It was a pleasant surprise to learn that Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic was one of the keynote speakers at this year’s ATD conference in Taiwan in October. It had been a long time since we last saw the former CEO of Hogan Assessment at the Hogan Asia Pacific conference in Bangkok, so there was much to catch up on! 

Despite an extremely tight schedule, not to mention a severe typhoon on the way to Taiwan, Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic made time to meet with Taiwan’s Hogan Alumni for a data-packed and insightful conversation. He began by posing a series of thought-provoking questions:

What is the strongest driver of employee performance? 

Since first proposed by Dr. Robert Hogan, the idea that a good leader should be defined based on how he or she can build and maintain a high performing team rather than holding a leadership title is a more established view, at least here at the Hogan/Infelligent alumni crowd. Because of that, the answer that direct boss/line manager is a stronger driver did not come as a surprise. 

Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic further pointed out that a good leader should be a resource for the group. Talented leaders “enable people to collaborate effectively, turning a group of people into a high-performing team”. In essence, Tomas said, concepts like “Servant leadership” by Robert Greenleaf and “the leader as coach” by Herminia Ibarra are sort of redundant because leaders should encompass all these characteristics. They should care about the wellbeing of their subordinates, be humble, understand the employees’ potential, give them feedback, guide them to deploy their skills and abilities…all that. 

He invoked the recent concept “debossification of leadership” proposed by Rishad Tobaccowala calls out to what we don’t need in our leaders – ones with just the titles, the authorities, the use of power, ones who tell you what to do – and what we need in leaders – the opposite – leaders who influence rather than control, take a learning mindset, and provides continuous feedback. 

In Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic's words, leadership is fundamentally a psychological process of coordinating human activities, a task made complex by the intricacies of human nature. He referenced Freud's insights on the conflicting pro-social and anti-social tendencies that all humans possess. Freud argued that a leader's role is to help articulate and navigate these tensions, allowing individuals to temporarily set aside their selfish inclinations in favor of group goals. He used Nvidia as an example of effective leadership: as one of the most valuable companies globally, Nvidia distinguishes itself through its innovative strategies and leadership practices. 

What is leadership? 

Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic quoted Gianpiero Petriglieri’s definition of leadership: “Leadership is an argument with tradition, an argument with the past. Nobody is truly a leader if he is just there to keep things going or to maintain the status quo. So fundamentally, leaders have this dialectic, this fight with the past that they know is no longer fit for the future. They are a vessel, or a conduit connects a past that is almost defined or should be obsolete with a future that hasn’t been created yet… If you could persuade people that there is a better future or better direction, then it’s easier for them to abandon the past.”  

Is leadership talent measurable?

 He gave a definite “yes” to this question. To Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic, performance is a function of talent and effort, and talent is “performance minus effort. It leads to extraordinary accomplishments not due to luck, privilege, nepotism or mere hard work (grinding it).” Talented leaders “engage, motivate, enable teams to win.” So, leadership talent is measured by team or group impact and not personal success. 

Do some people have more potential of leadership talents than others? If talent is performance minus effort, potential is “talent before it happens.” But what is the stage you can identify earlier signs for this potential that enables you to be ahead of the game? That is the role personality plays. And when you have sufficient data points, organizations can make informed predictions. In essence, leaders with more talents for leadership engage, motivate, and enable performance in teams.  

Why are some people more talented leaders? 

Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic then addressed why certain individuals display greater leadership talent. Citing findings from a 2013 paper he authored with Robert Hogan and Robert Kaiser- Employability and Career Success: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Reality”, he highlighted three determinants: ability, likability, and drive. Ability relates to cognitive capacity and curiosity, while likability encompasses interpersonal skills. Drive relates to work ethic and motivation. While some traits may be hereditary, external influences also play significant roles in their development.

What is the ROI of leadership talent? 

When talented leaders are in place, improvements in team productivity, profitability, engagement, morale, and overall well-being are notable, while issues like turnover, burnout, and employee dissatisfaction decline. In recent years, burnout has become a pressing global challenge; in the U.S., 75% of individuals are expected to encounter burnout at some point in their lives, a significant rise compared to 50% before the pandemic. Often, this burnout stems from direct managers who are themselves struggling.

Why did good employees become bad managers and why is there always a gap between the leaders we need and the leaders we get? Research indicates that only 30% of competent individual contributors transition into effective managers, and similarly, only 30% of good managers become effective leaders. 

Several factors contribute to this phenomenon, including an overemphasis on past success and personal achievements, the prevalence of politics and intuition over data, and the neglect of leadership potential. Consequently, organizations may be inadvertently hindering their systems. While individuals focus on building their teams and accomplishments, competitors may be managing up, gaining an advantage in office politics. This is where data-driven decisions can help ensure that leadership choices are made objectively. The use of assessments, data analytics, and AI now is even more important. These tools can help quantitize biases. Tomas thinks the biggest opportunity to maximize the use and impact of assessments in the workplace is not to keep changing the assessments or the predictors but to “sanitize and decontaminate” the outcome. 

Can we improve leadership talent and if so, how? 

Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic explained that after selecting the right people, ongoing development is crucial. This is when the science of personality should transit to the art of coaching, adding human touches and personal factors into the equation. He humorously noted that changes are effective only when individuals genuinely desire them, a sentiment expressed through the joke: "How many people does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one if the lightbulb wants to be changed." This analogy applies to humans: while people may recognize the need for change, they often struggle with the difficulty of breaking old habits and adopting new ones. He emphasized that coaching is vital for leadership development, but the willingness to change—often referred to as "coachability"—is inherently tied to personality.

Now, what make people coachable?

 They are more capable of self-awareness, open to feedback, more humble, more curious, and more self-critical. But if you are on the other end of the spectrum, a HDS would reveal the derailers. Being bold, mischievous, skeptical… all lower your coachability gradually. The 30-30 rule says 30% of the people can be expected to improve by 30%. The key is getting the selection right. One of the flaws in the selection process is lack of communication between talent acquisition and development. By doing the selection and promotion right, the ROI of coaching would be higher.