Global Leadership Effectiveness Study

[MUSIC] People are the most consequential and dangerous forces on Earth. Well, personality psychology is about the nature of human nature. It's about people. And wouldn't that be useful to know? And it seems to me I can't think of a more important problem. [MUSIC] >> You're listening to the Science of Personality podcast, brought to you by Hogan Assessments, the Global Leader in Personality Assessment and Leadership Development since 1987. Your host, or Hogan Chief Science Officer and world renowned personality psychologist, Dr. Ryan Sherman, along with Hogan PR Manager and resident storyteller, Blake Lepp. [MUSIC] >> Hello, everyone and welcome to the Science of Personality podcast. I'm your host, Ryan Sherman, along with my co-host as always, Blake Lepp. Say hello, Blake. >> Hello, everybody, and welcome back to the Science of Personality podcast episode 115. Today, Ryan and I are joined by Hogan's Managing Director of Asia Pacific, Christa Patterson, to talk about the recent launch of Hogan's Global Leadership Effectiveness Study, which is a groundbreaking research study, aimed at identifying the characteristics shared among effective leaders. Are these characteristics the same regardless of geographic or geographical differences? Are any of the characteristics shared among emergent leaders? We're going to explore all of this in so much more in today's episode. So, with that, Christa, is there anything else you would like to mention before we dive into the episode? >> Hi, Blake, hi, Ryan. Thank you so much for inviting me on. I think the only things I would add is that I have lived and worked in China for over 15 years. And I do speak and read Chinese. And I have also worked at Hogan for 11 years, so I am fluent in Hogan as well. But I'm excited beyond the podcast today, thank you. >> Well, I want to say thanks for joining us, Christa, for our listeners who don't know. Christa is also currently working on her PhD in Organization of Development and Change, and we'll be finishing that sometime in 2026. That's the target. So we'll soon have another doctor in the Hogan family. Christa mentioned she's fluent in Mandarin. I actually get to spend quite a bit of time with Christa, seeing her clients throughout the Asia Pacific region, and was blown away to watch her give a talk in Mandarin this last trip to Beijing, which was pretty amazing to see someone give a talk in a second language, really impressive. Yeah, so lots of talent here. Thanks for joining us today, Christa. >> Yeah, absolutely. And Christa, I want to point out because I think it's very interesting. We really appreciate you coming on this episode, not just because of the expertise that you're going to bring to the table, and talking about this global leadership effect in this study. But the fact that you just got back on American soil two hours ago, an hour and a half ago, and you're jumping on the podcast to record this with this. So just your willingness to do this after such a long travel schedule, we really appreciate you doing this for us. >> Well, you will have to forgive me if I'm not as coherent as normal. But actually, this is so exciting for me because this research is something I'm really excited to talk about. And so I would do anything to be talking more about it. So so happy that I can be here and that we were able to make it work out. And so I know this week is quite busy. >> Well, Christa, okay, then let's get to it. We don't want to waste any of your time because your time is precious at this point. Can you give our listeners a general overview of the global leadership effective in this study and what you hope it will accomplish? >> Yes, absolutely. But actually, I'd first like to start with a small story. I think we all know the importance of leadership. Dr. Hogan talks a lot about how leaders are crucial to organizations. But we also know that the importance of global leadership and being able to work across different cultures is important too. And there's a story about a delegate from Texas that George HW Bush, so the older Bush sent to China. And the head of this diplomatic mission was a huge Texan who was considered quite charming in Texas, they old Texas charm. And as part of his mission, he met the premiere of China and the premiere's wife. And so as he was meeting the premiere in his wife using his old Texas charm, he gave the minister a huge handshake and then went over and actually hugged the premiere's wife, Texas style. So kind of picked her up off the ground, gave her a big bear hug, which is something that's like very familiar and wonderful in Texas. But in China, the premiere was super offended and he immediately told Bush, get this crazy man out of here. I really don't like him. And so this Texan was an effective leader in Texas, but China is a whole different world. And so because he didn't understand the expectations of what leaders should be like in China, he consequently offended the Chinese premiere. And he essentially failed this mission. And so I know this is an extreme example, but having worked outside the US for many years, I've seen lots of similar examples of leaders who are very, very effective in their own country and their own culture. But when they undertake a leadership position in a different country, they have difficulties managing local teams. And so we need to know the importance of effective leadership. And we've studied a lot in the US and we've studied a lot of projects at global companies and have a lot of data on emergent leadership. But studying effective leadership can be difficult. And so as I was thinking about this, I've been thinking about this for actually quite a while because we've done a lot of work with emergent leaders and studying who becomes a leader. But this past spring, I was attending the Association of Test Publishers, Innovations and Testing Conference. Hogan is one of the founding members of this association that's all for and anyone who publishes a test. And so we send several people each year and this year Chase Winnerberg, who runs the Hogan Research Institute. And he's been on the podcast a couple of times before, several times before, actually. And Wei Wen-Nia, who actually works with Ryan on the AI strategy for Hogan, he's part of the data science team. They were also joining the conference. And so while we were at the conference, we had some time to discuss with each other. And we were discussing how we had so much data on emergent leaders across the globe. I think we have data on over 190 different markets. And probably top executive data to have enough, I think we need 200 cases for a benchmark. So we have enough to at least look at around 50 different markets around the globe. And so we know a lot about who emerges across the globe. But I was talking with them and I said, I'd love to figure out a way to collect data for effective leaders. And a lot of times we're using criteria data and not to get too technical, but a project by project, we've done a lot in the US and even English speaking markets. But it's a lot more difficult to collect that data across non-English speaking markets. And so we just don't have that. But Chase mentioned that he had actually done a study asking people what they think makes for effective police officers using our job evaluation tool survey. What we call the JET study, JET job evaluation tool. So he actually suggested that we could do something similar for effective leaders across the globe. And this was kind of cool. Chase actually said, I think he's talked about this survey he did for effective police officers. But his findings on that were quite surprising. He actually found that no matter race, ethnicity, gender, age, people were saying the same things about what it would take to have effective police officers. So that was kind of really interesting research. Meanwhile, on this side, way one was also mentioning that based on implicit leader theories, it makes sense that we can ask people what they think would make effective leader, because people implicitly get their ideas about leadership from who leads and asking people what they think makes for a good leader is probably the easiest way to learn the personality characteristics for who an effective leader is. Okay, so this is kind of the background of how the study came to be. But essentially what you need to know is that the global leadership effective study, effectiveness study, or the GLESS, is a survey that we're launching in as many markets as we can around the globe. And the point is to learn more about what makes a leader effective and what personality characteristics people say effective leaders have. And so it's a 15-minute survey that we want anyone and everyone to fill out. We've launched in Australia, New Zealand, China, and India, and we'll soon have a Spanish version available, and we're working on a few other languages. I think we already have Brazilian Portuguese. We're going to be working on French and German pretty quickly. But essentially we want anyone who's interested in sharing their voice on what makes a good leader to participate in this study. We plan to do a broad analysis and see if the results differ per market or per country. But we also want to be able to do more in-depth analyses to learn more about the results within a country. So we're collecting a bunch of demographic data to learn as much as possible, both within a market and across markets. Well, I'll just say a few things here about, you know, the first thing I think I should say is that one thing that I'm really proud about this study is that I've had almost zero to do with it, which might sound like not an endorsement. In fact, the only thing I really had to do with it is actually fully endorsing this study, we're talking with Chris, we're talking with Chase in a way when about, you know, best ways to go about conducting the study, but the origination of the study, the idea behind the study, I didn't have anything to do with any of that. So I'm super excited that, you know, the folks here on our staff are coming forward with these ideas and pushing these kinds of studies forward. And it's a great relief for me to know that we have other minds here pushing forward the advancement our understanding of leadership. So, I think it's fantastic. The other thing I'll say, and just to sort of compliment some of the points that Chris had made, is that, you know, one of the problems with studying leadership is that it's very easy to measure who gets in charge, right? So doing studies of who emerges as a leader are very, very easy to do. You just look at someone's rank in the company and you look at their person, you capture the personality data so you can just look at personality by, you know, different ranks in the company, CEO, CFO, C-Sweet, Manager, Executive, all those kinds of things. And you can see those differences and there's lots and lots, thousands of studies have been done looking at who emerges. What are the personality characteristics those who emerge? But collecting data on effectiveness is much harder, as Chris was mentioning, collecting criteria data is much more difficult. What's the performance data for a leader? Usually it's something like team performance. Well, but even team performance can be vague. For a big company, is that stock market price? Is that revenue? Is that market share? Is that things like engagement of the team? Is that thing like job satisfaction turnover? There are a whole variety of factors by which you can measure the team's performance. And so it's hard to decide what is the right criteria for a leader. And so that's what's another beauty of this study is we are letting the people who are being led decide what those criteria are. They are telling us this is what we want in leaders. These are the leaders that we see as most effective. And we think that's probably a really great way to understand who is effective at leading to ask those who are being led, but to also gather essentially reputational information. This is what the reputation that effective leaders garner. This is the reputation that effective leaders have earned over time. And that seems to be a better way at understanding what it takes to lead effectively. And again, as Krista pointed out, one of the beauties of this study is it's not just about leading effectively in a particular market, but it's leading effectively in a variety of markets or perhaps there will be individual differences in markets that there will be subtle differences in personality for leading effectively in China versus leading effectively in the United States. I think that's what to me, that's what's super exciting about this study is this is going to be one of the most in depth, most comprehensive studies of what we think of effective leaders ever conducted. And I'm so proud of the fact that I had almost nothing to do with the design or creation of this study. And I'm super excited to see where it goes. Well, we're really happy for your support and thankful for your support, Ryan. I know that you helped to socialize the concept of this and you were the one that had mentioned that Dr. Hogan also thought that we should be asking people what they think of leaders. So you did contribute and we're grateful for all of your support. Well, and I think that's kind of one of the things about Hogan and where it differs from your standard literature that's been produced on on leadership. And at Hogan, we've been studying leadership for more than 40 years. So Chris, I'm curious based on that research, what have we learned over that 40 year stretch? That's a great question Blake. I know that I've learned quite a lot from Dr. Hogan and the founding, the founders of Hogan, but really Dr. Hogan is the founder of socio-analytic theory. And that really essentially proposes that people all around the world are trying to get along, get ahead and find meaning. And with this theory, leadership is an evolved solution for organizing collective behavior with the goal of surviving. So really in other words, leadership is supposed to be a resource for the group. And in modern day terms, the group is a team or an organization. And so as Ryan mentioned at Hogan, we've also differentiated between what we call the effective leaders and emergent leaders. And emergent leaders are those leaders that are really good at getting into positions of leadership just like Ryan had shared. And as I mentioned before, we have so much data on that. And like Ryan just said as well, it's really easy to collect data on that because we can just see who gets to visit. We can see the personalities of who gets to the top. And the great thing though that Hogan has is we have so much data on emergent leaders in different countries. And so that's actually something that not a lot of other companies have as much data as we do, but our data shows that there are clearly differences in leaders who get into positions of leadership across different countries. And so this actually shows us that different cultures, countries, markets, whatever you want to call it, but we look at data according to country. And so different countries or markets reward and punish different leadership characteristics. And so maybe I can give an example. In Japan and Ryan and I were actually with our colleague, Emery, in Japan earlier this year and in end of August, I think. But in Japan, our data shows that top executives are much lower on the HPI scale of ambition and much higher on the HDS scale of cautious compared to the global executive average. And so this actually suggests that in Japan, they tend to promote leaders who are more risk averse and who like to play it safe and who really minimize risk rather than promoting leaders who are willing to focus on reward-focused risks. So we're willing to take a risk if it means there's a bigger reward at the end of that. So what's really interesting is this type of leadership style is actually exactly the opposite of what we see in France, who seemingly rewards executives that take risk to maximize the rewards. In France, we see executives that are higher on ambition, lower on prudence, or our conscientiousness scale on the HPI. And then they're also higher on the HDS scales of mischievous and colorful. So it's quite interesting. You can really see that there's a distinct style of leadership. And so really studying who emerges as leaders still can be useful if you're looking across different countries and markets because it's very helpful for understanding expectations of what leadership, what people think leadership should be in that market. So for example, back to our Texan diplomat who offended the Chinese premiere, had he known that Chinese leaders tend to be higher on the moving away from scales, he could have probably proactively tempered his enthusiasm. And maybe because you would know that people do not expect leaders to be super open and super emotionally expressive and formal situations, he could have made sure that he was more aware of his behavior and he would have been more effective in a different situation. We've actually published several blogs exploring this topic and we published a white paper on Chinese executives a couple of months ago. So if anyone's interested, feel free to check out the Hogan website to learn more about that. But with regards to our topic of emergent versus effective leaders, we know that effective leaders are the leaders who focus on supporting their team. Building and maintaining a high performing team is really what those effective leaders do. Well, Blake, thinking about this question about studying leadership for more than 40 years at Hogan, I think you even kicked off this episode by saying, well, we all know leadership is important. But what's interesting is that when the Hogan's first got into this, first started looking at leadership, that wasn't an assumption. Most people didn't agree. There was lots of disagreement about just how important it was to lead. And so actually, that's one of the most important findings that the Hogan's discovered was that actually who's in charge really matters and discovering just how much the person in charge has an impact. We've done studies and we've looked at other research as well, suggesting that somewhere between 14 and 30% of the variability in stock performance of a company is due to just who's in charge. So I think that's one of the critical factors. And so you might say, well, geez, you've been studying leadership this long. How can you still be doing these studies on leadership effectiveness? The answer is that in the early days, there was so little known about leadership at all that it wasn't even clear if leadership mattered. And so just demonstrating those basic phenomena was really, really critical in the early days of this research. - It's pretty wild to think about it that way too, because leadership has been such a crucial component of human history throughout all of history. I mean, so it almost seems strange to me. I sit here as we speak, and as we're recording, I've been at Hogan for 10 years and one day. And so I've learned so much about leadership, but to think that there was a time whenever people were not studying it, the way that we study it today is pretty mind-boggling to someone who essentially has spent most of my career on the outside kind of looking in, 'cause this is not my trade, this is not something that I was trained to do in school or anything. So that's what's fascinating to me, but sometimes I also forget that that was the case. And as we kind of transitioned a little bit more, I wanna dig in a little bit more about this, 'cause we have talked about this Texan who offended the Chinese premiere under the George H.W. Bush administration. And I think this answers, part of the question I was going to ask is whether some of the characteristics of effective leaders are the same across cultures. And it appears that there are things that people in Texas do maybe differently than in China. But Christa, I'm curious, are there some maybe universal common characteristics of effective leaders across culture that we've learned throughout these 40 years of research and studying leadership? - Yeah, Blake, thanks for the question. I think this can be, it's an interesting question. I think more broadly, we do find that effective leaders have some similar characteristics. So for example, there's four, maybe five that we tend to notice. So first of all, is really effective leaders have integrity. So they do what they say and they say what they do. So you can really build trust with their team. And then the second thing is that they have good judgments. So they make good decisions, but more importantly, when they make bad decisions, they admit it, they own up to it, and then they make a different, better decision going forward. The third thing is that they have competence. So they know their field of expertise and their team can turn to them for that expertise. Again, it's not about the leader themselves and what they can get from being the leader, but it's more about what they can add to the team in all of these. And finally, the fourth one that we like to say is that they're able to cast a vision and get people aligned and working around that vision. Sometimes we like to add humility to the list. So treating people fairly and equally. And if you've listened to podcasts before, I'm sure you've heard these characteristics, you've heard 'cause we do talk about them a lot. And generally, we find these characteristics are applicable across the globe. We've worked with a lot of global organizations and generally, fine, this is what people want in leaders. However, we are open to the idea the ways in which people express these competencies may differ in different countries or different markets. So like I mentioned, we travel quite a lot. Actually, Ryan and I were in India and Japan and trying to together this year. I think that's all. I think those are the three markets we're in. But in nearly every market, we always get this question, well, what about my market? What does leadership look like in my market? And everyone agrees with those competencies that that's correct. But when they come to us, they say, my market is unique. We do things differently there. And what they're right, they do do things there differently. So I think it's worthwhile researching what integrity, judgment, competence, and casting a vision, or even humility looks like in different countries. Well, I think that's exactly right, Krista. What are the behaviors associated with demonstrating integrity? What are the behaviors associated with demonstrating competence or good judgment? You talked about this text in earlier. I would view that as a lack of competence of the local norms, how to behave in this particular part of the world. And you see that. You go, oh, wait, I can't work with this person. This person isn't competent in our culture. They're supposed to be working in our culture. Well, you can understand why someone would say that that doesn't make a lot of sense. And in fact, there's a whole lot of behaviors like this as I've learned in a variety of places. In fact, just this weekend, Krista, I was telling someone, and I'm going to get it wrong. I think it's Japan, but it might be China. You can correct me on this. I think it's Japan. Where I think sitting on tables is heavily frowned upon. Is that right? That's the speech of Japan. I don't know this one actually. Yeah, I think it must be in Japan, where-- but I mean, there are all these little differences in behaviors that, like in the United States, OK, probably you shouldn't sit on the dinner table. But it's very common to see someone say, well, while we're standing around here, maybe they prop themself up on a table while they're waiting for someone to come or something like that. That happens with a fair amount of frequency, but that's frowned upon in other parts of the world. And there's a whole list of these behaviors. And you might say, well, that's really narrow. Is that really personality? And in some ways, maybe it isn't personality, but there are other characters. There are other kinds of behaviors that are tied in with our personalities that do show up in these kind of behaviors. And so that's where I think the study's really interesting because we're going to try to understand what does effective leadership look like in a different culture? Does it look the same? And we think that there will be these broad-- I guess I would call these sort of competencies with these broad characteristics, like integrity, trust, vision. We think that those are going to show up. But how they're displayed, I think, will be very different. Chris, what do you think? Yeah, I think that's a good point. I like your example. Someone once told me that you can always spot an American because we like to lean on things. And I hadn't-- I was just going to bring this up. I couldn't remember where I heard this, Christa. I didn't know if it was from you or somewhere else. This is literally what I was just thinking about. Well, it's funny because my colleague, Amber, and I were in Dyle and just last two weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago. And as we were waiting in line, we went to a restaurant where you're going to get these noodles. It was really good. And I noticed that she's not American, but she's from Canada. All of a sudden, I noticed her and I were just leaning against this counter that was right there. And I started laughing. I was like, oh, wow. I really am American at heart. But it is these types of behaviors that kind of-- if you're not self-reflecting, they come naturally to you as part of your own culture. So I think these are the things, Ryan, that you're absolutely correct. I do think that-- I don't know if we call them competencies or constructs or behaviors, but these constructs of integrity and casting a vision and humility and competencies, these are very important. And they may translate differently. And that's why we're really curious about what people are going to say make for effective leaders in their market. And will it be different? Well, this is going to go perfectly with what my next question was, because this is exactly what I wanted to get into. How do these characteristics like integrity, competence, vision, judgment, et cetera align with personality, and are these things that can be measured with valid assessments like the ones we have at Hogan? Yeah, that's a great question, Blake. I like to think of them as competency or constructs, or maybe even behaviors that can be mapped to personality. Ryan probably has more to share on this one. But essentially, at the heart of these is implicit leader theories. And it's basically theories that people learn from their environment and the leaders around them, what makes for a good or even a bad leader. And so they are able to pick up the cues by watching leadership. And they say, hey, I like this. Hey, I don't like that. And then they form their own conclusions about what makes for a good or bad leader. And so based on that, I think baby will see differences in leadership. But I do think that we can map these constructs to personality and personality will tell us how these translate into different markets. But Ryan, do you have other thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, some of these show up a little more easily connected to some personality characteristics and others, right? So if we look at integrity, that tends to show up with a little bit higher prudence, a little lower mischievous. But again, it's not a one to one. It's not like, oh, it's always higher integrity. Lower mischievous means absolutely this person's going to be seen as having high integrity. I don't know if I've ever shared this story on here before, but I was working with a number of entrepreneurs. And we were talking about these concepts. We were talking about integrity. And also pointing out that entrepreneurs tend to score lower on prudence and higher on mischievous. And one entrepreneur in the room was really upset. And he said, well, you're saying I don't have integrity. But in my business, in the business I work in, my word is the only thing. If I don't stay true to my word, then nobody will do business with me. And that's all true, right? So it's not necessarily that it's a one to one kind of thing between personality. There are some links there. people who tend to have higher prudence and low or mischievous tend to be perceived as having more integrity, but it's not a guaranteed thing that you're gonna be perceived as having higher integrity. Same thing with vision, there are some connections there as well. If we look at things like inquisitive and imaginative, people who score higher on those tend to be seen as having a more of a vision for the future. But things like judgment and competence are much harder to grab in a particular culture. And we were talking earlier about some examples of competence from just specific behaviors or specific behaviors that you might capture with a personality assessment. It can be hard to tell. In fact, competence is one of those things that we tend to, is really a judgment that we make about others, right? Do we say, well, does this person make good decisions? Sorry, that's more about judgment. But does this person seem to have expertise? Does this person have knowledge of this area? And similarly with judgment, although judgment, again, at Hogan, we have a judgment report here, which actually talks about the ways that we are biased in our judgment, the ways that we might overlook certain pieces of information. But having good judgment can be difficult to discern from simply a personality assessment. Instead, you're more likely to find the ways that somebody might go wrong in their judgments than necessarily finding the ways that they're going to go right in their judgments. - Oh, that's very interesting. I think moving on to our next question, I guess what are some of the steps, Chris or Ryan or whoever, what are some of the steps that can be taken to study effective leadership more effectively? - That's a very, very important question, Blake. And I think it goes back to what Ryan was talking about earlier. He was saying that, making sure that we understand leadership and effective leadership is very important. And so being able to define effective leadership has really been a headache in leadership studies. And the experts have had a hard time defining or agreeing about this. Ryan, I've heard you give several talks and you have pointed out what a terrible leader, Jack Welch of G was, and how he caused disengagement, treated people terribly, and was called Neutron Jack, right? He just for how horrible he was. And he essentially set up the organization for failure. What's interesting is I recently talked with a consultant who used to be like partner at one of the top strategy consulting firms. I won't mention it, but you've absolutely part of it. And he was arguing with me that Jack Welch was a difficult genius and he claimed he was super effective because he drove up stock prices and he made a bunch of money for investors. And it was actually the following leaders that were the real problem that ruined the company 'cause they just couldn't follow in his footsteps. And so it's really interesting because I think that people with vested interest may disagree on how to define an effective leader. But thankfully, Hogan has a very clear definition. Again, back to what we shared before, is an effective leader of someone who builds and maintains a high performing team. And it is because we have this clear definition, that we can actually go and measure it. And again, Dr. Hogan always loves to point out, if you wanna know if someone is a good leader or not, ask the people who report to them. And so really that's the idea behind this class study is we now have a very simple but elegant way to measure effective leadership, ask the followers. And so I don't know if the answers are questioned fully, but I think that's what we're trying to do here. Ryan, what are your thoughts? - Well, certainly I'm of the opinion that Jack while it's ultimately Ru and G, but it's absolutely also the case that he made more money for shareholders of G than any other person, right? I mean, I think if you use stock market growth as an indicator of effective leadership, he would be considered one of the most effective leaders of all time. If you look at what G.E. stock price was when he took over to the time that, right about the time that he left, there's a massive increase, but of course it turns out it was for a variety of, what I would describe is nefarious reasons that ultimately undermined G.E.'s actual position, actual productivity was covered up. But the point is that coming up with a criteria for effective leadership is a real challenge. And Christa mentioned it's building and maintaining a high performing team, which that's true. And that does allow for the study, for the schoolable leadership effect in the study, right? By giving a clear definition for what we're looking for in an effective leader, that makes it easier for Raiders for these individuals who are taking part in the study to tell us who is an effective leader. However, even if you just look at our definition on its face, and building and maintaining a high performing team, well, what's high performing? How do you quantify high performance exactly? It goes back to what we talked about before Blake, where is it engagement? Is it productivity? How do you quantify productivity? And again, in different organizations, different companies that can be done in different ways. And so it's a real challenge to pinpoint to sort of operationalize who isn't an effective leader. And that's again, what I think is the brilliance of the study is we're using this definition that we know captures what we mean by effective leadership. And we're letting the people who are led tell us what those characteristics are, what those people do, what they look like. Yeah. Yeah, I'm so glad you both brought up Jack Welch's as the example here, because that's such an interesting one. Because I still have-- I have a boss that I see post things on social media here and there. And he still remains just such a huge fan. And points to Jack Welch's example of just one of these great leaders that we've seen in the last century or so. And it's crazy how such a large segment of the population who actually looks at these things. Look at him. And he's revered as this great leader. But based on what we know at Hogan, and the way that we would measure effective leadership, that was just not the case. But it's still kind of mind-boggling to me that he can be seen through these different lenses. Depending on who you are and how you maybe one defines leadership, which we know has been an issue with academia and all sorts of areas. I love that you're pointing this out. And this is why Dr. Hogan is such an iconoclast, because he did bring up some really important topics that even our controversial today. I know we were talking about earlier how, of course, leadership is important. But even in academia today, a lot of people say, oh, it's the system that's more important or it's how people interact together that's more important. Like they still try to minimize the role of the leader. And so it's really quite interesting and so important to have these theory-based, well, theory-based ideas that we can do some good research on. So again, love this study. Well, and I'll just point out also there, like by the way, in 1999, Fortune Magazine named Jack Welch, the manager of the century. So certainly there were many who see Welch as one of the best leaders ever continue to see Welch that way. I do think the ultimate succession and fallout from GE was a result of some of the practices that he put into place that were sort of en-ron-esque, I will say, not quite to the level of en-ron, but they ultimately covered up some of the deep flaws in GE's system and made it look more productive than it really was. Well, Christus, so here's my next question. Who can get involved with the Global Leadership Effectiveness study? How can people participate? Yeah, anyone can participate. We want to hear your opinions and your voices. So if you are interested, you can go to the Hogan website. We actually have set up a page specifically for the Glass Study. We're calling it the Glass, the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study. So go to the website. We have either QR code or there's a link you can click on. We are actually going to be promoting it also on our LinkedIn and social media. And so keep an eye out for that as well. But really, we want anyone and everyone to participate. The point is, is to get enough data so that we can look at different aspects. I mean, ideally, we want enough followers around the globe to hear what the followers are saying. But we also want to hear from the leaders, because it would be interesting to compare what the followers say versus the leaders. And really our goal for each market is to get at least 200 participants in each market that we're in. So like I said, we've already launched in China, Australia, New Zealand, India. And we're starting to launch in other markets across the globe. And so we're really trying to get as many participants as possible. So we could also do in-depth analysis within each market and also ensure that we are being representative. enough in each market. So we would welcome anyone and everyone who would love to share their opinions on what makes for an effective leader. Well, and I think it's also important to point out here that, you know, I know, of course, a lot of our audience works in the HR or development space. I think it's important that we get people who participate from other areas, other parts of businesses and organizations because, you know, it may be that HR departments or organization development departments have a particular view on who they would like to lead them, but perhaps engineers have a different point of view. Perhaps accounts have a different point of view. And I think it's really important that we try to get as many points of view included as we can to really understand how these things might be different. So to reiterate, and Chris, this point, we really are looking for involvement from anyone in any part of an organization who wants to contribute. Well, and Chris, you know, just so that we can, I want to close this out because we, we want to be mindful of your time because you've, you've had such a long travel schedule. So in closing, what are you hoping to see from the results? And do you expect to see any surprises? Yeah, I don't have any specific expectations other than hearing what people have to say. And yeah, I do expect surprises. In one hand, you know, maybe everyone says the same thing, maybe everyone says, yeah, we think this makes for an effective leader and there is just like a very, very clear trend across the globe. But I actually suspect it's going to be a little different. And, you know, what's really going to be interesting is what I've noticed for the emergent leader data is that the HDS in particular is really representative about what leadership looks like in that particularly country. And so I'm really interested to see, you know, the differences between the characteristics of all three inventories. So we're going to be able to say, you know, oh, you know, for example, in China, maybe people think that leaders who are lower on bolder, better, or maybe leaders who are higher on sociability. I'm just saying this, I don't know if that's going to be the case or not, but we'll be able to see which characteristics people are saying, according to our Hogan's scales, makes for an effective leader or not. And we'll also look at competency. So I'm really curious as to what the different markets will say. We can also look into different nebographics. We'll males say the same thing as females or what people, you know, males and females have different concepts of what an effective leader looks like. So I am just really curious what's going to happen. Well, Chris, you made an point there that we haven't really talked about much is that I believe as part of the study, we're also including the Hogan competency, right, what we call the set, the competency evaluation tool. That's included in this, right? Yeah, I believe so, yes. Yeah, so not only are we getting, you know, sort of the Hogan sort of scales, those Hogan personality characteristics that are most critical for leading effectively, but also the set of competencies. And so there's lots of avenues for exploration here in terms of maybe it's a similar sense of personality traits across two different regions or two different markets, but different sets of competencies. There's all kinds of nuance that we can discover from these data, but the first step, of course, is getting participation from so many people around the globe. And so we're very fortunate position to have an incredible network, an incredible global network of Hogan distributors, Hogan practitioners, hoving coaches all over the world who can help drive participation this way. Many, many people would love to be able to collect the kind of data we're collecting with this study and we're in a really great position to be able to do that thanks to so many wonderful partnerships that we've garnered over many, many years. And that's going to put us in a position to really deliver some insights to our clients in those regions and all over the world that nobody else can really tap into. So really excited over the next year as these data come in to take a look at them. That's an excellent point, Ryan. And if you are listening from outside of the US, which I know we do have some podcast listeners, a lot in Australia and India, then please reach out to our local distributors there. So for example, in Australia and New Zealand, we have Peter Berry consultancy. In India, we have three fish consulting. We've actually also launched in both mainland China and Taiwan. So we have a mobile group Pacific edge basin optimal and we have empower leaders in mainland China. We also have infeligent in Taiwan. So please reach out to your distributors because they're also partnering with us on this project and they can send you the link and the information and they can also do it in your local language. Well, Chris, thanks so much for joining us. I think this is going to be a great episode and really, really glad that you could take the time out to talk with us about this new study. Yeah. Well, I am so happy that we're launching it and I hope that everyone will participate. But thank you so much, Ryan and thank you, Blake. It's always a pleasure to get to talk to you at the podcast. And that does it for the Science of Personality podcast episode 115. Be sure to join us in two weeks for another fun and informative episode. Cheers everybody. This has been the Science of Personality podcast brought to you by Hogan assessments. You can access all podcast episodes on our website, the scienceofpersonality.com, or on the streaming service of your choice. See you next time.