
霍根測評系統(tǒng)公司(Hogan Assessment Systems)的互動解決方案副總裁杰基·薩姆告訴我:“這可能會讓人感到不舒服?!苯鼉蓚€半小時的線上會議已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了大約40分鐘,會上我們分析了我上周完成的三項性格和發(fā)展測試的結(jié)果。
在會議結(jié)束時,薩姆將講述“特雷的故事”(正如她所講述的那樣),就像她過去每天與那些被考慮擔(dān)任領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職務(wù)的高管們進(jìn)行一對一的會談一樣。
雖然沒有人邀請我擔(dān)任一家價值數(shù)十億美元的全球性企業(yè)的首席執(zhí)行官,但這并不妨礙我偶爾有這樣的想法:“他們應(yīng)該讓我來經(jīng)營這家公司?!币虼?,我決定測試一下自己是否有能力領(lǐng)導(dǎo)一家龐大的企業(yè)。
在許多圈子里,霍根測評被認(rèn)為是幫助各大公司和獵頭評估首席執(zhí)行官候選人是否具備掌舵所需的個性和品格的行業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這項測試是由總部位于美國俄克拉荷馬州的人力資源咨詢公司霍根測評系統(tǒng)公司在20世紀(jì)80年代開發(fā)的,它利用數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)與心理分析相結(jié)合的方法,在深入的性格測試基礎(chǔ)上預(yù)測測試者的工作表現(xiàn)。海德思哲國際咨詢公司(Heidrick & Struggles)和羅盛咨詢(Russell Reynolds)等獵頭招聘公司,以及《財富》美國500強(qiáng)公司的董事會,都將這些結(jié)果(作為一系列測評的一部分)用于繼任決策。
薩姆說:“性格測試與認(rèn)知能力或其他能力測試一樣,都能夠預(yù)測表現(xiàn)?!?/p>
霍根測評過程(薩姆讓我經(jīng)歷的)包括三項測試,進(jìn)行綜合分析后,就可以相當(dāng)全面地了解該高管。有些高管在與高管教練合作的同時,多次參加測評,以了解自己在哪些方面需要改進(jìn),從而更好地滿足公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力需求。這一過程可能會持續(xù)數(shù)月或數(shù)年,具體取決于繼任時間。
“它會深入到你性格和個性的方方面面。我們認(rèn)為,如果你輕松完成測評,那么你可能就無法實現(xiàn)成長;如果我們告訴你一堆你已經(jīng)知道的關(guān)于自己的特征,讓你感覺飄飄然,那么我們就徒勞無功?!彼_姆表示。
我完成了三項測評,花了一個多小時。每項測評的平均時間是12分鐘到15分鐘,但我承認(rèn)我花了更長的時間,因為我在做筆記,而且過度思考某些提示。
霍根測評與DiSC性格測試和邁爾斯-布里格斯類型指標(biāo)(MBTI)性格測試等其他行為測評相差無幾。但是,霍根測評使用的不是“是”或“否”的問題,而是諸如“我經(jīng)常想知道我是如何走到今天這步田地的”這樣的表述,候選人能夠在“非常同意”到“非常不同意”之間進(jìn)行選擇。
測評中的其他問題還包括:“總的來說,我有時會對一些事情感到惱火。”“就大多數(shù)事情而言,我做得比我認(rèn)識的幾乎所有人都好?!薄拔彝P(guān)注自己犯的錯誤,而不是取得的成就?!薄皯{借三寸不爛之舌,我?guī)缀蹩梢詮乃械睦Ь持薪饷摮鰜??!薄拔曳?wù)的大多數(shù)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)都缺乏領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力?!?/p>
例如,MBTI性格測試把我歸類為INTJ-T型人格,而霍根測評則將結(jié)果細(xì)分為不同的量表,比如交際、認(rèn)可或?qū)徝?。?8個量表被細(xì)分為更詳盡的子量表,訓(xùn)練有素的心理學(xué)家用這些量表來推斷高管的性格、領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力和人際關(guān)系技巧。例如,我的報告顯示我的認(rèn)可度得分很高,這表明我往往渴望因為成就而獲得贊揚(yáng),這種欲望能夠激勵我繼續(xù)奮勇向前,從而成為人們關(guān)注的焦點,并一舉成名。

三項評估里的第一項,即人格量表,被霍根稱為“光明面測評”。人格量表測評的是你處于最佳狀態(tài)時的表現(xiàn)——整夜安眠,沒有壓力,精力充沛。第二項是發(fā)展量表,另外一種說法是“陰暗面量表”。發(fā)展量表測評的是你處于最糟糕狀態(tài)時的表現(xiàn)。最后一項是動機(jī)、價值觀和偏好量表,旨在了解你的動力和目標(biāo)。
薩姆說,這些問題被設(shè)計得很難鉆空子。她解釋道:“如果問題是‘我有雄心壯志:是還是否’,那么很容易就可以看出問題設(shè)計者的意圖。但我們可能會問你這樣的問題:‘除非我比賽獲勝了,否則我很難享受比賽過程?!@讓我們對你的抱負(fù)有所了解。”
我非常認(rèn)真地接受了測評。我通常不接受性格測試——盡管我的伴侶喜歡九型人格測試——但這是為了工作,而且測評我的人的本職工作是分析首席執(zhí)行官的性格特征。更何況,薩姆說這種測評一般要花費(fèi)公司1,000美元左右。
首先,我關(guān)掉了正在播放的《紐約嬌妻》(Real Housewives of New York)。坐在沙發(fā)上,我打開了霍根公司代表發(fā)給我的電子郵件,里面有三項測評的鏈接以及我的臨時霍根測評用戶名和密碼。大多數(shù)高管也是通過線上方式來完成這些測評的,不過我不知道他們更喜歡哪部《嬌妻》系列劇集。薩姆說,有些測評是在有人監(jiān)督的情況下完成的,但這種情況已經(jīng)越來越少了。不過,為避免分心,她建議人們在日程表上安排好時間以獲得最準(zhǔn)確的結(jié)果。我參加測試時很緊張,但這并不是因為問題很難回答。我希望我的答案盡可能誠實,以保證新聞報道的完整性。
通常情況下,我的做法是深入閱讀問題,目的不是鉆空子,而是真正理解問題的設(shè)計初衷。我是典型的多慮者,這導(dǎo)致我預(yù)測很多問題的設(shè)計初衷。問我“在我看來,不喝酒的人不值得信賴”,是想讓我承認(rèn)自己是個酒鬼嗎?或是僅僅是為了測試我有多不信任他人?還是說這道題可能是在深入研究我的社會關(guān)系?關(guān)于我是否會成為一名有效的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,這道題能夠說明什么?
后一個問題很難回答。
首席執(zhí)行官的工作很復(fù)雜,除了性格之外,成功與否還受許多因素影響。此外,薩姆說,除了提高盈利能力和股東價值之外,根本沒有其他很好的方法來衡量首席執(zhí)行官的業(yè)績。但她指出,在較低的層級上,該組織擁有更可靠的數(shù)據(jù)。比如,她說,公司的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,根據(jù)霍根測評招聘的公交車司機(jī)發(fā)生事故的可能性降低了60%。
海德思哲國際咨詢公司首席執(zhí)行官和董事會事務(wù)合伙人特蕾莎·文森表示,她將霍根測評視為“數(shù)據(jù)星系中的一顆恒星”,這意味著它是眾多考慮因素中的一項考慮因素。
“特雷的故事”
雖然不愿承認(rèn),但我的霍根測評準(zhǔn)確無誤。我的愛人讀到薩姆對我的側(cè)寫時(從全局角度思考給出的側(cè)寫),甚至驚訝得倒抽了一口氣(薩姆從未見過我,只看到了我的回答提供的圖表和數(shù)據(jù)點)。
薩姆告訴我:“你享受生活、尋找樂趣的愿望有時可能會因為你想讓別人了解、發(fā)現(xiàn)和/或認(rèn)可你的成就而受到阻礙、破壞或威脅。當(dāng)你感到壓力、無聊、不堪重負(fù)或筋疲力盡時,你很容易退縮、遠(yuǎn)離他人,或者想方設(shè)法把他人從你身邊推開?!?/p>
她繼續(xù)說道:“這可能弄巧成拙,因為當(dāng)你最需要別人的時候,或者當(dāng)他們需要你的時候,你可能會退縮?!?/p>
不出所料,文森也看了我的測評結(jié)果,她開玩笑地說:“沒有人會聘請你當(dāng)首席執(zhí)行官?!蔽业臏y評表明,我不適合在一家企業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)明確的成熟公司工作。根據(jù)文森和薩姆的測評分析,我不擅長與權(quán)威人士、既定結(jié)構(gòu)、規(guī)則和程序打交道。
雖然我不會很快接替羅伯特·艾格[迪士尼公司(Disney)]或羅茲·布魯爾[沃爾格林(Walgreens)],但還是有一線希望的。
薩姆說:“你的量表看起來與許多初創(chuàng)企業(yè)的創(chuàng)始及兼首席執(zhí)行官并無二致,他們挑戰(zhàn)現(xiàn)有的體制,打破傳統(tǒng),勇于冒險,開創(chuàng)了前所未有的局面?!彼嬲f,雖然這聽起來不錯,但作為一名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,我很可能會對流程和程序感到厭倦。
文森稱,如果她是我的引路人,她就會尋找一家需要扭虧為盈的公司,或是一家陷入困境和癱瘓,因此需要果斷而有創(chuàng)造力的思考者的公司。但即便如此,根據(jù)我的測評,我的性格量表表明,我可能會覺得這很有挑戰(zhàn)性,因為我不喜歡繁文縟節(jié)。文森說這很好。她推測說:“你是一個思維較為狹隘而認(rèn)知能力較強(qiáng)的人?!?/p>
盡管測評據(jù)稱很準(zhǔn)確,但公司只是將其作為繼任等式中的一個要素。薩姆指出,霍根測評系統(tǒng)公司甚至不會在沒有了解來龍去脈的情況下向董事會提供原始報告,因為他們的結(jié)論可能不夠全面。
這些結(jié)果可以說明一個人可能會如何領(lǐng)導(dǎo)、激勵員工,并與員工和其他企業(yè)利益相關(guān)者溝通和建立聯(lián)系。但文森指出:“如果想要[繼任計劃]完美無暇,就應(yīng)該采用多管齊下的方式?!彼ㄟ^360次訪談、模擬、咨詢電話以及與高管長達(dá)數(shù)小時的一對一會談來了解他們的工作方式。
高管選拔過程要越過層層關(guān)卡,我只是越過了一層關(guān)卡,結(jié)果表明我并不適合當(dāng)《財富》美國500強(qiáng)公司的首席執(zhí)行官。但如今,判斷誰適合擔(dān)任首席執(zhí)行官只會變得更加困難。
薩姆說:“我們對首席執(zhí)行官的期望是不可能實現(xiàn)的。如果你看看所有這些《財富》美國500強(qiáng)公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力模型,他們希望你魚與熊掌兼得:剛?cè)岵?jì),對每個人都面面俱到,但違背了人類的本性。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者被要求達(dá)到這些不可能達(dá)到的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),因此,大多數(shù)人都注定會一敗涂地?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
霍根測評系統(tǒng)公司(Hogan Assessment Systems)的互動解決方案副總裁杰基·薩姆告訴我:“這可能會讓人感到不舒服。”近兩個半小時的線上會議已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了大約40分鐘,會上我們分析了我上周完成的三項性格和發(fā)展測試的結(jié)果。
在會議結(jié)束時,薩姆將講述“特雷的故事”(正如她所講述的那樣),就像她過去每天與那些被考慮擔(dān)任領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職務(wù)的高管們進(jìn)行一對一的會談一樣。
雖然沒有人邀請我擔(dān)任一家價值數(shù)十億美元的全球性企業(yè)的首席執(zhí)行官,但這并不妨礙我偶爾有這樣的想法:“他們應(yīng)該讓我來經(jīng)營這家公司。”因此,我決定測試一下自己是否有能力領(lǐng)導(dǎo)一家龐大的企業(yè)。
在許多圈子里,霍根測評被認(rèn)為是幫助各大公司和獵頭評估首席執(zhí)行官候選人是否具備掌舵所需的個性和品格的行業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這項測試是由總部位于美國俄克拉荷馬州的人力資源咨詢公司霍根測評系統(tǒng)公司在20世紀(jì)80年代開發(fā)的,它利用數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)與心理分析相結(jié)合的方法,在深入的性格測試基礎(chǔ)上預(yù)測測試者的工作表現(xiàn)。海德思哲國際咨詢公司(Heidrick & Struggles)和羅盛咨詢(Russell Reynolds)等獵頭招聘公司,以及《財富》美國500強(qiáng)公司的董事會,都將這些結(jié)果(作為一系列測評的一部分)用于繼任決策。
薩姆說:“性格測試與認(rèn)知能力或其他能力測試一樣,都能夠預(yù)測表現(xiàn)。”
霍根測評過程(薩姆讓我經(jīng)歷的)包括三項測試,進(jìn)行綜合分析后,就可以相當(dāng)全面地了解該高管。有些高管在與高管教練合作的同時,多次參加測評,以了解自己在哪些方面需要改進(jìn),從而更好地滿足公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力需求。這一過程可能會持續(xù)數(shù)月或數(shù)年,具體取決于繼任時間。
“它會深入到你性格和個性的方方面面。我們認(rèn)為,如果你輕松完成測評,那么你可能就無法實現(xiàn)成長;如果我們告訴你一堆你已經(jīng)知道的關(guān)于自己的特征,讓你感覺飄飄然,那么我們就徒勞無功?!彼_姆表示。
我完成了三項測評,花了一個多小時。每項測評的平均時間是12分鐘到15分鐘,但我承認(rèn)我花了更長的時間,因為我在做筆記,而且過度思考某些提示。
霍根測評與DiSC性格測試和邁爾斯-布里格斯類型指標(biāo)(MBTI)性格測試等其他行為測評相差無幾。但是,霍根測評使用的不是“是”或“否”的問題,而是諸如“我經(jīng)常想知道我是如何走到今天這步田地的”這樣的表述,候選人能夠在“非常同意”到“非常不同意”之間進(jìn)行選擇。
測評中的其他問題還包括:“總的來說,我有時會對一些事情感到惱火?!薄熬痛蠖鄶?shù)事情而言,我做得比我認(rèn)識的幾乎所有人都好?!薄拔彝P(guān)注自己犯的錯誤,而不是取得的成就。”“憑借三寸不爛之舌,我?guī)缀蹩梢詮乃械睦Ь持薪饷摮鰜??!薄拔曳?wù)的大多數(shù)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)都缺乏領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力?!?/p>
例如,MBTI性格測試把我歸類為INTJ-T型人格,而霍根測評則將結(jié)果細(xì)分為不同的量表,比如交際、認(rèn)可或?qū)徝馈S?8個量表被細(xì)分為更詳盡的子量表,訓(xùn)練有素的心理學(xué)家用這些量表來推斷高管的性格、領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力和人際關(guān)系技巧。例如,我的報告顯示我的認(rèn)可度得分很高,這表明我往往渴望因為成就而獲得贊揚(yáng),這種欲望能夠激勵我繼續(xù)奮勇向前,從而成為人們關(guān)注的焦點,并一舉成名。
三項評估里的第一項,即人格量表,被霍根稱為“光明面測評”。人格量表測評的是你處于最佳狀態(tài)時的表現(xiàn)——整夜安眠,沒有壓力,精力充沛。第二項是發(fā)展量表,另外一種說法是“陰暗面量表”。發(fā)展量表測評的是你處于最糟糕狀態(tài)時的表現(xiàn)。最后一項是動機(jī)、價值觀和偏好量表,旨在了解你的動力和目標(biāo)。
薩姆說,這些問題被設(shè)計得很難鉆空子。她解釋道:“如果問題是‘我有雄心壯志:是還是否’,那么很容易就可以看出問題設(shè)計者的意圖。但我們可能會問你這樣的問題:‘除非我比賽獲勝了,否則我很難享受比賽過程?!@讓我們對你的抱負(fù)有所了解?!?/p>
我非常認(rèn)真地接受了測評。我通常不接受性格測試——盡管我的伴侶喜歡九型人格測試——但這是為了工作,而且測評我的人的本職工作是分析首席執(zhí)行官的性格特征。更何況,薩姆說這種測評一般要花費(fèi)公司1,000美元左右。
首先,我關(guān)掉了正在播放的《紐約嬌妻》(Real Housewives of New York)。坐在沙發(fā)上,我打開了霍根公司代表發(fā)給我的電子郵件,里面有三項測評的鏈接以及我的臨時霍根測評用戶名和密碼。大多數(shù)高管也是通過線上方式來完成這些測評的,不過我不知道他們更喜歡哪部《嬌妻》系列劇集。薩姆說,有些測評是在有人監(jiān)督的情況下完成的,但這種情況已經(jīng)越來越少了。不過,為避免分心,她建議人們在日程表上安排好時間以獲得最準(zhǔn)確的結(jié)果。我參加測試時很緊張,但這并不是因為問題很難回答。我希望我的答案盡可能誠實,以保證新聞報道的完整性。
通常情況下,我的做法是深入閱讀問題,目的不是鉆空子,而是真正理解問題的設(shè)計初衷。我是典型的多慮者,這導(dǎo)致我預(yù)測很多問題的設(shè)計初衷。問我“在我看來,不喝酒的人不值得信賴”,是想讓我承認(rèn)自己是個酒鬼嗎?或是僅僅是為了測試我有多不信任他人?還是說這道題可能是在深入研究我的社會關(guān)系?關(guān)于我是否會成為一名有效的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,這道題能夠說明什么?
后一個問題很難回答。
首席執(zhí)行官的工作很復(fù)雜,除了性格之外,成功與否還受許多因素影響。此外,薩姆說,除了提高盈利能力和股東價值之外,根本沒有其他很好的方法來衡量首席執(zhí)行官的業(yè)績。但她指出,在較低的層級上,該組織擁有更可靠的數(shù)據(jù)。比如,她說,公司的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,根據(jù)霍根測評招聘的公交車司機(jī)發(fā)生事故的可能性降低了60%。
海德思哲國際咨詢公司首席執(zhí)行官和董事會事務(wù)合伙人特蕾莎·文森表示,她將霍根測評視為“數(shù)據(jù)星系中的一顆恒星”,這意味著它是眾多考慮因素中的一項考慮因素。
“特雷的故事”
雖然不愿承認(rèn),但我的霍根測評準(zhǔn)確無誤。我的愛人讀到薩姆對我的側(cè)寫時(從全局角度思考給出的側(cè)寫),甚至驚訝得倒抽了一口氣(薩姆從未見過我,只看到了我的回答提供的圖表和數(shù)據(jù)點)。
薩姆告訴我:“你享受生活、尋找樂趣的愿望有時可能會因為你想讓別人了解、發(fā)現(xiàn)和/或認(rèn)可你的成就而受到阻礙、破壞或威脅。當(dāng)你感到壓力、無聊、不堪重負(fù)或筋疲力盡時,你很容易退縮、遠(yuǎn)離他人,或者想方設(shè)法把他人從你身邊推開?!?/p>
她繼續(xù)說道:“這可能弄巧成拙,因為當(dāng)你最需要別人的時候,或者當(dāng)他們需要你的時候,你可能會退縮?!?/p>
不出所料,文森也看了我的測評結(jié)果,她開玩笑地說:“沒有人會聘請你當(dāng)首席執(zhí)行官。”我的測評表明,我不適合在一家企業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)明確的成熟公司工作。根據(jù)文森和薩姆的測評分析,我不擅長與權(quán)威人士、既定結(jié)構(gòu)、規(guī)則和程序打交道。
雖然我不會很快接替羅伯特·艾格[迪士尼公司(Disney)]或羅茲·布魯爾[沃爾格林(Walgreens)],但還是有一線希望的。
薩姆說:“你的量表看起來與許多初創(chuàng)企業(yè)的創(chuàng)始及兼首席執(zhí)行官并無二致,他們挑戰(zhàn)現(xiàn)有的體制,打破傳統(tǒng),勇于冒險,開創(chuàng)了前所未有的局面?!彼嬲f,雖然這聽起來不錯,但作為一名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,我很可能會對流程和程序感到厭倦。
文森稱,如果她是我的引路人,她就會尋找一家需要扭虧為盈的公司,或是一家陷入困境和癱瘓,因此需要果斷而有創(chuàng)造力的思考者的公司。但即便如此,根據(jù)我的測評,我的性格量表表明,我可能會覺得這很有挑戰(zhàn)性,因為我不喜歡繁文縟節(jié)。文森說這很好。她推測說:“你是一個思維較為狹隘而認(rèn)知能力較強(qiáng)的人?!?/p>
盡管測評據(jù)稱很準(zhǔn)確,但公司只是將其作為繼任等式中的一個要素。薩姆指出,霍根測評系統(tǒng)公司甚至不會在沒有了解來龍去脈的情況下向董事會提供原始報告,因為他們的結(jié)論可能不夠全面。
這些結(jié)果可以說明一個人可能會如何領(lǐng)導(dǎo)、激勵員工,并與員工和其他企業(yè)利益相關(guān)者溝通和建立聯(lián)系。但文森指出:“如果想要[繼任計劃]完美無暇,就應(yīng)該采用多管齊下的方式?!彼ㄟ^360次訪談、模擬、咨詢電話以及與高管長達(dá)數(shù)小時的一對一會談來了解他們的工作方式。
高管選拔過程要越過層層關(guān)卡,我只是越過了一層關(guān)卡,結(jié)果表明我并不適合當(dāng)《財富》美國500強(qiáng)公司的首席執(zhí)行官。但如今,判斷誰適合擔(dān)任首席執(zhí)行官只會變得更加困難。
薩姆說:“我們對首席執(zhí)行官的期望是不可能實現(xiàn)的。如果你看看所有這些《財富》美國500強(qiáng)公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力模型,他們希望你魚與熊掌兼得:剛?cè)岵?jì),對每個人都面面俱到,但違背了人類的本性。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者被要求達(dá)到這些不可能達(dá)到的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),因此,大多數(shù)人都注定會一敗涂地。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
“It may get uncomfortable,” Jackie Sahm, vice president of interactive solutions at Hogan Assessment Systems, tells me. We’re roughly 40 minutes into our nearly two-and-a-half-hour virtual meeting analyzing the results of three personality and development assessments I completed the previous week.
At the end of the session, Sahm will recount “the story of Trey,” as she puts it, just as she used to when her day-to-day consisted of conducting one-on-one meetings with senior executives being considered for the corner office.
While no one’s asking me to be CEO of a global multi-billion dollar business operation, that hasn’t stopped me from thinking once or twice: “They should just let me run the company.” So, I decided to test whether I have what it takes to lead a sprawling organization.
In many circles, Hogan Assessments is considered the industry standard in helping companies and executive search firms assess whether a CEO candidate has the right personality and character to take the helm. The test, developed in the ’80s by the Oklahoma-based HR consulting firm Hogan Assessment Systems, uses data science paired with psychoanalysis to predict job performance based on in-depth personality assessments. Executive recruiting firms, such as Heidrick & Struggles and Russell Reynolds, and boards at Fortune 500 companies use the results in succession decisions as part of a web of assessments, as I’ve previously reported.
“Personality predicts performance just as well as cognitive ability or other abilities tests,” Sahm says.
Hogan’s assessment process—the one Sahm put me through—includes three tests that, when analyzed together, paint a fairly thorough picture of an executive. Some executives take the assessments multiple times while working with executive coaches to learn where they need to improve to best meet the company’s leadership needs. That process may take place over months or years, depending on the timing for succession.
“It gets into the crevices, the nooks and crannies of your character and personality. We think if you’re not uncomfortable, you’re probably not growing, and if we tell you a bunch of things you already knew about yourself that make you feel really good, we’ve not really done our job,” Sahm says.
I completed the three assessments, which took me just over one hour. The average is 12 to 15 minutes per assessment, but I admittedly took longer because I was jotting down notes and overthinking some of the prompts.
Hogan’s assessments are not too dissimilar to other behavioral assessments, like DiSC and Myers Briggs. But rather than yes or no questions, Hogan’s tests use statements such as, “I often wonder how I got to be the way I am,” to which candidates select a range spanning “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
Other inquiries featured on the assessment include: “I sometimes get annoyed at things in general.” “I do most things better than almost everyone I know.” “I tend to focus on my mistakes more than my successes.” “I can talk my way out of almost anything.” “Most of the people I’ve worked for are incompetent.”
For example, Myers Briggs casts me as an INTJ-T, whereas Hogan breaks down results into different scales like sociability, recognition, or aesthetics. There are 28 scales broken down into more detailed subscales trained psychologists use to make inferences about executives’ personalities, leadership capabilities, and relational skills. My report, for instance, shows a high recognition score, suggesting that I tend to be motivated by a desire to be praised and celebrated for my accomplishments, be in the spotlight, and become famous.
The first of the three assessments, the personality inventory, is what Hogan calls the bright side assessment. It measures who you are when you’re at your best—after a full night’s sleep, stress-free, and firing on all cylinders. The second is a development survey, or, ominously put, the dark side profile. It measures who you are at your worst. Last is the motives, values, and preferences inventory, which seeks to capture what impels you and your purpose.
Sahm says the questions are designed to be difficult to game. “If the question says, ‘I am ambitious: true or false,’ it’s pretty easy to tell what we’re trying to get at,” she explains. “But we may ask you a question like, ‘It’s hard for me to enjoy a game unless I win.’ That gives us some insight into your ambition.”
I took the assessment incredibly seriously. I don’t typically subscribe to personality tests—though my partner loves an enneagram—but this was for work, and I would be assessed by someone whose job it is to analyze CEO personality profiles. Not to mention, Sahm says the assessment typically runs companies around $1,000.
First, I turned off the Real Housewives of New York episode playing in the background. From my couch, I opened the email a Hogan representative sent me with a link to my three assessments and my temporary Hogan ID and password. Most executives also complete these tests virtually, though I can’t say which Real Housewives series they prefer. Some tests are done in a supervised setting, but it’s become rarer, Sahm says. However, she advises people to block time on their calendars to avoid distractions and get the most accurate results. I was nervous about taking the test, though, not because the questions were tough. I wanted my answers to be as honest as possible, for journalistic integrity.
Typically, my MO is to read deep into questions, not to game the system, but to truly understand what it’s asking. I’m your classic overthinker, which led to second-guessing more than a few questions. Was asking me whether, “In my view, a person who doesn’t drink can’t be trusted,” trying to get me to admit to being a lush? Was it simply about how skeptical I am of people? Or was it possibly digging into my social interactions? And what would that say about whether I’d be an effective leader?
The latter question is tough to answer.
The CEO job is complex, with many factors beyond personality contributing to success. Plus, there simply aren’t great measures of a CEO’s performance outside of driving profitability and shareholder value, Sahm says. But at lower levels, she notes, the organization has more robust data. For example, she says the firm can point to data showing that bus drivers hired using Hogan are 60% less likely to have an accident.”
Teraesa Vinson, a partner at Heidrick & Struggles’ CEO and board of directors practice, says she uses Hogan assessments as “a star in a data galaxy,” meaning it’s one factor among many considerations.
The “story of Trey”
I hate to admit it, but my Hogan assessment was spot on. My partner even gasped reading the 30,000-foot view Sahm wrote, having never met me and with just the graphs and data points my answers provided.
“Your desire to enjoy and find pleasure in life may be thwarted, undermined, or threatened at times by a desire to be known, visible, and/or recognized for your achievements,” Sahm tells me. “When you are stressed, bored, overwhelmed, or otherwise depleted, you are prone to withdraw and move away from others or find ways to push them away from you.”
She continues: “This can be a self-defeating pattern, as you may retreat from others when you need them most—or when they need you.”
Unsurprisingly, “nobody should hire you to be their CEO,” says Vinson, who also looked at my assessment results, in jest. My assessment suggests I’m not a good fit for a mature company with a well-defined corporate structure. I don’t do well with authority, set constructs, rules, and procedures, according to Vinson and Sahm’s assessment analysis.
Although I won’t be succeeding Bob Iger at Disney or Roz Brewer at Walgreens anytime soon, there is a silver lining.
“Your profile looks not unlike many startup founder-CEOs’ where they challenged the establishment, broke from tradition, did something risky, and created something that didn’t exist before,” Sahm says. While that sounds nice enough, as a leader, I’d likely get bored with processes and procedures, she warns.
Vinson says, were she advising me, she’d look for a company that needs a turnaround or a distressed, paralyzed organization that could use a decisive and creative thinker. But even then, my personality profile suggests I might find it challenging because I don’t care to get bogged down with details, per my assessment. Vinson says that’s fine. “You’re someone who thinks more zoomed out and is cognitively facile,” she surmises.
Despite the assessment’s purported accuracy, companies use it as just one element of the succession equation. Sahm says Hogan doesn’t even give boards the raw reports without context because their takeaways might not provide the full picture.
The results are an indication of how someone might lead, engage with, inspire, and communicate with their employees and other corporate stakeholders. But Vinson notes that “if you’re doing [succession planning] right, it should be a multimodal approach.” She uses 360 interviews, simulations, reference calls, and hours worth of one-on-ones with executives to understand how they tick.
I jumped through one hoop in the C-suite selection process, and the results indicate I’m not Fortune 500 CEO material. But these days, discerning who is fit to be CEO has only gotten harder.
“We expect impossible things from CEOs. If you look at leadership competency models at all these Fortune 500 companies, they want you to be tall and short at the same time,” Sahm says. “They want you to be hard and soft; they want you to be everything to everyone, and that’s not how people are made. Leaders are held to these impossible standards, and most are set up to fail.”