The Leaders We Need
From The Leaders We Need
Chapter Six: Applying Personality Intelligence
by Tim Scudder
The workplace is becoming increasingly diverse with global teams, different age groups, a narrowing gender gap, and all other types of diversity that can enrich organizations by including the diverse perspectives shaped by different life experiences. But leading a diverse group is a challenge. And diversity of personality – with our different motives, drives and methods of responding to conflict can make it even more difficult if we do not have a common language for understanding personality types. Does knowledge of personality make it any easier for leaders? In this chapter, I’ll give you some examples where it does, but first a quick working definition of personality.
Personality is an enduring set of traits that define the character of a person and help to highlight similarities and differences between people[i]. Chapter 5 introduced different elements of personality: social character, personality type, identity, temperament, intellectual skills. This book focuses on the dynamic patterns of motives and values that become personality types, because these drive behavior in all different contexts and situations.
Freud viewed personality through a lens of motives and drives[ii]. His personality types, further developed by Erich Fromm[iii], were advanced by Michael Maccoby in a leadership context[iv] and Elias Porter, using a whole-life perspective[v]. My own work and research has built on this foundation and focused on integrating the whole person within their social and organizational contexts[vi]. The results of the Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI), which is based on Porter’s theory of Relationship Awareness, have proven extremely useful; they have helped millions of people create a common language about motives and personality differences[vii].
The SDI shows the relative balance of drives (or motivational values in this theory), which we will simplify and make easy to remember with 3 Ps: People, Performance, and Process. Underneath the simple term that describes a drive to help people Freud, Fromm, Maccoby, and Porter used the following terms respectively: erotic, receptive, caring, and nurturant. Underneath the performance drive we see the terms: narcissistic, exploitative, narcissistic/visionary, and directive (again respectively). Underneath the process drive: obsessive, hoarding, exacting, and autonomizing.
These three primary drives, when color-coded and juxtaposed on the SDI triangle, make it possible to create pictures of personalities and relationships. Blue=people, Red=performance, and Green=process. Each dot represents the blend of motives when things are going well for a person and each arrowhead represents a sequential activation of motives when a person feels a conflict or threat to their self-worth or dignity. There are seven distinct Motivational Value System (MVS) types on the SDI triangle, and the center (the hexagonal Hub type) is similar to what Fromm described as the marketing orientation and Maccoby described as the adaptive leader.
Now that we have a basic working definition of personality and a common language (a typology), let’s take a look at how personality influences organizations, starting with the way personality affects leaders’ views of organizational purpose. Then we’ll look at personality’s affect on leadership team development, accountability, expectations, change and conflict, leadership philosophy, and communication.
PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL PURPOSE
Consider PayPal. At the time (mid 2015), PayPal had recently been spun off from eBay and was an independent organization again. I had the SDI results for all the leaders in the program and asked them to form groups, based on the seven Motivational Value System (MVS) types described by the SDI. In their groups, I asked them to respond to several questions and prompts, including this: “What is the purpose of PayPal?” In other words, why does PayPal exist? What fundamental problem is PayPal trying to solve – or what fundamental opportunity is PayPal trying to seize?
A purpose differs from a mission because a purpose cannot be accomplished, it is a more enduring drive for an organization, such as to prolong life or improve the quality of life, or to be prepared for natural disasters, or to provide liquidity to financial markets, or to preserve natural beauty for future generations. None of these purposes can ever be check-marked as “done”; a clear purpose provides a sustainable reason for an organization’s existence. It describes why a business gains and retains customers.
How did these leaders’ personalities affect their views of PayPal’s purpose? The Green, Analytic-Autonomizing, leaders described the purpose as connecting people to the goods and services they need – a utilitarian purpose that is consistent with the conservative, practical nature of the Green MVS. The Red, Assertive-Directing, leaders described the purpose as being the platform of choice for all financial needs – a more ambitious and high-visibility statement that is consistent with the achievement orientation and competitive nature of the Red MVS. The Blue, Altruistic-Nurturing, leaders described the purpose as enabling safe, secure, and friction-free payments – a purpose that has an element of protecting people and preventing conflicts, which is consistent with the supportive, conflict-averse nature of the Blue MVS. And the Hub, Flexible-Cohering, leaders described the purpose as connecting people with each other through money exchange – a purpose that focuses on including people and is consistent with the interactive nature of the Hub MVS.
Why do these differences matter? In times of change, such as PayPal’s new independence from eBay, leaders’ personalities may subconsciously influence their assumptions about the purpose of their organization. If the diverse personalities in a leadership team all have different assumptions about the purpose, it will be extraordinarily difficult to get consensus on strategy and tactics. Leaders do not always have an opportunity to shape the purpose of an organization, but they always have the opportunity to consider how the organization’s purpose is personally meaningful to them.
PayPal’s website states: “We believe that by transforming money, we’re powering the potential of people all around the world.” People in each MVS group connect to this shared purpose in different ways. In summary: Blues are most likely to connect to PayPal’s ability to reduce risk and build trust between people; Reds connect to PayPal’s speed, performance, and growth; Greens connect to PayPal’s clarity of process and utility; and Hubs connect to PayPal’s versatility and ability to build a community. When leaders are aware of the ways people with different MVS types connect to a shared purpose, they can communicate the shared purpose in a way that helps each person connect to their intrinsic motives and values. This connection sparks people’s initiative; they’ve tapped their intrinsic motives, and increased their willingness to do what needs to be done.
PERSONALITIES AND LEADERSHIP TEAM DYNAMICS
The ideal of the sole leader who knows all the answers is a holdover from the bureaucratic era. In the knowledge/interactive era, leadership teams are the norm. Teams, even more so than individual leaders, need to apply personality intelligence to work effectively together and to become high-performing teams. Classic models of team development, such as Tuckman’s forming-storming-norming-performing model[viii], take on new life when individual differences in motives and values are considered.
To see how this plays out, we need a brief overview of this model, because the single, rhyming words for each stage do not carry the full meaning of the concepts. First a caveat, team members can do their jobs in any stage of the model, task accomplishment is not limited to the performing stage.
The forming stage is characterized by tentativeness and uncertainty; it’s a getting-to-know-you stage and a team reverts to this stage anytime a member is added or removed. The unfortunately named storming stage does not necessarily imply conflict; rather, it is characterized by a free exchange of ideas and testing of assumptions, as in brainstorming. The norming stage is where teams clarify and document their shared assumptions create their internal rules, or norms, about how to work together. The performing stage assumes that a team has successfully made it through the norming stage, although many teams never really do. The performing stage is characterized by highly motivated, self-directed, and accountable people who enjoy their work and their working relationships. One way to test whether a team has truly reached the performing stage is if they want to work on future projects together.
Given the importance of the performing stage, it’s no wonder that organizations spend a lot of energy trying to get teams, especially leadership teams, to this stage. With one team of high-potential leaders at GEI Consultants, a US-based environmental engineering firm, I asked the team members to form groups based on the MVS results of the SDI – then to describe what they would need to be able to move between each of the stages of team development. This idea of moving between stages is a systems thinking concept. Rather than having them describe the static and independent stages, I challenged them to describe the movement and connections between stages. Here are some highlights:
To move from Forming to Storming.
The Blues and Blue-Greens said they needed to understand each other, to feel included and wanted, and to have a sense of each team member’s strengths. On the opposite side of the triangle, the Reds and Red-Greens said they needed to know the challenge or problem to be solved – or that they felt pretty comfortable going straight into Storming without much time devoted to the Forming stage. Meanwhile, the Hubs said that they needed to feel comfortable with the group and to have a sense of commitment to the group.
Not surprisingly, many teams never get fully through the forming stage and into the storming stage. When this happens, teams can find themselves playing it safe, not challenging assumptions, and performing below their potential. Personalities can get in the way; if the Blues want to feel included first, while the Reds want to define the goals first, the Blues may find themselves reluctantly going along with the Reds’ goals just so they can feel included, but they may not feel fully engaged.
To move from Storming to Norming.
Leaders with MVS dots on the top-half of the SDI triangle (the Blues, Red-Blues, and Reds) all said they wanted some form of brainstorming or idea generation in order the make the transition. However, those with MVS dots on the lower portion of the triangle (with higher scores in the Green, process-oriented motive) wanted additional clarity on roles and decision-making criteria. The Hubs talked about needing to create a shared vision and getting consensus.
This transition, from the Storming phase to the Norming phase, is where teams need to set up the ground-rules for interaction. When some try to get there by establishing criteria for decisions, while others want to just try something and see if it works, it can be difficult to reach consensus. Clarity about what people are looking for in the process improves communication and understanding. Awareness of team members personalities helps the team progress more quickly through these stages.
To move from Norming to Performing.
Leaders with Blue and Blue-Green MVSs talked about the need for support, sharing the workload, and continued communication. But those with Red and Red-Green MVSs said they needed clear work assignments and demonstrable progress in order to feel that the team could truly enter the performing stage.
A benefit of getting into the performing stage, especially in project environments, is that team members typically want to work together on future projects. They also tend to more committed to the work and hold themselves and each other accountable for outcomes.
PERSONALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
When people talk about accountability, they are usually talking about management skills such as delegating tasks, following up, and creating incentives or consequences. While these techniques may secure compliance, they do not necessarily create accountability. Accountability comes from choices. And when these choices are made in a way that feels consistent with people’s core motives, with their personalities, people make commitments and take responsibility for outcomes. They are then more likely to innovate, take risks, and challenge assumptions while they attempt to deliver on commitments. When people make free choices, they feel more accountable for the results of their choices[ix].
The opposite experience helps to clarify the point. Think for a moment about the times when you’ve done something that you did not feel you freely chose to do, i.e. because you “had to” or when someone else “made you” do something. If it doesn’t work out, don’t you tend to assign responsibility to the person, constraint, or system that “made you” do it? When we feel that our actions are constrained or dictated, we don’t feel accountable for the results of our actions. When we are not involved in the choice about what to do we don’t feel liable for the consequences. Conversely, when we feel that we have freely chosen our behavior, we do so with our goals and motives in mind. We’re striving for something and we put ourselves into it.
Leaders and managers who are looking for more accountability often increase the amount of control they use with followers. But an over-emphasis on a control-oriented approach tends to generate compliance or defiance, followers ignoring the directives. Either way, an over-controlling approach causes dependence in followers, who can simply wait to be told what to do and how to do it. Followers are then alienated from their sense of choice and do not feel accountable for outcomes if they are just “doing what they’re told.”
A choice-oriented approach can also be overused. While the intent of a choice-oriented approach is to involve people, to get them to collaborate in the decision-making process, too much latitude can also create an intolerable level of uncertainty for both leaders and followers. Since choice promotes accountability, collaborative choices create a shared sense of accountability, while unbridled choice gets people feeling accountable only for themselves – not for what the organization needs. Another risk with over-reliance on a choice-oriented approach is that leaders may assume followers have the necessary skills and resources, therefore overlooking training needs or other constraints.
One of the most effective techniques for managers and leaders who want to create sustainable accountability is to offer bounded choice. For example, a leader may set a constraint or expectations such as a budget, deadline, or deliverable, but offer some individual choice about how to work within the constraints that are important to the task, project, or organization.
A personal example may help to illustrate the point. My daughter had two dolls of about the same size. One was an expensive gift. The other she bought with some money that I gave her. Technically, both of the dolls were gifts, because she did not earn the money to buy the second doll. However, after I gave her the money (the amount was my decision) she made the decision about which doll to buy. This subtle difference produced a significant difference in the way she cared for these dolls. While we (her parents) had to remind her frequently to put the expensive gift away, she took much better care of the one she bought. In fact the expensive one got damaged due to neglect while the one she bought remained in good condition for as long as she played with dolls.
The intrapersonal dynamics are the same at work – although the choices and responsibilities are considerably more complex. As a leader, once you know what constraints are essential, you can offer your followers choice within those constraints. When followers accept those bounded choices, they make decisions with their own goals and motives in mind and naturally tap into their intrinsic motives.
Different motives can link people in different ways to the same situation or required task. Blue, caring types are more likely to feel a sense of ownership for a situation or task when they see how it will benefit others. Reds take ownership if the goals are challenging or lead to a greater opportunity. Greens take ownership if the situation makes logical sense and there is a clear process or criteria for making decisions. Hubs take ownership if the task will bring people together, secure future flexibility, or create value as uniquely defined by the customer.
ADJUSTING STRENGTHS IN CONTEXT
A team of leaders at NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) wanted to improve the quality of the workplace, and become a “great place to work.” Their purpose is to provide vital services for the US ocean resources and habitat. Practical values include sound science, an ecosystem-based approach to management, and sustainability.
I administered the Strengths Portrait[x] to a group of leaders, and asked a random sample of staff who report to these leaders to complete an expectations edition of the Strengths Portrait. The expectations were to convey the strengths staff need from their leaders in the leader-follower relationship.
Overall, there was a strong positive correlation between the leaders’ strengths and staff’s expectations, which was interpreted as an indication of generally healthy leader-follower relationships. However, there were some significant gaps. Some of these gaps between leaders’ strengths and staff expectations caused the leaders to challenge whether expectations were realistic – and other gaps caused them to seek further information to understand the gaps.
To engage leaders in the conversation, I prepared posters, highlighting all significant differences in strength rankings. After I described the differences, I asked people to work in small groups and prepare to present the following:
• What story do these gaps tell?
• What is the meaning of the story?
• What would be the effect if leaders changed the frequency, duration, intensity, or context of these strengths?
Staff said they needed leaders to be more supportive, tolerant, and trusting – and less helpful, loyal, and devoted. While they struggled initially with idea of being more supportive, but less helpful, the message that emerged was insightful: Staff needed leaders who would support them with tools and resources, but not be overly directive about how to do the work. In essence staff were saying that leaders were being too helpful, which could come across as micro-management or give the impression that leaders thought staff were not competent. Staff needed leaders who would give them more autonomy – allow them to be more self-directed and to make their own decisions about how to do their work.
Initially, leaders also struggled with the idea that staff needed them to be less loyal and less devoted. But the meaning of this gap was that staff were saying “Don’t work such long hours and send e-mails late at night. Trust us to know what we need to do.” They further reflected that over-devotion could appear self-sacrificing, and would make future leadership positions unappealing to some staff – or cause stress or conflict for staff who felt obligated to check e-mail and respond late in the evening.
PERSONALITY INTELLIGENCE AND CONFLICT
Leadership involves navigating change, sometimes initiating it and sometimes responding to it. Change generates emotions in people, sometimes there are positive responses to needed changes, but sometimes it generates conflict. You can be sure that whatever is changing will in some way be threatening to someone, whether they fear losing something important, or fear the future. The word “conflict” is used to describe a wide range of experiences in the workplace, from simple disagreements to deeply personal struggles. While disagreements, differences of opinions, and contrasting views can be productive and spark innovation, conflict has the potential to turn destructive or to limit effectiveness. Elias Porter was the first to describe and validate the idea of conflict sequences as part of understanding personality. He observed that each person has a tendency to tap into three motives in a somewhat predictable fashion as their focus concentrates. Each conflict sequence is constructed from the nine blocks in TABLE 6-2, with the caveat that some people do not have a clear sequence and may blend or alternate motives within these stages.
INSERT TABLE 6-2: “Focus and motives during three stages of conflict.”
In times of conflict, people feel different and experience their motives in different ways. SDI results shows this difference and describe each person’s conflict sequence – the predictable order in which people tend to respond to conflict with attempts to accommodate others, assert themselves, or analyze the situation. When leaders are aware of their own motives in conflict and the motives of others, they are better at anticipating and preventing unnecessary conflicts. And when they understand how motives change in conflict situations they are able to identifying conflict more quickly and accurately so it can be managed and resolved more effectively[xi]. Conflict is most effectively managed in stage one (where people see themselves, the problem, and each other). When conflict reaches stage two (where others are not in focus) conflict can become polarizing and lead to short-sighted or self-interested solutions. It has the greatest potential to be destructive in stage three.
Managers and leaders often find themselves mediating conflicts in the workplace, the time spent managing conflict is a significant factor that contributes to overall cost of conflict, which is probably one of the largest preventable costs facing most organizations[xii]. Followers may not be able to hear leaders accurately when they are in conflict; they may feel afraid, attacked, excluded, unappreciated, or disregarded. These emotions can act like filters that screen out information and lead to misunderstanding – and the ill-informed actions that proceed from these misunderstandings.
At a time when Washington Mutual was experiencing significant growth, their employee-relations department was unable to keep up with the number of problem cases being referred to them by branch managers. Branch managers estimated that they spent close to 40% of their time involved with, or dealing with the effects of, interpersonal conflict. They decided to initiate a conflict management training program for managers that focused on understanding motives during the conflict management process, which Ken Smith and I designed and delivered. They tracked the number of cases being referred from the offices where managers were trained and compared to the baseline and offices where training had not yet been delivered. They found a significant reduction in cases, which means the managers had been able to prevent or manage more of the conflict than they had previously. Since the WaMu system had historical data accessible, the ER leaders were able to assign an average cost to every case – and then document a significant financial return on investment just from the cost savings of fewer cases in the system. Beyond that, managers who applied personality intelligence in their branches experienced higher employee retention than other offices.
A case at a Veteran’s Administration Healthcare Network facility helps to highlight the cost of conflict and the benefits of its resolution. A team had essentially stopped work and was threatening a formal grievance and possible legal action due to the way they had been treated by their leader. The team agreed to a full-day mediation session where everyone’s SDI results would be used to help explore the issue and everyone’s motives. By the end of the day, following robust and challenging conversations, the team agreed to rescind the allegations. Additionally, they agreed to let the VA’s in-house counsel review the allegations. In-house counsel estimated that the cost to the VA, had the claim gone forward, would have been about $500,000 – which is a pretty good return on investment from a one-day training program.
Conflict can also serve to clarify or establish identity. The things we are willing to go into conflict about give clues about our values and beliefs about what is important. Leaders who know their conflict triggers can make them known to followers.
PERSONALITY INTELLIGENCE AND LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
Every leader has a philosophy, but all leaders don’t take the time to clarify their philosophy so followers will know how the leader makes decisions and what the leader values. Our personalities influence our philosophies; in fact, one way to think of a developed personality is as a philosophy of life[xiii]. Our motivational value systems and conflict sequences are given meaning by our philosophies, which affect our decisions and actions. They help us to focus on the things that matter to us, and when there is conflict, to protect or defend those things. SDI results can help leaders clarify their philosophies and communicate them consistently. But if leaders do not clarify their philosophies, followers will make up stories about the leaders’ philosophies that are based on their perceptions of the leaders.
Coaching Example
For example, one leader I coached was concerned about feedback she’d been getting. Many people found her to be intimidating. As she described some of the interactions where she received this feedback, I started to notice a pattern and we looked at her SDI results to see if they would help us sort through her concerns. Her MVS was Green (Analytic-Autonomizing) and her conflict sequence was G-R-B (Green analyzing, followed by strong red assertion, with a blue surrender as a last resort).
Here is how I connected her personality to her leadership situations. Note that for ease of reading I’ve written this like a monologue, but it was really a conversation.
“When things are going well for you in your role, you have a strong concern for process. You want things to be well thought out and to make sense. You prefer situations where things are organized, there is clarity of roles and responsibilities, and you like people to be able to work independently.
“But when some of that process, order, or logic is disregarded or at risk, you are likely to enter your first stage of conflict, which is the green, analytical approach. In this first stage, your motives get even more concentrated on finding a logical explanation or solution. You’re looking for information you can use to bring order out what appears chaotic to you. What you really want here is for things to get back on track and to prevent further disruptions. In your first, analytical, stage of conflict you are thinking about the best basis for making a decision and the best method to implement it once the decision is made.
“But this analysis may be done quietly, in fact, the arrowhead is not far from your MVS dot. And when those two points are close together, other people generally have a hard time noticing the change from a going well state into the first stage of conflict. So it’s likely that other people don’t see much of a difference in you until (or unless) the conflict reaches the second stage.
“In your second stage, your focus is primarily on yourself and your own view of the problem. The second stage is where other people and their concerns get out of focus for you. In second stage red, your assertive and challenging stage, you have all the analysis from your MVS and first stage available to you. The difference is that in second stage you get vocal. It may be that people don’t notice all the thought you put into situations and then, when you finally speak up in meetings about the things that are bothering you, you do so with great energy and passion, which probably looks like anger to other people. You use forceful arguments to convey your position, which has already been well prepared and rehearsed in your first stage. When you finally bring all this analysis to the table in your second stage, you are a force to reckoned with – and you feel that other people are being illogical. In situations where you are in a position of formal authority, your second stage assertion may come across as dictates or directives. The bad news for you is that that’s what people see and what they remember. They don’t see all the introspection and thought that went into it before hand, because you do that quietly, by yourself.
“Another thing about people with your conflict sequence, Green-Red-Blue, is that they generally do not want to give up. Nobody likes to be pushed to the third stage of conflict. And for you, my guess is that your determination to win in your second stage of red is further fueled by a fear of being pushed into a third stage of conflict where you would have to surrender. My guess is that you only get to third stage at work in situations where someone else has formal authority over you and that when that happens, you mentally check out, but just go through the motions to comply.
“In summary, if you can’t find a way to help other people see your concerns and motives when things are going well and in your first stage of conflict, there’s a risk that other people will begin to define you by the way you act in your second stage of conflicts. I think that’s where the feedback that you’re intimidating is coming from.”
By the end, she was convinced that she needed to share her SDI results and her leadership philosophy with her team. This does not mean she will stop having conflict. Rather, it’s a way to be clear about what is important and to be open about the motives and values that drive her when things are going well and during conflict. The benefit to the team is more accurate perceptions and assumptions. They’ll be less likely to be triggered into wicked-stepmother or fairy-god-mother transferences, and more likely to learn what is really driving the actions they were concerned about.
CME Group example
Phupinder Gil, the CEO of CME Group, kicks-off the leadership development programs by sharing his philosophy with the group. At a session I facilitated he opened by reinforcing CME Group’s purpose of advancing the global economy and sharing his view of CME Group’s context: the regulatory, social, globalization, and internal challenges and opportunities affecting the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade, NYMEX, and other financial exchanges operated under the CME Group banner. As he discussed the organization’s efforts to flatten the organization chart, he emphasized the growing importance of the leader-follower relationship. He challenged the group to always think about what could change, to run scenarios as if there were no constraints, or with more constraints. He said they must always view the organization, their roles, and their relationships as systems, and that when they understand the interconnections, they will become more accountable to others – and others will be more accountable to them.
Gil’s self-described strengths as a leader? He gets people to see each other’s perspectives, which gets them to know each other’s strengths so they can collaborate and get things done. He will listen to anybody, because he is more concerned about what is right than who is right. He’s also quite funny. When Gil shares his philosophy it’s both inspiring and humanizing. He speaks from the heart, with personality intelligence – and while everyone doesn’t always agrees with him, they understand what drives him and how he makes decisions.
Microsoft Example
While consulting with Microsoft, I had the opportunity to observe the moment of transition between the end of Steve Ballmer’s tenure as CEO and the beginning of Satya Nadella’s time in the role. Bill Gates was also there and the three of them shared the stage. The only three people to have held the CEO role of Microsoft in its 40-year history told the story of the past, present, and future of Microsoft.
It is interesting to think about how each of these leaders’ personalities influenced – or will continue to influence – their engagement with the role. While I do not have the SDI results of these three men, they are public enough figures to form a picture of their motivational values. Gates, who I infer has a Red-Green MVS, seems most strongly driven by concerns for both performance and process; his initial vision was based on technical innovation, while Ballmer adapted the innovations to the market He was most strongly driven by performance, followed by perspective, and sometimes neglected process, which sounds like a Red or Red-Hub MVS, and Nadella seems to me have a Green or Green-Hub MVS; he seems most strongly driven by process and perspective, exacting in his speech and seeming to be acutely aware of context and how to adapt to it. Each leader has held the reins in a different part of the organization’s development and faced a different context. Gates’ time saw the foundation and explosive growth of the organization. Ballmer’s the commoditization of the company’s products and services, and Nadella has focused the organization on a shared purpose of empowering people to do more through technology.
Nadella calls himself a learner; that’s a key element of his philosophy and it helps him focus on the innovations needed to continue fulfilling the purpose of empowering people with technology. But personality is more than any one assessment can measure; it is also shaped by chosen beliefs and life experiences. Witness Nadella’s well-intentioned response to a woman’s question at a conference. She wanted to know what Nadella thought women should do if they were underpaid and afraid to ask for a raise. Nadella replied that they should not ask for a raise, but instead have faith that the system will work – and that good karma will come back. As a Hindu, this was a well-intentioned response, one that was consistent with his philosophy. However, it was not correct in that context and he shortly thereafter apologized and corrected his response for the context – saying that women should ask for raises and should expect equal pay for equal work when compared with men. And what practical value did he cite in his apology? His value of learning from his own mistake. Leaders who have a clear philosophy that is consistent with their personality can rely on their philosophy to navigate change, make difficult decisions, and adjust their approach when they do not get the results they expect.
COMMUNICATING WITH PERSONALITY INTELLIGENCE
A clear philosophy helps with communication, especially when communicating with large groups. For smaller groups, or for one-to-one interactions, you need to take into account the motives and feelings of the individuals involved.
As you listen to others, try to connect what you are hearing to their motives. Why is this person making a suggestion or a complaint? Understanding motivation doesn’t tell you whether or not what you have heard has merit. But it helps you to weigh the communication and to decide what to do about it. Is this a person who always wants to push for quick results even when it is better to take more time? Or is this a caring person who wants to avoid hurting someone at the cost of the organization’s best interests? Or is this a cautious person who is never satisfied that there is enough evidence?
Of course, you need to be alert not to be manipulated by self-serving Machiavellian people. But the communications of well-meaning people may be clarified if you know their motivational values. By adding this lens to your perception, you are more likely to see what they really mean – and less likely to make a quick, incorrect judgment. Additionally if you are able to accurately reflect their concerns, they’ll be more likely to collaborate with you, and if you decide not to do what they ask or suggest they’ll be more likely to understand and accept your decision.
To fully understand others’ communication, you also have to experience the feelings expressed. Are these people anxious? Do they need reassurance? Are they angry and not telling you why? How you respond to an idea or a complaint will be informed by understanding both motivation and emotion.
Effective listening and making use of what you hear and understand is greatly enhanced by personality intelligence. This requires both learning about personality and developing a heart that listens, not being distracted by your conflict triggers, or thinking about what’s next, but being fully present and open.
In the final chapters, we discuss the question of whether leaders are born or made – and the process of developing the leaders we need with qualities of head and heart. We’ll see that personality intelligence is increasingly important for leaders of knowledge workers, because effective interaction is essential to creating and applying knowledge in teams and organizations.
References
[i] Salvatore R. Maddi, 1996. Personality Theories. Sixth ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
[ii] Sigmund Freud, Libidinal Types, vol. XXI, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (1931; London: Hogarth Press, 1961), 215–220.
[iii] Fromm, Erich. 1947. Man for Himself. New York: Rinehart.
[iv] Michael Maccoby, Narcissistic Leaders: Who Succeeds and Who Fails (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2007).
[v] Porter, Elias H. 1976. "On the Development of Relationship Awareness Theory: A personal note." Group & Organization Management 1 (3):302-309.
[vi] Scudder, Tim, Debra LaCroix, and Simon Gallon. 2014. Working with SDI, 2nd Edition. Carlsbad, CA: Personal Strengths Publishing.
[vii] Porter, Elias H., and Tim Scudder. 1973, 2015. Strength Deployment Inventory, Self Edition. Carlsbad, CA: Personal Strengths.
[viii] B.W. Tuckman. 1965. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. (Psychological Bulletin, Vol 63(6), 1965), 384-399.
[ix] Deci, Edward. 1995. Why We Do What We Do: Understanding the psychology of self-motivation. New York, NY: Penguin Books. : Koestenbaum, Peter, and Peter Block. 2001. Freedom and Accountability at Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfieffer.
[x] Porter, Elias H., Tim Scudder., 2015. Strengths Portrait, Self Edition. Carlsbad, CA: Personal Strengths.
[xi] Tim Scudder, Michael Patterson, and Kent Mitchell, Have a Nice Conflict (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 2012).
[xii] Cloke, Kenneth, and Joan Goldsmith. 2005. Resolving Conflicts at Work. Revised ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[xiii] Murray, Henry A, and Clyde Kluckhohn. 1948. "Outline of a Conception of Personality." In Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture, edited by Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A Murray, 3-32. New York, NY: Alfred A Knopf.
