Thursday, November 12, 2009

Posted especially for vocal sports enthusiasts...

Risk Assessment Quiz Question:

What CDR Risk Factor does this cartoon depict?

(Those of you with low Amusement & Hedonism scores may wish to ignore...)

(Answer: Upstager)

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Can You Teach Empathy?

Here is a question that was posted on an ASTD LinkedIn board the other day. A couple of training consultants disagreed with my comments and the the entire post was taken down last night.

The Original Post: It's always been our thinking that you can't teach empathy, but it seems to be harder and harder to find applicants who can actually demonstrate it. What do you think?

My response:

Great discussion.

I have a couple of points to add. Inherently, some people have high levels of empathy some have very little to none. In terms of normal personality (i.e., not dealing with sociopaths or clinical disorders), there are suitable jobs for both characteristics. Obviously, in leadership, some level of empathy and the ability to demonstrate this trait with sincerity is critical to building and maintaining relationships.

On the other hand, there are many other positions where the lack of empathy can be essential and productive. Think of: prison guards, special ops in the military, IRS auditors, state highway patrolmen, morticians, etc. These positions are generally better served with individuals who have very low empathy. This is because they do not allow emotions or feelings to interfere with their objective decision making – which in some cases can mean the difference between life and death. In other words, they are hard-nosed, task focus and look at facts and situations, not at how people will be immediately impacted. This helps them not be hit with a sucker punch, a con, or a sob story that will detract from their performance and ability to take control of a difficult or dangerous situation.

Most professions require a moderate level of empathy to be successful. High empathy is frequently found in the more nurturing roles such as: nursing, teaching, child care, social services, and the like. In leadership roles, very high empathy can be a negative in that these leaders frequently have trouble giving timely, candid feedback and they may often sugar coat their comments. Obviously, when this happens, the employee doesn’t get the needed critical insights that would be helpful.

Even in sales positions, you may want an empathic or a non-empathetic candidate. While high “Sociability” is required – extraversion and the ability to meet and greet well—empathy is another matter. For relationship sales, where the sales associate will need to maintain a positive, ongoing relationship with a customer, a sufficient level of empathy is a must. However, for “cold calling sales” which calls for those who can take rejection easily and keep moving on, low empathy is needed. In these type of positions, there is no need to maintain relationships once the deal is made. (Think of used car sales types…) Actually, if a sales person who has a great deal of empathy is placed into a “cold calling role”, they will fail and waste too much time with each prospect or customer to be efficient.

Often, social skill or “charm” is confused with empathy. These are quite different constructs. Think of the charismatic politician who really is a cold fish when it comes to empathy and true concern for others. They love to talk at people and tell their stories and seek center stage, but then want to go away as soon as they are done talking. They thrive on talking at – not with – people.

We measure these “traits” and help right fit people according to their empathy and numerous other factors to help best-fit them into roles where they will be most productive and successful. So, the degree to which someone has or does not have empathy is not necessarily a good or a bad thing in and of itself, it depends on whether or not each person is placed into the right fitting – or suitable -- job role.

Then -- a post came back with:

I am curious how you arrived at some of the conclusions stated in your last post. People in the military (or the highway patrol, another example you cite) who may be called upon to respond instantly with deadly force do not, for the most part "lack empathy." You also give examples of sales roles where you appear to believe low empathy would be an advantage. I am at a loss to understand how you think this would be good for either the employer of these salespeople or for their customers.I have personally served in both of these roles.

The best soldiers (or Marines, in my case) and the best salespeople - whether in relationship-based or transactional, cold-calling environments, were invariably those who cared about other people -- who had "high empathy" and, in the right circumstances, demonstrated it readily. I had one, single example of a salesperson in a cold-calling environment who had low (if any) empathy. He lied compulsively, tricked and deceived customers and internal employees alike, and was utterly indifferent to the concerns of others. When this became apparent, I fired him immediately, of course. But not before he damaged the reputation of the business and alienated a number of our customers.The ability to regulate our emotions, and the self-awareness that allows us to do so, is important to people in practically any profession. This is also true of empathy.

And, I responded,

I arrived at the conclusions based on our extensive assessment data and validity research. We use this data to screen candidates in and out of given jobs based on what correlates to successful performance – so the measures are solid. This is used for external selection screening as well as internal promotional/succession planning decision making.

Low empathy, or compassion, can be a benefit – it can also be problematic depending on what job role one is serving. Or, it can be a non-factor in some cases – again, depending on what the job role is.

Also, scoring low on empathy does not necessarily correlate to “lying, tricking and deceiving.” You may have a low empathy person who is forthright, honest, and acts with the highest integrity. They may be a loner and just not inclined to work in a “team” environment. They may be highly productive and effective – in the right role. For example, research scientist who works in isolation may not be someone you want to hang out with or go to lunch with because of their low empathy, yet they may be brilliant with their breaking ground work.

A low empathy person could, as you noted, also have other negative characteristics. However, high empathy people may also have these negative traits and may be harder to spot. There are, for example, back stabbing, phony, and egotistical people who may charm the socks off of you, while they proceed to attack you or damage you or the team in some way. So, empathy, is not the only or primary lever to dishonest or delinquent behavior.

I agree that self awareness is important to everyone. Again, self awareness does not equal empathy – it is a different set of traits we measure to assess “self awareness” (Adjustment, No Regret, Egotist to name a few scales.) Even if someone has low empathy, self awareness is important so that this individual can pay attention to how their lack of concern for others is impacting performance and communications with others. Having low empathy is not excuse for bad behavior. Rudeness or inappropriate comments or outbursts should not be tolerated.

While most of us prefer to work with people who are warm, supportive, and empathetic, not everyone is hard wired this way and they can still bring tremendous gifts to the organization. They may bring ideas, humor, wit, practical resolve, determination, courage, and many other valuable traits. They may help prevent us from making decisions based on too much “emotion” rather than logic.

Last, when we get into these discussions, we frequently debate issues more over the semantics than the issue. We define and measure as empathy as a clear subscale trait – you, on the other hand, may be including additional characteristics or commonly found traits that frequently accompany the “low empathy” trait.

I’ll throw another one out there for fun…There is a difference between “intensity” and “achievement orientation.” We have had clients who thought these competencies were one in the same. Any takers on this? (Maybe this is another post discussion.)

Thanks for the discussion and comments.


Then, the sarcasm began... and next the string of over 60 posts was gone!

Your comments are welcomed!

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Are leaders "born" or "developed"?

This question was asked on a LinkedIn post on ASTD. Here's my response:

You can’t teach fish to fly. Once a person is a working adult, their hard wiring is set. Unfortunately, too many organizations try to “train” people to lead. Even those with an MBA from the finest schools may or may not possess leadership traits.

In our assessments, one of the base line scales we measure is “Leadership Energy.” This is the first hurdle in identifying leadership capability. In order to have a pulse in leadership, one needs to score from the mid-range to a high score.

Jared Sandberg, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, took our assessments and had a coaching feedback session. For his article research, he took two other companies assessments and had feedback. Both of the other companies told him he had leadership potential or capability – it just needed to be developed. Mr. Sandberg reported in the article, I put it to him gently – telling him that he had none. He then self reported scoring only 6% (out of 100%) on Leadership Energy. He commented that he thought I was right because his dog wouldn’t even listen to him. Mr. Sandberg is a highly accomplished investigative journalist – and that is his best-fit calling. (Article: “How I Survived the Tests That Introduced Me to My Inner Executive,” WSJ, March 10, 2004)

So, while individuals have certain predispositions and temperaments at birth, their personalities evolve from infancy through early adulthood. The key for training professionals is to measure or identify the individual capability, strengths, risks and motivation and then develop accordingly. Too many organizations never accurately measure ones' personality traits and waste millions of dollars annually trying to develop the wrong things or by just throwing generic training out there – hoping something will stick. Again, you can’t teach fish to fly but you can help people to soar when you honor and help them develop according to their inherent strengths and gifts.


(copies of the WSJ article are available on request.)

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Choosing Assessment Tools Wisely

Personality assessment is useful for describing an individual on characteristics which can not be directly observed. Behaviors are visible to people, but the reasons behind them and the motivations for them are not observable. Psychological assessment results provide a vocabulary for describing propensities and a view of the “whys” behind the behaviors. This information sets the stage for more effective employee and manager selection, succession planning, team building, and professional development.

So how does one determine the validity of a personality measure?

First, there is what’s known as the test-test validation process which correlates scores on an instrument with other instruments. These test-to-test correlations are conducted with instruments that are hypothesized to have similar or related constructs and with instruments that are hypothesized to be unrelated. For example, the process of validating the Character Assessment included having subjects take the Character along with the ASVAB, PSI Basic Skills Test (both should be unrelated), Myers-Briggs, SDS, Interpersonal Adjective Scales, Big Five Factor Markers, and the MMPI-2 (all of which should have some relationship to the measures). These analyses resulted in correlations that confirmed hypothesized relationships.

The next level of validation should include correlations between test scores and relevant non-test indicators—such as actual performance ratings. This step is taken to validate (confirm or not) whether the instrument accurately measures the predicted behavior and the impact on performance. Using our assessment, those who have high scores on the CDR Character Assessment “Adjustment” scale and a high CDR Risk Assessment “Egotist” scale will generally have higher self-ratings on 360 performance reviews. This translates to people who have higher opinions about their own performance in comparison with the perceptions of others. Thus, the correlations will be higher between these scale scores and the resulting behavior ratings.

The validation process should include statistical analyses using a variety of non-test indicators and performance results. In addition to performance reviews, other examples of non-test indicators may include: sales results, customer retention, customer complaints, accidents, turnover, errors, etc. We can provide summaries of this analysis or actual sample validation studies conducted for clients.

When evaluating personality assessment measures or styles inventories, it is important to determine whether the assessment authors performed only the first level of validity analysis, i.e. test to test, or, also validated the assessment results through correlations with actual performance behaviors. The test development process determines the applicability of the assessment results to workplace decisions. Only valid and reliable tools, as determined through the test development process, are valid for selection decisions. In other words, valid measures correlate to actual results.


Friday, May 29, 2009

CDR Business Updates...

...on June 10 & 11th, we're hosting an Executive Coaching Certification Workshop in Tulsa -- so any late comers need to contact us at 918-488-0722 or This is a great way to leverage your existing practice with unmatched tools and support behind the scenes.

...on June 24th, (1:30 to 2:30 pm CT) we are hosting a complimentary webinar introducing "myLADR". This proprietary session provides an online tour introducing you to this one-of-a-kind advanced personalization front-end for any Learning Management System.

MyLADR begins with comprehensive individual assessment and coaching feedback. Once individual coaching feedback is accomplished, the system is designed to link to key competencies and populates each employee’s Individual Learning & Development Plan. The competencies are mapped to online, classroom and other available (internal and external) learning resources. The system makes suggestions, provides for interaction and choices and approvals, produces management reports and budgets and tracks individual, department and organization development activities. Also included in the system are required learning segments such as orientation, ethics, harassment, etc. This is a custom micro-to-macro system that carves out individual learning plans linked to business needs and competency requirements. The system is ideally suited to provide reports for succession planning and development activities.

This is an invitation only complimentary tour of the Learning Personalization system we developed for the Department of Defense which we now, with our partner companies, are introducing to private industry.

This can be a great service that CDR certified independent coaches can offer to their clients as well. Remember, the upfront portion of this service requires individual coaching.

Contact India Lenoir at if you have interest or call us at 918-488-0722.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Revolutionizing Leadership: Finding the Great Ones

Executive performance is a mess. Recent business calamities and financial sector bailouts simply confirm the leader deficit. Back in 1998, we recognized the impact of poor leadership and that is why we began our business. Our plan was to revolutionize leadership. Even then, most studies indicated that 50-75% of leaders were ineffective. Given today’s economic bombshells, it is clear we’ve got a way to go to accomplish our mission. Power brokers do not typically welcome news such as: “you are in the wrong job” or “your team needs some fresh, diverse talent.”

Since the beginning of time not much has changed in the way leaders are selected and rewarded. The semantics have evolved, but not the actual processes. Those who are charming, witty, tough, articulate, politically astute, courageous, reasonably intelligent, well groomed, competitive, energetic, and aggressive tend to get the prized top jobs. They always have. Executives are chosen based on what traits evaluators view as important for success. These factors may have little to do with the ability to perform well as a leader.

At CDR Assessment Group, our approach is different. We use scientifically objective measures to assess an individual’s inherent character, risk factors and reward needs to determine leader “fitness” or “non-fitness”. We don’t sugar coat the results. We don’t just tell people what they want to hear. We give it to them straight. Champions welcome this and those who fear they are in over their heads avoid us like the plague.

Two articles illustrate the power and impact of measuring talent accurately. In a piece in Risk Management Magazine, we compared the data of maximum security felons to ex-Enron executives. Their profiles were amazingly similar. Had anyone accurately measured the characteristics and risks of the Enron executive team in advance, the demise of the company could have been prevented. In a different story, Jared Sandberg, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, took our assessments and had feedback. During his article research, he took two other firms’ assessments. Both of the others told him he had leadership capability that just needed to be developed. I disagreed and explained why a leadership role was not for him. Mr. Sandberg commented that he thought I was right because his dog wouldn’t even listen to him! He also disclosed in the article scoring only 6% on Leadership Energy (a required leader trait.) The good news is that Mr. Sandberg is ideally suited as an “investigative journalist”.

With our global client base, we continue on our revolutionary quest – to right fit leaders and to help others to tap into their strengths as individual contributors. While we don’t teach fish to fly, we enjoy helping leaders and professionals soar to their own personal bests.

No doubt it is time to redouble our efforts, given today’s economic turmoil and business failure rates. We’re happily doing so. One question, how do your organization’s leadership profiles stack up?

Based on this story, what tip could you give to small businesses?(500 character max.)

In a small business, there is no room for error in selecting people. Every position is crucial. First, a CEO needs to understand her own key strengths and vulnerabilities. Next, she needs staff with diverse yet complimentary traits to assure best results. Interviews and reference checks fall short. Interviewing well has little to do with how well one will actually perform on the job. Find a psychometric measure scientifically validated for selection. Considering the costs of making a hiring mistake or of wasting time interviewing the wrong candidates, screening assessments are a steal.

Note: This was submited to:

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

What About 360 Feedback?

Most leadership performance and development processes now include some type of 360 degree feedback instrument. These tools are important. However, 360s have a limited scope and only tell part of the story. They describe what and how performance behaviors are observed – citing external perceptions from performance stakeholders. Frequently, feedback from 360s alone creates confusion or disconnects for the recipient. The difference between a leader’s intent and impact on others can be substantial.

The CDR 3-Dimensional Assessment Suite®, especially the CDR Risk Assessment developmental feedback, digs beyond 360° feedback and reveals the "whys" behind performance behaviors. The CDR 3-D Suite cuts to the chase by identifying individual character traits, inherent personality-based risks, and motivational needs that trigger performance behaviors. This helps leader feedback recipient to understand the root causes of their behaviors and why these behaviors manifest in the ways they do in various situations. The mysteries, gaps, and confusion created by 360 feedback are cleared up by the CDR 3-D Suite. Developmental paths are clearly revealed when an individual understands their own inherent risks, strengths, acumen, and motivational needs.

For example, consider a leader who receives a “needs improvement” rating for innovation. Given this feedback, developmental plans may be made to send this leader to a “creativity” class or to participate in a “think tank” or the like. However, in digging into the Risk Assessment results, we often find a myriad of explanations that would make the prescribed creativity training the wrong course of action – wasting time and money while resulting in further frustration.

By measuring one’s risk factors, we are able to determine the root cause behind one’s reluctance or inability to innovate. Perhaps there is a high risk of “Worrier” where an individual has a fear of failure and over-processes or overworks all issues and decisions. Or, frequently, we find that leaders who are Cynics tend to shoot down or prevent ideas from taking root by virtue of their constant negativity, doubting, and nay saying. By identifying these types of characteristics (and most people have several combinations of risks) we can narrow the focus of development, action, and determination of the most effective tactics to improve and minimize the risks from interfering with individual and team performance.

When equipped with the essential, robust, and accurate insights about one’s own inherent tendencies, leaders are able to focus on their strengths, understand and manage their risks more productively, and re-fortify relationships. Leaders can then concentrate on building a more positive and productive work environment, designing developmental action plans that are accurate and productive, and on concentrating on those aspects of work they find most rewarding and fulfilling.

~ Nancy & Kim

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Leadership Development ROI is not Greek to me: Let us revisit

Leader rating and development programs are among the hardest to sell with ROI. A dollar spent on assessment may save three dollars in retention. A dollar invested in training may lower recruiting costs by five times that amount. The good news is that better-developed leaders produce superior results, thus increasing compensation, and lowering turnover. Word gets out, and top talent begins pursuing the company rather than the other way around.

Top Management will generally be committed to implementing the strategic changes to transform the enterprise and increase shareholder value. Jay Cross of the Internet Group reminds us that the top-line can be just as important as the bottom-line. Top-line = sales, revenues, out-surviving the competition, increasing market share, building brand, staying in the game and holding on long enough to score, reinventing the business. Executives focus on two things: strategy and outfoxing the competition.

The Saratoga Institute found that the key factors separating high-performing companies from those that try to compete are:

  • Balanced Values—a mix of human and financial goals
  • Commitment—organizational stick-to-it-iveness, and
  • Culture—defined by the ability to attract, retain, and motivate talent.

Leadership development programs are valuable because they impact all of the above.

Questions to Answer

Prior to implementation, specific issues should be addressed to prepare an organization for ROI justifications post-implementation. These a priori issues include the following:

  • What problem areas were identified? What are you trying to improve on? Do they relate to high turnover, origination expansion, etc.—once determined, value can be assigned.
  • What behaviors/attitudes/skills are being targeted for change?
  • Why is the change required—what difference would it make if the program were not done at all?What would be the contributions made to the business by these changes? (such as—improved productivity, better communication, improved morale, increased sales, decreased turnover)
  • Establish a baseline measure of current performance and clearly indicate how performance will be tracked and reported on.
  • Determine what will pass as persuasive evidence that the program produced the desired results.

We can extrapolate behavior changes into measurable business once the above are codified. Look for significant differences in performance ratings—from Time 1 to Time 2. These differences might be in new product development, new clients/business, teams working together in more productive ways, increased client satisfaction and retention, etc. All of the aforementioned are potentially value-laden and will assist in making the Business Case.

Next Steps

Once the questions bulleted above are answered, an ROI research plan can be designed for determining the business value of the leadership development program.

It is easy to put a dollar-figure on a hard benefit (e.g., new clients) but difficult for a “soft” benefit (e.g., improved morale). If an item simply can’t be quantified, it can be included in a nonfinancial analysis and ranked among the financial impacts. Further, two similar departments, one that participates in the program and one that does not, can be compared on relevant variables. A customer survey might also be advised to capture perceived differences.


Friday, January 30, 2009

myLADR Webinar Invitation Reminder

This is a reminder that our clients and colleagues have been invited to an online tour on February 4, 2009 at 11:00 am CST introducing myLADR which is a one-of-a-kind advanced personalization front-end for any Learning Management System.

MyLADR begins with comprehensive individual assessment and coaching feedback. This is a custom micro-to-macro system that carves out individual learning plans linked to business needs and competency requirements. The system makes suggestions, provides for interaction and choices and approvals, produces management reports and budgets and tracks individual, department and organization development activities. Also included in the system are required learning segments such as orientation, ethics, harassment, etc.

The system, offered by CDR and partner companies, is ideally suited to provide reports for succession planning, training needs analysis, and development activities. Private industry and government organizations will benefit from this unmatched system that offers a wide array of standard or customization and branding features.

Please call us 1-888-406-0100 or email to register or if you have any questions! We hope you can arrange to join us for this exceptional tour and demo session.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Selection testing and “faking”: Is this still being debated in your organization?

Well, it shouldn’t be.

A rather seasoned debate has existed, for about fifty years now, concerning job applicants and their propensity to intentionally “fake” personality assessments used in selection screening. Many have tried to answer the question of frequency of faking. Most of the research has used either scales designed to measure response distortion embedded within the assessment or comparisons of applicant to non-applicant samples on assessment results.

I’ve always felt the concerns about applicant faking were a bit over-blown primarily because the base rate for cheating in general is fairly low. It did occur to me a few years ago that a better way to estimate faking frequency would be to re-test people who were assessed as part of a selection process. I’ve had this on my list of research to do ever since. Thank goodness some outstanding scientist-practitioners have finally accomplished just this study.

In a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Ellingson* et. al., identified over seven hundred individuals who had completed the California Psychological Inventory for both selection and development purposes. So to put it more simply: A group of people who took the CPI as part of an employment screening process then again sometime later for professional development purposes.

After working the statistical magic needed to analyze the data, the researchers show that there is indeed very little faking going on in the selection context. The bottom-line? Applicant response distortion amounts to an increase in personality scale means of approximately .075 standard deviation units—or a score change of 14.3 to 14.6 on a Flexibility scale. In short, the difference is not at all practically significant.

I encourage those so inclined to read the entire research paper, it is a fine piece of work. I hope that others will follow with similar studies using different personality instruments. In the meantime, it really may be time to put to rest this “faking” issue once and for all.


*: Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Connelly, B. S. (2007) Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: Insights into response distortion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 386-395.

2009 Coaching Survey Results

2009 Sherpa Executive Coaching Survey

Survey results from their fourth annual survey based on 1,500 respondents. To download the complete survey go to:

In addition to a wide variation in the US and Canada on the question of certification I would like to hear you thoughts on their definition of executive coaching, and what executive coaches “as a general rule do not” do (bolded below). Quoting from page 4 of the survey:

“Executive coaching means: regular meetings between a business leader and a trained

facilitator, designed to produce positive changes in business behavior in a limited time frame.”

This definition clarifies:

- who coaches are—trained facilitators (not consultants, counselors, trainers or mentors.)

- what coaches do—produce positive changes in business behavior.

- when things happen—on a set schedule with a limited time frame.

In 2007, the European Foundation for Management Development adopted this definition in communication with its members in seventy countries.

Executive coaches, as a general rule,

- do not share their own experience (as do mentors),

- do not give advice (as do consultants),

- do not impart specific knowledge (as trainers do) and

- avoid personal issues. (the role of a counselor or therapist or life coach)

I disagree with most of these “general rules” especially when we are using an assessment like the CDR and feedback.

In the Sherpa Executive Coaching Survey, I disagree with their position that “in person” coaching was better than by telephone. Personally have had great results using the telephone when using CDR —what are your thoughts?

Matt M. Starcevich, Ph.D.

Matt –

Thanks for submitting this link to the survey and for sharing your insights.

I also disagree with most of the 2007 European Foundation for Management Development’s Executive Coaching Guidelines you sited.

Specifically, executive coaches may share experiences – while this needs to be limited – sometimes real world stories can be useful. Next, when using assessments and having clear insights regarding a persons strengths, risks, vulnerabilities, challenges and gathering information about their performance, it is the role of the coach to explore and sometimes offer ideas and potential advice when appropriate. Last, knowledge can be shared though the coach certainly does not want to become a talking head so to speak.

I do agree that executive coaches need to stay away from personal issues and if a client is obviously having significant emotional or personal problems, it is time to suggest they talk to a counselor/therapist or EAP advisor.

Again Matt – thanks for sharing!


Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Welcome -- What Are Your Hot Issues?

Welcome to our Assessment Advisor Blog. We invite you to ask questions, provide suggestions, share interesting assessment cases and use this blog to support your consulting, coaching and talent development initiatives.

To get things moving, topics you might find of interest:
  1. Interventions -- leaders who don't fit their roles --and what to do about it
  2. Telephone feedback -- why and how it works as well as in person coaching
  3. Profile examinations: "High Likeability Floaters", "Fakers (Spinners)", Egotist/Pleaser Leaders, etc.
  4. Upward Selection Screening-- Assessing your "would be" boss/executive before taking a new postion
  5. Benefits of Using Assessments During Down Economy

Hopefully, the above nuggets will spark your interest in participating in this blog by discussing your issues, questions and sharing your success stories as well. We welcome (CDR) certified coaches, other executive coaches, leaders and those with a professional interest or calling in talent and leader development.

Have a great day!


Monday, January 19, 2009

Gender Differences in Leadership

What do you think?

Despite expertise and education, women are simply not gaining access to top corporate positions in numbers that correlate to readiness. Consider:

· Under 2 percent of the top five earners at Fortune 500 and 1000 companies are women
· 97.5% of CEOs of large corporations are men
· The majority of college graduates are women

Contrary to popular beliefs and politically correct assumptions, IMPORTANT gender differences do exist. When comparing men and women leaders’ inherent personality traits and risk factors for derailment with validated psychometric assessment instruments*, the averaged results reveal differences that matter.

Women tend to be warmer, compassionate, supportive, and better at building and maintaining relationships. Unfortunately, they have more significant risks as “Worriers” which translates to being cautious, slow decision makers who tend to over-analyze because of the fear of failure.

Men, on the other hand, tend to be more candid and direct and may be more strategic than operationally inclined. Men have more significant risk factors as Egotists, Rule Breakers, and Upstagers. This means men are more outspoken, bold, arrogant, prankish, willing to challenge, stubborn, limelight seeking, and tend to fight (and succeed) more intensely on the corporate ladders.

So, it turns out that under stress or when the heat is on, men tend to be more aggressive, outspoken, and argumentative. Men tend to "move against" the "opposition" or those in their way. On the other hand, (many) women -- under the same tension or conflict will go back and re-study or over-analyze rather than fight for turf or power. With women where there is a greater instance of "worrier" profiles, they will move away from the conflict or stress point.

These "tendancies" are based on averages on the leader profiles of the research group. (Women N=120; Men N=111)

How does this mesh with your experience? Your thoughts?

Welcome to Assessment Advisor Blog

Welcome to the Assessment Advisor blog hosted by Nancy Parsons, President of CDR Assessment Group, Inc.

We are glad to have you on board. This blog is primarily for executives and leaders, executive coaches, organization development professionals, chief learning officers, human resource executives, industrial/organizational psychology specialists, and those interested in developing the human capability within organizations.

Our firm, CDR Assessment Group, Inc. provides proprietary assessment tools for client organizations and for independent consultants/coaches. We also provide coaches' certification and advanced training programs. The CDR 3-D Suite provides specific and unique insights into a leader’s key strengths and development needs in the areas of:

· character traits, acumen, EQ and leader fitness,
· inherent risk factors that can sabotage effectiveness and lead to derailment,
· personal drivers, motivation, and values.

The CDR 3-D Suite has editions in English, Spanish, German, French, and Italian, and is available through a proprietary online system. Another highly beneficial and lucrative feature of these robust tools for a consulting practice is the wide range of applications that they can be used for without the need to retest. Succession planning, strategic team development, high potential talent identification and development, and staffing decisions, are among some of the value-added services that can be performed using our tools.

We also offer a robust and insightful 360 tool as well. I'll go into that more when and if needed.

Enough of the info-mercial...

With this blog, we hope to share insights, experience, interesting stories related to assessment results, interpretive overviews, ROI, coaching excerpts, research news, answer coaches' questions, and to discuss issues on the minds of leaders and coaches who have interest in our blog.