The Leadership Divide (Episode 4): Trust, Belonging, and the Cost of Getting It Wrong

Speaker A: Hogan Assessments just dropped research that proves what we've all suspected. The people getting promoted into leadership and the people employees want to work for. Two completely different set of traits. Imagine that. Download their free global report at Hogan to. I hated here. This is the Leadership Divide, a special podcast series of host and assessments in partnership with I hate it here. I'm Hippa Youssef, and this is the finale. I know. I'm just as sad as you. Episode 4 of 4. Across this series, we've built the case. Leadership doesn't fail because people aren't trying. It fails because we select and develop leaders on the wrong criteria. This episode is the bill coming due. When leadership goes wrong. Trust and belonging. Ah, are the first to go. People stop using official channels and start whispering after meetings. And there's another cost that shows up in the data. A stubborn gender disparity among leaders that Hogan's research says is propped up by myths and not real differences. To close the loop, I'm bringing back the person who opened up the series. Allison Howell is the CEO of Hogan Assessments, where she leads the company's global strategy, product innovation, and market growth, advancing Hogan's mission to deliver scientifically rigorous, ethical and impactful personality assessments that support better talent decisions worldwide. We started with why this moment matters, and we're going to end it with what to actually do about it. Let's get into it. Alison, welcome back.

Speaker B: Thank you. I'm, uh, thrilled to be back.

Speaker A: I have had such a blast throughout this series. Like, leadership is one of my favorite topics. But then everyone kept bringing the data, and I was like, wow. I get to geek out about my favorite topic and I get to geek out about the data with these really cool people who know a lot.

Speaker B: You're in good company.

Speaker A: I know. And I'm so sad this is coming to an end because we've spent, like, three episodes making the case that we select and develop leaders on the wrong criteria, which every time I post a clip, people are like, preach, preach. Louder, louder. But I have to ask you about the consequences of this. So we've talked about in three episodes. Now that the bill's due, what's the first thing that breaks when leadership goes wrong?

Speaker B: It is a big question, and there's so many different ways to take this, but to kind of bring it down to, you know, brass tacks. The. The. The first things that go are the things that we outlined as the most important in previous episodes. Communication, trust, um, sense of integrity. There is so much cognitive dissonance that come. That comes up for People when they're working in an environment where leadership is just, just wrong. Um, it's, it's hard to talk about like, how leadership goes wrong because I think it's more likely to do it wrong than it is to do it right because there's so many factors at play. Um, and it can derail, as you know now with the learning about the dark side that we can all derail in such different ways, but really it is the degradation of the relationships that we have with other people. And that's really the starting point.

Speaker A: Yeah. And interpersonal relationships, there's a stat somewhere, I reference it quite a bit in newsletters about amount, um, of hours people spend in conflict in the workplace. And I'm just like, yeah, also when your leaders are bad and they're causing chaos, you're also navigating all that chaos in the workplace. And then where is their actual time to, I don't know, think about the work you need to get done.

Speaker B: Exactly. We're so wrapped up in our interpersonal relationships. And this person said this and can you believe that this happened and whatnot. It is a huge stress or so complicated and messy.

Speaker A: Okay, but let's talk about trust and, um, belonging. Why are those canaries in the coal mine and what does their absence actually look like day to day?

Speaker B: So, um, trust and belonging are. We talk about them so much. And working in the HR space, you hear all sorts of things around the importance of belonging and psychological safety and trust and all that. Um, I, um, think it's important to call out exactly what we're doing here is why these things are important. And belonging is what gets you up in the morning. Right. If you do not feel that you are part of something at work, you really lose motivation fast. You become disengaged. When you are working for somebody that you don't feel that you can trust, you feel like uh, an outsider. You feel like, uh, you're kind of questioning reality always of, you know, is this person telling me what I need to know? Do they really have my best interests? And with the amount of time that we spend at work, that's huge. You know, you don't want to spend the majority of your life feeling uncomfortable and like you're, you're not trusted, valued, you're not part of a team. And so, so that is just so important. It's really fundamental. And no matter, and no matter which way leadership goes wrong, I think that is, that is, uh, underlying all of this, that when you don't have trust, you don't have cohesion. You don't have that sense of attachment to the work that you're doing.

Speaker A: Yeah, the trust is everything. Like, it's just one. And I always say for hr, like, we. I think we start from, like, a negative place of trust with employees, rightfully so. I think there are a lot of really bad HR teams. I was just recording a podcast episode. Someone talking about this like, it is hard to regain that trust once it's lost, but it's also just not freely given. So we have to think about. Trust is like a constant currency at work. Something that we have to build towards, something that we have to be leaders that can actually instill that, otherwise the chaos just ensues.

Speaker B: Yeah, actually, you're. You're making me think of something that I hadn't considered before. Um, I think that there is. I want to be really careful and talking about generational differences because I don't want to imply that there's ageism there, but I think culturally, generations experience very different things. And as people who are, you know, older in the working environment, there's been. I mentioned this on the last podcast we did together, that there's sort of this expectation of an employer that, you know, I think of my. My mom and her attitude towards work, and you. You sort of expect that your employer is going to be a benevolent person that's going to look out for you, and as long as you're showing up as a good worker, they're gonna. They're gonna have your back. And I think most people who are Gen Z, Gen. Well, uh, I don't know if Gen Alpha's in the working world just yet, but, you know, people on the younger side, they've seen that breakdown in trust and know they come in naturally saying, I don't trust this work environment. This is corporate. They need to make money. They care about shareholder value above anything. And so I need to look out for myself. And I think we're seeing that friction right now for sure.

Speaker A: And I think, like, so you. You have data. So Hogan's data shows that when trust breaks down, people stop doing things like using official channels. Information gets sideways. Like gossip happens more. Even though I do love there's a popular podcast about gossip, but bad gossip here, why does that matter more than people think?

Speaker B: So, a couple of things to one, I just want to point out that I'm mixing data sources a little bit. And so I'm talking about trust leaning, uh, into some work that was not our work, but it was done by Edelman. And looking at trust and it breaks down how when trust goes to the wayside, people kind of retreat inward and they don't want to share information. They're skeptical of the information that's coming to them. You look for people in your small M network that are like minded, you know, similar, where you feel there's sort of that natural, um, even if it's not trust, there's a connection point and common ground.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: And so Edelman, it's a great report. I mentioned last time that looking at how that's happened over years, it's this, uh, they call it a retreat into insularity, I think, where we're kind of in our echo chambers and only surrounded by like minded people. Um, I think that is really interesting to bring it back though, to The Gossip, Part 1. Gossip isn't inherently bad. Some people might argue with me on that, but it's not inherently bad. Gossip serves a really important purpose in society. Um, and I could, I could get out my soapbox and go on and on about how gossip has evolved and how gendered it is and whatnot, but it's one of these things that is a lifeline for a lot of people. And so when you're in environments where trust is low, the only quote unquote reliable information you can get is oftentimes through unofficial channels like gossip. Now that comes with costs because you can't assume that it's reliable, of course, but when you don't know what's happening, you're going to go to these people in your inner circle and say, okay, what do you know? What do you know? And you're going to try to find out information. And so that fills a gap that exists when you have the official channels that you just naturally don't trust and you have the people who are kind of in the, in the, um, the trenches with you trying to make sense of their working world. And that gossip's just gonna proliferate when, when there's that breakdown.

Speaker A: Yeah, I was trying to remember the podcast. It was called Normal Gossip, where they talk about the role of gossip. I, I mean, I'm a fan, even though my mom would tell me it's very bad. But like, there's, there's interesting things there. Like what are people talking about at work or in the in. Because I can tell you so much about how people are really feeling and experiencing work. And there, there are trends to gossip that could be studied at work. Like if it's always about the same thing, if the same thing keeps coming up, like eventually you have to Ask yourself, why is this thing being talked about?

Speaker B: Exactly. Exactly.

Speaker A: And you figure out why.

Speaker B: Yeah. And I think, um, this is something as I've change in my role, my, um, pipeline for gossip has gotten shorter and shorter, and I feel like I'm flying blind because there's something that's a little bit centering about gossip, where you can think something's one way and then you hear bits of gossip from other, uh, folks and realize, okay, actually there's a different perspective that I hadn't considered. And so it, it really helps balance out what's happening. But leaders, you know, as they grow or, uh, rise within an organization, you don't get people being that honest with you. And, and it is such a valuable thing. It's really tough.

Speaker A: I would agree. We have to come. You have to come back for another episode on Just Gossip. We can, we can talk about the role.

Speaker B: I could go deep. I can. We can go back to like, um, Witches of Salem and the roll of gossip. I'm telling you, I think it's so fascinating.

Speaker A: It's actually so funny because my friend Ryan May calls me the Lady Whistledown of hr. And so now I just giggle about that. She's like, don't make me tell my friend she's the Lady Whistledown of hr. And I'm like, first of all, what do you. What kind of reporting do you think I'm doing? Like, I am not. I'm not even a journalist. Like, I was like, I'm not a reporter. I'm a creator. Like, it doesn't matter. I tell people not to make me angry. Cause I'll tell the lady whistle down to Major. I'm like, please slow down.

Speaker B: You know. You know, that's. It's a gift to be the one in the know of things.

Speaker A: I love being in the know. It's very interesting. On the note of the. No. I mentioned in my intro, like, this gender disparity piece. Your research, the research that you all found has found out it's actually propped up by myths rather than real differences. What are these myths we're talking about? What is the data actually telling you about gender disparity?

Speaker B: Yeah. So, uh, I had to write them down because they're. They're numerous here. So I had to remind myself. But the. We. We did some really good research, and this is not something I can take credit for. Our research team ran with this, uh, looking at personality differences, uh, across the globe, basically, and seeing. Trying to really look and see if there are differences between men and women in personality. The Short answer is no. There's a longer answer that I'll get to. But what we were really looking into was trying to test out these ideas of that women are not as ambitious as men are, women are less decisive or less likely to take risks. Women aren't natural leaders. Women have to start acting more like a man in the working world to succeed. Women can't handle high stress roles. Women are less innovative or strategic.

Speaker A: I'm all like, no, not true.

Speaker B: I know. Well, I mean, if you're a woman in the workplace, uh, you know these stereotypes very well. And uh, it's, it was really interesting to unpack it with clear data around like these, these personality characteristics that we have. Um, the other part that was really interesting about this research was it was compared to performance data as well. And so seeing if a man and a woman are, uh, equal levels of, of ambition, the ambition scale, are women kind of punished in the working environment? And what was really interesting about that is no, I fully expect it to be different. I had to sit with this for a while and say, wait a second, this is actually challenging my lived experience here and really try to unpack it. So I'll let you react to that. Cause I, it's, it is something you just kind of have to like, wait, what? No, that can't be right.

Speaker A: I also, I, I think I need a minute, I need timeout. Because like, I, I felt the same way. I'm m. So when you started sharing this data, I honestly like parked up and leaned forward because so much of my lived experience when I'm reading research, I'm looking to validate. Right? And when the research shows that that's not actually the case, I'm so curious as to why then, like, why did I have this experience? Is it a me problem? An environment problem? Like that famous Taylor Swift joke? It's, hi, it's me. Um, I'm the problem. It's me. I'm like, I think about that all the time. I'm like, is it me? So this data to me is quite surprising. Like I, I thought you would have said yes, yes.

Speaker B: So let me tell you where I've gone with this because, you know, we had this data come out and I thought, what am I supposed to do with this? If we're saying there are no differences, what do we, what does that mean? Because there are differences. There are noticeable differences. And how I've been interpreting this is that personality can only explain so much. And when broken down in the way that we do with our scales and subscales we find these universal behaviors. How those behaviors are expressed in the real world changes depending on the context and where we at our core might not be statistically different than men. How we learn to adapt is different. And so things like not being uh, or the, the stereotype around women not being a risk taker, that might just look very different. I might take risks, but it's not going to be the cliff diving kind of risk or like let's bet all this on, on seven kind of risk. It might be a hold up. I think that there's an interesting path we can take. Let me research it and see. And a quieter kind of risk taking if you will. Um, you can't. It's not, you know, it's like this or this necessarily because there's all sorts of uh, colors to the way that people express these things. But we're so accustomed to looking at things through the mail. The. Excuse me, looking at things through the lens of um, kind of this patriarchal approach that when women are actually showing their ambition or their risk taking capabilities it just probably looks a lot different.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's so interesting. There is this article about how women are better investors than men. Like they do take risk, they do take good investment risks, but they take more calculated and like safer risks. I think was like the end of the study that I read which I was like I'm fascinated because I'm like oh, we're better investors. Like I bring that up so regularly to people too. I'm like did you all know?

Speaker B: Uh, yes, there's. There's one topic right now that I keep reading more and more about which is the gender differences in AI use. And um, there's. There's big pushes, huge PR pushes coming from Silicon Valley to try to get women more engaged with AI right now. And there's this really lengthy report from Harvard Business Review I think uh, that goes into actually I think it's like country level differences and women and really unpacks is first. Is it true? Is there a gap in use on AI? But then why. And when you really dig into it you see that women are just much more, they think a lot more critically about the impact of AI where it fits into your life. Like it is not uh, women are not able to use AI. It's an active choice to not use AI because of the potential risks. And I think that's fascinating.

Speaker A: Yeah. When the, all the articles came out it was like women are less likely to adopt AI. I'm like are you. I'm was. I wasn't surprised by that, because I was, like, knowing myself, like, I don't speak for a whole group of people. Okay, I understand that. But I'm like, yeah, because a new tech comes out and I don't throw myself headfirst into adopting it. I stop and ask myself, like, what are the impacts of this thing that are going to happen? How is it going to be implemented? Who is it going to help or hurt? Who is it going to harm? Like, those were the thoughts I was having with AI, And I would still put myself more on, like, the skeptic side than the full adopter side. Like, I talk about use cases and how to use them in the newsletter, but I always say, don't forget, there's these drawbacks, too. You have to remember, sometimes there's bias. You have to also think about if you care about our environment, there's environmental impact to a lot of the tech we're using. Like, yes, uh, there are things to keep into consideration. And so I also wouldn't. Was not surprised when that study came out, and the first thing they were said, we need more women in AI. And I'm like, do we? Or do we all need to have a collective pause and actually ask ourselves, what is this tool going to do to our lives?

Speaker B: Exactly. That is, uh, right there with you.

Speaker A: Okay, I need to talk about this real quick because it absolutely sent me Hogan assessments compared personality data from over 21,000 executives against what nearly 10,000 employees across 25 different markets want from a leader. When they looked at the top five competencies of current executives versus the top five competencies employees are begging for, guess what they found? That there's zero overlap. I wish I was joking. Hogan has the world's largest database of personality research, and they used it to create a free global report called the Leadership Divide. It quantifies the gap, so you can finally stop explaining it in every skip level you've ever had. Download it at Hogan to. I hate it here. Um, so as we're talking about this gender disparity, like, for anyone who's listening and might be skeptical, what's the strongest evidence that the gap is about flawed criteria and not about real differences in capability?

Speaker B: This is a, uh, is a really good question to ask because I think if you were to just look at our data set, there would be a really strong inclination to say, that can't be true. It's gotta be something in the way that this is measured. Um, what tells me that this is actually really valid and we need to start looking elsewhere is Part of our research that we've done for the last 40 or so years is constantly measuring for differences across different groups and adverse impact. So we have a library of studies looking at differences in gender differences with sexual orientation, with race, with socioeconomic status, all sorts of things. And repeatedly we find that there are no differences. Um, um, and I sh. Just the caveat I should say there are no meaningful differences. Sometimes we'll see some statistical differences, but they're very, very small and really don't have any sort of real world impact. So the results of this research. I don't know the myths around women in leadership. It's not surprising when you put it in that context. And again, because I've sat with this for so much just trying to think of, okay, what do I do with this? I think the takeaway is that we really need to stop talking about the challenges that women face in the working world as an individual problem and start saying, wait a second, this is systemic and how can we make an impact on the systems?

Speaker A: Sure is. I just. I came off of a call earlier today was where I was ranting about how like a such a small percentage of venture capital goes to women or underrepresented groups for funding. And I keep coming back to this overwhelming feeling that it doesn't. There's a bad, ah, reference, but a Taylor Swift song called the man. And basically in the whole song, she talks about how she wouldn't have to work as hard and her life would look different and if she was just a man, she'd be granted these things. And I think about that so often when we're looking at this type of research because I do wonder, like, if I was a man, like, would this look different? And hearing you say we can't address this as an individual problem, this has to be a real look at the systems we have into place. Um, it actually excites me because the system is where I think we can make real change. Like even things like, uh, remote work is better for working mothers or flexible working policies is better for working mothers. I like, think about that. And I think systems we can fix individuals. I think we're each always going to be unique and special and different in our own ways. But I do think we can build better systems around supporting all types of leaders and not just a, uh, certain profile has to be the thing that we associate with leadership.

Speaker B: Right, Right. Exactly. On top of that, I think the conversation is so often pointed at the individuals because that feels more manageable. Right. When we can change systems. Right. It is A bigger lift. And it requires working together and trying to really take a look at things and examining them to see if is this working for everybody or is this working for a select few? And so it can feel really daunting. Uh, so the individual's easier, but it's absolutely the direction that we need to go.

Speaker A: Yeah. Um, um, let's like zoom out for a second. If an org takes nothing else from this whole series where we've really been talking about this leadership divide, um, what's the one change to how they pick or develop leaders that would actually move the needle most?

Speaker B: Again, big question, because changing systems is really, really hard.

Speaker A: Uh, Allison comes on the pod and I'm like, I'm going to ask the hardest I could possibly think of and I'm going to demand. I mean, listen, like, I, I understand, like, we can't speak for everyone and we don't have all the answers, but I, I think there's so much here and so much expertise and knowledge you have. I could help people who are really trying to figure out, I don't want to keep messing up. Picking the wrong people for leadership. What can I actually do?

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. So I think the kind of the standard answers is we get questions like this all the time as we talk about what's wrong in the leadership space. The kind of easy answer I think is also hard to implement, which is changing the processes. Making sure that processes for recruitment, uh, hiring, selection, et cetera, are data driven, not based on biases and things like that. Development, making sure that there's clear opportunities for everybody and that the opportunities are tailored to individual needs and not kind of one size fits all approach and, uh, you know, all sorts of different things. If I were to tell you, though, just change your recruitment processes, that's a little bit like, okay, why don't you just move this boulder up a hill? You know, processes are in place. They're really hard to change. So, um, can I share? I. I've been sitting on this term for a while that I, I learned via TikTok, but I. It's just something that, that sits with me for a long time because so many people are like, okay, what. What can I do about it? Anarchist calisthenics. Have you heard of this before?

Speaker A: No. Okay.

Speaker B: It's a little wild, but bear with me. So it sounds a little bit, um, nefarious, right? With anarchy and the name, but it's not the idea. Underneath it is that with calisthenics, it's about small movements to kind of build strength over Time. Right. So pushing against systems in very small ways over time builds up that strength and builds more momentum for changing processes. So if I'm in HR or if I'm in a leadership role and I'm thinking how can I tackle these processes? I think it really comes down to these small things and making sure that if I am a hiring manager and I'm recruiting somebody, I say okay, let me, let me make sure that I have the right data. I need to evaluate, maybe I need to lean into some best practices and maybe it's not changing the process, but bit by bit you start kind uh, of going against the grain and, and that becomes easier and easier to change the process.

Speaker A: I'd love I, the idea of small movements. I, I literally did this. Just such a silly small movement to make change. Like it, it can be so overwhelming when you're thinking about dramatically changing systems. In fact, this is like a book I want to write because I feel so passionate about it. It's, it's hard to think of that dramatic. To completely un, unravel something we've done for so long and try to build something new can be so overwhelming in a world where the average HR leader is already overwhelmed. We're dealing with AI, we're dealing with burnt out people. We're dealing with our own burnout, we're dealing with lack of resources, little support. We're trying to figure out the world post Covid rto, not RTO like pay transparency, not like so many things. It can be so overwhelming to think that to change a whole system feels such, like a, such a daunting task to take on. So I love this idea of little things. Little things add up to something big someday. I've always said that walking every day can lead to maybe you're running a mile in a year, working out and lifting £20 can lead to lifting £50 in five months. Right. Like the little things can add up. And so I love this idea of thinking about what are the tiny things that I can just tweak lightly and over time potentially then the outcome is the thing that I've very much wanted to change.

Speaker B: Yes. Yeah, I think along those lines too. It is, it's not always easy to imagine what the impact of those small changes can have on other people too. It's sort of the butterfly effect idea. Um, but the, it's the easiest path is to do things like they've always been done. Right. Especially like you said, in this world of just crazy distractions and uh, you know, all these technologies that are Supposed to make our life easier, end up just giving us more work and 8,000 platforms to check messages on and things like that. It's just. It's really difficult. So going the path of least resistance and just saying, okay, somebody else did this. Uh, so I'm going to do it this way, because this is how it's been done. That's. It feels natural and it feels safe. But when you do change the trajectory, even just slightly, it can have such an impact and motivate other people. I actually just had a conversation with one of my coworkers where I kind of actively made a different choice than others would have made. And she reached out and she's like, this was really motivating for me to actually make some changes on my team, too. And I was blown away. It was really touching to hear that there was an impact like that. But the more we see other people making these small changes, the more we feel like, okay, I can do this too, and we can. We can tackle it so you can slowly get that boulder up the mountain.

Speaker A: Yeah, I just. I have such a negative reaction to. People are like, this is how we've always done it. Because I'm like, that doesn't work anymore. It didn't work 10 years ago, and it really does not work right now anymore. You cannot tell me this is how we've always done it. I also, like, uh, excuse me for being such a nerd right now, but, like, I believe that I. I have a creative. HR is a creative art that I am doing. I don't want to continue to paint the same flower. I want to create something new and exciting and innovative. And that means, like, I have to make those little changes so that the portrait looks different a year from now. Like, I. I just don't think this job is meant to be. This is how we've always done things, because then we are not the strategic function I want us so deeply to be.

Speaker B: Yes. Yes. I love that. That's beautiful. And when you look at the complexity of people, it is art. And I think sometimes, you know, because I've been in the HR space for such a long time, you. You kind of know the. The reputation that HR has in the rest of the world. And it's like, no, it is beautiful. People are so interesting, so unique. Uh, yes, they can be really challenging at times. But it's worth it, right? It's worth it to kind of work at making the workplace better and building these relationships.

Speaker A: I got that fight in me. Allison, don't worry. Someday I'll probably be like too much. I have fought for too many years, I'm out. But until then I will keep fighting because I just think work should look better for all of us. It can be better for all of us. We just have to have the real hard conversations about what is not working and why. And this like very selection of leaders is probably a place where we could have such massive impact. Think of every single, I don't know a single person at work who has not complained about a leader they have worked with or a manager that they have had. So now imagine if we got even better at ah, putting the right people into those positions, what the world of work could actually look like.

Speaker B: Yes, yes. I love imagining this. It's a little cheesy but it just makes me think of the uh, Barbie movie and uh, the idyllic environment with all the Barbies working together. We could have that. We could work together and build these relationships and take care of one another. It requires a lot of work to shift, but it could happen.

Speaker A: It does. Uh, okay, so we opened up this series talking about how we are at an inflection point. I really, I deeply feel like we're at this really interesting point of work. If an organization gets this right, learns how to better select leaders, what does leadership look like five years from now?

Speaker B: Again, it's sort of that Barbie environment, I hate to say it, that's obviously, that's a little extreme. But, but really I think leader leadership in five years is one where I think the people are able to bring a sense of control back to the, to the working world and not feeling like you're constantly on this hamster wheel of just trying to keep up and.

Speaker A: Mhm.

Speaker B: We, I mean I'm saying this as a leader myself, is trying to envision a world where people are not in constant burnout, constant derailment mode and they actually like coming to work and they want to contribute. Because I think at their core people do want to work. Um, we have. Corporate America's gotten. Yeah, we have to. But I think even, even I think they've done some studies of uh, places where there's universal income that people are still wanting to work but they are maybe able to dedicate their time to things that they actually care about. And I think that's a really beautiful thing. If we can feel more of a sense of importance about the work that we're doing and not feel like we're having to show up and log in every morning and just do the bare minimum that just, it makes everybody's Lives a lot richer. It makes the working environment more pleasant, it builds our relationships. And so I see, you know, we have this path going with tech bros and AI and all of this stuff to just kind of remove everything that gives life meaning basically. Yeah, we can say wait a second, that's not the path that we need to take. Let's diverge and actually bring back the these things that really color our lives and in really cool ways.

Speaker A: Yeah, uh, I thought had to thumbs down the tech bro lifestyle. It's just so interesting because I remember I referenced earlier like that stat about the percentage of time people spend in conflict at work. I wish we did more studies about like the chaos at work as well because I do think if in five years we've learned to better select a leaders that you would think then work is full of less strife like that. Every person walks into work and knows I know what's expected of me. I understand how we operate here. I know how we get things done and there's less overall strife and confusion about it. But I think chaos just feels like such a constant at ah work that I'm like maybe if we learn to measure that then in five years we could say we got better at selecting leaders and the chaos actually went down. We can never control the world outside. We can't control that chaos ever. You and I both know that.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: We can control a lot of our internal chaos. And a lot of our internal chaos I do believe comes from bad leaders and people who aren't equipped to do the job.

Speaker B: Absolutely, Absolutely. I've been thinking a lot about um, the element of discomfort in the workplace. And I. It's something I've just been sitting with lately because there are a lot of things that are supposed to make our lives easier, more efficient and whatnot that kind of take away some of the, you know, the boring tasks or the redundant things that we spend our time doing. And I think we, especially in America have such a attitude towards like let's try to eliminate any kind of discomfort and any sort of stress. And that's always the goal. And I, lately I've been feeling like actually I think that's, that's wrong. I, I certainly, I would love to reduce my stress levels. I think everyone can benefit from it. But I think there is an element of saying what is bad stress and what is good stress and what uh, you know, what is some of that discomfort that we just have to say is part of life to make sure that we're, you know, we're not just getting complacent Right. So you, sometimes that discomfort can help us grow, but it's gotta be the right kind of discomfort. Um, so it's, Yeah, I, I'm, I'm right there with you. I would love to get rid of some of the chaos, but I think if we can rein into some of these things that are unnecessary, then we can have maybe the stress that's actually a little more beneficial to us.

Speaker A: The good stress, the good friction, like discomfort is a sign of growth. Like it, it, uh, you're, you're uncomfortable because you're experiencing something potentially you've never experienced before. I don't think it should be the outcome of a bad leader creating so much strife amongst everybody that you're uncomfortable at work because you have navigate that every single day. That I think is ridiculous. So, yes, I mean, I, I, I agree. Like us being uncomfortable, it's a, it's a good thing, it's a good factor, but it not at the, at the outcome of a leader doing it. Because they're a bad leader.

Speaker B: Exactly. Yes, 100%.

Speaker A: So we have asked everybody this season, yourself included, what's one thing organizations keep getting wrong about how they choose and develop their leaders? And what does it look like to actually get it right? As we wrap up this series, is there anything else you want to add to the people who are listening?

Speaker B: Yeah, I, We've unpacked this so much over the course of these four episodes. Uh, it's hard to find something new, but I think it is really the being able to question what has been done before and is that serving us? And if not, then finding the small ways to make some changes to, to bring about some bigger change.

Speaker A: Yeah. Why? I was telling someone the other day, like, the number one question I used to ask my mom was like, why? I would irritate her with every single why. I'd be like, why are we doing that? Why is it like that? Why should. Why this, why that? And she was like, you were, you asked so many annoying questions. And I was like, well, I just grew up into an adult who also does the same thing. But that has kind of led me to like, have more fun in HR than I thought I ever could have had. Because once you start unraveling the why behind the way we do everything, you start to realize potentially there's no data to back it up. There's no process that says you have to do it that way. And then you get to start imagining a very different world for yourself. And that sounds a little bit like a fantasy, but I love that. That's what keeps me coming back to this work day after day. Is that the why? A lot of the reasons we do things are set in stone, and we don't always have to do the same way.

Speaker B: Exactly. I'm right there with you.

Speaker A: This has been such a treat to get to meet everyone at Hogan to talk with you all about the data. I'm such a data nerd, and you all gave me so much good food for thought. Um, for people looking to get in touch with you, learn more about the assessment, learn more about Hogan. What's the best way for them to reach out?

Speaker B: Uh, LinkedIn, of course. Um, our place. Yeah. LinkedIn. Yep. That's where we live these days. And I don't love social media, so that's probably about the only place to find me right now. But otherwise, of course, you know, I website and Hogan has social media and other platforms as well, but that's the best way for sure.

Speaker A: Allison, I am so grateful for our time together. I've learned so much throughout this series. You've given me, like, a new zest for life when it comes to leaders. I'm usually complaining about how awful they are, and now I'm like, you know what? I can complain, but I can actually share some data about it, too. So I just want to build a future where we're not constantly disappointed by the leaders we have, and I think we can do that.

Speaker B: Uh, agreed. It is a worthy goal.

Speaker A: Yay. Thank you so much for being here.

Speaker B: Thank you. This has been so much fun. Thank you so much.