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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEO selection is prone to three recurring problems.

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

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

Este ambiţios, carismatic, perfecţionist, arogant şi absorbit de propria persoană – acestea ar fi trăsăturile „întunecate” ale personalităţii liderilor români, care au preluat, poate chiar prea bine, o tipologie occidentală de leadership, cea a liderului carismatic- narcisist. Studiile recente arată însă că organizaţiile care vor să aibă performanţă trebuie să renunţe la categoria de lideri carismatici şi să aducă la conducere lideri caracterizaţi de modestie, spune Robert Hogan, unul dintre cei mai influenţi psihologi americani.

„A venit vremea să spu­­nem adio pe­rioa­dei de leader­ship caris­matic. Caris­ma şi narcisis­mul unui lider distrug motivaţia angajaţilor, iar acest lucru se reflectă negativ în rezultatele financiare ale companiilor. În schimb, studiile arată că liderii modeşti, care se ocupă de dezvoltarea echipelor şi care au o atitudine prin care arată că depun eforturi în fiecare zi pentru a-şi merita jobul sunt cei care au cele mai bune rezultate şi cei mai motivaţi angajaţi“, a spus Robert Hogan, 82 de ani, un influent psiholog american, cunoscut pentru că a creat instrumente de evaluare a personalităţii angajaţilor folosite de companii pentru a recruta şi a promova angajaţii potriviţi. El a fost prezent la Bucureşti, în cadrul unui eveniment organizat firma de consultanţă în resurse umane Hart Consulting, care a adus pe piaţa locală instrumentele Hogan Assesments.

Brash bigwigs used to get the glory, but then they started cratering companies.
Now the next great leaders look a whole lot more selfless.

By Robert Hogan, Ph.D., Ryne Sherman, Ph.D., and Scott Gregory, Ph.D.

The research is now crystal clear: Three psychological concepts—charisma, narcissism, and humility—impact leadership. Each is strongly correlated to leadership effectiveness and organization success.

So which concept should you choose? Before you pick, let’s dig into each.

Externally recruited CEOs are almost seven times more likely to be dismissed within a short tenure than those who are promoted from within the organization. No matter how much a board learns about an outside candidate, executive stakeholders simply have a better understanding of an internal contender’s strengths and weaknesses, especially as they relate to the current business landscape and strategic objectives. In 2014, 78 percent of S&P 500 CEOs were sourced internally; most companies are paying attention to building a sustainable leadership pipeline that readies executives and potential executives to advance. But when succession plans are enacted, those high potential managers entering the executive ranks typically face a set of challenges uniquely appropriate for a coach to tackle.