Stress is a complex and curious phenomenon. It's very difficult to predict the tipping point where an individual's experience of pressure will cause their performance to dive, rather than soar - or to conclude that someone's current behaviour is a product of being in the grip of a stress reaction. The behaviours that start out as a mild exaggeration of a person's normal personality may eventually morph into uncharacteristic, disruptive and confusing actions and reactions. Only later is it possible to look back and realise, as if recalling a dream, that the individual was 'not fully themselves' because they were labouring under pressure that had become too much. Unfortunately, by then, the damage to their reputation may be irreversible.

In fact, in many such cases, it would be more accurate to describe people in such situations as being 'too much themselves'. Rather than behaving 'out of character', individuals become trapped in over-using the attributes that have worked for them reliably in the past. They become stuck in the groove of an approach to problem resolution and relationship negotiation that is effective in moderation, or combined with other techniques, or perhaps that works well in other circumstances. They're like the stereotypical Englishman abroad, with no language skills to resort to: they keep repeating the same thing, at ever louder volume and with wilder gesticulations, remaining convinced that they will finally break through. Unless a translator enters stage right, they can end up alienating those around them, or become frustrated into taking inappropriate and insensitive action.

In the current environment, leaders and leadership are firmly in the spotlight - and the quality of both has never been more important. Across organisations, people look to leaders for reassurance, direction, support and clarity. When they do so, they expect the calm and consistent response of someone who seems to be in control - both of themselves, and of circumstances. The trouble is that many of those in management positions in organisations today have not experienced the challenges that they currently face, and find themselves in uncharted waters; they are, quite literally, making it up as they go along, and lack reference points in either past experience or the training that equipped them for last year's business scenarios. This provides a context that is ripe for leadership derailment.

Of course, the stress associated with a rapidly changing, highly unpredictable and potentially threatening business environment is only one of a number of reasons why leadership careers can go off the rails, preventing leaders and executives from achieving their full potential. But are some leaders more susceptible than others? Are there personality characteristics that make it more likely that some leaders will grow and adapt as they rise to new challenges, while others will founder? And, if this is the case, what can HR and development professionals do about it?

OPP presented a poster at this year's BPS Occupational Psychology conference, which looks at career 'derailers' as measured by the Benchmarks® 360-degree questionnaire (Leslie, Gentry & Bailey, 2009). Results from an empirical study, which was conducted in collaboration with the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), show the relationships between these counterproductive derailers and the personality of the leader. The latter was measured by the 16PF® personality questionnaire.

Background to the research

Benchmarks' measurement of derailers is based on research that contrasts people who make it to the top with those who fail, burn out or plateau. This is important in understanding the kinds of development needed for success in leadership positions, particularly at a senior level. Just like their more successful peers, right up to the point where their careers derailed the less successful managers had been identified by their organisation as:

Showing high potential
Having impressive track records
Being solidly established within the organisation

The one thing that they all had in common was that their upward career progress was stalled against their wishes.

This research demonstrated that there are concrete factors that force once-successful careers off track. Derailment characteristics and behaviours consistently identified in a range of research studies over the past 25 years include leaders being authoritarian, aloof and arrogant; being unable to handle conflict, or to build and lead a team; being unable to think strategically, adapt, grow, learn and develop; and being overly ambitious and lacking the ability to deliver on commitments.

Results from this previous research have been used in the development of Section 2 of the Benchmarks framework (Lombardo, McCauley, McDonald-Mann & Leslie, 1999), which assesses "potential flaws" or derailment characteristics. OPP's new research focuses on the relationship between personality traits, as measured by the 16PF questionnaire, and derailment potential, as measured by Section 2 of Benchmarks.

The OPP research study

The OPP study used both a self-report personality questionnaire (16PF questionnaire) and a multi-rater feedback questionnaire (Benchmarks). This gave us two different perspectives on the leaders who participated:

A comprehensive self-report measure of normal adult personality
Reports by self and others on the likelihood that the executive's career would stall due to a variety of derailers

Data were collected from 279 managers who attended five-day leadership development programmes at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) between April and December 2006. As part of this programme, managers rated themselves, and asked others to rate them, on their performance using the Benchmarks instrument. On completing their leadership development programme, managers were invited to fill out the 16PF questionnaire online.

Of the 279 managers who volunteered to be part of this study, 58% were male, 81% were white, 49% were upper-middle-level managers, 88% worked in the private sector and 45% had a minimum of a bachelor's degree. The participants worked in over 240 different organisations across a whole spectrum of industries.

The results

Complex statistical analysis of the results showed that managers with a higher potential for derailment were likely to be more:

Vigilant. The 16PF factor 'Vigilance' is the tendency not to trust others, perhaps believing that most people have hidden agendas and ulterior motives
Abstract. The 16PF factor 'Abstractedness' is the tendency to take a conceptual approach to things. In its extreme form it can look like absent-mindedness

In addition, they were likely to be less:

Private. The 16PF factor 'Privateness' is the tendency to keep personal information to oneself
The same results were seen with the ratings of both peers and bosses.
Together, these three personality factors explained a statistically significant portion of the variance in derailment potential, suggesting that these individual traits in a leader are important, particularly in times of change and increased pressure. In other words, derailment is likely to occur if a leader is less trusting of people, more conceptual and abstract in their style of thinking, and tends towards revealing personal information about themselves.

The power of self-awareness

Of course, this isn't the whole story when it comes to derailment. Many leaders have developed bad habits - either through a lack of training or as a result of poor role models - which during the good times may have had only a slight impact on their teams and the organisation. However, these are exacerbated by new circumstances, including intense pressure. Others rely on a narrow functional or technical specialism, or have significant gaps in their experience that mean that they apply the wrong paradigm to the new problems and decisions they encounter. When under stress, they are likely to do so more often, more indiscriminately.

But, as the management guru Professor Jay Conger says in his work on the subject' "the fatal flaw is a lack of self-awareness". So, developmental work with leaders needs to focus first on helping them understand how their behaviour may be perceived by others, and how their personality might predispose them to certain 'traps' - as well as how it's likely to inform their style and approach more generally, for good or ill.

The 16PF questionnaire serves this latter purpose for leaders at all levels. Among trait-based instruments, it measures personality in a way that's both sufficiently granular to be really specific, and sufficiently intuitive to be deeply resonant to those in a leadership role. From a practitioner perspective, its research pedigree over 50 years is second to none and the nuances that it's capable of generating, particularly when factors are cross-referenced or triangulated, provide an accurate and highly credible basis for targeted development. Combined with 360-degree feedback from Benchmarks, the 16PF measures strengths, weaknesses and potential derailers with precision - especially important for those in high-stakes roles.

Taking action

Knowing, particularly, that Vigilance, Abstractedness and Privateness are factors that can point to future performance issues means that that the practitioner can investigate these areas with the respondent. When a manager receives feedback that they need to consider these elements as potential derailers, the 'risk' is in the open. The leader needs to focus their energies on consciously developing compensatory behaviours until they become habits.

Vigilance tends to create issues for leaders around trust. Since vigilant leaders bestow so little on their peers and subordinates, they receive less in return and may develop a reputation for cynicism and undue shrewdness. Such leaders need to:

Identify situations where they are more likely to feel on their guard and understand that these may be triggers for them; the 16PF can help leaders to identify just what will push their particular buttons
Identify someone who is highly collaborative and learn from their approach
Be placed in a situation where trust is required and commit to managing it with this mindset - and evaluate the results

Taken to an extreme, Abstractedness in a leader can frustrate subordinates when it results in an inability to engage with detail or commit to action. Endless theorising and hypothesising disengages colleagues from the execution of plans. Such leaders need to:

Identify situations where they have overlooked practicalities - with negative consequences
Get into the habit of using charts, plans or spreadsheets to plot and commit to concrete milestones and deliverables
Be placed in a situation where they have to implement their new idea to completion, and be monitored supportively

Where Privateness is concerned, the research shows that those leaders who are unduly open with their teams and colleagues may experience problems. It's not hard to imagine that unwarranted insights into the boss's personal life, or inappropriate sharing of work matters and their views on them, might at some point place these leaders in an embarrassing or beholden position. Such leaders need to:

Reflect on times when they have regretted personal disclosure, and the situations in which they have done so
Recognise temptation - in the short term, they may even wish to avoid such situations or stimuli
Consciously choose to engage others outside the organisation as confidantes
Resolve to draw a boundary around all but a select few details of personal information as they step across the office threshold

In leadership development, self-knowledge is the sure rock on which high performance is built. It is also, in these difficult times, the best armoury a leader has against derailment under pressure and in the face of potentially menacing change. Knowing where 'stress vulnerabilities' lie should be an asset organisations give to every leader, and the 16PF tool provides a mightily effective means of securing it.

References

Leslie, J., Gentry, W. & Bailey, R. (2009), 'Leadership Derailment and the Role of Personality'. Poster presented at the BPS DOP Conference, Blackpool, UK, January 2009.

Lombardo, M.M., McCauley, C.D., McDonald-Mann, D. & Leslie, J.B. (1999), Benchmarks Developmental Reference Points, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Benchmarks is a globally respected 360-degree feedback tool that has been developed through extensive research into the skills and competencies required for success in senior roles. The feedback format is based on ratings benchmarked against those of other successful leaders. Ratings are gathered from the individual subject, as well as anonymously from their peers, and from subordinates and superiors. The results are shared with the individual to explore perceived skills, development needs and the individual's impact on others.

The 16PF is an objective, empirically based questionnaire developed by Raymond B. Cattell, offering a really rounded view of individuals, so that managers can select, develop and motivate people based on this 'full picture'. In a selection or development context, the 16PF can reveal potential, confirm capacity to sustain performance in a larger role and help identify development needs. In the hands of a trained practitioner, the 16PF helps individuals achieve personal insight into their own strengths, potential and career fit.