There is a critical shortage of people in the labor force with the “right” credentials. Many job descriptions list a four-year degree requirement when that’s not at all necessary for success on the job. At the same time, hiring managers can’t be certain that even candidates with elite credentials in fact have the skills and knowledge necessary for success.   Of course, people with degrees that companies find useful are in good shape, but many others finish college saddled with debt and no prospects for making a sustainable living. A recent Wall Street Journal survey highlighted a growing opinion that traditional college is not as attractive now as in the past. In short, businesses are using increasingly questionable credentials as barriers to entry. However, there is a clear and workable pathway out of this situation.

There are many useful free resources now for education outside the traditional paths. Khan Academy provides online courses and tools to provide a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. It was originally developed as a way to fill in the gaps left by traditional elementary and secondary schools, but has expanded since then. Saylor Academy has focused on free college-level education courses representing the ten highest enrollment majors in the US. There are many other options for free high-quality education, including  MIT OpenCourseWare, that have traditionally been only available in university settings. In addition, coding and other technical boot camps offer a wide range of opportunities for micro-credentialing. But these attractive resources aren’t enough.

Exciting and positive as alternatives like these may be, they aren’t real options for most people who have not been exposed to them, and who have not had the resources and encouragement to learn more broadly. For reasons well-documented elsewhere, many capable kids do not graduate from secondary schools with the knowledge and skills to succeed in college or in good jobs. People need access to resources, and the encouragement to take advantage of them, before they can develop the aptitudes needed for success. Helping all people develop meaningful skills valued by businesses should be a primary national goal. But this won’t be accomplished without major shifts in thinking and innovation in education. However, many organizations are finding new pathways to success for those who have not had traditional access to the credentials of skill and knowledge development. `

Ginni Rometty, former CEO and Chairman of IBM, realized that the company was facing a crisis of talent early in her tenure, noting that half the good jobs in the country are over-credentialed. Many of the positions IBM was trying to fill didn’t require a four-year degree, although that was listed as a requirement. She began to change the hiring and promotion focus to defining and assessing the skills necessary for success, not the degree credentials on the job descriptions. As she noted in Good Power, her best-selling book chronicling her career and tenure at IBM, this was a tough battle but it yielded great success for the company.

Post retirement, Rometty remains involved in the skills-first movement as Co-Chair of OneTen, an organization devoted to the hiring, promoting and advancing of one million Black people who don’t have a four-year degree into family-sustaining careers over the next ten years. The organization takes a skills-first approach, focusing on competencies (not credentials), to increase opportunities and build potential for future generations. OneTen’s board of directors and advisors consists of many current and former CEOs of highly visible major US companies, but this is not just window dressing. They’re all concerned about finding good talent while offering more opportunities to people who may have faced unnecessary barriers to earning a degree, and they’re pursuing the skills-first strategy to do so. Thus, they’re offering success strategies by looking forward, rather than focusing on needless credentials, past wrongs, mistakes, obstacles or societal shortcomings to get ahead. This is the essence of leadership: defining and acknowledging reality while offering hope and a way forward.

Skills-first hiring, also known as competency-based hiring, prioritizes a candidate's skills, experience, and abilities over their education, credentials, or other traditional hiring criteria. This approach is becoming more widespread and necessary for several reasons:

1. It focuses on what matters most. Skills-first hiring assesses the specific skills and abilities required for the job, rather than relying on general criteria like education or years of experience. This ensures that candidates are actually capable of doing the job and are a good fit for the role, not just that they check the credentials boxes.
2. It reduces bias. Traditional hiring methods often favor candidates from certain backgrounds or with certain credentials. Skills-first hiring helps to remove some of these barriers by focusing solely on the candidate's skills and experience.
3. It improves diversity in ideas and candidates not by checking the required demographic boxes, but by broadening the legitimately qualified applicant pool. Candidates who may not have had access to the same educational opportunities or who come from non-traditional backgrounds are given a fair chance to demonstrate their skills, and their potential.
4. It leads to better job performance. Hiring candidates based on their skills and abilities will lead to better job performance because the focus has now been narrowed to just those candidates with the specific skills and experience required for the job.

Overall, skills-first hiring is a fair and more effective approach to hiring than traditional methods, and it can lead to better outcomes for both employers and job seekers. Fortunately, there are ways to assess for skills, and for the aptitudes and other characteristics necessary for success on the job:

1. Define what a person needs for success in the position. Job tasks, essential skills, performance expectations, the nature of the culture and the requirements to grow beyond the job should be made clear and explicit.
2. Once the success factors have been identified, structured interviews, work samples, personality inventories and problem-solving assessments are proven methods to measure them. These tools will focus your selection efforts on the essential skills and qualities needed on the job, and will increase your hiring success rate.
3. Recruit widely and consider alternative sources. Develop relationships with educational and other developmental facilities that may not have been immediately obvious from traditional approaches.

As business psychologists and broadly experienced organizational consultants, we have the training and seasoning to help define the success factors for any job, and to help you determine how to measure them in a fair, valid and defensible manner. Get in touch with us for a no-cost exploratory professional consultation.

Cognitive dissonance is a phenomenon that has been extensively studied by social psychologists. It is widely recognized as a powerful force that influences human behavior and decision-making, often below our level of awareness. It refers to the discomfort we feel when confronted with information or ideas that contradict our own existing attitudes, beliefs, or values. We all want to be perceived as consistent, and will go to great lengths to appear that way to ourselves and others. We’re all subject to dissonance, and we’ll work hard to reduce it. It’s uncomfortable to hold two ideas that are opposite or in conflict, so we’ll do whatever we can to ease that discomfort.

Cognitive dissonance is a normal and common human experience. But it’s easier to recognize it in others than in ourselves. Understanding some of the signs of cognitive dissonance, and learning to recognize them in yourself, can be a helpful step towards reducing its impact and towards building greater insight and self-awareness. Some of the signs that may indicate when people are experiencing cognitive dissonance include:

1. Rationalization and justification of their beliefs or behaviors, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. People tend to double down on their original positions when confronted with new data.
2. Avoidance or even denial of the existence of conflicting information. Sometimes it may seem like others are watching a totally different movie. They may offer nonsensical explanations to justify their ideas or beliefs and resort to rambling “word salad” responses.
3. Frustration or anger. We don’t want to feel like, much less admit, that we are wrong. Nobody appreciates evidence that contradicts their self-image. If pushed, many people resort to ad hominem attacks and name-calling rather than trying to explain their position logically.

If you’re in a discussion and you find the other person offering rambling or nonsensical explanations to justify their position, or if they begin calling you names or otherwise attacking you in ways that are unrelated to the conversation, you’ve probably won the day on logical grounds. However, you may not have moved the relationship forward.

In an ideal world, we would agree that it is good to be open to conflicting viewpoints and to be willing to consider the possibility that our beliefs or attitudes may be wrong. We should all be more open-minded and receptive to new ideas. However, that’s not the way this world works. We are all subject to our own unique sets and combinations of biases and beliefs. And we will experience cognitive dissonance, and the associated behaviors and responses described above, whenever they are challenged.

If you are leading a team, it will be to your advantage to create an atmosphere that encourages open and direct dialog to help people understand and challenge their own (sometimes inconsistent) assumptions and to help others do the same, while minimizing the potential for discomfort and conflict dealing with cognitive dissonance brings.

Some of the ideas to help people deal with such potential dysfunctions at work, as explored by psychologist and author Amy Edmondson, are relevant here. If your team members are quieter than usual and  keeping their heads down, or if there seems to be more frustration and conflict, it could be that they are dealing with their own dissonance. Or perhaps they are threatened by what they see as your own blind spots and inconsistencies (thus undermining their sense of psychological safety). While it’s difficult to make a more open environment if the norms have already been established, keep the following ideas in mind if you’re new to leadership, or charged with revitalizing an old team (from a recent HBR article on this topic):

"Anyone who has worked on a team marked by silence and the inability to speak up, knows how hard it is to reverse that. A lot of what goes into creating a psychologically safe environment are good management practices — things like establishing clear norms and expectations so there is a sense of predictability and fairness; encouraging open communication and actively listening to employees; making sure team members feel supported; and showing appreciation and humility when people do speak up."

To the extent that we can learn to recognize the signs of cognitive dissonance and take steps to reduce it, we can improve our ability to make informed decisions, maintain an open mind, build more effective teams and avoid rigid thinking patterns. Taking a step back when we feel discomfort, anger or frustration, and considering whether dissonance may be at the root of these feelings, is a step in the right direction. If you’re uncomfortable, re-frame it as an opportunity to learn something new and useful.


We all see different movies. Try to understand the ones you're not watching.

Quiet quitting is a term to describe the strategy of just doing the bare minimum needed to get by on your job. Whether it’s a real thing or a media thing remains to be seen, but a recent McKinsey study about current difficulties in hiring found that the three top reasons people leave their jobs are related to money, a lack of career development and advancement, and bad leaders. The top three reasons for staying were workplace flexibility, meaningfulness of their work, and support for their health and well-being. So if you’re the boss, here’s the clear success strategy: don’t do things to drive your people underground (or away). Do the right things in the right ways and make your organization a better place to work. Don’t be a jerk.

For people in the ranks, quiet quitting is a losing strategy. It leads to making things worse, not better. It leads to a self-image of passivity and low integrity. And it may lead to quiet firing, as noted in a recent SHRM article. The simple strategy described below will get you to a much better place. It’s a positive antidote to quiet quitting, and provides a way to achieve success even in bad situations.

As noted by Scott Adams (author and Dilbert creator) in his book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, it’s better to focus on building systems for success, not on specific goals, and it’s good to develop a broad and diverse skill stack. That book is currently being adapted for parents and teachers to help kids successfully navigate the real world. The systems-not-goals theme has been echoed by many others, including James Clear, in his recent best-seller Atomic Habits. What follows is a proven success strategy for people who work in organizations. It is a systems approach, not an exercise in goal-setting. While this is intended for those who are fortunate enough to be helping and coaching young people to be successful on the job, it’s also a reminder of what’s most important for anyone who works in organizations.

Our mission as consulting business psychologists is to help people make good career decisions, and to help leaders make good hiring decisions. As such, we get questions about what it takes to be a successful salesperson, engineer, manager, etc. in various client organizations and cultures. While there may be specific answers, depending on the particular company’s list of success competencies and its unique characteristics, there are three key fundamentals to achievement no matter who you are or where you work: be good at your job; show up; don’t be a jerk. These are the cornerstones of a long-term strategy for career success.

To be good at your job, you need to know how to do it well, or you need to quickly learn how to do it well. You don’t have to be the class valedictorian. However, you do need to be able to understand the technical requirements for success and you need to be able to solve new problems as they come your way. You also need to understand how your job fits into the overall mission of the organization, and how it relates to the jobs of other people. If you’re not among that lucky small percentage who learn quickly and easily, welcome to the world of normal people. This just means that you will need to do the work and put in the time and effort.

Showing up means exactly that. Be there. If you do what you say you will do and meet your commitments on time, people will begin to feel that they can count on you. Conscientiousness is a major predictor of success in anything, especially work in organizations. It will sometimes require sacrifice, and always requires hard work.

No matter how clever your solutions, and no matter how much effort you put into your work, you will not achieve greatest success unless you can communicate with other people. You don’t need to be a wildly social sales animal but you do need to develop decent relationships with other people. At the very least, don’t be difficult to work with. To ensure your chances for success, be likable.

Be good at your job, show up, and don’t be a jerk. These are the keys to success in any organization. No matter what your role, you need to be able to influence people. Otherwise, you will be even more at the mercy of forces beyond your control. You need credibility and good relationships for maximum impact and success in any organization. Credibility is a product of these foundational principles. Credibility is earned through building trust. Trust is earned by being good at your job and showing up, and showing people that you have their back.

If you’re not happy in your job, find a better one. Or adjust to your current reality. Or make it better. Or try something else that will teach you new things and add to your skill stack. Quiet quitting just prolongs your misery, erodes trust, and makes you think of yourself as a loser. Don’t do it. Find a positive path that will be more to your liking and help you be more productive. It doesn’t matter who you are or what obstacles you face. You always have the power to make things better. Use it.

Be there. Make things better. Be useful.

The trait of Complexity is one of the Big Five personality factors. It is sometimes known as Openness to Experience. It is related to intellectual curiosity, openness to information, independence of thought and the ability to keep long term objectives in mind. People with high scores on this trait describe themselves as strategic, free-thinking, dogged, imaginative, unconventional and intellectual. They enjoy broad intellectual engagement. They tend to generate many ideas. People with low scores usually have more focused interests. They are usually more hands-on and have little inclination towards intellectual or academic issues. They are more practical, tactical and applied. Below are the sub factors for this broad personality dimension.

• Strategic. People with high scores here are described as unflagging, dogged, unwavering, staunch, non-conforming and unconventional.
• Planful. High scores here are indicative of people who are seen as intellectual, reflective, thinking-oriented, methodical, precise, analytical and deliberate.
• Divergent Thinking. People with high scores here are perceived as creative, imaginative, inventive, visionary, free-thinking, innovative, resourceful, intuitive, curious and insightful.

No personality trait is inherently positive or negative. There are potential upsides and downsides to scores at any point along the spectrum. The further towards the high or low endpoints, the more pronounced and observable the behaviors associated with the trait will be. People with exceptionally high or low scores are likely to demonstrate both the positives and negatives associated with the trait. People with high scores on the measure of Complexity typically enjoy theoretical, abstract and complex problems. They often have broad interests and enjoy intellectual pursuits. People with low scores are likely to be more action oriented, tactical and applied in their approach. They are not inclined towards theoretical or academic exercises.

While we can’t change our personalities to any significant extent, we can learn new behaviors and skills. We can get better at most anything, given the appropriate goals and the insight, resources and motivation to achieve them. Below are some suggestions for people with high or low scores on the trait of Complexity.

High scores

• Be careful about spending too much time with your head in the clouds. People may see you as impractical.
• Make sure that your tendencies to gravitate towards the big picture don’t interfere with your ability to see and appreciate the tactical operational details of a new project.
• Watch out for overthinking. People with high scores tend to see things from a variety of angles and they may not be comfortable making the quick but approximate decisions often necessary for implementation and operations.
• Realize that your tendency to generate many ideas may overwhelm people and that you may come off as flighty, distractible or impractical.

Low scores

• Make sure you are considering the big picture before making a quick decision.
• Don’t give in to the pressures for immediate action. You may benefit from an occasional second opinion to help you explore other alternatives that may be more effective to help you achieve your longer-term goals.
• Don’t automatically discount new programs and procedures that seem uncomfortable or academic on the front end.
• Realize that you can probably benefit from continuing to broaden your perspective and stretch further towards the strategic viewpoint rather than just focusing on the practical and operational tasks in front of you.

If you have a high score on Complexity, you are likely to be seen as a valuable resource for new ideas, interesting viewpoints and diverse ways of thinking. If you have a low score, you can be a valuable resource for staying focused, maintaining traditions and keeping the team aware of what needs to be done next. High-scoring people would enjoy planning and exploring where the rail line should go in five years, while low-scoring people just want to make the trains run on time.

On average, entrepreneurs score higher on this dimension than middle managers in large organizations. However, although they may have great ideas and the energy to build new businesses, at some point they will need to hire people who are more practical, tactical and organized to help bring order to the chaos they can create.

Agreeableness is one of the major Big Five personality factors. People scoring high on Agreeableness try to get along with others and maintain harmonious relationships. They display emotional warmth and supportive social interactions. They may have difficulties making tough decisions regarding people. They don’t like conflict. They are typically approachable and easy to get along with. They describe themselves as cooperative, likable, approachable, soft‑hearted and easygoing. They are not inclined to be blunt, intense, abrupt or direct. There are three sub-factors of the overall dimension of agreeableness:

• Tolerant. People who get high scores here describe themselves as flexible, good-natured, warm, praising, generous, forgiving, tolerant, gentle, humorous and trusting. High scores are indicative of people who seek to build and maintain harmonious relationships and who want to be liked and well-regarded.
• Easygoing. High scorers are likely to come off as laid-back, patient, easygoing, mild, too nice, accepting and peaceable. They are not likely to see themselves as intense, impatient or excessively driven.
• Sympathetic. People scoring high on this facet are typically seen as feeling‑oriented, sentimental, affectionate, soft-hearted, sensitive, sympathetic, warm and gentle.

No personality trait is inherently positive or negative. There are potential upsides and downsides to scores at any point along the spectrum. The further towards the endpoints (high or low), the more pronounced and observable the behaviors associated with the particular trait under consideration are likely to be. People with exceptionally high or low scores are likely to demonstrate both the positives and negatives associated with the characteristic under study. For Agreeableness, people with high scores are inclined to be cooperative, likable, personable and easy to deal with. People with low scores are typically more intense, driven and likely to be more task oriented than emotionally sensitive.

While we can’t change our personalities to any significant extent, we can learn new behaviors and skills. We can get better at most anything, given the appropriate goals and the insight, resources and motivation to achieve them. Below are some suggestions for people with high or low scores on the trait of Agreeableness.

High Scores

• Don’t be too nice for your own good. People with this profile sometimes work harder to please others than to please themselves.
• Watch out for the point of diminishing returns. Learn to cut your losses.
• Remind yourself that you will never be able to satisfy everybody.Pay attention to your skills of conflict management. You may not be comfortable with confrontation but you can certainly learn the skills to state your case in a direct, fact-based and appropriately assertive manner.
• Make sure you are holding others accountable. People with high scores on agreeableness sometimes jump in too quickly to take up the slack for others. Don’t let people take advantage of your good nature.

Low Scores

• You may need to work on your bedside manner. People with low scores on agreeableness can come off as intolerant and impatient.
• You probably need to manage the optics more carefully than you may imagine. People with similar patterns of results can project an air of detachment or insensitivity.
• People with low scores on this factor are often highly motivated and driven. Use that to your advantage but be careful about pushing people too hard. You may be good at the hard skills, but weak on the soft skills. Work on the rough edges.
• Realize that you are likely to be more impatient for tangible results than are many people. Be careful that others don’t see you as a jerk when they may be more comfortable moving at a slower pace, or when they have a different point of view.

The trait of Agreeableness is related to toughmindedness versus tender mindedness. While it may also be thought of as a person’s placement along a soft skills versus hard skills scale,  some people have well developed hard skills (analytical, quantitative and data manipulation abilities) as well as superior soft skills (interpersonal insight, coaching aptitude and overall social skills). If you have a low score on the measure of Agreeableness, you can learn to be more sensitive to others and more accepting when you realize that they may be wired completely differently and that you may make things worse by doubling down and pushing harder. If you have a high score here, you can learn to become more comfortable with conflict and confrontation and you can benefit from reminding yourself that there is no way to please everybody.

Regardless of your profile, remind yourself that others  are likely to be responding to the environment with very different experiences and reactions.

Behavioral Control is one of the major Big Five personality factors. It is often referred to as conscientiousness, and is a good predictor of successful performance in most jobs.  This dimension is related to discipline, focus, tenacity and organization. People with high scores on this trait typically control their expressions of feeling and emotion and operate according to rules and structure. They often feel a keen sense of duty and responsibility. They are usually seen as disciplined, conscientious, tenacious, stubborn, inflexible and controlled. People with low scores here are often seen as spontaneous, adaptable, undisciplined, careless and not particularly detail-oriented. The subfactors associated with this overall dimension of Behavioral Control are presented below.

Disciplined. People with high scores on this facet are usually timely, prompt, priority focused, disciplined, organized, steady and task-focused. They do not procrastinate or tolerate a great deal of disorder.

Conforming. High scorers see themselves as conventional, traditional, conforming, conservative, by-the-book, rule-following, cautious, obedient, structured, etc. They do not describe themselves in such terms as unconventional, non-conforming, routine-hating or unstructured.

Detail‑Oriented. People with high scores on this sub factor are usually precise, detail-oriented, exacting, methodical, perfectionistic, procedural and structure-seeking.

No personality trait is inherently positive or negative. There are potential upsides and downsides to scores at any point along the spectrum. The further towards the endpoints (high or low), the more pronounced and observable the behaviors associated with the particular trait under consideration are likely to be. People with exceptionally high or low scores are likely to demonstrate both the positives and negatives associated with the characteristic under study. People with high scores on the measure of Behavioral Control are likely to be conscientious, structured, detail oriented and dependable. They can also be rigid and inflexible. People with low scores tend to be more reactive, seat-of-the-pants and loosely structured.

Traits are the hardwiring and factory settings of personality. While we can’t change our personalities to any significant extent, we can learn new behaviors and skills. We can get better at most anything, given the appropriate goals and the insight, resources and motivation to achieve them. Below are some suggestions for people with high or low scores on this trait.

High scores

• Make sure that your disciplined and determined nature does not lead you towards rigidity. You may benefit from occasional reality checks to help you back away and let things unfold in their own fashion.
• Be careful about getting pulled too far down into the weeds. Detail orientation is associated with conscientiousness, but it can also slow you down when quick but approximate solutions are called for. Make sure you understand and appreciate the difference between the perfect solution and the “good enough” solution.
• People with high scores here are sometimes overly conventional. Do what you can to keep a broad perspective and allow room for intuition and creativity.
• High scores are associated with a buttoned up and procedure-oriented work style. They can also be an indicator of difficulties adjusting to ambiguous or ill-defined circumstances.

Low scores

• Make sure that you are not operating in a laissez-faire manner when situations call for more structured, organized and step-by-step behaviors.
• Be careful about coming off as overly independent. Extremely low scores are often seen in people who are perceived as organizational mavericks.
• Your administrative skills may need a little polish. You may need to pay particular attention to the development and use of structured methods to remain organized and to make sure that important details are not slipping through the cracks. You may be inclined to spin your wheels if you’re not careful.
• Don’t react too quickly to the heat of the moment. Make sure you’re performing full due diligence before making major decisions.

If you have a high score on the trait of Behavioral Control, people are likely to see you as conscientious and dependable but also as rigid and stubborn. Find ways to make allowances for people who may not be as structured, disciplined and procedure oriented. Loosen up when possible. If you have a low score on this factor, you may be spontaneous, flexible and creative, but others may also see you as undependable, distractible and flighty. Find ways to tighten up and to become more comfortable with schedules, details and procedures.

Regardless of your profile, remind yourself that others are wired differently and that they may be responding to the environment with very different experiences and reactions.

Of the five major personality factors, Emotional Reactivity is most closely associated with psychological health and well-being. This factor has been identified by many researchers as, e.g., anxiety, neuroticism or emotionality. It reflects the tendency to be tense, anxious, easily upset or high‑strung. However, the eTest personality inventory was normed on a well‑adjusted sample (business people as a population typically score higher as a group on measures of psychological stability and emotional adjustment than do people in the general population). Therefore, a high score on this measure doesn’t necessarily indicate pathology or abnormality when compared to people in general. If the primary score is extremely high, the person may be stress-prone or possibly going through an upsetting or anxiety-provoking experience. In the case of extremely high scores, it’s helpful to find out if they are an indication of State Anxiety (a response to a particularly stressful situation) or Trait Anxiety (a more generalized pattern of tension, emotional reactivity or anxiety). High scores are an indication of negative emotion.

People scoring high on the primary factor of Emotional Reactivity describe themselves as tense, anxious, easily upset, impulsive, emotional and reactive. Low scorers see themselves as relaxed, calm, stress‑tolerant, complacent, etc. In addition to the score for the primary domain of this trait, the eTest profile generates the following three related sub-scores. These facets add nuance to the overall reactivity score and help predict how the primary trait is likely to be expressed.

• Insecurity. This is the dimension that is most likely to be an indicator of potential stress-proneness. People with high scores here are likely to perceived in varying degrees as nervous, worrying, insecure, frustrated, moody, uncomfortable, anxious, suspicious and tough on themselves. This sometimes reflects a down side of high motivation.
• Expressiveness. This facet reflects a theme of excitability and tendency to seek attention rather than the more uncomfortable aspects of insecurity described above. People scoring high here tend to be attention-seeking, power-oriented, ego-driven, excitable, impulsive, loud and inclined to react emotionally.
• Frustration‑Proneness. High scorers here are prone to have a direct, stubborn and hot‑headed style of dealing with frustration, tension and anxiety. They can be hard-headed, argumentative, controlling, impatient, hot-tempered, brusque and agitated. This sometimes comes from self-imposed high standards that are difficult to reach.

As noted previously, no personality trait is inherently positive or negative. There are potential upsides and downsides to any point along the spectrum. The further towards the endpoints (high or low), the more pronounced and observable the behaviors associated with the particular trait under consideration are likely to be. People with exceptionally high or low scores are likely to demonstrate both the positives and negatives associated with the characteristic under scrutiny.

We can’t change our personalities to any significant extent, but we can learn new behaviors and skills. We can get better at most anything, given the appropriate goals and the insight, resources and motivation to achieve them. Below are some thought questions and suggestions for people with high or low scores on this trait.

High scores

• Do some reading and research on stress management skills and techniques.
• Make sure you have healthy and effective ways to relax, let off steam and chill out, especially during times of tension and strain. Take whatever steps you can to focus on the positive aspects of your life and the potential opportunities presented by the current issues or problems you may face.
• Be aware of times when you may be misreading things. People with high scores here tend to take things personally and react too quickly when they feel upset.
• Reflect on times you’ve felt particularly anxious, threatened or tense. Try to figure out what triggers these feelings, and anticipate similar situations in the future. Learn to actively dispute the irrational and sometimes automatic negative thoughts we all have from time to time.

Low scores

• Be careful about over-confidence. People with low scores here often assume the best and trust that things will work out. You may be better served by playing the devil’s advocate more often.
• Think about times when you may not have shown the strength of emotion others may have expected. Are you prone to under-react when it would be more effective to express yourself more clearly and forcefully?
• Are people likely to see you as passive, disengaged or tuned out? Be sure you’re communicating your true feelings and thoughts effectively.
• Make sure you don’t come off as feeling too good about yourself. People with low scores here are sometimes seen as smug or self-satisfied.

If you feel you’re too anxious or stress-prone, you can find techniques and systems to help you build your confidence and reduce tension and anxiety. There are many paths to success here, and you should be able find something that works for you with a bit of effort. Do what you can to respond to the realities of the situation, not to your initial reactions to it. Find ways to increase your positive emotion. On balance, we upset ourselves by reacting to our feelings about events, rather than to the actual events themselves. If you have a low on this trait, be careful that people don’t misread your calm demeanor as disengagement or aloofness. And remember that there are times when it’s quite appropriate to react with negative emotion.

Regardless of your profile, remind yourself that others are wired differently and that they may be responding to threatening situations with very different experiences and reactions.

Extraversion is a well-researched primary personality factor. This is usually the first dimension that arises from statistical research, called factor analysis, on most personality inventories. At the most basic level, it is seen as an orientation towards the external world of people, things, events, etc., or toward the internal world of thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. People with high scores on this dimension are referred to as extraverts, while people with low scores are referred to as introverts. On a side note, acceptable spellings are extrAversion, extrOversion, intrAversion and intrOversion. We chose extraversion and introversion because they provide a better fit for the pronunciations of both terms.

A large component of extraversion is the need for social contact versus a preference for solitary pursuits. Extraverts are typically sociable, gregarious, outgoing, group-oriented, and expressive. They are not usually described as quiet, low‑key, shy or introverted. They are energized by social interaction and being with people. Low scores on extraversion are indicative of a mild, reserved and relatively unexpressive social style. Introverts can be exhausted by too much social interaction. However, since people in the business population, on average, score higher on extraversion than do people in general, an average score on the eTest personality inventory suggests that the person will probably still seem relatively sociable when compared to people in general.

In addition to the score for the primary domain of extraversion, the eTest profile generates four sub-scores, or facets, related to this factor. These facets add nuance to the overall extraversion score and help predict how the primary trait is likely to be expressed.

• Persuasiveness. This facet score may not be an accurate reflection of a person’s skills of persuasion, but it gives an indication of how persuasive the person perceives him/herself to be. People who describe themselves with such terms as leader, role model, politically skilled, socially astute, convincing and optimistic get high scores here.
• Talkativeness. People with a high score on this scale are not typically seen as quiet, reserved, soft-spoken, shy, subdued or restrained.
• Active Friendliness. High scores indicate that the person will be sociable, talkative, witty, outgoing, gregarious, lively and humorous.
• Boldness. People with high scores on this facet are generally seen as daring, adventurous, spontaneous, bold, driven, energetic and aggressive.

No personality trait is inherently positive or negative. There are potential upsides and downsides to scores at any point along the spectrum. The further towards the endpoints (high or low), the more pronounced and observable the behaviors associated with the particular trait are likely to be. People with exceptionally high or low scores are likely to demonstrate both the positives and negatives associated with the trait. For extraversion, people with high scores are sociable, talkative and outgoing but they may also overstep social boundaries and get bored quickly working in isolation. People with low scores on extraversion tend to be more reflective and socially low-key but also overly self-contained, shy and prone to under communicate.

While we can’t change our personalities to any significant extent, we can learn new behaviors and skills. We can get better at most things given the appropriate goals and the insight, resources, motivation and effort to achieve them. Below are some additional insights for people with high or low scores on the trait of extraversion.

High scores

• In terms of career development, you’ll probably enjoy jobs that allow you to interact with people. You may not be satisfied over time working in relative isolation. People in sales, marketing, HR and management are often above average in extraversion.
• Make sure your listening skills are appropriately developed. Extraverts tend to spend more time talking than listening.
• Be careful about coming off as socially aggressive, pushy or salesy. People with high scores on extraversion sometimes don’t realize when they are overwhelming the less vocal or socially oriented team members.
• Try to carve out occasional times for quiet reflection. Extraverts are more prone to seek out high levels of social stimulation and interaction than to quietly analyze and reflect upon their deeper insights, needs and motivations.

Low scores

• Don't fade into the background, especially in team activities. Introverts are inclined to withhold their opinions and expressions, especially in the company of more vocal colleagues.
• Schedule some time for informal “water cooler” interaction with colleagues. No matter what your job, you will be well served by having a network of coworkers who can offer support and assistance to reach your goals.
• Stretch beyond your social comfort zone. Make yourself participate in such things as public speaking training and similar activities that will force little more contact with others.
• Realize that other people may find you difficult to read. Introverts typically do not express their reactions, feelings and emotions to any significant extent. Although you may have intense reactions and/or a rich inner life, others are not likely to know about it unless you make special efforts to communicate.

Your chances for happiness and career success will increase to the extent that you can make the best use of your natural personality characteristics while realizing when you need to do things differently. If you’re an extravert, do what you can to develop the insight and control to monitor your impact and use your sociability to your advantage rather than letting it overwhelm others. If you’re an introvert, find ways to stretch yourself outside your social comfort zone more often, and learn to turn up the volume. Regardless of your profile, remind yourself that others are wired differently and operate according to a sometimes vastly different set of motivations and preferences.

                                                                        *****

Extraversion is one of the Big Five personality factors. A large body of scientific research has demonstrated that personality can be well described by five major traits. This model of personality is referred to as the Five Factor Model (FFM). When the eTest personality inventory was factor analyzed in the validation process during its development, these five major dimensions emerged as the structural underpinnings of the instrument. As developers, it was encouraging to see that our work was very much in line with the best research on the nature of personality and reflected these five factors. These traits indicate long-term and enduring patterns of behavior. Our personality traits are remarkably stable over the course of our adult lives. While personality is not destiny, it can clearly affect our behavior and decisions, to include those related to career choices.

High-Stakes Leadership

Recent events (the coronavirus pandemic, the lockdown of global economies and civil unrest) have intensified the spotlight on leadership in situations of danger and high stakes. These circumstances have clearly highlighted the need for good data, objective analysis of facts, the courage to make decisions in the face of pressure and incomplete information (and sometimes to change course in light of new information) and the ability to communicate complex ideas in an understandable and persuasive manner.

People in positions of public leadership (including business executives) have a hard time getting, analyzing and using good information. And being in a visible position of leadership, especially in a large organization, is fraught with new obstacles and dangers related to the social media landscape.

Given that these are unusual and unsettled times characterized by mistrust of leadership and institutions (verified by Gallup and others) it’s imperative that leaders in the public eye, and leaders in general, behave in a way that builds credibility and trust. Yes, this is idealistic, and yes, many of our systems seem to be broken. But with luck, reason and hard work we can fix them, or at least get them back into effective working order. Here are some ideas that might help us move in a more positive direction.

You need good data and sound analysis. In all situations, but especially in trying times, leaders should first off try to get good data. Although we have more information at our fingertips than at any time in history, there is also much more noise and spin in the system. In any leadership role, especially in a high-stakes situation, remind yourself that everyone is likely to be working an angle. Assume that everyone will be pushing an agenda and trying to influence your decisions. Though it may not be an agenda from bad intentions, people often have a vested interest in certain outcomes which is likely exacerbated during tough times. So, look at your data with a rigorous and skeptical eye. Seek confirmation from as wide a variety of sources and viewpoints as possible. Always consider the possibility that you may be wrong.  And be sure you understand basic statistics and probability.

You need the courage to make decisions with incomplete data. There will always be people who will question the leader’s decision and who will actively or passively resist progress if they don’t agree. In reality, the true effectiveness and consequences of many high-stakes decisions may never fully be known. Many situations are just too complex. What are the consequences of shutting down an economy in a pandemic versus keeping a country open? In a perfect world, we would be able to quantify the effects of both courses of action. However, there is likely to be little agreement on the most probable number of deaths due to the disease versus those due to a crashed economy. In these circumstances, leaders need objective sources of data and analysis. But they also need the judgment and courage to make some decisions that will not be easy or popular. Not many people are wired to do that. In the public arena, there is tremendous pressure from all sides. In battle, military leaders are sometimes confronted with situations that will cost lives no matter what the decision. One can only hope to minimize the loss. The best way to do that is to have accurate data, rational analyses and the most competent and objective advisors.

Show a positive vision and the way to achieve it. Acknowledge that people are facing major problems and difficulties, paint a positive vision and communicate a path out of the trouble. Clarify but don’t simplify. Admit it when you don’t have the information. Don’t cover up, prevaricate or make up an answer to look good. People are motivated by a fear of loss. They need to know the leader will help them avoid it. They need to see that the leader is working hard to make things better and giving them the chance to be successful.

Make sure everyone understands the mission. In tough times, unity of effort is more effective than unity of command. Make the “North Star” explicit. A good example of this is the approach attributed to General Thad Allen, leader of the Hurricane Katrina recovery task force. In the early chaos, he was reported to have climbed on a table in the command tent to address the troops trying to get ready to deal with the devastation. His message was: “Treat everyone you meet who has been affected as if they are a member of your family. If you do that, two things will happen. First, if you make a mistake, you will err on the side of doing too much. Second, if somebody has a problem with what you’ve done, it will not be with you. It will be with me.”

Keep the faith that things will get better. Human history is characterized by conflict and struggle but also by progress and problem solving. Despite the constant drumbeat of negativity, most objective data and trendlines show that we are in better shape now than at any time in history. Remember that human ingenuity is not usually considered by models of scarcity, gloom and doom. We encounter tough times, we adjust, we solve problems and we create a better life. That’s our nature. None of us are perfect as individuals and none of our organizations are perfect. However, the steady overall trend has been in the positive direction since we first began to record history.

A Good Leader Helps People Overcome Adversity

Growth through pain is a cliché, but it’s also true. A tough fact of life is that that we don’t learn much about our­selves or our character in good times. We can’t fully dis­cover our strengths and shortcomings without being tested by adversity. How we deal with it is central to who we are – and how credible we can be in leadership roles. In bad times, all eyes are on the leader. The way you behave has a tremendous impact on your people. The best thing the captain can do in stormy seas is keep the tiller steady – unless, of course, the ship is headed towards the rocks.

When people are under prolonged periods of stress and strain, predictable and bad things happen. They can become increasingly wary and tend to interpret each new sign as an indication of more bad things to come. Negative emotions run high and people are more likely to bark at each other and openly show frustration. They become skeptical of the new and the different, and are prone to reject it out of hand. As the stress continues, fatigue sets in and they become even more pessimistic about the future. Relationships suffer as the focus be­comes one of staying afloat as a business. Steadiness and insightful coaching are crucial to survival and success in tough times. A stressful environment increases the leader’s potential impact. People look to leaders more in hard times, which is partly a product of the ambiguity that adversity creates.

Focusing on the Right Things

A critical coaching challenge in uncertain times is to keep people focused on things that are under their con­trol. You might not be able to affect what happens in the market, but you certainly can reach out to your cus­tom­ers and provide great service. This sense of control helps people manage their stress and allows them to experi­ence small wins that have a buffering effect. It is critical that the leader or coach provide a broader vision of the future, and a sense of direction and purpose. By linking today’s actions to a better future, people gain a sense of perspective. By pointing out to an employee how their individual job links to a broader corporate strategy, you give that person a greater sense of purpose and utility. And that provides significant relief from the debilitating effects of stress.

On the people side of the equation, the key respon­sibility of a leader or coach is communication. Regular, honest, candid, and consistent communication is key. You must be seen as a reliable source of information, even if it means admitting you don’t know. Equally im­portant is listening. By understanding the concerns of their people, leaders can more readily address them and share with them the information and insights that reduce mis­understandings and fight negative rumors. In tough times, it is critically important to create oppor­tunities for positive emotion. While a sense of humor helps, it is also important to celebrate wins, find ways to have fun, and to thank people. Emphasizing strengths, wins, and good news helps redirect attention and energy.

A cornerstone of great leadership is taking care of the troops. Listening and empathy are important, of course, but you also need to be attuned to signs of burnout. Because much is expected of people in a tough economy, they need to find ways to recharge their bat­teries. Framing challenges people face as developmental opportunities can often help redefine their emotional experience. While few people would wish to go through boot camp again, most recognize the benefit of that challenge. Seeing current circumstances as being tested under fire makes us more resilient. Remember the words of Winston Churchill: “If you’re going through hell, keep going.”

Naturally, managing the task and managing your people are essential to success in any circumstances; but in tough times, the self-management dimension is critical. You’re in the spotlight even more now. You set the tone. If you are positive, confident, and optimistic, your people are likely to behave in the same way. If you display focus and determination, they are likely to follow suit. In stressful circumstances, you need to manage your behavior to bring about greater optimism and more effective action from your people, and help them manage their own attitudes and behaviors towards appropriate outcomes.

It’s natural for people to feel powerless and victim­ized in tough times, so it is important for leaders to help their people shift from the mindset of the passive victim observing things from the sidelines to that of the athlete playing the game. You must keep them focused on the fact that there are always choices available, and that, although they may not be able to control the final score, they do have control over how they play the game. If we consistently play with integrity, stamina, optimism, and intensity, we usually surprise ourselves. Even if we lose, we can be proud of our performance. Remember, just as panic and despair are infectious, so are energy and enthusiasm. As you look around your organization, remember the words of Gandhi: “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

One way to keep people focused on positive action is not to slip into the trap of automatic sympathy. While it makes a person in victim mode feel good to hear such things as, “That’s terrible, you must feel awful, they should fix it, poor baby,” and other messages of consolation, those are precisely the wrong messages. They imply that the power is out there, with those bad people who are doing you wrong, with that evil competitor or that rotten economy.

A more effective way to get and keep the right focus is with statements such as, “Yes, that’s tough – what are you going to do about it?” or, “I wish it was different, but it’s not – what did you learn from it?” and “I understand you’re angry – so how will you avoid this in the future?” These responses imply that the power remains with the individual and that some positive outcome can arise from a tough situation when you employ the right strategies. A key to great leadership in tough times is to help people see reality, and to help them find appropriate ways to deal with it. Keep in mind the words of Carl Rogers: “The facts are always friendly.”

Leaders often need to help their players reframe their current situations, and see things in a different light. This is important: the conditions that conspire to present you with your current set of choices are not always under your control, but the way you respond to them is. Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning describes the experiences that helped him develop these insights, and illustrates this concept quite effectively. You can’t imagine much worse circumstances than Auschwitz, where the Nazis had the power over everything in your life, including whether or not you get to keep it. Some people, however, including Frankl, were able to survive their ordeals in the death camps.

Being a neuroscientist and psychiatrist, Frankl was intrigued by the puzzle of what makes some people re­silient and what causes others in similar life-threatening circumstances to succumb. His observation was that, although people in the camps were deprived of choice in all aspects of their lives, those who retained the human dignity of choosing how to respond were more likely to survive. Those who gave up and acted as if they had no control, no choices, were more likely to die. This was also illustrated in studies of learned helplessness conducted by Martin Seligman, one of the primary developers of the relatively new field of Positive Psychology. He demonstrated that dogs that were subject to shocks over which they had no control eventually gave up and stopped trying to escape. Even when the doors to their cages were left open, they would lie down and passively accept the shock rather than try to get out. They could have escaped the shock simply by walking through the open door, but their previous training had not provided them that frame of reference.

Hopefully, most of us will never have to endure traumatic experiences such as those described above; but we still whine and complain. It’s our nature. Still, we can transcend our nature at times by shifting our frame of reference, realizing that we in fact do have more control than we think, and changing the way we act. Similarly, when we change how we think (often leading to the insight that we in fact do have options), we’re preparing to change how we respond and behave. The clear lesson of these re­sults and observations is this: how we choose to respond to a situation allows us to transcend even the worst of circumstances.

The right changes in behavior enable us to make things better. We can choose to see things differently as we become more aware of alternatives and we can consequently choose to act differently as we develop the courage to do so.

Thought Questions for Bad Times

How do you begin? If you’re in a bad situation, start with a question: “What am I going to do to make things bet­ter?” This implies analyzing your circumstances with an eye towards seeing what can be improved. As you do this, you may begin to see alternatives you might not have considered. This is when you can see opportunities to act differently. You might not have caused your situation, but you always have the choice about how to respond to it. You have more control than you realize. It sounds simplistic, but sometimes the simple solutions are the best. To help your people shift their thinking from being the victim to becoming an active participant, try these questions:

What will you do to make your life better?

When will you do it?

How will you measure your success?

How long before you know whether it’s working?

What will you do if it’s not working?

Key Concepts

When people are under stress, they look to leaders for information, direction, and support. In dangerous and high-stakes situations, leaders need accurate data and analysis. They also need to communicate a clear vision of success and a path out of the difficulties. If you can help people realize they have more control than they realize, they will be more effective. Reframing their current nega­tive situation to help them focus on the things that are under their control, and showing them they can find things they can do, will help them get through.

Personality is not destiny, but our personality traits strongly influence our work preferences and choices for our careers, and our behavior on the job. We can learn new skills and behaviors, but the structures of our personalities are our factory settings.

There is now a professional consensus that personality can be accurately described by five broad factors. The Five Factor Model, or Big Five, has evolved over fifty years through academic observation and scientific research. These five personality dimensions are stable traits that affect our behavior consistently over time, and consistently in a wide range of situations.

The Big Five:

• Extraversion
• Emotional Reactivity
• Behavioral Control
• Agreeableness
• Complexity

Extraversion

Extraversion is generally associated with traits such as being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, persuasive, spontaneous, and driven.

Extraverts are oriented towards the external world and usually enjoy being around people. They typically lean towards jobs that allow a high level of interaction with others. They are often assertive, outgoing and sociable. At the extreme, they can be overly assertive and socially insensitive or aggressive.

Low scores on this factor suggest social introversion and a more quiet, low-key social style. Introverts are more internally focused and tend to assume their work will speak for them, rather than to actively sell themselves and their ideas. The exaggerated state of this trait may result in a socially passive, nonassertive, overly cautious and under-communicative social style.

Low scores on this factor suggest social introversion and a more quiet, low-key social style. Introverts are more internally focused and tend to assume their work will speak for them, rather than to actively sell themselves and their ideas. The exaggerated state of this trait may result in a socially passive, nonassertive, overly cautious and under-communicative social style.

Emotional Reactivity

Emotional Reactivity is related to emotional stability and patience. It includes such traits as security versus anxiety, happiness versus stress-proneness and restraint versus impulsivity.

High scores on this factor suggest tendencies to be emotionally expressive and intense. They may also be associated with higher wariness, vigilance and energy, as well as with tendencies to be anxious and easily frustrated. Extreme scores here may indicate stress-proneness and a tendency to be overly reactive.

Low scores are usually associated with an even temperament and a tendency to be unflappable, even-keeled and self-secure. Very low scores sometimes indicate over-confidence and passivity.

Behavioral Control

Behavioral Control is associated with conscientiousness and is represented by traits such as being careful, thorough, responsible, traditional, conforming, procedural, organized, planful, and detail-oriented.

People with high scores on this measure are usually disciplined, deliberate, determined and conscientious. They typically attend to detail and follow through on tasks until complete. They are likely to be timely, organized and dependable in their work. At their worst, they can be rigid, inflexible and overly structured or procedure-oriented.

Low scores suggest a looser, more flexible and spontaneous style. They also may indicate a tendency to let details slide and to be undisciplined. People with very low scores may be unstructured, unconventional and lax on follow-through.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness consists of characteristics such as being courteous, flexible, good-natured, easygoing, cooperative, forgiving, and soft-hearted.

High scores are associated with an easygoing, accepting, approachable and tolerant demeanor. People with high scores are usually non-demanding and easy to get along with. They value harmonious relationships and may try too hard to avoid conflict and confrontation. At their worst, they can be passive and too nice for their own good.

People with low scores here often have a driven, energetic, intense and direct style. They are often highly achievement motivated, but they can also come off as impatient and demanding. Extremely low scores suggest insensitivity, bluntness and intolerance.

Complexity

Complexity is sometimes referred to as openness to experience, and is associated with traits such as being imaginative, innovative, broad‑minded, analytical, and academically inclined.

People with high scores on this factor are usually open to new information and ideas, and they gravitate towards intellectual complexity and challenge. Very high scores may indicate an overly academic or theoretical approach.

Low scores are more likely to be obtained by people who are focused on the immediate task at hand and who have more of a practical, applied or operational orientation. Very low scores are more typical of people who are tactically focused, possibly to the point of missing the strategic viewpoint.

 

There is no one “best” personality. There are potential strengths and liabilities associated with extreme high or low scores on any trait. Personality assessment has no right or wrong answers. The challenge is to understand personality and its most likely expression on the job, and to use that knowledge in the most effective and helpful way to select and develop people who will help build the culture you want in your organization. The eTest^® Technical Manual presents an in-depth description of these primary factors and their secondary sub-factors.