a report of value to be written. They have to manage them and the relationship.

The classic agent operation involves developing a relationship, which can last months before the handler attempts to recruit the agent. The agent may not realise they are the subject of scrutiny until the spy makes a proposal, referred to as the “recruitment”. It is only then that the spy declares who they really are, who they work for and what they want.

Handlers receive a lot of training in how to meet, cultivate, recruit and run an agent. There are essentially seven steps (see figure 1).

Potential agents need to be found. Usually, the next step is developing some sort of relationship with them. While this is occurring, there is a great deal of assessment essentially about two things: what they know, and what they are like. Then, and only then, are they formally recruited, so they know who they are dealing with and “the rules of the game”.

Often, the trickiest bit is what is called handling, which means developing the relationship to get the secret information that is wanted. The spy-agent relationship may continue for many years, which means a handler has to hand over the relationship to a colleague when he or she is posted to another assignment. Finally, when the task is done, the relationship is terminated.

Understanding Agents

Spies have to assess their agents, as do selectors. They have to understand how they deal with stress, how they build relationships, how easily they learn and follow instructions, and where any potential danger points are.

Clearly, agents can’t be put through assessment centres with all the sophisticated techniques used by work psychologists (the CIA do ask their agents to go through a polygraph test). Spies, often working in a second (or third) language, may only have short, clandestine meetings with their agent to try and understand them. Many agents are difficult, disturbed and unattractive individuals; but all have to be cultivated and recruited.

The question is how to achieve that end. There appear to be six things that one needs to know in order to understand an individual.

The first is the cultural and sub-cultural background of the agent. This is essentially cross-cultural psychology and draws upon the work of people like Hofstede. It is about how the place and time a person grows up shape their world view. We know how influential the titanic fascism-communism clash of the 1930s was in shaping so many famous spies. Is the potential agent an Egyptian Coptic Christian, a white South African, or a Baltic Russian? How did the place and time of their upbringing shape their world view and ideology?

Second, what about their personal upbringing – their bio-data? Were their parents rich or poor, strict or liberal, cold or loving? Did they have any handicaps to overcome as a child? What was the predominant religion and belief system they were exposed to in their youth?

Third, are they bright enough to do the somewhat complex tasks required in the job? Is there evidence of their information-processing speed and retention that gives one confidence they could do the job?

Then it gets more familiar for psychologists. Fourth, what about their personality, paying particular attention to two traits: neuroticism and conscientiousness, which we know are the two strongest determinants of any work performance?  Neuroticism, or emotional stability, is relevant primarily because it relates to how the agent copes with stress, both acute and chronic, which is an inherent part of the job. It is vitally important to know how agents regulate their emotions, what things make them most stressed and how adaptive their coping strategies are.

Fifth, and more relevant, are the dark-side personality traits: the sub-clinical personality disorders. Of these, two are particularly relevant: anti-social (psychopath) and narcissistic personality disorder. The focus on what is now called the “dark triad” has always been fundamental. Are they fantasists or mercurial? Are they a bit of a loner, unable to establish relationships?

And finally, sixth, possibly the most difficult bit: what really, fundamentally motivates them?

The Motivation

Differential psychologists usually attempt to measure three areas of an individual: ability, personality and motivation. It is usually agreed that it is the last of these that is most difficult to measure. For those in the spying business, one of the most important tasks is to try to understand the motives of the agent, which they themselves may not be able to articulate clearly.

An analysis of many successfully and unsuccessfully recruited and run agents suggests a short list of motives that can be crudely classified into three groups.

There are “push” factors concerning deep unhappiness and bitterness about the way they have been treated by an organisation they worked for. This could be a commercial or a government organisation. There are also “pull” factors to the world of espionage, such as powerful and deep-seated ideological beliefs, material benefits (mainly money) as a reward, and the sheer excitement of the whole activity. Third, there is the reward of a friendship and relationship with the spy and his/her colleagues.

The Organisation

a. Disenchantment

Many agents are deeply disenchanted with how they have been treated by an organisation and, through whistle-blowing, seek sweet revenge. There are different facets of enchantment:

First, organisational lying/hypocrisy – the employee’s perception that what the organisation says about itself in public, and even to its employees, is a pack of lies. The more the organisation tries to capture the moral high ground,  the more outraged the astounded and angry insider becomes.

Second, perceived inequity – the idea that some people in the organisation are treated very differently from others. It is the assertion that people are not fairly assessed, promoted and rewarded.

Third, bullying and mistreatment, which is the perception that some senior people are callous, uncaring, nasty and manipulative, and that you are a victim. Bosses are seen as bullies and backstabbers. Staff can forgive the occasional emotional outburst and unkind remark, but not chronic, remorseless nastiness aimed specifically at them. Further, some organisations have a management style that is essentially aggressive and Machiavellian.

Fourth, mutual distrust, which is the feeling that the organisation does not even trust its own employees.  Whilst top management may talk about, and demand, loyalty from their staff, it is clear that they do not trust their own employees. This is, of course, a two-way street. If the organisation lets it be known that it never really and fully trusts me with information, money and materials, why should I ever trust them?

Fifth, broken promises – expectations not being met. Employees are told what the organisations stand for, what is expected, and how things work. But, all too often, an employee does not have his or her expectations clarified, and then the promises are broken.

Disenchanted people are angry and vengeful. What better way to get one’s own back than by “spilling the beans” on the major secrets of the organisation? After all, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

b. Wounded vanity and narcissism

Wounded vanity or ego might well stimulate someone to seek revenge. There is a fine line between healthy self-esteem and serious, self-defeating narcissism. The latter is characterised by an insatiable craving for adoration, feeling a special entitlement and a right to be insensitive to others, but at the same time either enraged or crushed by criticism. It is the feeling that one deserves special treatment, and then being extremely upset if treated as “ordinary”.

Narcissists can be energetic, charismatic, leader-like and willing to take the initiative to get projects moving. However, they are often arrogant, vain, overbearing, demanding, self-deceiving and pompous. They are so colourful and engaging, they often attract followers. But narcissism is a disorder of self-esteem; it’s a cover-up.

Narcissists self-destruct because their self-aggrandisement blinds their personal  judgement and perception. Their reaction to any sort of criticism is extreme: shame, rage, tantrums. They aim to destroy that criticism, however well intended and useful it may have been. They are poor empathisers and thus have low emotional intelligence. They can be consumed by envy and disdain for others, prone to depression, manipulative, demanding and self-centred.

The primary feature shared by both dimensions of narcissism is a tendency to act antagonistically towards others. Vulnerable narcissists have grandiose fantasies but are timid, insecure and consequently do not appear narcissistic on the surface. Grandiose narcissists have higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction and are more exhibitionist than vulnerable narcissists. Often, wounded vanity is a sign of vulnerable narcissism. Becoming involved with the spying world feeds their narcissism, which may have been badly wounded by events.

Personal Factors

These are often divided into three categories, although, of course, they overlap

a. Ideology

Ideologies, like religious or political creeds, can be very attractive, because they explain so much. They make sense of the past and the present and offer a view of a much better future. They can and do dramatically improve a sense of self-worth and identity.

Some countries try to “indoctrinate” their people from a very early age to believe in, and adhere to, a set creed of beliefs that are about truth, justice and fairness. People absorb these differently; some are indifferent, others reject them, but many remain believers. They become zealous followers, quite intolerant of those who do not share their world view.

The twentieth century saw the growth and destruction of various powerful states (Nazi Germany, the USSR). In the 1930s in Western Europe, many had to choose between fascism and communism. Indeed, it was the time when the “Cambridge Five” chose communism, becoming Britain’s most notorious traitors, and personally responsible for the deaths of many people.

We are currently preoccupied with Islamic fundamentalism and the threat that various factions of Islam present. Sometimes, intelligence agents are “converts” to a creed, faith or ideology, such as Islam, Marxism or nationalism. Others are “dissidents” who were perhaps “born into it”. Their primary aim in betraying others is to further the cause. Ideology is a powerful yet very complex motivation for many.

b. Money

Selling secrets is a potentially lucrative business. Money features in many cases, but spies don’t usually like an agent who is primarily motivated by money. Often, they don’t have much control over how the agent spends the money, and too much time is spent haggling over the amount the agent thinks a report is worth. This often changes over time, when agents become greedy but have less useful information to reveal.

The crucial question is how they use and spend that money – what it symbolises for them. The mercenary, materialistic and greedy agent will need careful and constant monitoring. The need for money raises some interesting questions. Does everyone have a price? What is the fantasy associated with wealth? What do they really want to buy?  Understanding what the money is for is an essential task for any spy.

c. Excitement

Some people crave excitement more than others. Adrenaline junkies paradoxically relax with stimulation, just as smokers might turn to nicotine (a stimulant) to relax. Some people are serious risk-takers, sensation-seekers. They drive fast and choose risky recreational activities. They trade off accuracy for speed. They are prone to all sorts of gaffes, preferring to speak before they think.

In the world of espionage, it is important to draw a distinction between a liking for excitement and risk. It is exciting going to a meeting when you know you are going to try and recruit the agent. Standing on a street outside a block of flats and trying to persuade someone to let you, a complete stranger, into the flat so you can talk to them is exciting. A surveillance officer pursuing a target will get excited when they sense the target is about to meet someone or fill a dead-letter box. This excitement is self-induced. There is added tension and therefore, for some, added excitement. Very few operations carry no risk; planning reduces that risk.

Some agents are in it for the thrills, the “romance” of it all. But they can be unpredictable and unreliable. Like everything else, we need optimality in the appetite for risk; the individual should be neither an addict nor averse to undertaking well-calculated and planned risky activities.

Fear, Blackmail and Coercion

The effect of torture, blackmail and any other form of coercion creates anger and huge resentment. Anyone who is suffering coercion will naturally want to get away from their tormentors as quickly as possible. It is not, therefore, a long-term motivation. Although it is morally reprehensible, there are cases of spying agencies using fear, blackmail and coercion to recruit agents and acquire intelligence. More than other methods, they raise ethical questions.

Agencies can now rummage about in a person’s past much more easily, exposing these facts via the web. Perhaps the best-known form of coercion is blackmail. This might involve finding out about some aspect of the past of an individual that he or she desperately does not want revealed, perhaps by setting up a “sting” or a “honeytrap”, where a person is put in a situation that yields incriminating evidence.

Some of these techniques are well known, for example, when a man meets a woman apparently by chance. They strike up a conversation, enjoy a drink which is spiked with a powerful drug, and he wakes up naked in a hotel room to be faced with incriminating photographs. These honeytraps are the stuff of movies, because they are a rich mix of human foibles and passion.

The Relationship

One motivation for an agent is the (inevitably) close, confiding and supportive relationship of spy and agent. Some agents clearly crave it. Ideally, the relationship will be one of trust and liking, which is most likely to produce the best results. But there are different approaches. The spy-agent relationship is often powerful and close. The life of the agent may be dependent on the spy. Their meetings may be like having a clandestine affair, which makes it very exciting. The agent has to respect the spy; trust and liking make it more powerful.

The nature of the social relationship between spy and agent is deeply complex, often because so much is involved. In many cases, the agent and his/her family and friends could face death if found out.

Conclusion

The selection, assessment, recruitment and running of agents is the bread and butter of spying. It is about having a very close relationship with someone possibly unlike oneself, and who one might actively dislike. The skills involved are deeply psychological, requiring the insight and skill of a therapist, the management skills of a leader, and the impression management of an actor. It is no wonder that so much is invested in finding and training potential spies.

This paper is based on the book Furnham, A., & Taylor, J (2022) The Psychology of Spies and Spying: Trust, Treason and Treachery. London: ABRA Press

About the Authors

Professor Adrian Furnham was previously a lecturer at Pembroke College, Oxford, and Professor of Psychology at University College London, and is now Professor of Management at BI, Norwegian Business School.

John Taylor joined the British Foreign Office in 1971 and is now a senior research fellow in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, where he lectures on their master’s course.

Key Sources

• Corera, G. (2011). The Art of Betrayal: Life and Death in the British Secret Service. London, UK: W&N.
• Furnham, A., & Taylor, J. (2011). Bad apples: Identify, prevent and manage negative behaviour at work. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Furnham, A., & Treglown, L. (2017). Disenchantment: Managing motivation and demotivation at work. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Gordievsky, O. (2015). Next Stop Execution: The Autobiography of Oleg Gordievsky. London, UK: Lume Books.
• Macintyre, B. (2018). The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest Espionage Story of the Cold War. London, UK: Viking Press
• Omand, D. (2020). How Spies Think: Ten Lessons in Intelligence. New York, NY: Viking Press
• Storm, M. (2014). Agent Storm: My Life Inside al-Qaeda and the CIA. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
• Taylor, J., Furnham, A., & Breeze, J. (2014). Revealed: Using Remote Personality Profiling to Influence, Negotiate and Motivate. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

The post Trust, Treason and Treachery: The Psychology of Spying appeared first on The European Business Review.

Nearly all selection processes involve the famous trio: application form, references and interview. Both the selectors and the candidates seem to like it that way, which probably explains why it continues with some modification despite the evidence about its many drawbacks.

For many the selection interview is an impression management battleground, where selectors buy books on “killer questions” to “get beneath the skin” of the interviewee. The latter buy books of “smart arse answers” to confuse the interviewer. It is, of course process of smoke-and-mirrors, subterfuge and play-acting: which is why certain individuals (narcissists and psychopaths) like them and do well, and often get selected.

We know that older, more socially confident, manipulative people rather like interviews. They shun tests and assessment centres, preferring to show off their well-honed charm to less sophisticated interviewees. They can do “apparent sincerity”, and glib, politically hot and sensitive phrases positively role off their tongue

So why are interviews so poor at predicting performance? There is a long and growing list of factors that collectively explain this.

• Interviewers differ in insight, skills, preferences: some have got skill and insight and not others. Training helps but some are naturals with real insight.
• Interviewers are not as logical and rational and able to deal with complexity as they suppose; interview confidence is often negatively correlated with interview competence.
• Interviewers’ motives, attention and need for justification of their decisions differ widely which leads to problems of reliability: very different candidates are preferred.
• Interviewees nearly always portray a positive (unrealistic) impression by self-promotion and self-enhancement; it is called impression management, dissimulation and faking.
• Interviewers often look for, and pay attention to, novel and quirky and negative information which they weigh too heavily in their judgements.
• Interviewees are increasingly being coached on how to behave in interviews, so you are measuring performance skills not the real person. 
• Variations occur in how interviewers use any rating scale used during or after the interview; some give extreme scores while others never do.
• Interviewers make up their mind far too before the interview or too soon into it: they are highly selective in the things they notice, remember and rate. They can’t weigh and integrate information well like an AI program.
• Interviewers cannot cope with the complexity of integrating the information they collect: people are capricious and inconsistent, which interviewers cannot understand or resolve inconsistencies….and people are inconsistent 
• Interviewers are susceptible to forming a first impression and ignoring later data: the well known first impressions effect which can be firmness of handshake, perfume used or the subtle exposure of jewelry or tattoos
• Even relatively little pieces of negative information (failures) has a great impact: Reasons to reject (i.e. select out) factors have disproportionate weight compared to select-in factors. 
• Interviewers have their own (wrong, unproved, bizarre) implicit personality theories (i.e. red heads are intelligent, rugby players are good team workers). 

So many have come up with a list of recommendations such as:

Prepare all questions on a thorough, up-to-date  job analysis.; Ask exactly the same questions of each candidate; Do not allow questions from the candidate until after the interview (when the data have been collected); Rate each answer using multiple rating scales.; Use detailed anchored rating scales and take detailed notes; Use multiple interviewers where possible.; Use the same interviewer(s) across all candidates and provide extensive training to enhance reliability; Use statistical rather than clinical prediction.

Other recommendations include: Restrict the range of the interview to selection (not recruiting) and focus on the most job-relevant; Rely on multiple independent reviewers; Train interviewers in the process of the selection interview.

In many ways this is old hat but still ignored  

Small things that make a big difference 

Three is a wonderful literature based on good studies albeit with a “fun-and-games” approach that show how much little things impact on interview ratings

Consider three unrelated areas:

Smell: Does perfume, after-shave or body odour have an impact, consciously or unconsciously, on interview ratings? There have been a few studies in this area. Some guinea-pigs on a interview training course were asked to rate smells, finding the most and least popular. The next day they interviewed (unbeknown to them) an actor, who played the same role for each selector while wearing a popular, unpopular or no perfume. And guess what? When wearing the preferred perfume the actor was rated as more socially skilled, conscientious, and trustworthy,

There seems some evidence that women are more sensitive to these cues than men. And, of course, BO is a big no-no. Note the claim that Ms Markel chose Diana’s personal perfume to lure the young Prince.

Handshake: The body language gurus have described all sorts of handshakes, such as the “dead fish”; the “knuckle grinder” and “the stiff-arm thruster”. The “glove” or “politician” handshake is where one person tries to cover the other’s (opponent’s) hand completely. The desirable shake? Firm, with a strong and complete grip with (moderately) vigorous shaking for around 5 seconds while maintaining total eye contact.

Voice: There are several features in a voice: pitch, variability, loudness. Some people seem to have “nice voices”. Some actors are famous for their “rich and dark” or “sexy and sultry” voices. It is their signature: their meal ticket. And so it has been shown at selection. The attractiveness of the voice has an important, subtle and consequential impact.

And accent? Don’t even go there for embarrassment? Play people tapes with exactly the same responses to questions, even in the same voice, and you find a “strong accent effect”. 

Automated Digital Interviews 

Traditional interviews are very expensive in terms of time and money. Usually the interviewee has to travel, sometimes long distances to be interviewed by one or more individuals who have to make time for the process. Unless audio-recorded, which is rare and seen as a sign of paranoia, there is no reliable data about what went on during the interview which could be challenged in a court of law.

Even with structured interviews where people are asked the same questions it is possible that the verbal tone and non-verbal behaviour of the interviewer could be importantly or subtly different eliciting different reactions in interviewees.

The advent of automated interviews claims to offer many advantages over more traditional interviews. Usually this involves an interviewee responding on camera to a set of standardised, pre-recorded (text, audio or video) questions. These interviews are recorded and analysed by a whole range of techniques ranging from state-of-the-art AI technology or more modest techniques. It is possible to do an analysis of the verbal, vocal and non-verbal aspects of the recorded answers. Indeed, this methodology has become so widespread that various HR technology providers offer their services to do this.

From the recorded interviews it is possible to measure a very wide-range of particularly interesting variables ranging from facial expressions to vocabulary and word-speed to latency of response. They might even be used to measure body temperature changes, and in time, other physiological methods. These interviews are recorded and thus may be used at any time to link data from them to any subsequent behaviours.

Everything about their supposed advantage depends on a number of things. First, standard problems with interviews: the honesty of the interviewees, impression management, acquiescence all of which make the interview unreliable in the sense that the data are inaccurate and unreliable. Second, that the questions asked are perceptive and high yield. Third, that of the many variables measured, the most relevant (to the selection task) are chosen. Just because it is recorded is not good enough

One paradoxical finding at the moment is however reactions to digital interviews. A number of studies have shown that candidates do not like them and that they lead to a negative perception of the organisation they are applying to. Participants report feeling less in control and that they have an impression of lower social presence and fairness. Interviewees express concerns with privacy. Yet  in a study where students responded online to voice recordings, results showed that they engaged in less deceptive impression management, provided shorter answers and felt that they had fewer opportunities to perform at their best.

Early studies in this area also showed that the more positive the interviewee was about the usefulness and ease of use with the technology the happier they were with it. Thus it seems that as this technology becomes more sophisticated, user-friendly and wide-spread the more it will be accepted by the candidate

Faking. Lying and Dissimulation 

The biggest issue is that people lie in interviews (as well as on application forms and questionnaires) Max Eggert has listed a number of typical types of lies.

White-Lies: “I am a totally committed team player”. “I have excellent social skills and the ability to read people”. “I am utterly trustworthy and loyal”.

Altruistic Lies: These attempt a cover-up, but look as if they are helping others. So rather than say they left their last job because their manager was a bully, or the company was patently dodgy, they say they resigned to look for new challenges.

Lies of Omission: The most common and easiest of lies. People might omit details of school or university grades because of they had poor marks. Whole periods of their life are obfuscated. The most common lie concerns dates, often to disguise the fact that the candidate seemed to spend a surprisingly short amount of time in a succession of jobs. It is no more not less than concealment.

Defensive Lies: The defensive lie is one that conceals by generalizations or vagaries. Ask a person about their previous boss’s management style, their reason for leaving or their health record and you are often faced with a string of vague expressions such as “like others in the company”; “much the same as my co-workers”; “at that time”. Ask vague questions you get defensive lies.

Impersonation Lies: This is also called the transfer lie and occurs mostly where people take credit for others’ work. Statements such as  “I doubled sales over the year”; or “I was responsible for a budget of over three million.” All others in the hierarchy are forgotten in these lies. And it is difficult to establish the facts often as to who exactly was responsible for particular successes (and disasters which are, of course, omitted).

Embedded Lies: This is a clever subterfuge to confuse the interviewer. So “I really enjoyed my time in Oxford” could refer to a first job in the City of Dreamy Spires where s/he was a mere underling. The idea is to suggest than an experience, qualification or achievement was very different from the actuality. “It was good fun being with the BBC” could mean practically anything from “I once went to a show there” to “They filmed at my school”.

Errors of commission or fact: This is lying 101. They are explicit, verifiably, false claims. It is about claiming qualifications you don’t have; starting up or working for companies that never existed; skills that don’t exist. It is the most blatant form of lie.

The Personality of Interviewers  

How does the personality of the interviewer may play a very significant role in the whole interview process. So do different types/personalities make different decisions on the same people given the same criteria?

Extraverts usually enjoy interviewing. They are sociable; eager to be amused and entertained and entertaining.  Extraverts probably talk too much and listen too little. They may not do their preparation as thoroughly as they should. They may be impatient and inattentive in long interviews.

Introverts make  diffident, interviewers. They pause more, seeming hesitant, when they are processing information. They often find the  process tiring and intimidating and feel more for those candidates who are similar to themselves. They usually take the data gathering more seriously and see the whole interview less as a social occasion than a semi-scientific exercise. Certainly, the introverted candidate probably gets a “better deal” (more favourable hearing) from the introverted interviewer.

Poorly adjusted (neurotic) interviewers are, by definition, hyper-sensitive to real and imaginary threats.  They are stress-prone and may see people in general  as threatening. Neurotic interviewers can easily feel threatened by the potential “mover and shaker”. They listen carefully to the candidates’ answers to questions about work-life balance, diversity, counselling and other issues.

Stable interviewers, like stable employees, are better news. They are less  moody and better able to weigh the information. They worry less about what might go wrong and cope with all the little dramas at interviews well. They tend to be calm, focused and rational.

Agreeable interviewers are warm, empathic and trusting. They are for the most part likeable. They understand that interviews can be stressful. They are concerned about making the candidate comfortable, relaxed and able to be their real selves. They are slow to chide and swift to bless and believe they get the best out of others by giving them a chance.

Less agreeable and likeable interviewers believe you understand people best by “putting them on the spot”. They treat the interview as a “Paxman-inspired” political interview. They cross-examine individuals, often pushing them to give details of success and failure which their CV overlooks. They are hard to please: cynical, tough, world-weary and they care little for interviewee comfort.

Conscientious interviewers are not only conscientious about how they approach the task of interviewing, but also what they are looking for. Hard work is a virtue. Some are even prepared to “trade off” ability for the work ethic: preferring the loyal plodder to the capricious wunderkind. Conscientious interviewers are concerned that the applicant follows orders, obeys rules, and has a sense of duty.

Less conscientious interviewers want to have fun. They tend to be less achievement-orientated, less careful and with a much weaker work ethic. All that “postponement of gratification” stuff never worked with them. They prefer what the Freudians call “the pleasure principle”. They seek out playmates more than solid and reliable colleagues.

The ambition and achievement needs of interviewers are also relevant. Paradoxically, both the low and high ambition interviewer may be intimidated by the obviously ambitious candidate. Those with low ambitions can feel intimidated by newly minted MBAs who want to be on the board at 30 and retired at 40. The highly ambitious see a potential threat.

What of the abilities of the interviewer? How are bright, educated interviewers different from their less talented peers? Another paradox: the clever prefer discriminating questions, the dim prefer “clever” questions. Brighter people tend to have a bigger vocabulary and think fast. They ask good questions which sort the wheat from the chaff.

The less bright and less educated interviewers might rehearse “killer” questions that make them appear intelligent, even if they cannot process the answers. They can be intimidated in group interviews and behave badly. They often have “crackpot” theories, refreshingly evidence-free about desirable characteristics in candidates.

Conclusion

The interview is a social process. It can be a sophisticated intellectual theatrical show; a hall of mirrors; a game of bluff and counter-bluff. There is no doubt that there is a lot of ‘gut feeling’ going on in both parties, despite all their training.

So the moral of the story?  First, acknowledge that the interviewers’ make-up (ability and personality) do inevitably play a part. Second, try to work out how specific interviewers react to particular candidates. Third, use multiple interviewers but particularly those with the ability and personality profiles found among those. Forth, follow the rules and guidelines with respect to training interviews. Fifth, supplement interview data by references and tests. Sixth, the cost of errors (known to all those who divorce) is high so invest time, money and effort in trying to do a better job

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Professor of Psychology at BI: Norwegian Business School. He is particularly interested in assessment, particularly the development and evaluation of psychometric tests and has recently completed a co-authored book on the Psychology of Spying.

The post Old and New Takes on Selection Interviews appeared first on The European Business Review.

Whilst the number of teleworkers increased linearly since the beginning of the millennium, it has been the Covid-19 pandemic and the compulsory “working from home” that has made people very conscious of their working environment. The spare bedroom, dining table and man-shed have replaced Dilbert’s cubicle. The WFH revolution has begun. Work is something you do, not a place you go to, anymore.

There are many semi-synonymous terms for people who don’t travel to the office: home-workers, teleworkers, mobile workers. They inhabit the virtual workplace. Since the millennium, companies and gurus have trumpeted all the benefits of this new work style: Less time spent commuting (and traffic congestion/pollution); greater autonomy and flexibility about when, where, how to work (with greater productivity, satisfaction and much less absenteeism); better work-life balance (for carers, the disabled); a better talent pool (no relocating, retaining valuable workers); an environment free of office distractions.

Some companies embraced the idea perhaps more cynically, for the obvious bottom-line benefits. Home-working can dramatically cut office costs: space, heat, light;   tele-cottages can help rejuvenate rural economies and get hero points for the company; mobile workers can work anywhere and everywhere…airports, hotel rooms, etc. Mobile workers can go to customers rather than vice versa.

There is a long, well established list of potential problems with WFH

Of course, we have learnt, there are many jobs where it is simply not possible to work from home. Whole industries, such as transportation, healthcare, retail and catering, have to be conducted from a very specific place. These workers have had a very difficult time and many have been paid off. No customers, no jobs.

Some organisations, and bosses, seem very eager to get everybody back in the office: ideally full time, and at least most of the time. It seems they don’t quite trust their staff to work independently. Where you can easily and reliably measure output, which is very rare in the modern workplace of knowledge workers, it seems reports differ widely. Some seem certain that productivity is down, others report no difference, while some are surprised and pleased to see an increase with WFH.

A great deal has been written on managing-by-Zoom, attending virtual conferences, and all the accompanying frustrations of not having the personal touch. Some long to get back, others are quite happy with the trade-off between tedious commutes and the water-cooler moments. Some love the idea of working in pyjamas till lunch, and having the option of doing a spot of gardening mid-morning. Other complain about the temptations to snack and noise of the neighbours.

Churchill, looking at the bombed House of Commons said “We shape our buildings, thereafter, they shape us”. It is a form of environmental determinism. It is equally true that we shape our working environments, and they shape us. How does the study or kitchen table compare to the office? It is an ergonomic and psychological question and there is research to answer some fundamental questions.

Distraction 

One very important feature of any workplace is the number of distractions. Many workplaces have a wide variety of stimulus distractions that can have a serious impact on performance over time. Distracting stimuli (e.g., loud, erratic, uncontrollable, background noise, loud music, strong smells, flashing lights, changes in temperature) can affect work performance, particularly information processing. The question is, does the home environment increase or decrease distractions? Are they more tempting or annoying than in an office environment?

Most importantly, are such distractions more or less controllable? You could put on specific music to lighten your mood; burn a scented candle; or sit in the garden or garden shed.

Just as actors should never perform with children or animals, perhaps they are the most distracting at home. As many with school-aged children discovered.

Much of the human factors research has been on background sounds (music and noise), which is generally perceived to be detrimental to cognitive performance. There are three important and distinct factors: the nature of the distraction (i.e., music vs noise); the task being undertaken in the presence of the distraction (i.e., memory vs comprehension vs manual labour); and the personality of the individual (i.e., extraverts vs introverts).

Studies in this area often have a three-background (loud/familiar/vocal music, soft music/instrumental, silence), two-task (cognitively demanding, undemanding) and two personality types (introvert, extravert) classic experimental design, often requiring large numbers of people studied under highly controlled conditions. The reason is to explore and understand the interactions of the effects.

Lots of research dating back to “music while you work” has shown that differences in audible distractors, the tasks involved or the people assessed can have significant and quite subtle effects. Researchers in different disciplines have, quite naturally, concentrated on each of these three factors.

1. Noise

Studies have assessed various aural distractors including general office background noise, music, sirens etc. Those who have studied music as a distractor have looked at such features as vocal vs instrumental, familiar vs novel, loud vs soft, major vs minor key, familiarity of instrument. For noise, researchers have looked at the type of noise (office background, traffic, siren) as well as how loud and controllable it is. The literature suggests that loud, fast, familiar music and loud uncontrollable sounds associated with danger (i.e., sirens) are the most distracting and have the most negative impact on performance.

The effect of music on cognition is mediated through mood and emotion. Studies suggest that music generally impaired performance on a complex task, but improved it on a simple task.

2. Task

A central question concerns what work is being done: how cognitively demanding it is, over what period of time, and what are the consequences of failure. Early researchers in this area were interested in using music to improve the morale of assembly-line workers whose jobs were tedious, repetitive and cognitively undemanding. Think war-time assembly plants. They found that the right music did improve morale, which in turn had a small effect on output.

However, most of the experimental work has been done on more cognitive tasks involving classic information processing such as may be found in intelligence tests. Some have looked at speed and accuracy of processing and others of memory, while others have studied performance in applied settings such as operating theatres. Most of the results have confirmed the essentially obvious hypothesis that the more complex the task being done, the more negative the effect of the distractor on performance.

Critics will point out that many of these studies have low ecological validity in the sense that they assess an individual’s specific task performance in very controlled environments over relatively short periods of time. Many people work in teams, do a variety of tasks and over time adapt to, or have particular ways of coping with, distractions.

However, it is the primary interest of cognitive psychologists who research this area to understand cognitive processes and mechanisms in the presence of distraction and hence their insistence on careful experimentation.

3. Personality

It is obvious to anyone that there are strong individual differences in reactions to distraction: some people appear powerfully negatively affected, while others seem almost impervious to many forms of distraction.

We know that extraverts (like ADHD people) are under-stimulated and hence seek out stimulation (like social interaction), while the opposite is true of introverts. With the assumption that background sound is stimulating, and possesses the ability to increase levels of cortical arousal, it can be shown that introverts would be affected by background sounds to a greater degree than extraverts.

Others have looked at other traits such as Neuroticism (low Adjustment) and cognitive performance under distraction. This personality trait is characterised by anxiety, depression and general worrying. If the task is serious and the consequences important, those low in adjustment tend to do less well when distracted in any way.

Interestingly, musicians are more distracted by music because they listen more carefully to it. 

Conclusion

The WFH movement, provoked by the Covid-19 crisis has given us a chance to think more clearly about the consequences of where we work. Architects and ergonomists, as well as interior designers have been very interested in working spaces. Some are interested in the aesthetic appeal, many the simple cost of space. Where you work makes a difference to how you work. Ideally, the working environment should be designed to maximize efficiency on the task.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Professor of Psychology at BI: Norwegian Business School. He says he now rather enjoys WFH. He has just completed a co-authored book on the Psychology of Spying.

References

• Dobbs, S., Furnham, A., & McClelland, A. (2011). The Effect of Background Music and Noise on the Cognitive Test Performance of Introverts and Extraverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 307–313. http://doi.org/10.1002/accp.1692
• Gheewalla, F., McClelland, A., & Furnham,A. (2021). Effects of background noise and extraversion on reading comprehension performance. Ergonomics
• Gonzalez, M. F., & Aiello, J. R. (2019). More than meets the ear: Investigating how music affects cognitive task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(3), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000202
• Landay, K., & Harms, P. D. (2019). Whistle while you work? A review of the effects of music in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 29, 371-385.

The post Distractions, Decisions and Domesticity: The Pleasures and Pitfalls of WFH appeared first on The European Business Review.

How have technical, social, economic and legal forces influenced the business of people assessment? New technologies used in assessment include smartphone and mobile sensing, ambulatory assessment and ecological momentary sampling, text mining, sensors and wearables, as well as virtual and augmented reality. Gone are the old days of application forms, interviews and references. Exploiting and scraping the web are in.

Those interested in assessment often seem transfixed by the how questions (how we measure people) which do change compared to the what questions (what aspects, features) which do not. There is also the question of whether new technology improves the breadth or depth but more importantly the accuracy of assessment

But does a new technology adds more, new, relevant information that we need, rather than simply new ways of collecting and refining data? Also, those who use new technology (AI algorithms) might expect a number of lawsuits and would do well to start preparing their defense based on all the relevant criteria as well as predictive validity.

There has always been the call for faster, cheaper, more accurate and more fake-resistant ways of assessing people. And, as one might expect there are always people happy to supposedly “supply that need”. Indeed, there is a lot of money to be made in this area. “Start-up watchers” beware.

Essentially there many fundamental questions

1. What we are trying to assess? The answer appears to be no: selectors are still interested in an individual’s ability, personality and motivation as well as their integrity and health. Whilst new concepts appear every so often (e.g agility, resilience) there has not been much change in the fundamentally features of what people are trying to assess. The predictors of success have not changed.
2. How can we assess individuals? This is about the development of new measurement techniques (mostly web-based, behavioural and physiological) which may be superior to those used in the past. But shiny new toys need to be proved to be better.
3. The cost of those assessments? A central question is organizational budgets and it seems some, realizing the cost of selection errors, are willing to spend greater amounts in the hope of better assessment and selection.
4. What we are allowed to assess? For many, the new world is one of increasing legislation where there are a number of questions and details it is unadvisable and illegal to ask as they may be related to anti-discrimination laws. This issue is getting much hotter: watch this space.
5. Who does the assessment? This is about whether companies should outsource assessment to experts or do it in house. More and more it is B2B cutting out the expensive middle men: test publishers and consultants.
6. How the assessment data is used? Is the data fed into a complex and sophisticated algorithm or used more impressionistically by an individual or small team? Is it stored and used to help validate instruments and decisions?
7. To what extent is the assessment data fed-back to the individual and or used by HR to develop a training program to exploit this data?
8. Where the data is stored: i.e. in the cloud and all that that implies?
9. Is their “joined-up” data collection and analysis in the different parts of the organization? Or do they jealously guard their own patch?
10. Are there any special problems associated with on-line assessment, like being clear about who is actually taking the assessment?

There are also unintended consequences and effects of these developments. The use of the internet does expand the applicant pool but also increases the number of under-qualified and out-of-country applicants. It is easy to be flooded with inappropriate applicants and there is also the loss of personal touch that both assessor and assessee value and respect. There are further concerns about cheating if timed ability tests are used and adverse impact on those who not have access to the technology to take the tests.

Talent identification in the HR world is shifting, indeed has shifted from the traditional methods of assessment, including job interviews, assessment centres, cognitive ability tests, personality inventories, to techniques like digital interviewing and voice profiling, social media analytics, web scraping and text analytics, internal big data and talent analytics and gamification.

Marketing in the Brave new world

Those who favour and sell many news assessment products argue that many employers are overwhelmed with large applications They want to reduce the time and costs and have a clear and fair method to differentiate candidates. They want methods that are focused on diversity and inclusion and provide a good experience for their candidates.

They use the following catch phrases to sell their ideas and product:

“ Next generation” technology; 21^st century generation”;“ Digs deeper” “Reveals more”; “Powered by Neuro-Science”; “State-of-the-Art”;“ Has less adverse effect….leads to more diverse choices”;“Authentic” and “real world”; “Disruptive”, “exciting new and different”

Some argue that their techniques have better psychometrics: particularly predictive validity: they are more accurate than the “old” well-used and tried methods. They suggest that their new methods in fact lead to a reduction/avoidance of “older method” issues/artifacts (e.g. impression management). That is, the more traditional methods have well known problems associated with them and these new methods largely overcome them.

They also suggest that many new methods provide a better candidate experience: that is that candidates are much more positive about the whole experience. This leads hopefully to better PR for the tester and company doing the assessment and selection. These new and improved techniques are it seems more up-to-date, fairer, and more engaging which reflects very well on the selectors.

Beware the Jingle-jangle Effect

The Jingle-Jangle fallacy refers to the idea that two different things are the same because they bear the same/very similar names (jingle fallacy) or that two identical or very similar concepts are different because they have different labels (jangle fallacy). The question is what jingles vs jangles and why? Old concepts simple re-packaged for the modern ear; or new, different concepts hiding under familiar umbrella terminology?

Fashions change; ideas and measures need revitalisation. So it is not difficult to take an old test and idea and repackage it, which is, of course, what many do. Manufacturers who prefer the jingle fallacy. Notice how the cheaper store’s product has a name and package almost identical to the much more expensive, exclusive brand. They want you to think that a thing with a near identical name, colour, label is essentially the same at half the price.

New technology 

Many attempt to exploit the opportunities that new technology offers to assess people more accurately, easily, and cheaply. Some are early adopters, indeed even pioneers, in the field. Others find that it is client demand that causes them to investigate, and then use, new tools and techniques that show that they are at the cutting edge of psychometrics. The question for many must be the investment of time and money in techniques that in the end fail to deliver what they promise and may indeed cause many additional problems.

There are changes in the law, and all the issues surrounding discrimination. There are changes in how tests are administered and scored. There are changes in how tests “get to market”

There are plenty of speculators and futurologists in this area, both academic and non-academic, the latter often being science journalists, practitioners and consultants. An example is McHenry (2017), himself both an academic and a test publisher. He made five assertions, nearly five years ago, about the future of psychometric tests:

1. Smartphones will replace computers for employee assessment.

2. High-quality psychometric testing services will be sold directly to consumers.
3. Advances in the neuroscience of personality will reveal which are the most valid individual differences to measure and how best to measure them.
4. The digital badging movement, coupled with the use of big data and new forms of digital CV, will render many of the current applications for high-stakes testing redundant.
5. The basis for employee development will in the near future be derived from the data yielded by wearable devices and not from psychometric tests.” (p. 268).

One of the most comprehensive and up-to-date reviews called “Personnel selection in the Digital age Wood et al. (2019) reviewed all recent research 2010-2020. Their focus was on Digital Selection Procedures (DSP) and the main applications and emergent evidence.

They observed: “Digital technology is flexible and easily updated and adapted and so information from users, clients and others can be used to continually and rapidly improve the way that, for example, software or online systems function.”…….. The rapid configurable nature of digital assessments means a fundamental shift in the way we approach validation,from an “endpoint” of instrument creation to an ongoing accumulation of insight into a technique or methodology”(p71)

They detailed many studies which compare old and new methods (electric vs paper-and pencil; proctored vs non-proctored) and different tests (personality vs intelligence). Most showed no differences. However, they do note the problem of impersonation and fraudulent completion of tests and that candidates often preferred internet testing over the traditional methods

New developments in Situational Judgement Tests include the use of videos with some evidence that they were more valid predictors pf work performance that traditional written methods. There is an interest in Digital Interviews where people record video or digital answers to predetermined questions which can be easily used for comparison. This data can be subject to all sorts of AI and other analysis.

Some studies suggest that candidates do not like these techniques being less fair and stilted and “Creepier and less personal” with the traditional methods though that may change over time.

In examing Gamified Assessments they note arguments in favour of reduced faking and social desirability while promoting “fun, transparency, challenge and interaction”. But they suggest that despite much buzz about the use of gamified assessments in practice, there remains scarce published literature on the construct validity of gamified assessments and applicant reactions to them.

With respect to using social media and network sites to gather digital footprints they note that it is possible to gather information that would seem to predict work success like breadth of professional and non-professional experience social capital, interest in updating their knowledge.

In this excellent review they cover various crucially important issues:

Validity

This is clearly the most important issue and they conclude like so many others: “Alongside issues of construct validity is arguably the most critical gap currently in the literature on the validity of DSPs; namely the absence of peer-reviewed published studies of criterion validity. In the papers we reviewed, only two reported criterion-related validity of digital forms of assessment in the context of selection” (p. 69)

Adverse Impact

It is argued that new technology can be used to reduce human bias in selectors but many maintain (through AI technology) biases that are found in society.

Privacy

Clearly some people are really put off the idea that selectors themselves or hire others to screen all their online content. Further it can be challenged in the law

Digital Familiarity

Access to, and familiarity with, technology, may discriminate older, poorer people in developing countries as there is a digital divide. 

A Skeptics Response

Sherman (2019) notes in a blog in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY warned about various trends: 

Trend 1. Neuroscience

Some companies measure how fast you react to flashing objects on a computer screen and say that their assessments are based on neuroscience. Neuroscience is the study of the structure and function of the nervous system. Even though such a broad definition leaves room for debate, the reality is that neuroscience concerns the function of individual neurons and the brain (i.e., a large mass of neurons)……

Trend 2. Big Data and Deep Learning

Some companies brag about their stacks of big data and their use of machine learning or artificial intelligence to produce talent insights. However, if you dig deep, you find that most of the data these companies collect are useless; they aren’t even using it. For example, millions of mouse-movements, keystrokes, and response times can be measured in a 10-minute assessment. But are they consequential? Do they predict anything?

Trend 3. Gamification

…. The idea is that if job applicants have more fun taking the assessment, they will be less likely to drop out of the application process. Although the data show that candidates do enjoy game-based assessments, the data also indicate that gamification doesn’t improve performance predictions. Research indicates that applicants who drop out during the assessment process are unlikely to be your strongest candidates anyway…..

Trend 4. Profile Matching

First, they assess your high-performers. Next, they see what differentiates your high-performers from a larger population of people who have taken the assessments. The differences between the two create a high-performer profile. Although this profile matching approach used by many companies seems intuitive, only a proper validation study that differentiates high and low performers will give you an accurate profile. Don’t fall for assessments that are only validated on high-performers.

Trend 5. Emphasizing Irrelevant Information

New and old assessment companies often emphasize the total number of applicants, time to hire, and the diversity of the hiring class as selling points……When it comes to performance, the only thing that matters is validity: how well does the assessment predict performance? The reality is that some assessments predict job performance better than others. Assessment companies that don’t show or emphasize validity probably don’t have any. With no validity, they have no choice but to emphasize irrelevant features.

Conclusion

The cozy and profitable world of assessment has changed. Not long ago the situation went like this: Authors and Academics with a test/model went to publishers who sold the printed tests to consultants who sold them in some form to clients. Probably the authors made the least and consultants most money in this chain.

Now Techie-startups seek out authors/academics to help them devise state-of-the-art, delivery platforms they sell to anyone. The “middle-men” get cut out. There are now a number of new products in the assessment business and the buyer is spoilt for choice. They look wonderful; and promise the earth: assessment is faster, deeper, cheaper and more fun. Indeed: but is this at sacrifice of validity. The problem is that it takes time and money to get the data to establish test validity: and some entrepreneurs are not willing to wait.

Venture capitalists have noticed these new assessment companies, and many are happy to invest. Hence the growth in assessment companies and a complex, crowded and confusing marketplace. Some of the old hands, like those above, caution against all the hype and a new south sea bubble. Of course there is a difference between skepticism and cynicism, and being Luddite in these new and exciting times. So as always caveat emptor.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Professor of Psychology at BI: Norwegian Business School. He is also an author and devisor of psychological tests. He has been used by a number of organisations to investigate the psychometric properties and claims on new tests

References 

• Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Winsborough, W., Sherman, R., & Hogan, R. (2016). New Talent Signals: Shiny New Objects or a Brave New World?. Industrial and organizational psychology: Perspectives on science and practice, 9(3), 621–640.
• Furnham, A. (2021). Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel Different Techniques and Their Respective Advantages. Cambridge: CUP
• Ihsan, Z., & Furnham, A. (2018). The new technologies in personality assessment: A review. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(2), 147–166. 
• McHenry, R. (2017). The future of psychometric testing, In B, Cripps (Ed). Psychometric testing: Critical perspectives. London; Wiley pp. 269-281.
• Sherman, R. (2019). Beware These Marketing Trends in Psychological Assessment And why you shouldn’t fall for them. Psychology Today: October 17^th
• Woods, S. Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A., & Anderson, N. (2020). Personnel selection in the digital age. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 29 (1), 54-77. 

The post People Assessment in the Digital Age appeared first on The European Business Review.

Every generation likes to believe that they are different from those that came before them – “new and improved” as advertisers like to call it. But are the young people entering the workforce today very different from those that have come before them?

There are doubts about how you define these different generations: what you call them and precisely how many there are in the workforce. The Veterans (or Traditionalists) have around 1925-1945 as their birth dates; the Baby Boomers around 1945-1965; Generation X and Y from 1965 to 1985, the Millennials from 1985 to 2002 and anyone since is classified as the newly emerging Generation Z.

So how many are there now in the workforce? About 5-10% are Traditionalists; 30-40% Baby Boomers; 30% Generation Xers; the remainder (20-30%) Millenials. It is argued that different generations have different values, motivations and work styles. We have heard it all before…young people want to have good work/life balance; is that a commitment to a healthy lifestyle or have they lost work ethic? They prefer a flat hierarchy; is that to foster closer relationships with their manager or are they are deeply cynical about authority? They are empowered by roles that have positive social impact and do not tolerate deviations from that goal; is that a commitment to social good or an excuse for lack of commitment to organisations?

Vocational Choice

I have been studying young people and working with them in my more than 35 year career as an academic. I am an I/O psychologist interested in many things including vocational choice. I both research the topic and teach under-and post-graduates. My question has been are there changes in what we used to call vocational preference: what sort of jobs young people look for when they leave school or university?

When I left university (Oxford 1981) my peers wanted jobs in the media, the Government, or the City. They were exciting, stimulating and, supposedly, lead to fame, money and power. These preferences remained throughout the Thatcher/Regan years. But all three have lost their lustre for different reasons. All have been tainted one way or another

There have been other fashions. One that has been going some time is the social impulse to work, often abroad, in non-for-profit organisations that promote ecological, educational and health issues. These are the young people who have turned their back on the material world preferring to “make a difference” and help other people.

Start Up Mentality

Now the Bright Young Things all echo the same mantra: start-up. We want to be entrepreneurs they chant!

The stereotype is of a group of friends working in a casual/funky environment (look at the exponential growth of co-working spaces: such as WeWork, Work.life, TechHub and Second Home) on their computers, having great fun and coming up with (here is the key adjective) disruptive concepts, products and processes. Their aim is to destroy the lazy, old-fashioned behemoths of the past.

Three of my best PhD students who initially wanted to become academics have chosen this route. Others I have interviewed started “serious” jobs in consultancy, finance and the media but all “dropped out” lured by the appeal of the start up.

There are many obvious appeals of the stereotypic start-up. They are (allegedly) places of fun and creativity, unrestricted by slow bureaucratic processes, incommunicative silos and general risk aversion. There is less hierarchy and less politics than in a big old-fashioned organization.

The office is a playroom. There are no stuffy rules; no petty supervisors; no dull and monotonous tasks. Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish work from play.

This is Millennial heaven. This is the current generation (20-35 year olds), with their need to invent something new, because they believe they are special and can do special things, something most likely that the generation before them instilled in them. There are also plentiful sources of investment and lots of venture capitalists looking for these very special people. So money is supposedly not a problem though that seems to be changing.

The cost of entry for the kind of start-up that interests Millennials is at an all-time low (you can create and upload an app over a weekend!). Young people are masters of technology and social media. The use of social media platforms enables entrepreneurs to build a product, a brand, and grow the company with high interaction and relatively little cash.

Start-up founders are mostly young, talented individuals, frustrated with hierarchies and the old order. They don’t have employees, colleagues, managers or support-staff, but ‘friends’. They are usually prepared to take risks – and are in a situation to do so.

People in start-ups do, or pretend to, enjoy teamwork and networking. They see continuous learning as highly desirable and virtuous. And they are prepared to work for low pay…until, of course, they discover a must-have app and get really rich.

So this is the new vs the old: on-trend geniuses vs stale, pale, frail males. But is it? Is it any more than the well-known differences between big and small organizations?

Most studies show that big organizational units are bad, in the sense that there is more absenteeism, higher turnover and lower morale. Big units lead to a poorer sense of cohesion, greater task specialisation and less good communication. Yet size is not closely related to productivity, but more to the way in which people work.

The research on staffing looks at differences in behaviour between large and small-populated environments or settings: big and small businesses, schools and towns. When a setting is understaffed, there are usually barely enough people to ensure that it functions effectively. So, in order to maintain it, people tend to be more active and involved in what they are doing.

The data from ecological psychologists, who study these sorts of things, show that in comparison with those working in overstaffed environments, those in understaffed settings: are more committed to their organisation and have higher job performance.

A start-up is classically a small, understaffed unit with the advantages and disadvantages that bestows. The salaries are not great, but there are promises of shares. Often the owners spend more time talking to venture capitalists than “running the business”. Lack of commercial insight means that start-up geniuses are bent on inventing things before they even consider if anybody wants the product.

Ironically, start-ups are often trying to solve the problems of big organisations, the old favourites: big media firms, the government or investment banks. So how would someone with no experience of a big organisation have the understanding to build a product to solve their problems? They are unlikely to even know what those problems are.

Furthermore, individuals who leave big organisations with their infinite resources, to pursue the entrepreneurs dream, soon realise that constantly not having enough resources, which is synonymous with start-ups, means that you are constrained to introduce processes to direct those limited resources. So you are teased with freedom from rules but inevitability have to deal with them.

You may implement more efficient processes but that is what the generation before you did and it is inevitable that the “efficient processes” created by Millenials will be obsolete by the time Generation Z enter the work force. And so the cycle will begin again with news names and new adjectives but the same premise – we are different and we can do things better – but if every generation says that then aren’t you more alike than different to those that came before you?

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Principal Behaviour Psychologist at Stamford Associates in London. He was Professor of Psychology at University College London 1981 to 2018, and now Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School in Oslo. He has written over 1300 scientific papers and 90 books

References

• Almeida, P. I. L., Ahmetoglu, G., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in entrepreneurship. J. Career Assess. 22, 102–112
• Bonnett, C. , & Furnham, A. 1991. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of adolescents interested in a Young Enterprise scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12: 465-478
• Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (1999), Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Education + Training, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 236-245.

The post The Psychology of Start-Ups appeared first on The European Business Review.

The process of selecting people, in business as in social relationships, tends to focus on the “good” characteristics we are looking for. However, as Adrian Furnham points out in this intriguing article, we would be well advised also to look out for those “dark-side” traits that could well give problems further down the line.

We like to think of ourselves as insightful, shrewd and perspicacious judges of others. Through our many life experiences, nearly all of us believe we can accurately assess others’ ability, personality and motivation. Hence, we earnestly think we are rather good at the whole business of selection.

The data would suggest otherwise. Think first about the divorce statistics. Most of us spend some considerable time, effort and money gathering data on a potential mate, yet something like 40-50% of marriages fail. The stats are little better on the appointment of senior managers, of whom similar numbers fail and derail. The data on CEO derailment and failure is astonishing, particularly considering the effort that went into recruiting and selecting them. So what goes wrong?

Three Crucial Issues

First, selection involves both “select-in” and “select-out” – looking for characteristics you want and, more importantly, don’t want. It is the failure to do good select-out work which means that potential derailers get overlooked (see diagram). Select-out criteria are often thought of as “not enough” of the select-in criteria, rather than something different.  If people are asked to list a number of characteristics they do not want in an individual, they usually have no difficulty in answering, but these are not always covered in the competencies. This topic will be addressed in detail.

Second, when selecting for particular competencies or traits (teamwork, innovativeness), many assume more is better (linearity), rather than a more cautious curvilinear approach (optimal amount).   The psychological concept of abnormality implies extremes of normality. Thus, while high self-esteem is good and healthy, this might tip over into subclinical narcissism and then clinical narcissism. Being rated as a very strong team player may indicate someone who “hides” in teams and is dependent, rather than independent. A “strong analytic thinker” may easily suffer from “analysis paralysis”. Someone who is rated as a mover and a shaker may be dysfunctionally impulsive and a bully. A leader praised for their emotional intelligence and empathy may be unable to make tough, but necessary, people decisions.

Third, when an analysis of failed and derailed leaders is made, there is a consistent and, for many, surprising finding: that there were many early biographical markers of their future failure. That is, when looking back, there were clear indicators of the traits that later proved so crucial in leading to derailment. This suggests that selection may well be advantaged by the use of biographical or biodata instruments. In short, the past is a very good predictor of the future.

The Dark Side

Over the past 15 to 20 years, there has been great interest in the relationship between what have been called the dark-side traits and work failure, rather than the bright-side traits and work success.

Psychologists are interested in personality traits, psychiatrists in personality disorders.  Both argue that the personality factors relate to how people think, feel and act. It is where a person’s behaviour “deviates markedly” from the expectations of the individual’s culture that the disorder is manifested. 

One of the most important ways to differentiate (normal) personal traits/style from personality disorder is flexibility. There are lots of difficult people at work, but relatively few whose rigid, maladaptive behaviours mean they continually have disruptive, troubled lives. It is their inflexible, repetitive, poor stress-coping responses that are marks of disorder.

But it is not an “all-or-nothing” situation; everything is on a continuum from normal to abnormal. There are degrees of abnormal, such as, for example, low self-esteem (SE), average SE, high SE, subclinical narcissism, clinical narcissism.

Personality disorders influence the sense of self – the way people think and feel about themselves and how other people see them. The disorders often powerfully influence interpersonal relations at work. The antisocial, obsessive-compulsive, passive-aggressive and dependent types are particularly problematic in the workplace. People with personality disorders have difficulty expressing and understanding emotions. It is the intensity with which they express them and their variability that makes them odd. More importantly, they often have serious problems with self-control.

At the simplest level, there are three “give-away” markers of potential derailing disorders. First, the ability to form and maintain happy healthy relationships at, and outside, work. Is there evidence that an individual is liked, trusted and supported by a friendship network that is stable over time?

Second, are they sufficiently self-aware about themselves, their abilities, how others experience them, how healthy their life-style is, and how “normal” their reactions are? A great deal about coaching and therapy is about helping people understand themselves. Many failed CEOs were clearly deluded about their abilities, which may have served them well for some time (pathological high self-esteem), but derailed them in the end.

Third, can they deal with change? We learn nothing from success, except to keep repeating the behaviour, but we can learn a lot from failure. Learning new skills, new behaviour routines is not easy, particularly as one gets older. The fragile are not agile. And yet, being flexible, adaptable and able to negotiate around new and complex issues is at the heart of being successful.

Assessing the Dark-Side, Select-Out Variables

The greatest progress in this area occurred when Robert Hogan developed the Hogan Development Survey (HDS). The idea was to use the categories of the personality disorders, but to conceive of “dark-side” tendencies, rather than disorders. The test is now widely used to assess dysfunctional interpersonal themes. These dysfunctional dispositions reflect one’s distorted beliefs about others that emerge when people encounter stress or stop considering how their actions affect others. Over time, these dispositions may become associated with a person’s reputation and can impede job performance and career success. 

It is these dark-side factors that are the select-out variables. This table shows the psychiatric labels, but also the more interpretable HDS labels.

The measure gives very helpful advice if your scores are high. For instance:

1. Leisurely: You are independent, socially skilled, and able to say “no” diplomatically. You make few demands of others and expect to be left alone to do your work in your own way. You see more incompetence in the world than others do. Although you may think others are naïve, you could profit from their optimism and trust. Understand that you may become irritable when others try to coach you. Allow yourself to be more easily influenced by friends or family, and more willing to do the little extra things they ask you to do. Limit the promises you make to others, but be sure to fulfil the promises and commitments you do make. 

3. Mischievous: Other people may think that you follow your own agenda and don’t consider how your decisions impact them. As a result, they may be as reluctant to make commitments to you as you seem to be in return. Thus, you need to be careful to follow through on all your good-faith commitments. If you find circumstances have altered the conditions under which you made a commitment, then negotiate the changes with the people to whom you have made the promise – rather than simply going on about your business. You tend to have a higher tolerance for risk than most people. Be aware that not everyone is as adventurous as you seem to be. You may have disappointed others by not following through. You need to acknowledge your errors and make amends – rather than trying to explain the situation away. At your best, you are charming, spontaneous and fun. You adapt quickly to changing circumstances, you handle ambiguity well, you add positive energy to social interactions, and people like being with you. 
4. Diligent: You have high standards for performance, are planful and organised. In addition, you provide structure and order for your staff. Tackle issues with outside-the-box thinking. Try not to solve every problem in the same way. Practise delegating to your staff. This provides them with valuable developmental experiences and opportunities to learn. Your high standards result in high-quality work. However, be careful not to criticise others continually who do not share your values for impeccable work.

The research in this area has revealed various consistent findings. The most interesting is that paradoxically some of the dark-side traits are implicated in (temporary and specific) management success. Thus the “naughtiness” of the antisocial mischievous type, the boldness and self-confidence of the arrogant narcissist, the colourful emotionality of the histrionic, and the quirky imaginativeness of the schizotypal type may in fact help them climb up the organisation.

Another issue refers to the curvilinearity or optimality of these traits. That is, at high levels, these traits are nearly always “dangerous” and associated with derailment and failure, but at moderate levels they may even be beneficial.

Also, there are some of these dark-side traits which are nearly always associated with lack of success at work. Thus cautious/avoidant and reserved/schizoid people rarely do very well at work, except in highly technical jobs where they work on their own. Their low social skills and inability to charm and persuade others mean that they very rarely occupy positions of power and influence.

There are all sorts of recommendations to prevent one’s dark side from being destructive.

For instance, take a 360-degree (multi-source) assessment to increase your awareness of potential problems; solicit feedback from honest and insightful friends on a regular basis; take responsibility for, and invest in, your own development; learn what abilities, insights and skills are needed for senior positions; try to understand the motives and abilities, strengths and weaknesses of those you work with; be clear about the demands and responsibilities of your job; hire people with complementary skills to your own; delegate to, develop and empower your team; deal with employee problems as soon as they arise.

Further, it should never be forgotten that most people work in teams and are neither dependent nor independent at work, but interdependent. Thus, work outcomes are a function of group interaction and dynamics, which is a part-function of the personality of all the members.

And, in selection, never forget to search actively for the characteristics that you don’t want.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Principal Behavioural Psychologist at Stamford Associates in London. He is also Professor of Psychology at BI, The Norwegian Business School. He is the author of over 90 books and 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific papers.

References

1. 1. Babiak, P., & Hare, R. (2006). Snakes in Suits. New York, NY: Regan Books.
   2. Dotlich, D. & Cairo, P. (2003). Why CEOs fail. New York: Jossey Bass.
   3. Furnham, A. (2014). Bullies and Bastards. London: Bloomsbury.
   4. Furnham, A. (2018) Personality and Occupational Success. In Virgil Zeigler-Hill & Todd K. Shackelford (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences. New York: Sage.
   5. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing Leadership: A View from the Dark Side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.

The post Select out: Why selection often goes wrong and what to do about it appeared first on The European Business Review.

Do men and women, think about, use and invest money differently? If so why? Dare one go there? One has to be very courageous, misguided or foolhardy to wander into the “sex difference”, now rebranded the “gender similarity”, research area.

Or would it be helpful at all to review the literature in this field? Would it help those who give advice to men and women about financial issues? Maybe it would help parents to make their sons and daughters equally financially literate.

There have been many studies from different countries, and with very different populations, that have shown that males and females differ in their attitudes towards money. Clinicians sometimes speak of the two different ‘‘gender cultures’’ with respect to money as a consequence of socialisation, with men showing more tendency for competitiveness, perhaps associating money with freedom and power, while women appearing less competitive, veering on the side of security and stability.

Some small scale studies and reviews also suggest that there are significant sex differences in money-related pathologies, such as impulse-buying, compulsive- spending, hoarding and credit card debt, with a few other studies suggesting that women may have less technical investment knowledge, and different financial planning behaviours than men.

There is evidence to suggest that men can sometimes have a slightly more narcissistic relationship with money, whereas women have more of an emotional tie with it. In the end, since money is such an important symbol of value and exchange in society, and thus a certain imaginary power is assigned to it, all kinds of unusual behaviours can unfold around it for both sexes, with complex cases leading to an utter inability to demonstrate financial self-control.

Studies investigating spending habits have suggested that males typically choose to spend their money on different items. Males are more likely to consume products related to physical activities and sport, whereas females prefer to purchase items used to enhance their image. Women are generally considered to enjoy shopping more than males. This stereotype has been empirically verified:  apparently women attach more significance to shopping than do males. One reasoning behind this may be that females are found to relate their sense of self more closely with shopping than do males.

In one big study that I led, we examined sex differences in money beliefs and behaviours. Over 100,000 British participants completed two online measures, one of which assessed ‘‘money pathology’’ and the other four ‘‘money types’’, based on the emotional associations with money. In that study, nearly all measures showed significant sex differences, with females exhibiting more ‘‘money pathology’’ than males.

The biggest difference on the money types was on money being associated with generosity (money representing love) where men scored much lower than females, and autonomy (money representing freedom) where men scored higher than women. For men, more than women, money represented power and power. Men were more likely to be hoarders while women did more emotional regulatory shopping (impulsive and compulsive spending).

We argued that socio-economic and cultural factors could have influenced these results. This study could not answer questions of how these sex differences arise; that is, to what extent they have a biological or evolutionary basis or are a product of socialization and social structure or both. Whereas people often grudgingly accept the fact there are sex differences in money issues, they are much more in disagreement about why the differences occur.

Biology is Destiny?

There has recently been an interest in the evolutionary psychology of consumption where socio-biological explanations are offered for numerous sex differences in shopping, spending and responding to advertising. On the other hand, it has been argued that sex differences in money beliefs and behaviours are essentially a product of structural institutions and socialization and can therefore be relearned. This is the sociologists vs the biologists: supporters and detractors of the “biology is destiny” claim.

For women who have a propensity towards money issues, varying explanations are proposed – one suggestion being the influence of the menstrual cycle. Much research indicates that females are found to be more rational post-ovulation, and to act more impulsively, perhaps demonstrating anxiety or irritability, during pre-menstrual phases.

One study found that women spend more money when they are frustrated. Another investigated the relationship between the menstrual cycle and spending, concluding that impulsive spending was significantly different across menstrual phases. Spending was found to be less controlled and more excessive for some women further through their cycle in the urethral phase. The authors associate this finding with those women also reporting mood swings, increased irritability, impaired memory and concentration at this time in their menstrual cycle. Such experiences led those to women spend more money than intended, as well as more regularly spending money that was unplanned and on impulse. Almost two thirds of the women in the luteal in that sample phase had made a purchase on impulse.

A female perspective?

Do some women have a special, unique or changeable relationship with money? Two female American psychologists wrote a couple of books on this very topic. They noted: “We began teaching workshops to help women heal their emotional issues about money and regain their power over money. Our next step was writing about our experiences and discoveries.” For the women attending, their aim was to confront two possible fallacies: money defines you and is part of your self-worth. Further, that money earned should and does powerfully affect relationships.

They quoted various studies and surveys, which, for instance, showed:

• Young (American) women fear money more than learning about handling it later, work less and receive more financial support from parents than their male counterparts.
• Only 11% of women vs. 25% of men in a nationwide poll were rated as “very knowledgeable” concerning their investments.
• Women worry more (29% vs. 17%) about money and differently – men worry more about losing face, and paying the mortgage, while women worry about day-to-day issues.
• Women work fewer years and are less well paid than men. Hence they accumulate less and have less retirement provision.

They note that they begin their workshop in the familiar money messages way, asking about parental beliefs and behaviours with respect to money. They also enquire into the cultural, religious and education-based messages the participants received. They believe that (Western) society sends two strong and contradictory messages to women:

1. Women don’t have to bother learning about how to manage money because their/a man will gladly and competently take care of all that. This leads women into never asking for a fair salary, never learning about investments and being uncomfortable talking about money.
2. Possession of wealth comes only at a very high price: true happiness does not come from money, and interest in money will exact a painfully high price in terms of relationships and personal security. They believe that women assume a dependent relationship with money when they approach all money dealings from one or all three basic beliefs: I should not have to; I do not want to; I cannot. All lead to a sense of helplessness and powerlessness.

Further, according to them, beliefs about dependency become self-fulfilling, hence the importance of education and empowerment to reduce the feelings of anxiety. Related to this is the fear of success; the “meek is better” message that it is unfeminine and unladylike to be powerful and economically successful. This can lead to a failure to achieve potential, and lowered self-esteem and self-confidence.

They also talk about fears such as “money = security”. This, they argue, leads to the belief that any relationship is better than no relationship. This belief may be rooted in family history. They might also stay in unhealthy, poorly paid and deeply unsatisfying working situations for the same reason: It is the fear of dependency, homelessness, and being a burden that leads some women to stay in bad relationships, bad jobs, and bad families, as they believe their only security comes from the money they receive by staying where they are.

Of course, money can also be an addiction or a treadmill to nowhere. It can have a drug-like quality for various reasons: people spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about how to obtain it, so much so that we neglect ourselves and our relationships in the process.

The aforementioned psychologists suggest that some women may be particularly prone to compulsive or emotional spending that is used to comfort, vent feelings, even “feel more alive”. Shopping sprees may be a way to get back at an unresponsive partner or parent. It may be an unacknowledged manifestation of anger, fear or hurt. Compulsive spending could simply be a substitute for a direct, honest, explicit expression of anger. Yet, they argue, it keeps the spender unbalanced and diverts the focus of energy from even greater unhealthy behaviour.

The opposite of compulsive spending is guilty spending or frugality, possibly rooted in the mentality of scarcity. It is the “not enough theory”, where one can spend money (quite happily) on others but not oneself. This can be based on a faulty assumption, such as “My value (or identity) is sourced in what I give, materially” “I do not deserve,” or in cases of co-dependency, giving and not receiving can be an unconscious exertion of control where it appears to lack.

Money can also facilitate the avoidance of intimacy. People are never ready for a relationship until they have made enough money, or else they substitute money for intimacy but believe it is a bad bargain.

The therapists argue that women also get unhelpful messages about money from financial institutions. Women do not take sufficient control of their finances. Ignorance leads to fear which leads to paralysis. Avoidance behaviours are aimed to spare women from making scary decisions and taking risks. The recommendations are clear and self-evident:

• Rewrite the “can’t, don’t, shouldn’t” money message.
• Redefine your relationship with money by
     a. Taking the (negative) emotion out of the issue
  b.Working to understand money
• Resolve to take charge of your money life now.

After becoming more self-aware and empowered with respect to money it is easier to make better decisions: how and when to save it or give it away; how to charge for work; and how much to pay others. “Staying clear with yourself about your motivations for charitable giving, about pricing your work, and honouring other women’s work will move you toward a more positive relationship with money” (p. 132).

The workplace is also something of a Petri dish for looking at people’s differing attitudes towards money. Men and women may differ significantly in terms of their preference for a better work–life balance; there may also be differences in the trade-off for extrinsic versus intrinsic rewards, as well as the satisfaction in finding “joyful” and fulfilling work and pleasant co-workers.

Finally, the psychologists point out how important it is for young girls to be educated about money to ensure they have the knowledge and resources to understand investments, their earning capacity, career options, and how money can and should operate healthily in relationships.

But is all of the above out-of-date, psychobabble and clap-trap? Worse is it patronising, and misguided? Does it pathologise a social issue and cause more mis-information and “fake news” than it purports to clarify. Discuss.

Conclusion

Tolstoy famously noted that, “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. He may have been right with regard to money. Children can grow up in a money healthy and happy home where money is not a taboo topic or a source of argument and tension between the parents.

People from all cultures and with very different amounts of money “have issues” with their and their family’s money. Cultural, religious and value differences often influence how boys and girls are treated differently with regard to how they are expected to acquire, store, and share their money.

Personal financial advisers often point out that their (mainly middle-aged) male and female clients have different “issues” with money. Some organisations have tried to have enough female advisers to sell to female clients as this tends to lead to better outcomes for all concerned.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Principal Behaviour Psychologist at Stamford Associates in London. He was Professor of Psychology at University College London 1981 to 2018, and now also Adjunct Professor of Management at the Norwegian School of Management in Oslo. He has written over 1300 scientific papers and 90 books.

References
• Ealy, D., & Lesh, K. (1998). Our Money, Ourselves. New York, NY: Amacor
• Ealy, D., & Lesh, K. (2000). Our Money, Ourselves for Couples New York, NY.Capital Books.
• Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Furnham, A. (2019). Money attitudes, personality and chronic impulse buying. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
• Furnham A. (2014). The New Psychology of Money. London: Routledge.
• Furnham, A., & Grover, S. (2019). A new money behaviour quiz. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
• Furnham, A., von Stumm, S, & Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2014). Sex differences in money pathology in the general population. Social Indicators Research, 123, 701–713

The post Sex and Money: Do men and women use money differently appeared first on The European Business Review.

Even with today’s rapidly progressing society, there still exists a certain stigma towards the topic of salary or compensation. Employees have taken on what is called “pay secrecy” that breeds the issue of “pay communication”. In this article, the author highlights two aspects that further elaborate this matter, namely organisational restriction and employee restriction.

A‭ ‬female worker believes, with all the current press stories, that she is unfairly underpaid compared with her male colleagues. She asks one what he is paid and he “confesses honestly” his full package. She becomes enraged and goes public. His employer takes disciplinary action against the man because he has signed an employment contract which prohibits employees from discussing their pay terms with others. Shocked to the core, he decides to sue his employer. Time for lawyers to rub their hands! A curious case of pay secrecy.

The issue here is called pay communication. Pay communication refers to if, when, how, and which pay information (pay ranges, raises, averages, individual pay packages, and/or the entire pay structure) is communicated to employees and even the general public. Both of the extremes of pay communication practices (pay secrecy and pay openness) consist of two aspects: organisational restriction and employee restriction. Organisational restriction refers to the amount of pay information the employing organisation gives to employees. Employee restriction refers to the extent to which employees are permitted to discuss their pay.

Your Choice

Does your organisation have transparency as a core value? And what is your policy with regard to “pay communications”. Do people know how much each other is paid? And what are the consequences of openness or secretiveness with regard to salaries, comp & ben, or whatever you call the reward package? Is there a line in their contract about pay disclosure and why? Are they discouraged or prohibited about disclosure? And what is the legal position: what can companies do legally?

Consider the following situation. You have started your own company employing 100 people at various levels? Data protection and confidentiality aside, you have four options with regard to the openness of salary (or full renumeration) disclosure:

A. You are completely transparent: full details of the (total) remuneration package are known to all within the company.

B. People know salaries in narrow bands: You are able to determine salaries in a specific range i.e. £30,000-£35,000 or £60,000 to £65,000.

C. People know salaries in wide bands: Like the above but now the rage is wider (£30,000-£40,000), perhaps even wider (£60,000 to £80,000).

D. Total secrecy: Nobody knows the salary of anybody else and are forbidden (on threat of sacking) to disclose their salaries..

Which would you choose for the benefit of all involved?

[ms-protect-content id=”9932″]

Justice and Fairness

There is a celebrated historical case. Nearly 100 years ago an American company suddenly notified their staff that they were not allowed to disclose salaries to each other. They objected and supposedly walked around their building with large signs around their necks showing their exact salaries.

The pay issue provokes the F word (fairness) and behind it the J-word (justice). It goes to the very heart of what people feel is fair and just. Researchers in the area have distinguished between different, but often related, types of justice.

Distributive Justice which is the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources like pay.

Procedural Justice which is about fairness of the processes that lead to decisions.

Interactional Justice refers to the treatment that an individual receives as decisions are made Interpersonal justice refers to perceptions of respect and treatment.

Informational Justice relates to the adequacy of the explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness

All of these sources of justice can be involved in pay communication which makes the whole business so hot. The problem with determining salaries is manifold. Because output and productivity are often hard to measure, salary may be best determined by seniority rather than productivity; though this can now risk issues of age discrimination This may mean that hard-working, highly skilled and productive young people may be paid much less than older, less skilled and productive people who have been in the organisation.

Does pay secrecy lead to lower motivation and satisfaction or the other way around? There have been studies on this topic. They tend to show that secrecy is prevalent in most organisations and that workers actually want it, though it may even be illegal.

Research

Some years ago in the Academy of Management Review Paper (Vol 32, 55-71) four American business academics looked at the costs and benefits of pay secrecy. They argued that there were various costs to:

• Employee judgements about fairness, equity and trust may be distorted. If people do not know the salaries of colleagues infer or guess it. Incomplete data or secrets can generate anxiety and vigilance about fairness. People may believe that if information is withheld it is for good, though probably sinister, reason. This may affect three types of justice judgements: informational (it being withheld); procedural (lack of employee voice and potential bias) and distribution (compressing the pay range).

• Judgements about pay fairness will be based on a general impression of fairness in the organisation. People see may things like hiring, firing, perks, awards that are dramatic and memorable as examples of “fairness”. Thus if they have a “fair but secret” pay policy it will be judged unfair if other, perhaps unrelated, actions do not look fair. The nature and context of the contract is everything.

• Secrecy breeds distrust while openness signals integrity. Secrecy can signal that the organisation does not trust its employees. Therefore secrecy can reduce motivation by breaking the pay for performance linkage.

• People perform best when given goals/targets/KPIs which are explicitly linked to rewards. Therefore if they do not know the relative worth of the rewards (i.e. in pay secrecy) they may well be less committed to their goals and targets.

• Pay secrecy can also affect the labour market because it can prevent employees moving to better-fitting and rewarding jobs. Pay secret organisations may not easily lure or pull good employees from other organisations.

But on the other hand pay secrecy can deliver real advantages to the organisation:

• Secrecy can enhance organisational control and reduce conflict. Pay differentials can and do cause jealousy, debate and disenchantment. Making pay open often encourages managers to reduce differences: the range distribution is narrower than the performance. So, paradoxically, secrecy increases fairness in the equity sense, because people can more easily be rewarded for the full range of their outputs.

• Secrecy can prevent or mitigate “political” behaviour. Openness is both economically inefficient and likely to cause conflict.

• Pay secrecy allows organisations more easily to correct historical and other pay equity anomalies. Thus managers can both minimise unfairness and discrimination as well as perceptions of those matters more easily by secrecy.

• Secrecy benefits team work, particularly in competitive individuals, organisations and cultures. It encourages interdependence rather than “superstardom”.

• Secrecy favours organisational paternalism because employees themselves (perhaps unexpectedly) want secrecy, and to reduce conflict, jealousy and distress at learning about others. It can even be suggested that workers might make irrational decisions if they know what their colleagues are (really) paid. So paternalistic secrecy increases control and the “feel good” factor.

• Secrecy is another word for privacy, which is of increasing concern in a technologically  sophisticated surveillance society. Perhaps this is why surveys show people are generally in favour of secrecy, because they do not want their own salaries discussed by their co-workers. People are willing to trade-off their curiosity about the pay of others for not having their own package made open.

• Secrecy may increase loyalty, or put more negatively, to create labour market immobility. If people can’t compare their salaries they may be less inclined to switch jobs to those which are better paid. So you get what is called continuance commitment through lack of poaching.

Clearly the cost-benefit ratio of openness to secrecy depends on different things. Much depends on the history of the organisation and equally on whether good, up-to-date, accurate, industry compensation norms really exist. What is – on average – a senior partner in a law firm, a staff-nurse, or a store manager paid? What about an account, a security guard or an IT specialist? The public industry norm information can, and does have a powerful effect on organisations that opt for secrecy or privacy.

One issue is how the organisation does or claims to, determine criteria for pay allocation. Do they increase payment for years of service, for level/rank, for performance on the job, or for some combination of the above? The more objective the criteria seen in sales, perhaps the easiest job to assess (number of calls made, number of widgets sold), the more difficult it is to keep things secret.

Next appraisal systems strive to be objective, equitable and fair. The more they are, the less need for secrecy. Where objective criteria are used will staff have less concerns for secrecy?. So subjectivity and secrecy are comfortable bed-fellows. People don’t know under pay secrecy what their pay is based on: secrecy means they can’t predict or believe that in any way they can control their pay usually by increasing it.

When their pay is secret people have to guess how they rank relative to others at the same level. That, no doubt, is why high performers want secrecy more than low performers; they believe they are equitably being paid more and want to avoid jealousy and conflict. If you believe you are well paid because of your hard work then all is well with secrecy. But what if you don’t?

Changing the System

When pay secrecy is abolished some people not only feel angry, they feel humiliated by exposure to relative deprivation. They feel unfairly dealt with and their easiest means of retaliation is inevitably to work less hard. People can adopt a range of retaliatory processes, particularly if they know the organisation well and “where the bodies are buried”.

Pay secrecy relates to an organisation’s vision and values as well as individual job motivation. Secrecy can lead to more management control, bigger differentials and less conflict. But can you enforce it? Paradoxically the more enthusiastically an organisation tries to enforce secrecy, the more employees might challenge the notion. Individuals and groups chose to talk or not, in details and in generalities. Perhaps younger and less well paid people are the most likely to “spill the beans”

Finally pay secrecy may not always be “in the gift” of the organisation. There are rules which govern it. Perhaps the most interesting and unusual situation is that of Norway (and Sweden) There you have the right and the ability to look up everybody’s full (and hopefully honest) tax return. Thus you can know the exact salary of everybody in your organisation and that of your competitors. There is no legal possibility of secrecy. This state of affairs results from many things, not least of which is the national culture and the fact that wages (and taxes) are high and differential are low.

Imagine the fun of looking up the guests after a typical middle class dinner party. It is particularly interesting if the bravado about houses in France and the Caribbean are justified. And it seems often the quiet diffident ones are the richest of all.

On this topic of transparency, one amusing change that has occurred in Norway is that you can now look up who looks you up. This is probably meant to discourage a prurient form of voyeurism which can’t be good for anyone. Though of course one can pay others to do this and so remain anonymous. Surprising how strange situations like this can generate jobs, and sometimes unintended consequences.

Conclusion

One can be very clear about three issues:

One, once you have abolished or reduced secrecy the path back is near impossible. It really is a Genie and Bottle issue. And it may becoming inevitable as legislation is “drifting” toward full openness.

Two, if your major competitors have a policy of openness and you have one of secrecy this might undermine your system.  There are “industry standards” which you need to be aware of.

Three, for total or even partial openness to work you need to be pretty clear in explaining how pay is related to performance at all levels. You need to be able to explain and to defend your system: why people are paid what they are paid. Otherwise you open the most evil can of worms!

Where possible many firms opted for a quiet life, where because of a taboo about money-talk, no one knew or enquired about salary or remuneration difference. This allowed all sort of peculiarities and injustices to occur for years. Now bright lights peer into this murky darkness and a lot of explaining has to be done.

[/ms-protect-content]

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Principal, Behavioural Psychologist at Stamford Associates in London. He is also Professor of Psychology at BI, The Norwegian Business School. He is author of over 90 books including The New Psychology of Money.

References
1. Bamberger,P, & Belogolovsky, E. (2010). The impact of pay secrecy on individual task performance. Personnel Psychology, 63, 965-996
2. Belogolovsky, E., & Bamberger, P. (2014). Signalling in secret: Pay for performance and the incentive and sorting effects of pay secrecy. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1706–1733.
3. Colella A, Paetzold R, Zardkoohi A, Wesson M. (2007). Exposing pay secrecy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 55–71. .
4. Marasi, S., & Bennett, R. (2016). Pay communication: where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 26, 50-58.
5. Rosenfeld, J. (2017). Don’t ask or tell: Pay secrecy policies in US workplaces. Social Science Research, 65, 1-16,

The post Pay Secrecy appeared first on The European Business Review.

Finding the right person who is well suited for a job position is vital in any organisation’s success. There are numbers of factors in which employers base their judgments and decisions; some of which are the personality, attitude and knowledge of the applicants. Test taking plays a vital role in knowing and understanding these aspects in a deeper sense. This article explains the importance of psychometric tests and its development over the years.

The enthusiasm for using personality and ability tests in selection and development waxes and wanes. It is still a big industry. There are many defenders and distractors who periodically “have a go at each other” on a number of repeated issues. What is the future of psychometric tests?

It is unusual to go on any training course without having to complete a test that tells you about your style, personality, or preferred team role. These are tests of attitudes and beliefs, of preferences and traits, strengths and agility, learning style, thinking style and coping style. These are tests of real general intelligence, of emotional intelligence, of practical intelligence and of multiple intelligence. These are tests of bright and dark side personality: normal as well as abnormal functioning. There are tests of motivation and values. Consultants and test publishers know that this is big business.

There are many reasons why trainers like tests. Tests can give people new concepts, language and hopefully self-insight even if they reject what the test says.

Test taking can also be a drug for a few narcissists. For most people, it soon loses its power because it is as much confusing as entertaining; as much befuddling as enlightening.

Tests give comparative, specific and numerical data. Unlike references and testimonials, which flourish on euphemisms and double speak, tests give numeric data. One cannot get away with “satisfactory”, “high spirited” and “quirky” in tests. Good tests have normative data so we can measure up oneself against population norms.

Test taking can also be a drug for a few narcissists. For most people, it soon loses its power because it is as much confusing as entertaining; as much befuddling as enlightening. If you are serious about using tests to improve your insight, choose one that has been psychometrically validated based on a social theory; and one that describes process, not only typologies.

The accurate and reliable assessment of people at work is essential for many decisions around selection, development, promotion and redundancy. It is a complex area but one that is clearly related to the health and success of any organisation.

Assessment involves a cost-benefit analysis for recruitment, retention and development. A good analysis requires well-defined and measurable objectives. Each assessment instrument or process should evaluate the degree to which objectives have been met. Furthermore, desirable and undesirable criteria should be delineated so people can be “selected out” and “selected in” as well.

Many assessment tools have strengths and weaknesses, and are appropriate for measuring different objectives. However, some tools and techniques are superior over the others. Psychometric evidence provides a strong foundation for comparing different tests and for matching the right test or assessment with a particular objective.

Testing and assessment is a specialised field and may require an expert to ensure the test is used appropriately and effectively. There remains a lot of ignorance and myths about assessment methods which can have significant problems for HR managers in particular organisations.

Having researched this area for 30 years, evaluating the data, here is my considered response to 12 myths about testing:

1. All candidates fake and lie making the data worthless.

If everyone faked the good/ideal answer, they would all be the same and tests would have no validity. Clearly, some tests are more fakeable than others. You can not fake ability tests (only to do worse). There are a number of techniques that test constructors have to catch those who fake, including lie scales and obtaining templates of those who they have deliberately asked to fake so that they know what a faking profile looks like. This is considered a serious problem by most people who somehow believe that people do not fake in interviews or on application forms, despite the evidence.

2. Testing is simply too costly in terms of time and money.

A surprising number of tests are free. If the cost of testing is taken into consideration compared to a candidate’s annual salary or the cost of failure and derailment, it is clearly very little. Some tests can be too expensive for what they provide, but the majority have a very good value, certainly if they seriously improve decision-making.

3. Tests are too unreliable: mood, health and the situation influence the results. In fact, the opposite is true.

Tests are surprising robust, yielding very similar results on different occasions, a long time apart. They are just as reliable as most medical tests and much more so than some (blood pressure measures). The circumstances that are likely to yield the most unreliable results is where a person is doing an ability test while feeling very unwell and taking the test in a noisy environment. Indeed, we have data of people taking the same test 50 years apart with surprisingly similar results.

4. Tests do no not predict work performance.

This is perhaps the most important issue: the relationship between test scores and reliable and representative measures of work performance. Good tests have all the data in their manuals about this issue. Often, work output/success is difficult to measure reliably and sensitively showing an individual’s personal contribution. It takes a very long time to get enough data to show that test scores do relate consistently and strongly to relevant work behaviour like productivity and satisfaction. Indeed, predictive validity, as it is technically called, is the criteria by which tests should be selected in the workplace.

5. Tests do not measure really important things like integrity and motivation.

This is simply not true as there are many tests of both integrity and motivation as well as a myriad of concepts from entrepreneurship to narcissism. Once consultants realise that there is a demand for some sort of tests, they are willing to supply it, even though they quite often are not prepared to put in the time and effort to establish their validity. Once a “new” concept like agility or resilience becomes trendy, there will be those willing to measure it. Perhaps, we need a test on disruptive ability.

6. People change a lot over time.

Again, the data show the opposite. We know that people become a little less extraverted and neurotic as they get older, and a little more conscientious and agreeable; but the changes are relatively mild. After the mid-twenties, there is surprisingly little change in personality to the mid-seventies. Occasionally, some people experience significant trauma which does change them, but this is relatively rare. People feel they have changed a lot but the data says otherwise. For those in doubt, attend a school reunion.

7. All tests are much the same: none outperforms the other.

Tests trying to measure the same thing, like intelligence or personality can be radically different. Many share an approach and for some, traits or abilities look very much alike. Take for instance introversion-extraversion: many tests seem identical, but this trait can also be measured by weighing a person’s salivation after lemon is put on the tongue, or by what is called “the pursuit rotor test”. The question is not what the test looks like but rather evidence of their validity or reliability.

8. You can teach anybody to be a great performer.

The idea that anyone can become a brain surgeon or an airplane pilot with enough practice and training is still very popular. It is called the 10,000 rule and has been applied to athletes. But even the most radical of those who dismiss innate talent are forced to agree that you need a set of certain characteristics to succeed at certain jobs. You simply cannot teach any- or everyone to be good at serious technical and managerial jobs however hard they try if they do not have a particular ability and the desire to exploit it.

9. All tests are biased particularly with regard to sex and race.

Some, but surprisingly few, tests do show sex and race differences. There are more differences on ability tests than personality tests usually. Just because there may be some sex or race or age or culture differences, does not mean they are invalid but rather, they need to be used in a very particular way checking against population norms. Any bias occurs in how they are used, not in what they measure. In many countries test users are obliged to show data on age, race and sex differences and what they do if this occurs.

10. Tests do not spot “difficult people” well enough.

There are numerous “clinical” tests that set out to do just this. There must be 20-30 very well-established tests that measure “dark-side” variables. The data suggest that many “problem people” at work are the result, not of poor selection or of something very wrong with them, but rather the way in which they are managed. This is not to suggest that selectors should not look for evidence of pathology and dark side traits, but rather that they should not always blame the individual or the selector if people become “problematic”.

11. Attitude, knowledge and skill are more important than intelligence and personality at work.

Select attitude; train skill. If, by attitude, critics mean motivation then this is partly true. No matter how bright an individual or how well fitted they are to a job, if they are not sufficiently intrinsically motivated, very little can be done. Knowledge and skill can be taught: but this is affected by personality and intelligence. Brighter people learn faster. Certain personality types pick up skills faster than others. “Attitude” can be assessed and is very important.

12. The “old trio” (Application Form, Interviews and References) work well enough in selection.

Again, this is partly true if: the application form collects biodata that is important and relevant to the job; the interview is planned and structured; the references are collected from people who know the candidate and are prepared to tell the truth. These, however are rarely done and the old trio is woefully inadequate.

New Developments

Every generation of scientists has attempted to exploit the technology of their time. Researchers have noted the possibility of using the world wide web to do personality research. There are now companies who track huge numbers of people on the web and build various profiles, though not following any classical or modern personality theory.

The new assessment technologies (predominantly the web) have specific goals: improve efficiency, enable new screening tools, reduce costs, standardise the HR system, expand the applicant pool, promote the organisational image, and increase applicant convenience.

There are plenty of speculators and futurologists in this area, both academic and non-academic, the latter often being science journalists, practitioners and consultants. An example is McHenry (2017), himself both an academic and a test publisher made five assertions about the future of psychometric tests:

1. Smartphones will replace computers for employee assessment.
2. High-quality psychometric testing services will be sold directly to consumers.
3. Advances in the neuroscience of personality will reveal which are the most valid individual differences to measure and how best to measure them.
4. The digital badging movement, coupled with the use of big data and new forms of digital CV, will render many of the current applications for high-stakes testing redundant.
5. The basis for employee development will in the near future be derived from the data yielded by wearable devices and not from psychometric tests” (p. 268).

Ihsan and Furnham (2018) did a comprehensive review of five new technologies: big data, wearable technology, gamification, video-resumes and automated personality testing. They argued that at this stage, there is more absence of evidence of their psychometric properties of these new approaches, rather than evidence of absence of their validity.

However, there are also unintended consequences and effects on these developments. Thus, the use of the internet does expand the applicant pool but also increases the number of under-qualified and out-of-country applicants. It is easy to be flooded with inappropriate applicants: people lacking the required and specified qualifications, experience or place of domicile apply online because it is so convenient, quick, and easy. There is also the loss of personal touch that both assessor and assessee value and respect. There are still concerns about adverse impact, which means that certain groups simply do not have access to the technology to take the tests.

It is easy to be flooded with inappropriate applicants: people lacking the required and specified qualifications, experience or place of domicile apply online because it is so convenient, quick, and easy.

Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2016) predicted that “profiling tools will become invisible to individuals and require no deliberate attention from job applicants or incumbents. Most people will be profiled already, and if they aren’t, assessment will operate in the form of covert or subtle algorithms embedded in other activities, including fun and interactive, game-like experiences” (p. 39). They have also further highlighted that there is little or no academic research for some of these methods, suggesting that the validity and reliability of these tools are still unestablished (Winsborough & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2016).

It is also important to note that job selection is essentially an arms race. For every improvement on the employer side, there will be a reactive step-up on the applicant side. Applicants learn how to clean their Facebook profiles and photos. Therefore, the question is whether it is widely known that your social media will be scraped for employability data. Many people will either create a dark social media presence or go off-the-grid for information that might be coded in a negative fashion.

Psychometricians know how expensive the validation process for any technique is. To establish various kinds of reliability (test-retest, alternative forms, internal) and validity (concurrent, construct, discriminant, incremental, predictive), it is necessary to collect considerable amounts of data (Furnham, 2008).

It is also important to note that job selection is essentially an arms race. For every improvement on the employer side, there will be a reactive step-up on the applicant side.

Finally, Ihsan and Furnham (2018) have noted that the new technologies present a range of new problems. The first is obtaining data about an individual without their consent.  There are important questions about the accuracy of these data and who indeed is supplying this. Next, there are many potential issues around “wearables” and issues around surveillance. What if people refused to put on these wearables? How would an individual feel about an employer who has an electronic daily map of whom they were in contact with?  Wearables can give physiological data as well as contact data. In this sense, they provide data on wellness and physical fitness, which may be considered an inappropriate and unethical way of assessing people. They argue that ethics committees need experts and specialists on these new technologies to inform other committee members. Also, the committees could benefit from the insight of users and researchers who themselves do not have any financial interest in the development or sale of those technologies.

It has been said of some psychological tests that they are techniques in search of a theory or solutions to non-existent problems. There is always a danger when exploiting the possibilities of new technology that sufficient evidence is collected and assessed to show their incremental validity over existing and established methods. The history of psychology is littered with examples of how the primary technology of the time shapes not only theories and technology but also how many promises were never delivered.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Professor at the Norwegian Business. He is also the Principal Psychologist at Stamford Associates in London. He has just finished his 93^rd book.

References

1. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Winsborough, W., Sherman, R., & Hogan, R. (2016). New Talent Signals: Shiny New Objects or a Brave New World?. Industrial and organizational psychology: Perspectives on science and practice, 9, 621–640.

2. Furnham, A. (2018). The great divide: Academic vs Practitioner criteria for psychometric test choice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 498-506.1. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Winsborough, W., Sherman, R., & Hogan, R. (2016). New Talent Signals: Shiny New Objects or a Brave New World?. Industrial and organizational psychology: Perspectives on science and practice, 9, 621–640.

3. Ihsan, Z., & Furnham, A. (2018). The new technologies in personality assessment: review. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(2), 147-166.

4. McHenry, R. (2017). The future of psychometric testing, In B, Cripps (Ed). Psychometric testing: Critical perspectives (pp 269-281). London; Wiley.

The post Current Development in Psychometric Tests appeared first on The European Business Review.

Until recently the concept of office politics was exclusively associated with dirty tricks and Machiavellian manipulation. But recently psychologists using the concept of political savvy and political skill have noted that managers can be politically aware and astute as well as behave ethically to achieve goals. The savvy manager is personally successful and held in high regard by their staff and the organisation. Moreover it is possible to define and measure political skill to determine where personal strength and limitations lie and where therefore to concentrate developmental practices. The paper ends with a description of six strategies to increase political awareness.

Politics is a bad word. We have national politics and local politics, but we also have office politics. Office politics seem to be a catch-all, supermarket trolley of wickedness. “He plays politics all the time”; “Office politics caused the failure”; “She was only promoted because of office politics”.

If you unpack the concept of politics you get a long list of negative words: Manipulation, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”, Looking out for #1, Destructiveness, Covert Under-The-Table Deals, Backstabbing, One-Upmanship, Deceitfulness, Turf Battles, Petty Personal Squabbles, Back-Room Decisions, Power Plays, Behind-The-Scenes Manoeuvring, Brownnosing, Hidden Agendas, and Dirty Tricks.

Office politics is exclusionary. It is about processes, procedures and decisions that are not meant to be scrutinised.

What are the key features of the concept? First perhaps is the secrecy, the covert agendas, the under-handedness of it all. Politics conducted in smokey rooms, behind closed doors, in private clubs or in the golf course. There are the insiders and the outsiders; players and the pawns. Those in the know and those in the dark. Office politics is exclusionary. Office politics is about processes, procedures and decisions that are not meant to be scrutinised. Politics is about opaqueness not transparency.

Second, there is impression management. Another word for this may be hypocrisy. Office politicians (all unelected) speak with forked tongue. The clever ones understand the difference between sins of omission and commission. The others just dissimulate. What you see, hear and read is not what you get. Internal communications (except those carefully encrypted) are half-truths, little more than management propaganda. Office politics are about censorship; about disguise.

Third, office politics is about self-interest. Those involved are concerned with power and all of the trappings like money and prestige. It is about select groups high-jacking activities, processes and procedures to secure their (and only their interests). Covert groupings of individuals based on clan, ideology or simply greed, co-operate with each other to obtain an unfair share of the resources of an organisation. In this sense office politics act against long-term organisational interests at least from a shareholder perspective.

Why are some organisations more political?

Some organisations have always been very political. It is part of their DNA and their corporate culture. For those working there it all seems rather normal if not very nice. Yet there are other factors which seem to increase political behaviours.

First, excessive competition at the top: It is a gladiatorial fight to get ahead and foul play is the consequence. Second, companies with complex structures seem very prone to politics: the route to the top is unclear perhaps deliberately so. It takes the determined Machiavellian to push his or her way through at all costs. Third, it occurs where there is no clear definition of performance: this may mean people deceive and obfuscate their and others’ performance.

Office politics occurs in situations of high (or very low) level of change; the more things are in flux and malleable, the more the politics is likely to occur. Equally, it occurs with the refusal by powerful people to change; in this case the only strategy for the ambitious leader is devious. Limited resources and jobs at risk can increase political behaviours because of the apparent failure of more open, direct and above board methods.

Ask a group from any big organisation to rate on a 10-point scale (where 10 is high) how political their organisation is. You don’t have to define the concept. You will be surprised how many people say 11 or 12 and how much they hate it.

Office Savvy

The negative view is clear. Politics cause distrust, conflict and lowered productivity. People do not openly share and are guarded. They spend too much time and energy ingratiating themselves to the in-group and try to work the system. The in-group are as much concerned with increasing or holding onto power as steering the company. The opposition is internal not external. Office politics is dysfunctional and worse, dishonest.

The savvy political person was both politically aware but also acted with integrity. Some people were political avoiders believing that simply working hard was sufficient to succeed in rational organisations.

But there is another perspective and it’s much more positive. This was the brilliant insight of John DeLuca who re-branded politics as savvy. He argued that the savvy political person was both politically aware but also acted with integrity. He noted that some people were political avoiders believing that simply working hard was sufficient to succeed in rational organisations. He thought as many as 80% of people might be like this. Of the remaining 20% of political activists but these were divided into Machiavellians (15%) who were politically aware but did not act with integrity and the Savvy (5%) who could and did act with integrity. They realised they were working in a human system and sought to understand it.

His research led him to conclude that the Savvy people are ethical, well-liked and continuously able to make an impact. Interestingly they are not different from others in terms of intelligence, personality or interpersonal skills. But most importantly they have three times the network of their colleagues. They seem to constantly take small risks which paid off.

He also found from his research that the Savvy had three times the odds of a successful innovation attempt compared to Machiavellians or the non-players. They had significantly higher performance ratings. They also had twice the promotion rates and three times the bonus rates of the non-savvy. They were also three times more likely to have higher job and life satisfaction. They were more likely to be viewed as leaders.

DeLuca argued that you can teach people to become savvy and he has some really interesting quizzes and case studies that illustrate how savvy people operate. Consider the following:

When building support for a new idea, a politically savvy person would:

1. Set up meetings with as many people as possible in order to build widespread support
2. Set up official meetings with key decision makers to get their attention and ensure s/he is seen as working above board (i.e. not manipulating)
3. Work informally with peers and formally with superiors
4. Plan to discuss it informally with those who will influence the decision

You’ve proposed a radical new idea for the business, and your boss is intrigued by it. He says he is going to meet with his superiors within the next 2 days to make a decision on it. A politically savvy person would:

1. Seize the opportunity and focus on preparing a great presentation
2. Try to postpone the meeting until s/he is more sure of the data and the quality of the idea
3. Try to get the meeting delayed to think about how best to proceed
4. Grab the opportunity if s/he can make sure the boss will be there to support it.

He also provides some excellent case studies that help people learn how to be more savvy.

Political Skills

Office politics (or savvy) is a skill. Clearly some people are better at it than others. But how do you define and measure it? Gerald Ferris at the Florida State University with colleagues have developed a short but valid questionnaire of Political Skill defined as: The ability to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organisational objectives.

It has four but distinct components:

Social Astuteness: This is about being perceptive, insightful, attuned to all the vagaries and nuances of everyday interactions. It is about being psychologically minded: Picking up the clues and cues; Reading between the lines; the subtexts. Seeing the meaning in things. It concerns being aware of yourself and others: how you are “coming across”; what they are really saying.

Interpersonal Influence: This is about being persuasive in different contexts. It inevitably means being adaptable and flexible. The skill is about monitoring self and others sufficiently to be able to charm, cajole and persuade. And it is about knowing about and practicing those famous six influencing principles like using reciprocity norms, emphasising similarity etc. Again, this can be learnt.

Networking ability: This is more than having a good address book or being vivacious at dinner parties. It is understanding the usefulness of, and more importantly to be able to establish, a range of alliances, coalitions and friendship networks. This involves the serious skills of deal making, conflict management and negotiation. People are helpful (useful) for different reasons and at different times. They can be assets that need to be established and be “tapped” from time to time. They “come in handy” at different times and for different reasons.

Apparent Sincerity: Ah yes, that great oxymoron. It is about being able to look authentic and genuine on all occasions irrespective of what you really think or feel. Call it emotional labour or good acting it is the ability not to show coerciveness, manipulativeness, or that one has ulterior motives. What you see is not what you get. Sincerity is showmanship: it’s good acting and really understanding emotions.

It seems obvious why political skill is the king of skills at work. It builds social and political capital. Employees like to have a boss with this skill. It does them good: if, of course, he or she uses that skill to further the success of the team as a whole, not only themselves. Senior leaders like it in their staff.

Advice: Six Strategies of Politically Savvy People

Partner with your boss: make your boss a supporter because they have the power to really help you. Politically savvy people know how to “manage up”.

Various websites like www.yourofficecoach offer advice on how to be savvy.

1. Partner with your boss: make your boss a supporter because they have the power to really help you. Politically savvy people know how to “manage up”.
2. Be a team player: this is about the very fundamental skill of networking. You need allies and those who will co-operate with you. Politically savvy people develop positive relationships in all directions – with management, peers, and employees.
3. Understand the power map/network. This is about understanding where real power lies. Who knows what and what their constituencies are. Organisations have dynamic power hierarchies. Savvy people have a rich and valid map very different from the organogram.
4. Practice subtle self-promotion: This means letting people know the achievements of yourself and your team. Send out regular reports helps.
5. Connect with powerful people: Obvious but so important. You need to know who really has the power and be in their group.
6. Commit to the Business: Do not be indifferent, apathetic or negative about any aspects of the business. You need to be onside.

Conclusion

Being political is about being shrewd, pro-active, strategic. It is being savvy which is good.

Office politics are about building and strengthening networks and coalitions. It is about getting together movers and shakers prepared to do the hardest thing of all – make change happen. It is also about driving through necessary but unpopular strategies as well as identifying those with energy and vision – those who command various constituencies.
Politics are about power – the power to influence, persuade and cajole. Most organisations seek out and admire a CEO who is well respected and connected. One who knows how to play-the-game; how to get people (investors, journalists, and “real” politicians) side. In this sense being political is about being shrewd, pro-active, strategic. It is being savvy which is good.

CEOs have to present a positive picture of their organisation. They have to align, steer and change the organisation. And they need help. They turn to those who have a reputation for doing so.

You can’t outlaw office politics. You might want to blame everything from personal failure to falling share price on office politics. And there is no doubt that some offices are dysfunctional places to be. But better to study and try to understand management power than condemn it. And better, still, to look to acquiring the skills and outlook of the skilful savvy manager.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham was Professor of Psychology at University College London 1981 to 2018, and now Adjunct Professor of Management at the Norwegian School of Management. Previously a lecturer in Psychology at Pembroke College, Oxford, he has also been a Visiting Professor of Management at Henley Management College. He has written over 1200 scientific papers and 90 books.

References

1. DeLuca, J. R. (1999). Political savvy: Systematic approaches to leadership behind the scenes. Berwyn, PA: EBG Publications.

2. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320.

3. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter,W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and Validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126–152

The post Savvy and Skillful: A New Look at Office Politics appeared first on The European Business Review.

People nick stuff at work. They take part in “the unauthorised appropriation of company property for personal use, unrelated to the job”. They steal from their employer, their boss and their customers. It is all too common and can be costly.

We have a range of words to disguise the issue: pilfering and shrinkage, nicking and liberating stuff. Many people think that taking home a few pens and envelopes doesn’t count.

There is a long list of what are called ‘counterwork behaviours’ (CWBs). They include deceit, espionage, fraud, sabotage, substance abuse and whistle-blowing. There are, for the politically correct, other things such as ‘low personal standards’, ‘work avoidance’ and ‘indolence’.

CWBs include

• Antisocial behaviour; usually restricted to the workplace.
• Blue-collar crime; everything from theft, property destruction and record fabrication to fighting and gambling by semi skilled, often non salaried staff.
• Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour; any behaviour at work that goes counter to the short and long term interests and success of all stakeholders in an organisation.
• Dysfunctional Work Behaviour; intentional, unhealthy behaviour that is injurious to particular individuals who do it either to themselves or to others.
• Employee Deviance; unauthorised but intended acts that damage property, production or reputations.
• Employee Misconduct; the misuse of resources, from absenteeism to accepting backhanders.
• Non-performance at Work; both not performing that which is required, while also performing acts not at all desirable.
• Occupational Aggressive Crime Deviance; negative, illegal, injurious and devious behaviours conducted in the workplace.
• Organisational Misbehaviour; behaviour that violates societal and organisational norms.
• Organisational Retaliative Behaviours; this is deliberate organisational behaviour based on perceptions of unfairness by disgruntled employees.
• ‘Political’ Behaviour; self-serving, non-sanctioned, often illegitimate behaviour aimed at people both inside and outside of the organisation.
• Unconventional Work Practices; simply odd and unusual, but more like illegal and disruptive, behaviours.
• Workplace Aggression, Hostility, Obstructionism; personally injurious behaviours at work.
• Unethical Work Place Behaviour; behaviour that deliberately and obviously infringes the accepted ethical/moral code.

Academics have tried to classify these misbehaviours into various categories: intrapersonal (drink and drugs), interpersonal (physical and verbal aggression), production (absenteeism, lateness), property (theft, sabotage, vandalism) and political (whistle-blowing and deception).

The term Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour (CWB) is often used synonymously with anti-social, deviant, dysfunctional, retaliative and unethical behaviour at work. It costs organisations billions every year and many of them invest in ways to prevent, reduce or catch those who are most likely to offend. There are many different words to describe CWBs, such as: organisational delinquency, production and property deviance, workplace deviance. It is a multi-faceted syndrome that is characterised by hostility to authority, impulsivity, social insensitivity, alienation and/or lack of moral integrity. People feel frustrated or powerless, or unfairly dealt with, and act accordingly.

CWB, however, is intentional and contrary to the interests of the organisation. CWB may not, in the short term, be reflected in counter-productivity which is the ultimate cost of CWBs. The essence of a CWB is wrongdoing. Thus, taking sick leave when not sick may be a common occurrence, indeed the norm, yet it is still a CWB.

Cheats at Work

In a series of books and papers the anthropologist Gerald Mars showed that much cheating at work was a consequence of how jobs were organised. His initial focus was on the sorts of ‘rewards’ people get at work. These he divided into three categories: official, formal rewards, both legal (wages, overtime) and illegal (prostitution, selling drugs); unofficial, informal, legal (perks, tips) and illegal (pilfering, short-changing) rewards; and alternative, legal, social economy rewards (barter) and illegal rewards (moonlighting).

When people cannot easily increase their formal rewards at work they may try to increase the other two types of reward, which may then come to contribute significantly to their total income. Further, it is the nature of the job that dictates the number and type of informal and hidden rewards.

Thus, in the hotel and catering industry, waiters will receive basic and formal pay in the form of wages and overtime payments. This will be supplemented by informal rewards of tips and the perks of ‘free’ meals and possibly ‘free’ accommodation. They may well also be allowed to indulge in pilfered food or be afforded a ‘winked-at-facility’ to short-change or short-deal customers.

Mars noted four types of cheats at work. First Hawks, who thrive in occupations that emphasise individuality, autonomy, and competition. The control that members have over others is greater than the individual’s own control. Occupations for hawks emphasise entrepreneurial behaviour, where the individual’s freedom to transact on his own terms is highly valued. Individual flair is at a premium. Success is indicated by the number of followers a person controls. Rewards here go to those who find new and better ways of doing things and where the drive for successful innovation is paramount. Hawks are individualists, inventors, small businessmen. They are hungrily ‘on the make’.

Hawks are typically entrepreneurial managers, owner-businessmen, successful academics, pundits, the prima donnas among salesmen and the more independent professionals and journalists. Hawkish entrepreneurial activity is also found in waiters, fairground buskers and owner taxi drivers. Alliances among hawks tend to shift with expediency and a climate of suspicion is more common than one of trust. They are loners, individualists.

Second, Donkeys are characterised by both isolation and subordination. Donkeys are in the paradoxical position of being either or both powerless and powerful. They are powerless if they passively accept the constraints they face. They can also be extremely disruptive, at least for a time. Resentment at the job’s impositions on the employee is common and the most typical response is to change jobs. Other forms of ‘withdrawal from work’, such as sickness and absenteeism, are also higher than normal. Where constraints are at their strongest, sabotage is not infrequent as a response, particularly where constraints are mechanised.

Third, Wolves, who thrive in those ‘traditional’, rapidly disappearing working-class occupations, such as mining. Wolves are found in occupations based on groups with interdependent and stratified roles, for example garbage collection crews, aeroplane crews and stratified groups who both live and work in ‘total institutions’ such as prisons, hospitals, oil rigs and some hotels. Where workers do live in or close to the premises in which they work, group activities in one area are reinforced by cohesion in others. Such groups then come to possess considerable control over the resources of their individual members. Once they join such groups, individuals tend to stay as members.

Fourth, Vultures. Vultures are found in jobs that offer autonomy and freedom to transact, but this freedom is subject to an overarching bureaucratic control that treats workers collectively, and employs them in units. Workers in these occupations are members of a group of co-workers for some purposes only and they can act individually and competitively for others.   They are not as free from constraint as hawks, but neither are they as constrained as donkeys. The group is also not as intrusive and controlling as the wolf packs.

Vulture jobs include sales representatives and travellers of various kinds, such as driver-deliverers, linked collectively by their common employer, common work base and common task, but who have considerable freedom and discretion during their working day.

These different types of cheats at work form their own ideology, view of the world and values. They make sense of their particular situation and their values then follow from this. Thus wolves value control, discipline and order. Hawks value autonomy, freedom and independence. Vultures tend to be suspicious outsiders.

The crucial point that Mars is making is that the job itself largely dictates what sort of corrupt behaviours are possible and preferred. Further, that some of these are done effectively in groups with co-ordinated team work.

Justice at Work

Many CWBs can be seen as a form of restorative justice: getting one’s own back on various individuals or institutions. People do not all have similar codes of justice; and they can differ in the sensitivity and reactivity to injustice. Nevertheless, one of the most constant, powerful and persuasive reasons people give for vengeful counter-productive behaviours at work is to re-establish distributive justice. Certainly the concept of fairness is at the heart of much dark-side CWB. People can feel it is fair to steal to compensate them for their inequitable pay; sabotage ‘pays back’ others for what they did.

If people believe they (their parents, group, ancestors) have been unfairly treated (their land taken away; their mobility blocked; victimised generally) they are motivated to correct the balance and restore justice. Justice restoration can occur via propaganda or force or CWBs. It may involve punishing the perpetrators or their heirs or simply changing the balance of things. Thus if your land was ‘stolen’ the motive to get it back will drive people to various acts until that is achieved. Inevitably people perceive the just or unjust situation very differently, furthermore some restitution acts are driven by guilt where people see their (privileged) position as being unfairly acquired (say through inheritance).

Justice, fairness, honour, rights and reconciliation are the motives here. The more these words occur in the speeches, writings of individuals or groups the more the justice-motive should be considered important. As we shall see people have used equity theory to explain theft as sabotage at work. Certainly the concept of justice and fairness which is at the heart of equity theory is for all people a powerful motivator. Being thought of as unfairly treated is a primary motivator to achieve revenge.        

More than any other cause of ‘misbehaviour’ at work, is the issue of people feeling unfairly dealt with and taking vengeance for, or trying to restore justice in the face of injustice. Case after case of ‘insider dishonesty’ cites Fairness. Researchers in this area called Organisational Justice have, for 40 years, done research on the economic and socio-emotional consequences of perceived injustice. In doing so, they have distinguished between four related types of justice:

Although there are, or should be, general context-independent criteria of fairness, there are always special cases. All employees are concerned with interactional justice, which is the quality of interpersonal treatment they receive at the hands of decision-makers. Two features seem important here: social sensitivity, or the extent to which people believe that they have been treated with dignity and respect, and informational justification, or the extent to which people believe they have adequate information about the procedures affecting them.

Procedures matter because a good system can lead people to take a long-term view, becoming tolerant of short-term economic losses for long-term advantage. Research has demonstrated many practical applications or consequences of organisational justice. Using fair procedures enhances employees’ acceptance of institutional authorities. Further, staffing procedures (perceptions of fairness of selection devices) can have pernicious consequences.

People at work often talk of particular types of injustice: unjustified accusation/blaming; unfair grading/rating and/or lack of recognition for both effort and performance; and violations of promises and agreements.

A number of factors relate to people’s reactions to injustice. These include the perception of the motives/state of mind of the wrong doer (did they do it intentionally and with foresight of the consequences). Also, the offender’s justification and apologies play a role along with how others reacted to the unjust act. The relationship between the harm doer and the victim is also important as is the public nature of the injustice. Victims of injustice want to restore their self-esteem and ‘educate’ the offender. Usually they retaliate by either withdrawal or attack. What is clear however is that people’s perception of fairness and justice at work is a powerful motivator and demotivator and often a major cause of negative retaliation behaviours.

There have been studies that have examined employee ‘revenge’ as a consequence of what they see to be unjust behaviour. In one American study the authors were interested in what predicted workers to complain that they had been ‘wrongfully’ terminated after being laid off. They hypothesised that how fairly workers felt they had been tested during the course of their employment and in the termination predicted the type of complaint they made. In addition they tested such claims because complaining is related to the perception that termination of employment is the employers fault. Further that the relationship between complaining and blaming is stronger in those fired rather than merely laid off. Their study showed that three factors were directly relevant to whether people considered they would complain: fair treatment at termination, their expectation of winning the case, and their perception of fairness/justice while at work.

They agreed that the results of this study which involved interviewing 996 employed adults has clear practical implications for all organisations which include: Treat employees fairly throughout their employment and foster the impression that the organisation is interested in justice (procedural and distributive); When terminating people be honest and treat them with dignity and respect; Being honest about the causes of unemployment results in a legal saving of around £10,000 per person; The dignity and self-respect of those terminated can be enhanced by such things as providing transitional alumni status, symbols/gifts of positive regard and offers of counselling; Attempts at litigation control through lobbying and particular settlement practices have only limited success.

So what to do

Consider the common problem of theft. Researchers in the area recommend the following.

First, let people know how uncommon it is. It is NOT the norm: everybody is not at it. It is a minority who fiddle like this. Give some statistics. Thieves, for that is what they are, are the exception and a group that will not be tolerated.

Second, explain the consequences of being caught with some ‘case studies’, but do not go over the top. Spell out the first warning to sacking sequences. Beware the possibility of unintended consequences where making the punishment so severe that it simply makes people take bigger risks with the amounts they claim.

Third, explain the systems and methodology by which people are caught. Let them know that there are reliable and fair methods in place that will show up those trying to beat the system.

Fourth, conduct a few in-house programmes where employees at all levels discuss the company’s code of ethics and how, when and why fraudsters should be dealt with. Get all people involved: let them know the fraudsters are costing everyone who works for the company.

Fifth, review compensation and benefit programmes that look at internal and external equity meaning how people ‘stack up’ against others in the organisation as well as those working in similar jobs in different organisations. Don’t allow expense fraud to be seen as a way of reconciling proper pay differentials. Some supervisors turn a blind eye to it because they feel unable to reward staff in ways they think equitable and just.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Professor of Psychology at University College London. He has lectured widely abroad and held scholarships and visiting professorships at, amongst others, the University of New South Wales, the University of the West Indies, the University of Hong Kong and the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and in 2009 was made Adjunct Professor of Management at the Norwegian School of Management. He has written over 700 scientific papers and 57 books including 50 Psychology Ideas you really need to know (2009) and The Elephant in the Boardroom: The Psychology of Leadership Derailment (2009). Professor Furnham is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society and is among the most productive psychologists in the world.

References

1. Furnham, A. (2014). Backstabbers and Bullies. London: Bloomsbury
2. Furnham, A. & Taylor, J. (2011). Bad Apples. Basingstoke:
   Palgrave MacMillan
3. Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.
4. Mars, G. (2006). Changes in Occupational Deviance. Crime, Law and Social Change, 4455 (4), 283-296.
5. Mars, G. (1984). Cheats at Work. London: Unwin.

The post Counterwork Behaviours appeared first on The European Business Review.

To what end can talent be defined, sought out and developed? In this article Andrew Furnham discusses the different ideas of what makes a talented individual in the world of business, and how to “manage talent” within an organisation.

A. Introduction

You cannot have escaped noticing that ‘Talent Management’ has become a very fashionable topic. In some organisations the Personnel Department (which then became HR department) has been renamed the “Talent Management Department”. Does that imply that everyone is talented, making the concept redundant; or is there an equivalent Talentless Management Department who have, of course a much more difficult task?

Organisations seem to believe that their ability to attract and utilise (young) people of talent is essential to their profitability and sustainability. They may be right. Some argue that talent management is more important than strategy, corporate culture, marketing etc. in assuring the long term success of the organisation. It is thought of as the main competitive advantage.

With bull markets there is a war for talent. Many assumed there was an under-supply of talented people at all levels, and thus organisations were in a competitive battle to attract and retain as well as develop, these special, but crucial people who would ensure, they hoped, that the organisation both thrived and prospered. They were thought of as the new generation who would be required to lead the organisation into the future and ensure its survival. Now in the bear market there is a surfeit of talent; an over-supply; wasted talent.

[ms-protect-content id=”9932″]

B. Definitions

Talent is, quite simply, not a psychological concept. One approach is to list possible synonyms for talent. These include: blessed; exceptional; experienced; flair; genius; giftedness; high potential; precocious; prodigy; superstars; wonderkids or wunderkinds. It is really only “giftedness” that has any serious academic investigation.

Dries (2013) noted that for different people the concept is quite distinct: for HR Talent is capital; for work psychologists it is about individual differences; for educational psychologists it is seen as giftedness and as a strength for the positive psychologists.

Talent implies the possibility of people becoming more than they are. Silzer and Church (2009) argued that the concept of potential (talent) is all about something existing in possibility only. Is it singular, immutable and context independent or defined by and brought out only in certain situations? They note that high potential can be defined by role, level, breadth, record, strategic position or strategic area. They analysed eleven companies’ definitions of talent/high potential and found evidence of six categories variously defined:

Cognitive: cognitive ability/complexity, intelligence, navigates ambiguity, breadth of perspective, judgement, insightful, strategic reasoning; tactical     problem solving.

Personality: dominance, sociability, stability, interpersonal, emotionally intelligent, authentic, optimistic, personal maturity, respect for people, self-aware, integrity.

Learning: adaptability, versatility, learning agility, receptive to feedback, eager to learn, flexible, seeks feedback, learns from mistakes.

Leadership: competent, inspiring, develops others, brings out the best in people, influencing, challenges the status quo.

Motivation: drive, aspiration, engagement, initiative, energy, risk-taking, power/control, tenacity, passion for results, courage to take risks, commitment to company/impact.

Performance: leadership experiences.

Other things: technical skills, culture fit, promotability, business knowledge/acumen.

From an individual work psychology perspective MacRae and Furnham (2013) suggest there are six characteristics of people with potential:

1. 1. Conscientiousness: Capacity for self-motivation, organisation and planning. Those with high conscientiousness appear dependable and diligent. Those with lower conscientiousness tend to be more spontaneous, laid-back and may need to be motivated by others.
2. 2. Adjustment: Emotional resilience to stressors, difficulties and challenges. Those with high adjustment are calm under pressure and appear unflappable. Those with lower adjustment appear to feel stress more keenly.
3. 3. Curiosity: Openness to new ideas, techniques, and ways of doing things. Those with high openness like novelty, learning and variety. Those with lower openness prefer tried and tested methods and uniformity.
4. 4. Risk Approach: Capacity to make reasoned decisions in the face of adversity. Those with a high-risk approach confront difficult situations and have difficult conversations in a reasoned and rational way; those with lower risk approach make more instinctive decisions.
5. 5. Ambiguity Acceptance: Receptiveness to complexity, inconsistency and incongruences. Those with high ambiguity acceptance thrive with uncertainty and complexity. Those with lower ambiguity acceptance like a clear-cut answer, simple solution.
6. 6. Competitiveness: Desire for professional success, recognition and achievement. Those with high competitiveness enjoy positions of power, influence and recognition. Those with lower competitiveness prefer cooperation, collaboration and may dislike the spotlight.

They have developed and validated a test of the above that has been used successfully in various settings.

Yet a debate remains as to what talent actually is; whether it needs special nurturing to last and what it predicts. If talent is not merely a new name for an old construct or set of constructs, what does it comprise? And how does one develop a person into a talented manager?

C. Issues to Ponder

There are various specific questions for those trying to assess and evaluate talent. Here are some issues and questions to ponder:

• • Write down all the synonyms and antonyms for talent that you can think of.
• • Have you ever worked with, or for, a really talented person? How did you know? Describe your observations.
• • What are the lessons of turnover of talented people? Why do talented people leave? Is that good or bad for them and/or your organisation?
• • What particular processes would you put in place to recruit and select high flyers to your organisation?
• • Should the list of those who are judged to be talented (or talentless) be kept secret? Indeed could it ever become secret?
• • Under what circumstances should people labelled or nominated as talented be taken off the list and others brought into the talent group? That is, what should be the nature of mobility for talented (and less talented) people?
• • Should you invest more or less time and money into the talent group than those not in the group? If the talented are in some way gifted should we not invest more in those who, for whatever reason, are seen to have less talent?
• • Imagine you have a budget of £5000/$6000 and three weeks in total (21 days a year) to develop your high flyers, what would you do?
• • Do you think it is a sign of being a real talented person that you could trust them to plan their own training and use your budget to realise their full potential?
• • What, in your view, are the three easiest and the three hardest things involved with talent management?
• • Which issue are you most/least interested in or vexed by?

D. The Fundamental Questions

From a management perspective there seems to be a number of important questions:

• • Attracting talent: This involves the recruitment of talented people, identifying the best methods to assess it and finding ways to persuade talented people to join the organisation. This is essentially a recruiting and selection task. This may mean trying to attract people from universities as well as various firms. The idea is aimed at making these especially (and perhaps unusually) talented people favourably disposed to your organisations such that they apply for advertised positions. You have to ask (and answer the question) why would any talented person want to come and work for you?
• • Developing Talent: One of the concepts associated with talent is the idea of potential to rise up the organisation to ever more important and challenging jobs. For this it is thought (even) talented people require particular training, coaching or mentoring. This can, and should, be done on an individual basis as well as on a corporate level through leadership development, succession planning to new job integration and assimilation initiative.
• • Retaining Talent: This involves keeping talented people after they have been selected. It involves understanding their particular and specific ‘package’ and training needs. They might be differently motivated than less talented groups, and the task is to find out how to keep them both happy and productive. This question addresses whether they need anything different compared to good management practices and equitable rewards to ensure they stay working for the organisation. The issue is one of return on investment: on knowing how to turn a talented employee, into a talented manager, into a talented director and then, even a talented CEO.
• • Transferring Talent: Inevitably, talented people move – they move up the organisation (almost by definition); they move to sister companies; they may head up overseas divisions of the company. Furthermore, they leave the organisation. It is important to ensure that all issues associated with out-placement, relocation and retirement are done well.

Perhaps the attraction and transitioning of talent are the easier issues of these tasks. If you have a great brand and reputation it is particularly easy; less so if your organisation is less well known with a poor reputation. However it may be worth concentrating on just two of these issues.

E. The Development of Talent

There are many ways to develop talent. Talented leaders provide much the same narrative of the factors that influenced them most. Studies across organisations in different sectors as well as those within big corporations and across different corporate and national cultures, even different historical time zones, reveal the same story. Talented leaders mention six powerful learning experiences:

• • The first is early work experience. This may be a ‘part-time’ job at school; a relatively unskilled summer holiday job at university; or one of the first jobs they ever had. For some it was the unadulterated tedium or monotony that powerfully motivated them to never want to repeat. For others it was a particular work style or process that they have retained all their lives. This is something to select for.
• • The second factor is the experience of other people, and it is nearly always an immediate boss, but can be a colleague or one of the serious grown-ups. They are almost always remembered as either very bad or very good: both teach lessons. The moral of this from a development perspective is to find a series of excellent role-model, mentor type bosses for the talent group.
• • The third factor is short-term assignments: project work, standing in for another or interim management. Because this takes people out of their comfort zone and exposes them to issues and problems they have never before confronted, they learn quickly. For some it is the lucky break: serendipity provides an opportunity to find a new skill or passion.
• • The fourth is the first major line assignment. This is often the first promotion, foreign posting or departmental move to a higher position. It is often frequently cited because suddenly the stakes were higher, everything more complex and novel and ambiguous. There were more pressures: the buck stopped here. You were accountable. Suddenly the difficulties of management became real. The idea then, is to think through appropriate “stretch assignments” for talented people as soon as they arrive.
• • The fifth factor is hardships of various kinds. It is about attempting to cope in a crisis that may be professional or personal. It teaches the real value of things: technology, loyal staff and supportive head offices. The experiences are those of battle-hardened soldiers or the “been there, done that” brigade.
• • Hardship teaches many lessons: how resourceful and robust some people can be and how others panic and cave in. It teaches some to admire a fit and happy organisation when they see it. It teaches them to distinguish needs and wants. It teaches a little about minor forms of post-traumatic stress disorder. And the virtues of stoicism, hardiness and a tough mental attitude.
• • Sixth on the list comes the management development stuff. Some remember and quote their MBA experience; far fewer some specific (albeit fiendishly expensive) course. One or two quote the experience of receiving 360-degree feedback. More recall a coach, either because they were so good or so awful. This is bad news for trainers, business school teachers and coaches.

To the extent that leadership is acquired, developed and learnt, rather than ‘gifted’, it is achieved mainly through work experiences. Inevitably some experiences are better than others because they teach different lessons in different ways. Some people seem to acquire these valuable experiences despite, rather than as a result of, company policy.

Experiential learning takes time, but timing is important. It’s not a steady, planned accumulation of insights and skills. Some experiences teach little or indeed bad habits.

Maybe leadership potential and talent should be defined as the ability to learn from experience. Equally, every move, promotion or challenge should be assessed also from its learning potential.

F. The Retention of Talent

Martin and Schmidt (2010) argue that as many as a quarter of high potential people in big American companies intend to “jump ship” within a year and a fifth believe their personal aspirations are different from what the company has planned for them. They think that companies make six common mistakes in trying to manage the “talented”:

• • Assuming they are all engaged when they are not if not challenged, rewarded and recognised enough.
• • Mistaking current performance for high performance: not all can or want to step up to tougher roles.
• • Delegating talent development to line managers who may not be qualified to do it.
• • Shielding talent from more difficult assignments where they will learn more.
• • Not offering them differentiated compensation and recognition from the others
• • Keeping them in the dark with respect to what is planned for them.

Bad management, Martin and Schmidt argue, lead to three problem types: Engaged Dreamers (people who aspire but don’t quite have the required ability); Disengaged Stars (people not really committed to the organisation) and Misaligned Stars (whom aren’t prepared to make the real sacrifices required).

G. So?

We have all made selection mistakes. We have all seen people with a fine future behind them: those who appeared to have talent but somehow never realised it. There is no doubt that getting the right people to work for it is pretty important in being successful. There is not a lot really new in the talent literature, except perhaps a better understanding of what talent is and how, when and where one might be able to develop it.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is Professor at University College London, the Norwegian Business School and the University of KwaZulu Natal. He has written 80 books and 1200 peer-reviewed papers.

References

1. Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23 (272 – 285)

2. Silzer R., & Church, A. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 2 (377-412)

3. MacRae, I., & Furnham, A. (2013). High Potential. London: Bloomsbury.

4. Martin, J., & Schmidt, C. (2010). How to keep your top talent. Harvard Business Review, May (54-61)

5. Furnham, A. (2012). The Talented Manager. London: Palgrave.

 [/ms-protect-content] 

The post Whither Talent? appeared first on The European Business Review.

Today, the idea of a ‘job for life’ is, for many people, neither possible nor desirable.  The concept of the career has, and will continue to change. The old career contract with the organisation is less relevant, the new contract is with oneself – individuals will need to take an active role in steering their own ship and plotting their own course.  This is the new age of self-reliant careers.

Once upon a time, or so it seemed, ability, loyalty and long service were rewarded by a steady climb up the corporate ladder. The speed and end-point in the career were defined only by ability and service (and perhaps a bit of politics).

Today, the idea of a ‘job for life’ is, for many people, neither possible nor desirable. In many European countries, about one-third to one-half of the workforce are in temporary or self-employment. There is now a cohort of young people, aged 30 years and under, who expect and look forward to building up a portfolio of jobs in different companies. They are content to give 5 to 8 years’ loyal and enthusiastic service to a variety of possibly widely different companies so as to increase their experience and competence.

For many people, this new approach to a working life is exciting rather than worrying. It has been estimated that people used to have about 100 000 working hours over a 47-year working period to pursue a career. Now 47 years has shrunk to 30, with many retiring at 50 and thinking of a ‘second career’. Whereas some older people perceive this as a threat, many younger people interpret it as a major opportunity – with change comes growth and opportunity, in their opinion.
Employment has changed and so have careers. The way people approached a career was characterised by many different strategies:

Drifters seemed rather directionless and unambitious. Some seemed not to be able to hold down a job for any period of time, but they had to be flexible and adaptable as they took on new jobs every so often. Drifters could be seen by some people to be capricious, fickle, or even reckless. More positively, they are adventurous and experimental.

Lifers are the opposite of drifters – the lifer’s first job is their last. Although they might not have chosen their first job judiciously, or with foresight, they settled down for life. Although this may be an excellent strategy if one is in a company on the move, it is more likely to be a trade-off of high risk/gain over security. Further, downsizing and restructuring has left them not very employable. Lifers are loyal, but they are risk-averse, and liable to be alienated as performance management systems replace seniority-based or service ideologies

Hoppers look like snakes and ladders experts. They seem to go up short ladders quite fast, perhaps in small companies or departments, but slide down slippery snakes as they change jobs in the search for betterment. They lack the long-term vision of the planner, who has the whole journey mapped out. They may have made job move decisions too quickly, based on too little data

Planners have clear targets, sometimes over-ambitiously fantasised. They can articulate where they want to be at the big milestones of life (aged 40, 55 or 60). They may even cultivate head-hunters, apply (whimsically) for jobs on a regular basis, and update their CVs quarterly. Planners are committed to their career development. They understand the modern world of portfolio management.

Hobbyists are masters of this final strategy. Some are SOBOs – Shoved Out, but Better Off – but many, often in their 40s, become concerned with self-development. They echo the observation of a priest, who for years counselled the dying, heard their confessions and their regrets; no one said that they wished they had spent more time in the office. The hobbyist may take early retirement, turn to consultancy, or simply define quality of life as more important than the rat race. This makes them interesting people, but not always deeply committed to the company’s interest. Work is a hobby for these people.

Those who have studied jobs, careers and the world of work have long argued that it is misleading to believe that permanent jobs utube.ai are good and temporary jobs are bad, or vice versa. It has been suggested that good jobs are characterised by quite specific factors that include:

1. Control: some opportunity to decide and act in one’s chosen way, and the potential to predict the consequences of one’s actions. Being given limited control, such as the offer of flexi-time, is very desirable.

2. Skill use: jobs that allow people to practise learnt skills and acquire new ones are desirable. Job change often involves the necessity of skill acquisition, which, in the long run, is very desirable.

3. Clear goals and feedback on performance: being given or, better still, helping to decide clear goals is always desirable. More attractive still is being given regular, honest feedback on one’s performance. Increasingly, portfolio jobs are being set up, which have the requirement that employees give and get regular and explicit feedback on their performance.

4. Variety: tedious, monotonous tasks are a thing of the past. Indeed, many temporary jobs are characterised by novelty, both of task and location. Of course, too much variety can be stressful, and lead to burn-out, but too little leads to ‘rust-out’, which is probably worse.

5. Contact: all jobs provide the opportunity for interpersonal contact with others, be they fellow employees, customers or even shareholders. Contact provides the opportunity to make friends and reduce loneliness. It allows people to provide emotional, informational and financial support to each other. And it allows for social comparisons, an opportunity to compare themselves with others, to interpret and appraise themselves.

6. Valued social position: this is not only about job title but the value attached by society at large to the role and the contribution made. Jobs can boost self- and social esteem – and undermine it. Jobs provide public evidence that a person has certain abilities, conforms to particular norms and meets social obligations.

7. Security: there are many types of security, the most basic of which is physical security. Temporary jobs frequently supply security of tenure over a specified period. Indeed, paradoxically, the nature of the legal contract of many temporary jobs actually makes employees more secure (for a specified period) than those on longer and vaguer contracts.

8. Money and reward: some permanent jobs are very badly paid, as are temporary jobs. Money is a powerful short-term reward only, and is more likely to be a source of dissatisfaction than satisfaction. Some temporary jobs are, in fact, well paid because of the expectation of unemployment (for example, pilots).

In some sense all the above can be broken down into two very different factors:

Intrinsic: you choose a job because you love the work; it is your passion; where your abilities and values and gifts are best expressed; where you are happy and content; when you experience flow, contentment, even joy

Extrinsic: where the rewards are high and where you are prepared to do difficult, demanding and even dangerous work because the (usually monetary) rewards are high. In this sense you are happy with a trade-off: you trade off some aspect of ease and satisfaction for a cocktail package of rewards that are important to you

Who exactly is responsible for one’s career or, more likely, careers? Three groups have specific responsibilities for an individual’s career development.

First, the organisation itself should provide training and developmental opportunities where possible. Courses, sabbaticals, job shares and shadowing experiences, for instance, all help. They need to provide realistic and up-to-date career information and, where necessary, executive outplacement services. Indeed, these may become more and more important reasons why people would choose to work for any particular organisation.

Second, line managers, too, have responsibilities. They need to provide high-quality and timely feedback on performance so that staff gets to appraise themselves realistically. They need to have regular, expectation-managing discussions and support their reports in their action plans. Again, where possible, they need to offer developmental assignments where they can acquire new skills. Honest feedback and opportunities to develop new skills are the best things any manager can do for his/her employees, permanent or temporary.

Third, individuals themselves must accept responsibility for their own career. They cannot expect to remain passive. Individuals must seek out information on careers within and without the organisation; they must initiate talks with their managers about careers and be prepared to invest in assessing their strengths and weaknesses.

They need to be prepared to take up development opportunities even if they are outside their particular comfort zone.

We all make our beds and then we lie in them. Fatalists believe that the success of their working life is dependent on powerful forces – the international economy, politicians, God, the lottery and pure chance. Instrumentalists know that we can all be captain of our ship and master of our fate. The fact that we may all now have nine (working) lives, rather than one, presents much greater opportunities for growth, development and upward mobility.

The concept of the career has, and will continue to change. Certainly, the long-service-in-one-organisation career is on the decline. The old career contract with the organisation is less relevant, the new contract is with oneself. The ability to have multiple careers, probably a better way of working than the temporary career, means that people will have to learn new skills and reinvent themselves. We shall all need to be more feedback-seeking and more eager to learn from others. If you don’t know where you want to go, you will certainly end up somewhere you don’t want to be. Chosen jobs need to fit ability and values, and a sense of identity. The use of support and affinity groups, networks and adult learning centres, is one of the best sources of help in personal career development. We shall all need to learn how to plan and develop our working careers in the future.

Paradoxically, learning from experience seems to be more critical than ever, yet past experience has less relevance to current experience, because of the speed of change. In the new world of self-reliant careers, it will be essential for individuals to take an active role in steering their own ship and plotting their own course. Compared with the past, there will need to be a higher degree of learning by oneself, of communicating with others, interdisciplinary work, working in groups and solving personal problems.
Personal initiative is more and more rewarded. Self-starters, the proactive and the persistent will inherit the earth.

Organisational factors are becoming less important in determining individual career outcomes – personal identity and values, and interpersonal factors are becoming more important in shaping career directions and rewards.

Non-traditional careers will soon become traditional. The flexibility of opportunity structures and labour markets is growing. Organisations are preparing for the new and different needs of the new careerists. Both the formal employment contract drawn up by companies and the psychological contract that temporary employees have with the organisation are being rethought and redrawn. There is no going back. We are all careering in a new direction.

Adrian Furnham is Professor at University College London, the Norwegian Business School and the University of KwaZulu Natal. He has written 80 books and 1200 peer-reviewed papers.

The post Careering Off Track: The New World of Work appeared first on The European Business Review.

In this article, the author shows that many fads and fashions in management are short lived and based upon flimsy evidence, yet enjoy a period of support. His arguments are important tools for managers who want to understand the substance and rigour, or lack of it, associated with modern management ideas and concepts.

The management world is highly susceptible to crazes: fads and fashions that change as frequently as clothes styles. And just like clothes styles, some come back again after “a few years” away, repackaged, rebranded, but essentially the same.

A fad is a craze for something: a short time when there is an exaggerated zeal for a particular idea or practice. Fads are by definition short-lived. They go in one ear and out the other. Fads are very popular in business, driven by a heady mix of desperate and naïve managers as well as avaricious consultants.

Worst, fallacious concepts are found in abundance in management. These are usually processes that simply do not work in the way they are said to. Brainstorming is a good example. Study after study shows that individuals working alone produce both more and better ideas than brainstorming groups. Brainstorming is a fallacy or a myth. But only one of many because of the essential non- or at least pre-scientific nature of management theory.

Another recent example is Rob Briner’s brilliant analysis of the current fad for Engagement at Work¹. He argued that researchers need to consider five key challenges facing the field: defining engagement; measuring engagement; whether Engagement is new or different; whether there is any good quality evidence with which to answer the most important questions about engagement; and the extent to which over-claiming and mis-claiming the importance and role of engagement occurs.

This is what he concluded: “In the end we need to make a choice. Do we want to take employee engagement seriously or not? There are two contrasting approaches. The first is to closely examine definitions, check out the validity of measures, question whether it is new and different, carefully identify the quality of the available evidence and what it is capable of telling us, and to be accurate and explicit about what we know and do not know about the importance and role of employee engagement. The second approach is to be relaxed about definitions, not get too involved in considering the validity of measures of employee engagement, claim it’s something new and different without really backing it up, ignore the fact that there is at the present time little good quality evidence, and over- and mis-claim the importance of employee engagement. What’s your choice?”

The renaming and repackaging of old ideas is well known. In psychology the Jingle-Jangle fallacy refers to the specious idea that two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy) or that two identical or very similar concepts are different because they have different labels (jangle fallacy).

For the psychology test developer, the jangle fallacy describes the inference that two tests with different names/labels measure quite different constructs/ideas. On the other hand, a jingle fallacy is based on the assumption that two measures with the same name measure the same construct.

The question is what jingles and why and what jangles and why? But fashions change; ideas and measures need revitalisation. So it is not difficult to take an old test and idea and repackage it. And that is, of course, what many do.

It is manufacturers who prefer the jingle fallacy. Notice how the cheaper store’s product has a name and package almost identical to the much more expensive, exclusive brand. They want you to think that a thing with a near identical name, colour, and label is essentially the same at half the price.

This can happen in the consultancy and testing world, where someone has had a monopoly for a famous, expensive and well-known product. The jinglers provide a very similar, much cheaper version that tries to capture the market.

The question for psychometricians and managers alike is the underlying test validity of both.

Management Fads
Shapiro defined Fad Surfing thus: “The practice of riding the crest of the latest management panacea and then paddling out again just in time to ride the next one; always absorbing for managers and lucrative for consultants; frequently disastrous for organisations” (pxiii)². She argues that the business world is full of “breakthroughs” to achieve “world-class” results. “The hard truth is that there are no panaceas. What is new is the sheer number of techniques, some new and some newly repackaged versions of older methods that are now positioned as panaceas. What is not new is the need for the courage to manage: to assess situations, set an overall course or focus, think through options, develop plans, take action, modify plans, learn and go forward. In my view, in the age of instant answers, this courage is more valuable than ever”(pxvii).

Some fads mentioned are:

• Fads in planning. One of the fashionable ideas is strategic alliance, which means that companies cooperate, as in forming a joint venture, often across national boundaries. Airlines, telecommunications companies, and car manufacturers do this.
• Fads in organising. Corporate culture refers to the values and beliefs shared by employees and the general patterns of their behaviour. Some believe that if this is planned, designed and controlled correctly that all the ills of the organisation will be solved.
• Fads in staffing. Organisations have to be staffed by people who are not only competent but also healthy. This requires wellness or fitness programmes and the management of stress.
• Paying for performance. Paying for performance is also currently fashionable. This means measuring the contributions of individuals and rewarding them accordingly, although the problems of measuring performances are often overlooked. Another current popular idea is demassing, or down- or right-sizing, which is a euphemism for laying off employees or demoting managers (usually middle managers).
• Fads in leading. An Intrapreneur is a person who acts like an entrepreneur but does so within the organisational environment. Intrapreneurs have been described as “those who take hands-on responsibility for creating innovation of any kind within an organisation”. Organisations are meant to chase and foster these people.
• Fads in controlling. Quality circles, widely used in Japan, are seen as a way of improving quality and making US products more competitive. These have been set up all over the place.
Note how odd some of those ideas sound. The reason? Those were the fads of 20 years ago!

The Life History of a Fad
This often follows a very predictable pattern.
1. Academic discovery: Many faddish ideas can be traced to the stuffy and unfaddish world of academia. A modest discovery may result in an academic paper that shows the causal link between two factors relevant to work situations. These papers are not only dry and complicated but also cautious. Academics underline the complexity of all the actual and possible factors involved. Few are interested in immediate applications. Their job is to understand, and definitely not change, the world.

2. Description of the study: This process can last a long time and usually involves a lot of elaboration and distortion. Someone reads the paper and provides a summary which probably leaves out the complexities. Often, the discovery is mentioned in a high-powered presentation. Others hear it and repeat it, each time simplifying it. With every repetition, the findings become stronger and the complexity weaker. Selective memory ensures that the crucial findings are recorded and embellished. At this stage it is unlikely that the researcher would recognise the findings as his or her own. It is the first step on the rood to a fad.

3. Popularisation is a bestseller: The next stage is usually the big one. A business writer or guru hears about the finding and gives it a catchy title. One single, simple idea becomes a book. Indeed, that is why business books are so easy to read and precise: there is really very little in them. The average manager reads a few reviews of the book and may even go so far as to buy it. He or she is envious of the seemingly powerful results that occur when the technique is followed. It is at this stage that the fad becomes a buzzword and something every manager feels they should both know about and implement.

4. Consultant hype and universalisation: It is not the academic or the author who powers the fad but an array of management consultants trying to look as if they are on the cutting edge of management theory. Because the concepts are easy to understand and said to have wide application, the consultants seek to apply them everywhere (at a price, of course). The word spreads like wildfire. Soon it seems everyone has to be empowered, re-engineered or 360ed – everyone needs emotional intelligence training. Those who do not climb aboard are made to feel like fuddy-duddies and, in the words of Dilbert, doomed.

5. Total commitment by true believers: At this point, the evangelists move from the consultants to the managers. For a small number of companies the technique seems to have brought quick, massive benefits. They become willing product champions. No one dares to be sceptical and challenge the “evidence of success”. With hindsight it is sometimes difficult to explain why the technique should have had such an impact. Psychologists often explain it in terms of the “Hawthorne effect” – whereby workers boost their performance when attention is paid to them – or the placebo effect. They also sometimes talk of “spontaneous remission”, meaning things get better of their own accord. In fact, years after the fad has passed, there are little outstations of believers who keep the faith.

6. Doubt, scepticism, cynicism and defection: After years of heavy product selling, the appetite for the fad diminishes. The market becomes saturated. “New and improved” versions are introduced. But the enthusiasm is gone. Then the mudslide begins. There is managerial doubt, then academic scepticism, followed by journalistic cynicism and consultant defection. The process starts with people pointing out the poor cost-benefit consequences of introducing the fad. Or it may occur because someone goes back to the original finding and discovers the yawning gap between what was initially demonstrated and what is now done. Then management journalists smell blood. It is easy to find disaffected disbelieving managers happy to squeal. They point to the hundreds of thousands spent for little reward. The consultants who were eager to pick up the fad are the first to drop it. What once gave them credibility now makes them look like con-artists. They move on smartly.

7. New discoveries: The end of one fad is an ideal time for trainers, writers and consultants to spot a gap in the market. They know there is an unquenchable thirst for magic solutions. The really clever people begin to sense when the previous fad is nearing the end of its natural life, so they have just enough time to write their best-sellers to catch the market at the beginning.

How long does the typical fad last? It depends on the zeitgeist; on whether there is a bull or a bear market, and on the entrepreneurial hunger of authors and consultants. But what is clear is that there are as many middle-aged fashion victims as young ones.

Concentrating almost exclusively on higher education, Burnbaum looked at the life cycle of a fad from early enthusiasm, widespread dissemination, subsequent disappointment and eventual decline.³ His model has five stages: Creation with an idea supported by advocates/consultants who provide dramatic unverified narratives. The sample technique offers extraordinary outcomes. It is both necessary and sufficient to transform the whole organisation/sector. Narrative evolution where “stories” grow in every sense. A few counter-narratives are rejected and labelled apologetic, conservative, wasteful and self-interested. Time lag where fad adopters begin to evaluate the fad more independently and objectively. Acceptance of the fad peaks and cautionary stories arise. Narrative devolution occurs with increasing reports of failure and dissatisfaction. Disinterested reviews report original claims were over-stated and progress either never achieved or sustained. Resolution of Dissonance of the failure of the fad: lack of leadership, intransigence of the followers, improper implementation or lack of resources. Some keep the faith by blaming others which allows for the idea behind the fad to be relabelled for future use.

Bacal and Associates’ website listed 10 fads at the turn of the century, now mostly consigned to history: One-Minute Management; Total Quality Management; Learning Organisations; Peak Performance; Excellence; Chaos; MBO; Matrix Management; Team-Based Management; and Process Re-engineering.⁴

They suggest that faddish management techniques do have substance and often have the potential to improve organisations. They argued that fads have a positive side: they provoke thought and discussion; they do produce change causing organisations to question their existing approach; they energise managers by providing a sense of excitement; and they popularise management ideas.

On the negative side, however, they waste vast sums of time and money, and cause cynicism. Indeed a failed implementation of a fad can result in making future improvements more difficult. They can often backfire. If the rhetoric of the fad does not ring with reality there can only be problems ahead.

They offer six pieces of advice to prevent one from being a victim of a well-publicised, but in effect, misleading fad:

1. Be sure you fully understand the technique before proceeding.
2. Fads are tools: managers need to fully understand why they are using them and how they can measure their outcome.
3. It is easy to create the appearance of change and a sense of activity. It’s harder to make sure the change is both real and beneficial.
4. Stick with the fad: steer a steady course. Don’t be put off by initial failure or resistance. It takes time for processes and procedures to bed down.
5. Be prepared to put in considerable effort to evaluate/measure the effects/outcomes of the fad. Most individual measures are flawed but having a number of different types of measures surely gives a good sense of what is going on.
6. Don’t regret a fad because it’s too popular. Look at the substance of the idea, not the fashion.

Fashions in Management
Thinking scientifically is a skill. Scepticism is healthy; cynicism is not. In order to be a discriminating “purchaser” of management ideas we need to evaluate the evidence for them. Our inability to think critically will be all too quickly exploited by those eager to sell us a half-baked idea or process. It pays to learn the tricks of the trade from both sides: the tricks of the con artist and the criticisms of the scientists. Slowly we are acquiring evidence based management science. It’s difficult, expensive and often disappointing to try to prove a product or process works. But necessary.

Fashions are prevailing and short-lived customs. They represent the prevailing style in a particular period and could be said to characterise it. Oscar Wilde said a fashion was that by which the fantastic momentarily becomes the universal. He also said that it is a form of ugliness so intolerable that it needs to be altered every six months. Indeed the surest way to be out of fashion tomorrow is to be in the forefront of it today.

I have listed management fashions between 1950 and 2000 years.

And now? To sell their wares, consultants need to keep up with current trends. So Leadership Agility is in, really in, but Emotional Intelligence seems a tad past its sell-by date. How about the following do you agree?

How are fads different from fashions? They appear to differ on three dimensions, at least in terms of management. First, fashions last longer than fads. Second, fads are often “wackier”, more unorthodox than fashions that are usually functional. Third, fashions tend less to be guru and consultant driven than fads; they are often responses to business necessity.

So…..
As customers change, organisations have to also. Fashions may be responses to fads. But all managers would ideally be pro-active rather than re-active. It is always better to be a leader rather than a follower. Just as there are fashion victims with respect to clothes, so there are victims in management.

Management is tough; there are no magic bullets or pills. It is a complex contact sport. And no, the magic prefix “neuro” is not the answer, though it may be heralding in a fad as the magneto-phrenologists play with their new toys. Neuro-management/marketing/motivation sounds sexy but is a long way from being the solution to all your problems.

References
1. Briner, R. (2014). The Future of Engagement. University of Bath Business School
2. Shapiro, E. (1996) Fad surfing in the boardroom. Oxford: Capslon
3. Burnbaum, R (2000) The life cycle of academic management fads. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 1-16.
4. Bacal & Associates Business & Management Supersite (2002) Management Fads – Things you should know. //www.911.com/articles.mgmtfad.htm

The post Fads and Fashions in Management appeared first on The European Business Review.

Creativity is not an easy topic to research and few serious scientists conduct work in the area. First, creativity is difficult to define and secondly, there are few good ways of measuring it. In this article, Adrian Furnham queries the popular belief that ‘we are all creative’ and creative workshops will help unleash, liberate our creativity. Organizations who are looking for creative individuals must understand the true nature of creativity and personality.

Many businesses say they value creativity because it is the father of innovation which in turn is the engine of change. They often spend billions on Research and Development on a creative process or people which looks to find different, better, cheaper, stronger, etc. products and work processes.

Some have argued creativity is an individual’s, an organisation’s, a society’s, indeed even a species’ greatest resource. Creativity means adaptation and innovation. Some organisations have innovation or innovativeness as a supposedly measurable core competency for senior staff. They attempt to select for, encourage and manage innovation believing it to be a major resource. Some appear to believe that innovation is best achieved through the selection and management of creative individuals. Hence they attempt to recruit those with trait creativity which is usually conceived of as an ability to come up with new ideas.

People like to believe they are all (particularly, especially) creative. Organisations like to believe they need creative ideas which come from creative people. Managers might or might not be wrong depending on the organisation they come from. Others believe that creativity can be relatively easily taught. Many researchers have been sceptical of the many courses available that supposedly teach creativity.

A great deal of nonsense is talked about creativity. It’s not an easy topic to research and few serious scientists conduct work in the area for two simple but fundamental reasons: the first is that creativity is difficult to define; the second is that there are few good ways of measuring it. If you can’t agree a definition or have good tools of measurement you aren’t really off the starting blocks.

Creativity is a bit of a scientific backwater. This problem is measurement: there is no simple, agreed, robust and valid measure of creativity. This means it is difficult to test theories and ideas such as where it comes from and whether it can be taught. As a result, the whole area attracts Charlatans, Conference Troubadors and Purveyors of Piffle. It certainly seems that really creative people are difficult to manage. Further, we know that creativity in the arts and sciences are very different. Often “Arty-farty” creative types are often poorly adjusted, disagreeable and unreliable, while scientific types are geeky, picky and perfectionistic. Innovation is more difficult and more important than creativity

Definitions

At the heart of most definitions of the concept of creativity is the production of ideas and/or products which are both novel and useful. That is, an idea might be new, but not at all useful, or practical but not new. The essence of the idea is that real, genuine creativity is marked by new thinking that has real applications.

One issue that does seem important is to decide on whether the determinants of, and the process involved in, creativity are different in different areas like arts, business, commerce or science. Another is whether creativity as an ability or trait is normally distributed in the population as a whole, or highly skewed such that only a very few are highly creative.

Yet, creativity remains an academic backwater mainly because of how to decide whether a person, invention, work of art or science is truly creative. The question is who makes the judgement and the extent to which they have to agree before one can say ‘it’ is a real manifestation of creativity. Criteria could be based on patent awards, judgements made by professionals, social recognition or even sales.   Different groups have different criteria and different levels of reliability. For the scientist the whole enterprise hardly gets off the starting blocks. If one cannot adequately, robustly and reliably describe the criteria or label the product it remains particularly difficult to understand the process.

It seems that researchers have adopted essentially one of four approaches to the problem:

1. The creative person: differential psychologists have attempted to delineate the particular and peculiar set of abilities, motives and traits that together describe the creative individual.

2. The creative process: this is an attempt to understand the thought (cognitive) processes that go on in the process of creativity. It is not so much an attempt at the who, but the how question.

3. The creative situation: social and business psychologists are particularly interested in cultural, environmental and organisational factors that inhibit or facilitate creativity. The idea is that one can therefore construct situations that induce creativity even in the not particularly creative.

4. The creative product: this approach attempts to study all aspects of creativity by looking at those products that are clearly defined as creative.

Is creativity defined by a person, a product, a process or an environment? Can a person be creative without creating anything? If so, what are the personal characteristics of creative people? Can you have creative groups, rather than individuals, where somehow the group dynamic is the key to the creative process? Can you only really define creativity by the output of creative persons or groups? That is, creativity is best measured by tangible, agreed upon, outcomes.

Or is creativity a process? Is it the way painters sketch, writers scribble, sculptors carve, that makes them creative rather than some innate ability, drive or attitude? Or is it the environment that people or organisations engender that promotes creativity? Does one need funky murals, new age music, and a spirit of non-judgmental communication to be really creative?

Most people seem happy with the concept of a creative person. Many of the creative people one can mention like Van Gogh or Mozart died young, ignored, penniless and mentally ill. Later generations thought them creative but they were not recognised as such in their life times.

But if, for the sake of argument, one believes at very minimum there must be something inside people to make them creative the question at least for the psychologists in this: is creativity

1. A stable trait?
2. A (mood) state?
3. A thinking style?An ability?

If creativity is an ability, we would expect it, like intelligence, to be normally distributed. Most physical abilities (with each sex) are like this. High jump and long jump; linguistic ability and spatial ability are normally distributed. Some people are naturally talented and an equally small number are, alas, talentless.

You measure abilities by performance tests. They are tests with correct and incorrect answers and speed of processing may also be taken into account. It was patently obvious at school that with identical tuition, some did very well at maths and others were…shall we say ‘numerically challenged’. The same is true of languages: some people just seem to have an ear. If creativity is a (cognitive) ability it can certainly be improved, but the ability level (from very bad to very good) dictates the range of improvement.

Is creativity more a personality trait, like extraversion or neuroticism? Is it a temperamental thing, possibly related to pathology? Certainly there do seem to be high incidences of similar behaviours and backgrounds in successful writers, artists etc. But personality is like ability: normally distributed and difficult to change partly because it is “hard-wired” and biologically based. Some introverts can pretend to be extraverts and vice versa, but it is tiring and unnatural for them and the pretence cannot be kept up for too long.

Is creativity a state, like a mood state? Can it be induced by music, watching a film, even detecting a powerfully evocative smell? Most of us may feel subjectively more creative after a couple of glasses of Chardonnay but alas the evidence is against us. True trait creatives work better when in various specific emotional states but all the drug does is get you in the mood. In fact, from the numerous confessions of very creative writers, state-altering substances (the preference is booze) rarely if ever facilitate creativity…in fact, the precise opposite.

So what about creativity as a thinking style? This is the preferred word of our time. Why? Obviously…because style involves easy change. Just as you can change your clothes and hairstyle…even political beliefs, so we are told, you can change your thinking style to become more creative. The message you hear at creativity workshops is (a) everyone is creative and (b) we can teach you to find your creativity (inner voice, inner child…blah, blah) by using techniques that alter your approach to issues. You can be taught (easily but expensively) to alter your thinking style so your “natural creativity” can breakthrough. And so you do a bit of brain storming, a bit of de Bonoing etc. and get to feel you can become a lateral thinker.

Alas there is precious little evidence to support this breathlessly exciting approach to creativity. We know scientists tend to be convergent thinkers and artists divergent thinkers. We know both can be creative in their own ways. We also know that nearly all creatives have always been that way. It is very rare to find someone who once went on a course and suddenly became creative, though it is possible…only if they had the ability and temperament in the first place.

Alas, it is little more than a conformity myth perpetrated by workshop junkies or salesman that people can be taught to be creative. We are not all creative anymore than we are all musical or mathematically gifted. You can learn to do better but only within the constraints of your God-given, biologically based, genetically determined make-up.

Teaching Creativity

The language of creativity-cultivating sessions is particularly interesting. There seem to be five related models.

First, there is the muesli model. People need to unblock their creativity. They are in some curious way creativity-constipated and unable to let go and express themselves. In this sense creativity courses may be seen as laxatives.

Second, there is the dominatrix model. Here we are told to unleash our creativity. Somehow we have been bound up, tied down, physically constrained from that most natural and normal of tasks, namely being creative. So courses are liberators.

Third, there is the arsonist model. Creative consultants and trainers aim to spark ideas and light fires. They see people as dry tinder just waiting for the right moment. Their job is to find ways of facilitating fire-setting ideas. The courses are igniters.

Fourth, there is the kindergarten model. The problem appears to be that we have all forgotten how to be playful. Playfulness is apparently not only a lot of fun but it is also very productive. So our trainer helps us regress to a time when we were happy and quite unabashed to draw pictures, sing songs, etc. These courses aim for rediscovery.

Fifth, there is the gaol-liberator model. The problem, you see, is that we have all been boxed in a sort of cognitive gaol that has stopped us…..wait for it…thinking outside the box! And here, our happy consultants throw open the doors of our prison and out pops our creative jack-in-the-box. The course delivers a release.

Note that all the models assume that somewhere and somehow our natural creativity is suppressed. Quite contrary to all that we know about individual differences and human abilities, the assumption is that creativity is not normally distributed: everybody is (potentially) very creative.

Clearly not everyone is musical, or good with numbers, or a natural sprinter. Almost all human characteristics (ability, personality, motivation) are normally distributed. Handedness is an exception. It means most people, by definition, are average on any characteristic and only a few are relatively high or low. It is the Bell Curve of life. And this suggests that most of us have average creativity talents, some are worse than average and a few are greatly endowed.

Certainly people can be taught skills and they can become better at almost everything they do. The question is what and how much they need to practise and with what overall and long-lasting effect.

Studies of genuinely creative individuals show they have both considerable talent but also sustained effort. Whilst it is true that ‘good ideas’ emerge often in times of relaxation (called the incubation period), a great deal of work has gone into thinking about the problem at hand. Creatives are talented, driven, hard-working….and by reputation quirky, unconventional, difficult to manage.

Most creativity courses are enjoyable, whether arsonists or kindergarten teachers lead them. Most aim at ‘fun and games’ and are more about self-concept and self-esteem than anything else. Many people are neither blocked nor gaoled, and given the right circumstances they may all display some level of creative thinking

Alas, Edison was right: it’s 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. Learning to “thought-shower” – the new PC term for brainstorm – in a nice hotel at the company’s expense may be a fun break from the office routine, but is unlikely to do much more than persuade people – rightly or wrongly- that they are as creative as anyone else.

Creativity and Innovation

The way people most often use the word “to be creative” is both different from, and certainly more desirable than being innovative. Innovation is about doing things radically differently. It seems implicitly assumed that creativity is special, innovativeness ordinary; that creativity is a rare gift; innovativeness can be learnt.

It is certainly true one of the pathways to success in organisations is indeed through innovation. Some have rejoiced in the innovative product route. Disney, Polaroid, Sony and Windows typify this route to success. Others have developed innovative technology like Benetton, Honda and Evergreen. Some have tried to be innovative in the way in which they have a relationship” with their customers. Some of the airlines (Virgin) and credit card companies have been successful doing this.

But other organisations have been extremely successful without any particular innovation. Some have simply explored the rigidity of their competitors like Federal Express or Easyjet. Others have turned around a slowly declining business like the Hilton Hotels. Saatchi and Saatchi arguably were successful not because of amazing creativity but rather by capitalising, mobilizing and manipulating market forces. Some airlines have found success through the exceptional service route.

Personality and Creativity

There is both good and bad news when looking at the scattered scientific literature on creativity. The first is that it is true that both “creatives” and psychotic mental patients share the ability to produce more unusual associations between words and ideas compared to that long but undistinguished group called normals. In the jargon this means creatives and certain mad people have common information processing patterns which could be seen as deficits.

They seem unable to inhibit irrelevant information from entering consciousness. They find whether they like it or not unrelated ideas become interconnected… and this is often bizarrely a very creative process. They also both have high resting levels of activation and tend to be oversensitive to stimuli. Hence they may demand a special environment in which they can feel comfortable.

The extant research on creativity and madness suggests persons genetically related to psychotics are often unusually and statistically improbably creative. Creative persons often suffer bouts of serious breakdown and psychopathology. And psychotics and creative achievers have strikingly similar ways of thinking.

But of course madness is neither necessary nor sufficient for creativity. Most mad people (psychotics) are far from creative. Most mad people (psychotics) are far from creative. And many highly creative people are more prone to neurosis rather than psychosis. Certainly many creative writers have been prone to depression; but few (with some notable exceptions) have ever been hospitalised.

A recent study comparing equivalent groups of creative and non-creative “normal” people brought to light the problems with managing creatives. The creatives were marginally more extraverted but much less conscientious. They were all less efficient, dependable, organised, responsible and thorough. In short they were lazy and self-indulgent… but they were creative by all accounts.

However the creatives certainly were artistic, curious and imaginative. They were marked for the unconventionality, introspective and unusual thought processes. But they were also distinctly neurotic. They tended to be self-pitying with brittle ego defences; they tended to be tense and prone to depression. People noted they were anxious and touchy. They certainly are impulsive and moody. Many seem overly concerned with their levels of adequacy. It maybe that neurosis is associated with creativity in “normal” populations and psychosis in abnormal populations. Certainly if one has been around talented “arty-fartys” for any time it is not difficult to notice rather high levels of neurosis. But once again it must be emphasised that not all neurotics are creative… one does need raw talent.

Now you know why advertising agencies have account managers. These are relatively normal people who intercede between the client and the creative. Put the latter two together and you may expect sparks and a quick end to the business.

Don’t be fooled at the interview. The creative person is not the marginally flamboyant figure in coloured bow tie. The charming person with a steady history both personal and professional is unlikely to be the real creative. Real creatives are likely to be pierced and have tattoos in places you never thought possible. Further their daily intake of legal and illegal substances would also probably make you shiver.

By definition the real creative is difficult to manage. They are cold, manipulative and uncaring and they do not easily work in teams. Frequently absent they often let you down. But some are clearly worth the investment and pain… but which. All however are difficult. After all they score on both neuroticism and psychoticism. How do you manage the anti-social, ego centric and unreliable? The answer is with difficulty. But if you really care about creativity you may have to.

But as any business person knows the hard bit is not coming up with the idea: it is much more about innovation. Taking the idea to market; getting people to accept and buy it; and then introduce it to the organisation.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is an organisational and applied psychologist, management expert and Professor of Psychology at University College London. He has written over 700 scientific papers and 57 books. In addition to his academic roles, he is a consultant on organisational behaviour and management, writer and broadcaster.

The post Creativity at Work appeared first on The European Business Review.

Justice has always been a major issue among people. Especially in an organisational context, where many employees with different values, interests, and problems have to act in concert, a fair treatment is of huge importance. People who face injustice may become dissatisfied with their job, superior, or organisation and hence turn into a threat for the organisation by showing Counter Work Behaviours (CWBs). This article looks at the perception of injustice at work, and further motivational factors of CWBs.

The Edmund Snowden case has very clearly shown the problem of the‭ ‬Insider Threat:‭ ‬the threat to organisations from people working in‭, ‬or for‭, ‬them‭. ‬It is not only governments and security services that are deeply concerned with the leaking of important secret information dramatically illustrated by Edward Snowden and Chelsea/Bradley Manning‭. ‬The leaking of seriously important information to the wider world can also break commercial organisations‭.‬

Insider Threat is the term most commonly used when referring to current and past employees, associates and contractors who possess sensitive information about an organisation’s internal systems, information, clients and operating procedures. They then sell or utilise their knowledge for an inappropriate or illegal purpose. This misuse of information causes damage to the organisation in the form of financial loss, loss of productivity, damage to reputation or may have some form of legal implication. These individuals may act alone or in concert with others to perpetrate a variety of crimes against the organisation.

But what are the motives of those who commit fraud, theft, who disclose confidential information or who commit sabotage? Are they simply greedy, criminal or pressured from outside for financial gain? Do they start out like this, or do they have such bad experiences in an organisation that they become bad apples?

Counter Work Behaviours

Psychologists have a long list of Counter Work Behaviours (CWBs):

1. Theft (cash or property) and related behaviour (giving away goods or services).

2. Destruction of property (arson, Ludditism).

3. Misuse of information (revealing confidential info, whistle-blowing or falsifying rectords).

4. Misuse of time and resources (wasting time, altering times).

5. Unsafe behaviour (ignoring safety procedures).

6. Poor attendance (unexcused absence).

7. Poor quality work (intentionally slow or sloppy).

8. Alcohol and drug use on the job.

9. Inappropriate verbal actions (arguing with customers, verbal harassment of coworkers).

10. Inappropriate physical action (physically attacking coworkers, sexual harassment).

It is both too common and too easy to blame worker misdeeds and CWBs on the workers themselves, any more than to assert that all accidents are caused by accident-prone individuals. This is not to deny that there are devious criminal types. Investigations into those who have turned on their employer note that they have become seriously disenchanted from being very badly dealt with.

Many studies on those caught doing CWBs show that they were never immoral, devious or criminal types. Rather they were pushed into doing what they did as revenge for perceived maltreatment and injustice.

Poor Management

A great deal of blame can be laid at the feet of poor managers or poor managerial processes. The idea is that transformational leaders who inspire and model satisfaction (engagement) and productivity lead to healthy and happy relationships at work (leader-worker exchange), trust, and adjusted and motivated employees. That is, bad management, just like bad parenting, causes serious long-term problems for all concerned (staff, share-holders, customers etc.).

Below are some of the characteristics of bad managers.

• Arrogance: They’re right and everybody else is wrong.

• Melodrama: They want to be the centre of attention.

• Volatility: Their mood swings create business swings.

• Excessive caution: They cannot make important decisions.

• Habitual distrust: They focus only on the negatives.

• Aloofness: They disengage and disconnect with staff.

• Eccentricity: They think it’s fun to be different just for the sake of it.

• Passive resistance: Their silence is misinterpreted as agreement.

• Perfectionism: They want to get the little things right even if the big things go wrong.

• Eagerness to please: They stress that being popular matters most.

These managers not only alienate staff and lower morale but they can quite easily provoke reprisals in the form of CWBs.

Managers have two main roles. First, they are at the front line in identifying counter work behaviours and participating in any or legal actions against the individuals. Second, they have to generate an atmosphere and environment which actively discourages such behaviours. They need to generate engagement (commitment, satisfaction), loyalty and a strong work ethic, not distrust and alienation.

Too often they are blind to what is happening around them; but worse, their actions and own behaviours lead to resentment, which in turn leads to staff becoming disillusioned and vulnerable to CWBs.

The job of a leader/manager is to select, motivate and direct teams to achieve organisational goals. They need to set SMART goals, give timely and useful feedback, and support staff informationally, emotionally and financially. Good managers support both the organisation and employee goals. Tyrannical, autocratic leaders may only support the organisation (and themselves) and be less concerned with their staff. Poor managers are undisciplined: they flout guidelines and the ‘good psychology’ of management. They belittle and intimidate, threaten and tease, ignore and exclude their staff. This in turn can lead to employee revenge, followed by managerial counter-retaliation, which then escalates into entrenched conflict. This is the ideal breeding ground for the Insider Threat.

It is also important to bear in mind that people become angry and disappointed when they see others treated unfairly, such as during redundancies, lay-offs, etc. That is, people don’t have to always to be themselves the ‘victims’ of injustice. It is enough to see others badly treated for them to seek revenge.

For managers to be fully involved in the process of developing loyalty in an organisation and countering the insider threat, it is necessary to recognise the nature and potential size of the threat as well as the motivations of those committing the CWBs.

All organisations have a distinct corporate culture simply defined as “the way people do things around here.” They have easily observable (particularly to the outsider) implicit and explicit codes of behaviour, that specify what is acceptable, desirable and expected behaviour at work (and often outside it) that gains approval and reward – and that which does not. This culture is often established, maintained and changed by senior managers. Unfortunately, what they say is often not what they do. Many do not see their role in establishing healthy cultures that lead to Organisational Citizenship Behaviours (OCBs), rather than unhealthy cultures that lead to CWBs.

Finally although CWBs have always been around, the ways in which they are expressed have changed with the times. Thus, rapid and widespread developments in technology have lead to what is now called cyberdeviancy: cyberloafing, cyberaggression, workplace blogging and cyber whistle-blowing. As things change, so do the opportunities for, and incidences of, Insider Threats.

Cause and Prevention

Why do insiders leak information, and how can we prevent them? The simple and obvious answer lies in rigorous selection. Don’t let these people join your organisation and then you won’t have any problems. So government departments and the security services take selection very seriously. They screen their applicants very, very thoroughly. They know the cost of getting it wrong.

Yet, of course, some individuals do get through the net. Some attempt to join organisations in order to destroy them. Their aim is to infiltrate and to poison. And there are many well-known case studies, usually of people driven by a powerful political ideology to demonise and ultimately destroy anyone holding opposing opinions. Having penetrated the organisation, these types bide their time, collect information…then strike.

However, as many organisations find when they carry out the all-important and painful review of what went wrong and why, the cause is not necessarily a screening failure. Many whistle-blowers, spies and “enemies within” never start off with a motive to subvert or betray their organisation. Indeed, often precisely the opposite. But they turn sour because of the way they were treated.

It seems there are five reasons for why people go from being engaged to disenchanted; productive to subversive; a friend to an enemy of the organisation.

First, organisational lying/hypocrisy. This is the employee’s perception that what the organisation says about itself in public, and even to its employees, is a pack of lies. The more the organisation tries to capture the moral high ground and come out on ‘the side of the angels,’ the more outraged the astounded and angry insider becomes.

All organisations do PR about their mission, vision, methods, etc. Some trumpet them loudly and frequently. Most talk about integrity and transparency, about customer and employee care, welfare, etc. But for some this is patently not true. It can come as a shock to the staff; and some can’t live the schizophrenic existence of what they see to be a lie.

Second, perceived inequity. The idea that some people in the organisation are treated very differently from others. One law for the rich, another for the poor. The hottest word at work is fair: that people are fairly assessed, promoted and rewarded. And yet, it can seem to some that loyalty, hard work, and productivity have less to do with success than some other attributes such as demography, brown-nosing or particular experiences.

The feeling that you and others are being unfairly held back while a few succeed can stimulate a great deal of resentment.

Third, bullying and mistreatment. The belief that some senior people are callous, uncaring, nasty and manipulative, and that you are a victim. The workplace attracts all types: the demanding perfectionist, the geeky inadequate, the flamboyant self-publicist. This is to be expected and we all have to adapt to the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of powerful people at work.

But some at the top are bullies and backstabbers. Staff can forgive the occasional emotional outburst and unkind remark, but not chronic, remorseless nastiness aimed specifically at them. Further, some organisations have a management style that is essentially aggressive and Machiavellian. It is then not only the oversensitive type who buckles under the acute and chronic bullying that leads from disenchantment to the need for revenge.

Fourth, distrust. The feeling that the organisation does not even trust its own employees. It may have put in place a number of devious and not-admitted (often electronic monitoring) systems to spy on its own people. Whilst top management may talk about, and demand, loyalty from their staff, it is clear that they do not trust their own employees.

This, of course, is a two-way street. If the organisation lets it be known that it never really and fully trusts me with information, money and materials, why should I ever trust them?

Fifth, broken promises. This is all about expectations not being met. For some, the selection interview and the induction period are where people set your expectations about working for the organisation. They tell you what they stand for, what they expect and how things work.

But all too often an employee does not have his or her expectations clarified. Either supervisors do not know how to conduct, or they fudge, conversations about what the criteria are for promotion, salary increases, etc. Some feel they are personally powerless to bring these about while others use false promises as a sort of motivational technique that backfires.

Conclusion

So, soon the hopeful, bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed, potentially productive and loyal employee becomes disenchanted. Cynicism can set in, along with a drop in morale and productivity. This can take months or years. Some simply leave; others may not have that option and stick it out. For others, there is the possibility of revenge which may involve anything from arson to the exposure of secrets. Few people start out angry with their employer, but a worrying number end up that way through poor management.

About the Author

Adrian Furnham is an organisational and applied psychologist, management expert and Professor of Psychology at University College London. He has written over 700 scientific papers and 57 books. In addition to his academic roles, he is a consultant on organisational behaviour and management, writer and broadcaster.