​What are the most popular leadership theories?  In 2014 Jessica Dinh, Robert Lord and colleagues answered the question of which theories are most popular among researchers. Examining 12 years of studies published in academic journals, they found the most studied were:

• Transformational 20%
• Traits 16%
• Leader-exchange 15%

Among other theories were:

• Authentic leadership 4%
• Servant leadership 1%

But which were the most popular? To answer that question, in 2014 I did a google trend search and found servant leadership, one of the most popular theories, generated very little research. I discussed the Dinh et al. study and the results of my google trend search in a blog in September of 2014. It has been one of my most popular blogs.
 
I thought it would be interesting to update the google trend search. I used the time frame September 22, 2014, to March 15, 2017, across all categories, worldwide. Which are the most googled leadership theories? The results are shown here:

Organizations need leaders. How do we find them? How do we develop them? At one level we are still struggling with defining what leadership is, how it differs from management, and so forth. Professionals in disciplines such as management, human resources, and organizational behavior have varying perspectives but no clear answers. Consequently we may use different approaches to understanding “leadership.”
 
In a recent issue of The Leadership Quarterly, Michael Mumford and associates focus on problem-solving skills critical to leader performance. In an article rich in ideas and information they argued that effective “real world” leadership occurs in situations where the leader has knowledge, experience, and creativity nurtured through experience. Effective leaders may have seen it before, seen similar, and have mental maps that help them work through problem resolutions. They also have the abilities to see potential problems, alternative solutions, and can evaluate potential consequences. Mumford et al. identified nine cognitive skills critical to effective leader performance. Here are the nine skills. For each I have posed a question for leaders based on my reading.

• Identifying and defining problems.

         Do you actively seek or search for information, external and internal?

• Analyzing causes and goals to address problem.

         Can you identify the biggest actionable causes affecting the problem?

• Identifying constraints on solutions.

         Do you have a systems perspective? Can you perceive the constraints on problem solutions?

• Formulating realistic plans.

         Can you identify and sequence the tasks and resources to work the problem?

• Forecasting specific outcomes from plan execution

         How successful have you been in predicting outcomes in similar situations?

• Formulating solutions to pitfalls foreseen and not foreseen

         Can you find creative solutions when implementation issues arise?

• Evaluating alternative ways to implement plan.

         Are your decisions go-no-go or do you seek to improve alternatives?

• Evaluating alternatives in context of situation.

         Do you have the experience to consider aspects that only arise out of experience?

• Visioning and sensemaking in communicating with followers.

         Can you simply and effectively communicate the vision/plan?

Mumford and associates suggested that these cognitive skills critical to effective leadership can be improved by training programs and other organizational development interventions. Additionally they may provide the foundation for new methods to assess leadership potential.
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  This contribution of Mumford, Todd, Higgs, and McIntosh is significant. While there is little we can do to effect adult intelligence (and intelligence is correlated positively with leaders), there is much we can do to effect development of these cognitive tasks.
 
2.  While leaders with these cognitive skills may be desirable, a leader may not need to possess each skill. Effective leaders should know their strengths and weaknesses. Leaders should engage their groups and teams in all of these areas. Identifying these skills in others and letting them contribute help make effective leaders. 
 
3. For me this article underscores the importance of active learning.  Do we provide opportunities for experiences where people can learn through the experiences? Do we discuss “lessons learned” afterwards and guide development of mental models, that is how to handle different situations? In our busy day-to-day workplaces, do we as leaders find the time, make the time, to develop others?
 
Mumford, M. D., Todd, E. M., Higgs, C., & McIntosh, T. (2017). Cognitive skills and leadership performance: The nine critical skills. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 24-39.
 
Image, "Thinking" by Tumisu.
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/thinking-brain-head-idea-2006869/
Public domain: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ 
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
From the back of the book jacket:

Bias in hiring and other personnel decisions may be common. Why? Because we may not even be aware of some of our biases. Implicit biases can affect our judgments without our even being aware we have a bias.
 
Jay Van Bavel and Tessa West, both social psychologists at New York University, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal about implicit bias in hiring. Their premise is we prefer people similar to ourselves and this can unconsciously affect our hiring practices. It especially makes hiring a diverse workforce more problematic. Here are several of their suggestions followed by my comments:

• “Check the job description.” Be sure the job description is not inadvertently biased, thus limited the applicant pool. For example, recruiting for a “salesman” vs. neutrally phrased “position in sales.”
• “Recruit outside your comfort zone.” Does your company usually hire from the same three or four universities or colleges? Are you looking for people demographically the same as your current employees?
• “Evaluate every resume the same way.” Critical. We read resumes and process them through our lens. We may unknowingly respond to subtle cues that bias us for or against an applicant.
• “Identify what you want before interviews begin.” Often overlooked. What you really want may vary based on whom you ask? I may want someone with good leadership skills to head up a project. You may want someone with the most up-to-date technical skills. We should have some agreement on the what we want from our new hire.
• “Stick to a script during interviews.” This is standard, often repeated advice – but usually not followed. Nolan and Highhouse (2014) cited Ryan and associates who found “only 35% of U.S. companies reported using standardized interview questions for each applicant.”
• “Ensure decisions are based on the right metrics.” If you agree prior to interviews on what you want and stay aware of potential implicit biases, then you should be able to make evidence-based decisions.
• “Continually analyze the process.” Improvement in hiring is difficult without an “after hire” review of what went well and what did not. In my experience this is rare. Continuous improvement should be built into the hiring process, just like other processes.

​
My take-aways:
 
1. Van Bavel and West offer excellent suggestions to improve hiring. In my opinion the first and most important activity though is not listed: job analysis. Job analysis will determine “the job-relatedness of the tasks and competencies needed to successfully perform the job” (OPM). A good job analysis makes all personnel decisions easier and more accurate.
 
2.  In Decoding the Workplace I stated that “many (organizations) are looking for people who fit the organization’s culture, people who will assimilate more quickly into its workforce – people who have ‘the right stuff’ for that organization” (p. 68). This is not inconsistent with acquiring a diverse workforce. Standardized, job-related questions, especially involving often encountered workplace situations, may be useful.
 
3. We all have implicit biases. The key is to be aware they exist and try to recognize our own. For example, in Decoding the Workplace I discuss how most of us probably have implicit biases associated with sex-role stereotypes. Examine performance appraisals you may write. Do you use different types of words describing men (“true leader, dynamic”) versus women (“good administrator, works well with others”)? Self awareness can be tough but the insights developed can make us better leaders -- and people.
 
Van Bavel, J. J., & West, T. V. (2017, February 21). Seven Steps to Reducing Bias in Hiring. The Wall Street Journal, p. R2.
 
Nolan, K. P., & Highhouse, S. (2014) Need for autonomy and resistance to standardized employee selection practices. Human Performance, 27(4), 328–346.
 
Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L., Baron, H., & Page, R. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52, 359–391.
 
Image, "Now Hiring Sign" by JAnstee (WMF) February 2014.
Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Now_Hiring.png
Used with permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review

Employees who see their work as very meaningful are more likely to be highly engaged in the workplace. Finding ways to make our workplaces more meaningful is a hot topic for leaders. But what about the flipside? What do leaders and managers inadvertently do that reduces meaningfulness in the workplace?
 
Catherine Bailey (University of Sussex) and Adrian Madden (University of Greenwich) interviewed 135 people in the United Kingdom, people from different occupations, and talked with them about meaning at work. Meaningfulness was not related to management style but was determined by individual employees and what they saw as meaningful. Surprisingly Bailey and Madden found that “a key leadership challenge” was not creating workplace meaning but rather not destroying the sense of meaning employees had developed. They identified actions or inactions associated with leaders who “trample” the development of meaningful workplaces. Bailey and Madden called these “deadly sins.” Here are their top five ranked with “most grievous" first.

1. Disconnect people from their values. Employer and employee not seeing eye-to-eye on what is most important, i.e., reducing costs vs. insuring quality, increasing profits vs. helping clients.
2. Take your employees for granted. Lack of recognition, lack of meaningful feedback, not feeling appreciated for hard work and long hours.
3. Give people pointless work to do. People know their jobs and what they should be doing -- but some work of no meaningful value arises because of others' poor planning or poor decisions. 
4. Treat people unfairly.
5. Override people’s better judgment. People not being listened to, not given a voice on work they know, work-related opinions not valued.

My take-aways:
 
1.  We give meaning to our experiences. If we perceive our work is of value and appreciated, it will be more meaningful. Leaders can affect meaningfulness in the workplace even though meaning is created by the individual. Bailey and Madden point out that it is much easier for leaders to crush meaning than to nourish it. This is an important finding. 
 
2. Look at the list above. Which have you seen or experienced? If you are a leader, do you mistakenly do any of these frequently? What can you do differently? 
 
3. My guess is that organizational climate or culture may be such that some of these actions or inactions are ingrained. Leadership is not easy. Ultimately the leader must care about those being led. Where that holds true, these deadly sins will not exist and the potential for employee engagement in the workplace will be higher.

Bailey, C., & Madden, A. (2016). What makes work meaningful -- or meaningless. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 53-61.

Photograph by Pui Shan Chan February 2009.
Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_%26_White_Handshake_-_Still_from_the_film_Colour_Blind_(2009).JPG/
Used with permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review

Modified from my previous annual January blogs about the importance of leaders reading

Each January I pose the question: What book are you reading now? Charlie Rose in his nightly program of interviews often poses a similar question to his famous guests, most of whom are national or international leaders in their professions. They always seem to have a book they are reading about which they have opinions, insights, and comments.
 
Lifelong learning is essential to grow as a leader. A habit of reading books is important to that growth. What role do books play in your life? In your learning? Making time to read books is important. Technology helps. I read books on the Kindle app on my iphone when I have short periods of downtime away from home. I have friends who like audio books best.
 
My favorite books in 2016 had lessons for work and life but they were about being above the earth. In Skyfaring: A Journey with a Pilot, Mark Vanhoenacker describes the life of a commercial airline pilot with thoughtful reflections on the experience of flying. If you fly frequently, this book may deepen your appreciation of your experiences. Chris Hadfield's An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth : What Going to Space Taught Me about Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything is summarized nicely in the title. I used in an MBA course. It was my favorite book this past year. I also enjoyed Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters by Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger. Good movie and good book.

The movie "Arrival" inspired me to read Stories of Your Life and Others by Ted Chiang. If you enjoy science fiction, I recommend. 2016 was also the year I discovered the poems of Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney. And for those who might be interested, I found Stafford Betty's When Did You Ever Become Less by Dying? Afterlife: The Evidence intriguing.  
 
As we begin 2017, here are books on my reading list:

• America the Ingenious: How a Nation of Dreamers, Immigrants, and Tinkerers Changed the World
  by Kevin Baker
• The Seventh Sense: Power, Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks by Joshua Cooper Ramo
• The Princessa: Machiavelli for Women by Harriet Rubin

And because I have developed a fondness for the art of Frederic Church:

• The Landscapes of Frederic Edwin Church: Vision of an American Era by David C. Huntington

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them”, Mark Twain. 

Or as the comedian Groucho Marx said, “Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.”   
 
What are you reading?
_______________________
Image Public Domain. From: https://pixabay.com/en/books-reading-reading-book-read-1316306
​
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.

Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review

This time of the year I like to revisit a Christmas classic from Thomas Stetz of Hawaii Pacific University, “What Santa Claus Can Learn from I-O Psychology: Eight Performance Management Recommendations.” The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist originally published the article in 2012 and it can be read in full at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s website. Here I will summarize (and elaborate upon) Dr. Stetz’s astute observations and recommendations concerning Santa Claus’s questionable performance management system.

1. “Develop refined rating scales.” How does Santa determine whether a child is “naughty” or “nice”? What is naughty? What is nice? How can a child improve performance if the child does not have clear guidelines and examples of the behaviors expected?
2. “Develop SMART performance objectives.” A child needs clear goals to be successful at “nice,” goals that are “specific, measureable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound.” Ideally these would flow from the family strategic plan.
3. “Increase feedback throughout the year.” It’s either a lump of coal or presents one day a year. 364 days with no feedback is just not acceptable in the 21st Century. If feedback is too much for Santa to handle, he should delegate and train others, such as parents. 
4. “Establish a naughty review board.” There may be review boards in organizations that are naughty; this recommendation concerns grievances. What’s a child to do if deemed naughty and considers this an unfair assessment? Is it fair to not have a grievance procedure, especially in the absence of feedback?
5. “Get a handle on rating inflation.” Let’s be real. It seems most children get a “nice” rating and the associated benefits. Refined rating scales would definitely help here.
6. “Explain how he obtains his information.” This one puzzled me as a kid. How does he know if I am being naughty or nice? As Stetz’s very appropriately noted, “at least a consent-to-monitoring statement should be made.”
7. “Decide between developmental or administrative evaluations.” “Under the current system how can naughty children improve. They can’t” (p. 36). There is no feedback. Children simply did not know how to improve their performance. Santa’s performance system is administrative with only “rewards and punishments.”
8. “Institute self-assessments.” Instead of writing letters to Santa once a year, which not all children do, there should be periodic self-assessments from children. This could be an online system with elf’s perhaps providing feedback. Currently children have little opportunity to speak to the naughty or nice question with relevant supporting data.

Stetz concluded Santa would do well to employ an I-O psychologist.
 
My take-away:
 
Can any of the recommendations for Santa’s performance system be applied to your organization? If so, 2017 might be a good year to work toward improvements. Feedback is key to employee development and organizational growth and renewal.
 
Best wishes for the holiday season and a great 2017.
 
Stetz, T. A. (2012). What Santa Claus can learn from I-O psychology: Eight performance management recommendations. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49 (3), 35-37.
 
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/santa-man-noel-santa-claus-160903/
Public domain:  https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review

Phatic speech, such as water cooler chit-chat, is the social lubricant of organizations. It is usually easier to do business with people with whom we have previously interacted.
 
We differ widely in how much we tend to interact with others. Some of us are just more outgoing. I tend to chat with people I encounter during my day. Most are casual acquaintances; a few are strangers. Researchers Gillian Sandstrom and Elizabeth Dunn would classify these as “weak tie” interactions. Conversations with friends and family are “strong tie” interactions.
 
Why is this distinction between "strong ties" and "weak ties" important? We know that strong ties can result in feelings of belonging, help meet our need for belonging. What about weak ties? How is our well-being affected by interactions with a cashier, someone at the gym, another employee with whom we rarely work, and so forth?

In three creative studies Sandstrom and Dunn (2014) examined relationships between the number of daily weak tie interactions and self-reports of happiness and well-being. The participants in their studies were university students and community members older than 25. The more they interacted casually with those beyond their friends and family, the happier they reported to be. 

• People with more weak tie interactions reported “greater feelings of belonging and greater happiness.”
• Feelings of belonging where greater on days when people had more weak tie interactions than usual.
• Both extroverts and introverts were happier the higher the number of weak tie interactions.

Sandstrom and Dunn noted that other studies have suggested “young adults underestimate the emotional benefits of interacting with people they do not know well.”
 
My take-aways:
 
1. As a consultant I found that where there were casual interactions among co-workers, the workplace climate was better. Conversely, where organizations limited casual conversations (such as no talking at the water cooler), climate was worse. In my opinion a small amount of time in social interaction reduced the time needed later if co-workers needed to interact on an issue. They already had a relationship of sorts. Phatic speech actually can lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness.
 
2. Given that there appears to be a relationship between weak ties and greater feelings of happiness, it would be interesting to see this studied in the workplace. There may be implications for managers and leaders. What activities or training may increase social interactions? What policies reduce casual interactions?
 
3. The comment about young adults underestimating the value of interacting with those they do not know well probably holds true for many people. Millennials may be more reluctant to interact with older workers but the reverse may also be true. My guess is that the more we can interact casually across our diversities, the more engaging and satisfying our workplaces will be.

Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014). Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910-922.
 
Image by Gerd Altmann.
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/social-media-personal-552411/
Public domain: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review
 

Our election in the U.S. showed an evenly divided country. My friends are blue and red. Some workplaces probably have been unpleasant due to differing attitudes about the candidates for President. It is time for healing. I thought James Corden on the Late, Late Show rose to the occasion, "Now is the time to remember our values." 

The Chicago Cubs won the World Series of baseball. I watched Game 7, the network discussions afterwards, and Mike & Mike on ESPN2. I have read online news articles. One of my favorites was Jeff Passan’s “How Theo Epstein broke another curse and built the World Series champion Cubs.”
 
I am not a baseball aficionado but I understand factors that usually lead to individual and organizational success. As I binged on the aftermath of the World Series and learned about the Chicago Cubs, principles and concepts came to mind:

• Have a vision. Tom Ricketts, owner of the Cubs, wanted a winning team, to break the supposed curse of the Billy Goat, to win the National League pennant, and the World Series. 
• Act on that vision. Ricketts hired Theo Epstein to be President of Baseball Operations. The Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, thus ending the supposed curse of the Bambino. Epstein was General Manager of the Red Sox and given credit by many for ending the curse. He had credibility. The best predictor of future success is past success.
• Treat people well. Describing his hiring interview with Epstein, Ricketts later said “We talked about how you treat people and the right people will create success” (Passan). Hire well and grow your people.
• Lead with integrity and transparency. Ricketts on Epstein: “He’s honest with everybody everywhere he goes” (Passan). Epstein was upfront that turning the Cubs organization around would take time. There would be lean years. Culture change is not easy.
• Formulate a solid plan. Epstein sought young players, players with character. He wanted players who could hit and were good people. The plan was to grow talent. 
• Focus on long term success, not short term. Epstein focused on the long term, building an organization that would win and continue to win. He was building a capability that would be sustainable.
• Develop and use analytics. Epstein hired “brilliant minds to fill the player-development and analytics department” (Passan). The database helped make sure the right people were in the right situations and could make good decisions.
• Create leadership, not just leaders. Day (2000) suggested leader development focuses on the individual; leadership development focuses on building human capital where all can lead. As Mike Golic put it, you don’t need team captains, you need informal leaders. In the weather break in Game 7, Jason Heyward, a respected team member, stepped up and led a group meeting reminding the players how special the Cubs were. When the team returned to the field, they were highly motivated. I am reminded of Urban Meyer's phrase, "when you get leadership, that's when magic starts happening."
• Celebrate the moment. It is easy to celebrate when you have just won the World Series. My guess thought is in the past week, month, or year, there have been moments in your day worth celebrating – a personal achievement, a team success, an organizational success. Savor these moments. 

Congratulations to Chicago and Cleveland on an amazingly series.

Day, D. V. 2000. Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 581–613.

Image, “Epstein talks to reporters before the 2016 NLCS Game 6” by Arturo Pardavila III. Image cropped to reduce size. Obtained from: http://bit.ly/2fJsT3W
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review

Have you worked with someone who is arrogant? It can be unpleasant. Research suggests it can affect employee and customer satisfaction, and thus has important implications for organizational performance.
 
I was reading a 2012 issue of The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist when I came across a very interesting article on arrogance as “a formula for leadership failure.” Stan Silverman (Akron), Russ Johnson (Michigan State) and colleagues have focused years of research on arrogance. They developed a 26-item self-report Workplace Arrogance Scale to study arrogance in the workplace.
 
In the IOP article they defined arrogance as "engaging in behaviors intended to exaggerate a person’s sense of superiority by disparaging others” (p. 22) It is not the same as narcissism, which is self-admiration, nor is it the same as being confident. Silverman and his co-authors summarized literature and research findings on arrogance and the workplace. Here are some highlights:

Arrogant people

• Inflate self-importance; see themselves better than others.
• Purport “to be more knowledgeable than others.”
• “consider their own behavior acceptable.”
• “do not monitor their own interactions when interacting with others.”
• Try “to make others feel inferior.”
• Avoid blame, pin blame on others.
• Discount feedback; less likely to seek feedback
• “often impede effective organizational functioning.”      
• Less likely to perform their job well.
• Less likely to help others

Silverman et al. suggested that “workplace arrogance can be a serious problem.” Arrogant people tend to be poor performers who negatively impact workplace climate. The good news is that Silverman and colleagues think people who are arrogant can change those behaviors. They contend humility can be learned; people can develop a more accurate image of themselves. They suggest organizations could use a measure like their arrogance scale as part of performance appraisal. Where needed, individual development plans could be instituted to eliminate the dysfunctional behaviors.     
 
My Take-aways:
 
1. This article deserves a large audience. It is easy to confuse arrogance and narcissism. It is easy to think there is nothing that can be done to change a person who is arrogant. If the person who is arrogant is at the top of the organization, that may be true. But the idea of realistic feedback and working with someone to improve workplace behaviors makes sense.
 
2. My experience is that many supervisors find it difficult to give realistic feedback, whether arrogant behaviors or others. Part of the problem might be waiting until official performance appraisals to give feedback. Great leaders will give feedback when needed as needed. They do not wait to make suggestions to improve behaviors, and hence performance.

3. Regardless, true leaders develop and grow others. In so doing they grow their organizations.
 
Silverman, S. B., Johnson, R. E., McConnell, N., & Carr, A.  (2012). Arrogance: A formula for leadership failure. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50 (1), 21-28.
 
Image, “Bleach- Hitsugaya mini” by NamelessArrogance.
Obtained from: http://www.deviantart.com/art/Bleach-Hitsugaya-mini-209719154.
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review