Introducing The Science of Personality Institute

Introduction to Personality Psychology

0:00People are the most consequential and dangerous forces on Earth. Well, personality psychology is about the nature of human nature. It's about people. And wouldn't that be useful to know? I can't think of a more important problem.

0:19You're listening to the Science of Personality podcast, brought to you by Hogan Assessments, the global leader in personality and leadership. Guided by your hosts, Hogan Chief Science Officer and world-renowned personality psychologist, Dr. Ryan Sherman, alongside Hogan's PR manager and resident storyteller, Blake Lepp, this podcast explores the impact of personality on life, leadership, and the nature of human nature.

0:47Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Science of Personality podcast. I'm your host, Ryan Sherman, along with my co-host, as always, Blake Lepp. Say hello, Blake. Hello, everybody, and welcome back to the Science of Personality podcast, episode 154. Today, Ryan and I are joined by Dr. David Condon, director of Hogan's newly formed Science of Personality Institute, to discuss his new role and vision for this exciting and an innovative extension of the Hogan brand. Before accepting this new position, David was a senior behavioral

1:18scientist at MidJourney, where he built and led a behavioral science function, applying personality research directly to product development in an AI-driven environment. Prior to that, David was a faculty member at the University of Oregon and Northwestern University, which is where he was trained as a personality psychologist. So, this is an exciting addition to the Hogan family, and we're looking forward to talking to him about his exciting new venture. But, before we get to our conversation with David, if you wish to give us any ideas for upcoming episodes, or you want to ask Ryan or me

1:50a question, shoot us an email at hello at the science of personality dot com, or follow the Science of Personality on LinkedIn. Now, let's get to it. David, welcome to the podcast. Is there anything you'd like to share with our audience before we get started? Just to say how excited I am to be here. I'm a longtime fan of the podcast, as you might guess, given the overlap between the Science of Personality Podcast and the Science of Personality Institute that I'm now directing. So, this is really exciting for me. Thanks so much for having me. Well, David, we're super excited to have you on here today.

2:25For our audience members who may not know, David has been a superstar researcher in personality psychology for many years. We've known each other for quite a while. I actually don't remember when we first met. I'm sure it was at some personality conference somewhere. But David has a prolific publication record. I counted nearly 20 publications with nearly, or maybe over 20 publications with nearly 100 citations. David has over 5,600 citations in his career and continues to publish

2:57at an impressive clip. So, we are super excited to have you here with us today, David. Yeah, yeah, I'm thrilled too. I actually do recall the first time we met. It made a bigger impression on me, I think, meeting you, Ryan, than understandably may have gone in the other direction. But yeah, it was at a personality conference over 15 years ago now. And we've been good friends ever since. And I'm excited to bring, you know, to share that friendship in our work together and to bring my enthusiasm for publishing about personality, you know, to the

3:30Institute. Appreciate the introduction. Well, David, let's eliminate all the confusion that our audience might have now. You know, they're listening to the Science of Personality podcast. You're the director of the Science of Personality Institute. So, I guess, David, at a very high level, can you explain in your own words what the Science of Personality Institute is and what you're hoping to accomplish? Yeah, believe it or not, it's, it's, we are not here just to study the Science of Personality podcast, though you guys have so much material that would keep us busy for a while. No, I think the

4:02simplest way to put it is to say that, you know, the Science of Personality Institute exists for two reasons. First is, you know, to advance how we understand personality, you know, as a scientific disciplines in all respects. And then the second is to help make sure that understanding actually reaches the people who can, who can use it. Your, your listeners might wonder, you know, this is sort of overlapping with the best in class work that Hogan has been doing for some time, you know, decades really. But it's different too, quite different. You know, on the first point,

4:35you know, I think the SPI is much different because we are a research institute. So, you know, while we're housed at Hogan, the mandate for us is really about, it's really about science, as the name suggests, not products. So, you know, it's true that our emphasis will be on applied science more than basic, as much as it can be. And that's a topic we might, we might get into later, that distinction between applied and basic. But the, the key idea that I'm trying to emphasize is that we're focused on advancing the science across the field, the whole field of personality research,

5:06instead of being focused on productization, you know, at the SPI. And then on that second point, you know, making sure that personality related research findings get disseminated, you know, or get shared as widely as possible. I would say the difference between the SPI and existing Hogan work, things that are already being done, is that the scope of our audiences is, is a lot wider, you know, much wider. It just relates back to the first point, you know, we're not, we're not really focusing only on delivering for clients or potential clients in very targeted ways.

5:38But rather, you know, we're, we're focused on helping people understand how important personality is. You know, the, our founder, Bob Hogan has made the point to me a few times now. It's a point I really like, you know, that personality science and personality scientists study the nature of human nature. And related to this idea earlier in my career, you know, I was, I was co-director of what we call the personality is everywhere lab. Actually, we just referred to it as the pie lab for short, because it meant we got to, you know, eat a lot of pie and talk about pie, which we,

6:09we love as well. But both of these ideas that personality is about the nature of human nature, and, you know, that personality is everywhere. Both of those are trying to make the point that personality has this deeply fundamental importance in, in our lives. It's, it's not just about products either. You know, you, you guys, and probably most of your listeners already know how important personality is, but it's my experience that most of the world really doesn't, really doesn't understand how, how deeply embedded personality, the effects of personality are in

6:41everything we do. And so what I'm hoping to accomplish is to close that, that gap, at least a little bit, you know, between what we know about personality, and then how, how it gets used, how it gets viewed, uh, it's, it's perceived status, uh, in the world, how seriously personality gets taken. So yeah, the, you know, we have our work cut out for us, but, but, um, I think the work's, you know, it's tremendously important. Well, certainly that, that is true in terms of having the work, your work cut out for you, David. You know, when I think about something like the Science of Personality Institute, I'm trying to think,

7:15what are the sort of equivalent kind of things out there? And I think about, uh, Bell Labs, you know, for many years had this sort of scientific wing. Um, IBM had a research wing for many years that sort of just drove, you know, and you, you mentioned basic versus applied. And I feel like a lot of that research in those was some people would call basic, but it obviously had potential applications as well. Uh, and I don't, I, I, sometimes I find that the line between basic and applied is not always so

7:48clear. I think there's some research that you say, well, that really doesn't have really any applications whatsoever, but there's other research that sort of dances right on that line of, is this applied research or is this basic research? And, and to me, I feel like that's sort of the sweet spot of where we want, um, where we want the Science of Personality Institute. What do you, I mean, what do you think, David, what do you think about in terms of comparable organizations to the Science of Personality Institute? Obviously we don't quite have the size of IBM Research or Bell Labs, at least not yet. Um, but also about that, that fine line between basic and applied research.

8:26Yeah, well, I think it's interesting. I have a couple of reactions to that. I mean, one is that personality itself as a field sits at the intersection of applied and basic research, if that, if that makes sense. I mean, our experience of personality, it's so fundamental, you know, it really does affect everything, you know, from the smallest decisions we make all the way up to the ones that are most consequential. Um, so it's hard to argue that any aspect of it is not applied. And yet most of the research that's been done on it before now, I'm talking about across the field,

8:59very broadly, uh, has been basic, you know, just trying to understand what it is, how, uh, how, how to operationalize it, what, uh, it contains with respect to like structure. I mean, you know, without getting into too many of the, um, uh, scientific jargon aspects. Um, I think it is mainly studied in a basic way. Um, and, and I think that's something, you know, like I say, that we, we need to change, um, as far as other organizations, you know, it's my experience that personality is not studied in many places outside of academic labs, um, but at least not, um,

9:34explicitly, right. I mean, I do feel there's quite a lot of overlap between, uh, there's many adjacent personality adjacent fields, you know, people are studying individual differences, um, without calling it personality in computer science, um, even in, you know, marketing, many, uh, applied settings and in academic fields that are not even housed within psychology departments. They're basically studying personality if they're looking at the ways that, uh, differences among people affect various outcomes, but it's not called personality. You know, we don't refer to it in

10:08that way. So, um, yeah, I don't know. I, I feel it would be a real service to the community if we could broaden the, you know, scope of context where personality is studied, uh, more directly. You know, that's such a good point, David. And, you know, I, I, you run into this all the time when we, you mentioned computer scientists. Yeah. I mean, I think there's a whole number of economists, a number of areas where you feel like, you know, these fields are just discovering personality and just how much of an impact it has there, but they tend to not use the same terms

10:41that we do. And there seems to be, sometimes I feel like a language barrier. You know, I, I don't know if that's part of the mission for the SPI, or do you see that as part of the mission to try to maybe connect personality with some of these other fields and help get, get everybody speaking on the same page in terms of language of personality? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. It's part of it. I don't know if it's part of the mission, uh, necessarily and not in a, in specific terms, but I suppose you could say it is to the extent that we want to really foster collaborations among people who are not

11:12currently talking to one another, but I agree with you completely. I mean, it's my experience, for example, having worked for a little while in a, uh, uh, tier one medical center, um, many people working in, in the health services fields are discovering personality just within the last decade. Now they are not calling it personality, you know, they're, they're, uh, studying it by taking into account, you know, for example, patient reported outcomes, or they're referring to it, uh, in the context of, uh, socio-behavioral skills, things like that. But yeah, yeah, you hit the nail on

11:44the head. I, I think there's huge opportunity in trying to connect researchers who, um, whether indirectly or even without their own, uh, realization are studying fundamentally are studying personality, putting them together with people that have knowledge of the work that's been done so far, I think will be very fruitful. Well, that's a good direction for us to go because, um, you know, there are a lot of universities and research labs and other organizations dedicated to studying personality or, or something that is personality related that maybe again,

12:17like you mentioned earlier, isn't called personality, but I'm curious, what makes the SPI different? And also what are some of the problems around personality that you are wanting to solve with this? Yeah, yeah, no, that's a great question too. I mean, I already talked a bit about how the SPI is different maybe from existing, uh, you know, capabilities within Hogan. I think the comparison to some of the other contexts, academic labs, especially, uh, as I said, I think that's where most of the personality work is being done. I think those comparison of the SPI to those

12:49contexts is, uh, it's, it's more complicated because they are so diverse, really, you know, their goals, uh, and the ways that they function vary quite a lot, you know, between labs. Um, it's my experience that, you know, most academic labs, um, one way or another, they tend to be, they tend to be focused on, uh, I mean, I'm, I'm really being trying to, trying to describe it concisely here. They tend to be focused on getting publications through peer review, uh, and, and training students, you know, possibly in that order. Maybe it should be the other way around,

13:23but, uh, and there is, like I say, a lot of variability around how that, how that gets done, what that looks like on a day-to-day basis. Um, but the, you know, among the problems with that model is the fact that they, they rarely have access to, uh, applied, you know, data from applied settings, certainly not at scale and across, uh, different contexts. You know, the good news is they, they can be quite rigorous. They typically are, uh, in my experience, at least in the sense of being objective about their findings, uh, you know, uh, uncovering both the advantages and

13:57disadvantages of various constructs, for example. Um, so, so there's a lot of exceptions to that in academic settings. You know, some labs are doing, uh, more or less of, of, of some activities than others, but, uh, in theory, they do have the freedom to be objective. By contrast, when personality is getting done, even if not under the title of personality, when it is getting done at commercial organizations, I think they tend to have very, very good applied data. Uh, you know, they, they're directly replica, uh, directly relevant and applied data, but they don't always have incentive to

14:29publish. Sometimes they actually have disincentive to publish their findings, right? Because it can have, um, you know, uh, like competitive consequences, or maybe they're not motivated to be fully objective, um, when, you know, they're, when their findings maybe run counter to the sales of their existing products. Um, it's more oriented around R and D research, um, rather than research for the sake of research. So the SPI should deliberately sit in between these, these two contexts. We certainly can be objective. I'd say that, you know, Hogan already excels at this, but we also have a mandate

15:03to publish and to be rigorous and to hopefully find, uh, creative new ways to disseminate our, our work, um, you know, not just through the traditional channels. The other part of the question, you know, as for problems, um, you know, that we aim to solve about how, how the work is, is being done, you know, I think it's tricky to make broad, you know, like critical statements. Uh, in fact, I'm not sure I'm, I'm well positioned to do it about like academic labs. Um, but I, but I guess one thing that jumps out is that I think a lot gets lost between the results of academic research and

15:34application. Uh, and, and this is probably more of a problem for personality than it is for, for some fields. Uh, most scientific findings in my experience, they just, they don't find their way into practice. Uh, so, uh, you know, uh, and by contrast, I guess you could say a lot of the applied science related to personality is based on ideas that the, that the researchers have abandoned, you know, some years ago. So you see issues in both, both directions, um, around making good on the,

16:05on the work that's been done. It's really more of a problem about incentives and academia than anything else I think. But, um, academics are primarily motivated to get their stuff out there and then hope that the world will know what, what to do with it. Um, and so that's, that's something I'd like to address. And I guess the other idea that comes to mind, a problem for personality, in my opinion, um, is that there's just a ton of people studying it across these different disciplines that never talk. You know, we've touched on this already. Uh, academia is very siloed. So I, I, I hope and expect that we'll get some traction by making the SPI a place, um,

16:37that will connect those, those siloed threads. As I said earlier, you know, putting people together that, uh, are not currently talking. Yeah, David, I think that's one of the, the, the goals of the SPI is to try to, to bring in, uh, more academic researchers to collaborate with, because oftentimes to your point, academic researchers are motivated to publish while the SPI has certainly some motivation to publish Hogan, even though we, we sit on mountains of data and lots and lots of studies. Most of those studies are just kept internally and they're not really

17:10published, uh, externally, you know, so to, to what extent or what are the sort of plans for connecting the SPI with some of the academic researchers who might be able to, you know, leverage some of this Hogan data, some of these Hogan research studies into more formal publications? Yeah, I, I think honestly, a big part of it, Ron, will, will be improving the, the, the ways and the extent to which people are talking, you know, sharing ideas. Um, collaborative innovation is hard to,

17:42it's hard to generalize, uh, in my experience. Uh, you know, for example, some of the ideas we've, we've talked about already are, um, in, you know, creating for, uh, informal networks of researchers that meet periodically. Um, we'd like to try and bring more people together in person, you know, especially these days, everybody's working remotely, but we'd like to have folks, um, working together through, uh, uh, venues that are sometimes referred to as like topical meetings or expert meetings where, where you're, um, convening people who really have world-class expertise to share their ideas,

18:15share that expertise, figure out where the gaps are and where progress might be made. Um, and then of course, you know, through the traditional channels too, I mean, it may be as simple as, uh, helping to, uh, connect ideas with data and researchers, right? Get them all sort of in the same room, uh, so to speak, whether it's virtual or in person, uh, I think you get a lot from that. And, uh, and then also being, you know, doing our best to, to make the resources we do have, the ones you just mentioned, um, um, you know, accessible and discoverable to the people who, who, uh, have great research

18:48questions related to it. You know, David, one of the questions I was just dying to ask whenever we, we, uh, plan to have you on was, you know, if you ask 10 different people, uh, to define personality, you'd get 10 different answers. Uh, that's at least my experience. So how would you define personality? And then what, you know, in your opinion, you know, if you want to get philosophical with this, uh, makes it such a scientific discipline. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's an invitation

19:19for a philosophical answer. I mean, I, I absolutely agree with you. I think actually you get a different answer depending on who you ask. And, uh, a lot of people on the street, you know, will really struggle to define personality at all. I mean, that's, that's my experience. I actually am one of the, I, this is something I ask people periodically when I run, you know, make a new friend or if somebody asked me about my work. So, uh, yeah, I think people struggle to know what personality is. Uh, and that supports the point I made earlier about, uh, you know, personality really just being taken, taken so much for granted in our lives,

19:49uh, despite its importance. I'll tell you my own answer has shifted pretty dramatically over the years. I mean, it's, it's, it's not like I've got all the answers. Um, my, my opinion on this has evolved certainly within Hogan, you know, the framing, um, that I work inside every day, personality, uh, is defined as having, you know, these two aspects. There's identity, which is how you see yourself, uh, from the inside and then reputation, which is how, you know, the people around you would describe you. You guys have talked about this in detail, uh, before,

20:20so I might refer your listeners to more expert, uh, discussions of the, of the point elsewhere. Um, but, you know, reputation is really the part that you can observe well, uh, and measure well, and it's what predicts outcomes. So that's the side that we lean on, uh, scientifically, especially in applied settings. And I think that definition is, it's a very good one, but perhaps it's the most useful way to really, um, define personality. Surprisingly to me, most of the personality scientists that I've spent time with seem to have, um, gravitated to maybe one

20:56definition that's more conceptual than some others. Um, they'll say something like personality is the stable constellation of how people, uh, differ in affect behavior, cognition, and desire. That sounds like a lot of jargon, but it's easy for me to remember because people sometimes call this the ABCDs, uh, affect behavior, cognition, and, and desire. Um, and I think that's a fine response, but it, to be honest, um, I'll admit it's always struck me as a little hollow, uh, feels very,

21:28it does feel very academic. It's really just a listing of the domains that, um, you know, psychologists use to sort the ways that people differ, right? So it's, you know, it's about emotion and cognition, motivations, that kind of thing. So it's more of a grouping of the aspects of personality than it is, um, a definition of what, you know, what personality actually is. I think where I have landed, where, where I am currently on this point is, is more speculative. I've been in this spot for a few years now, so maybe it's crystallizing for me, but, uh, it's my,

22:02my definition is more about the structure of, of personality than, uh, its nature. And, and that's pretty well aligned with, um, my research perspective over the years too. You know, uh, what I've felt, uh, is, is most interesting and worth my attention is the structure of personality. I think that structure is actually very similar to, uh, these long vectors that emerge from machine learning models. Now you invited me to be a little philosophical, so I'm leaning into it. Uh, I, and maybe I shouldn't, shouldn't apologize, but I actually think, you know, machine learning

22:35algorithms are a really good way. Uh, if the, even if they're a bit, um, you know, a bit complex, they're a really good way to think about personality. So these vectors, you know, they, that get spit out. They're, they're highly complex. They're hard to interpret. They, I mean, they're arguably, you know, inscrutable really, um, interactions of all these, you know, thousands of variables that collectively shape how we, how each of us responds to the situations we face in everyday life. I mean, I just think that's, that's reality. I, as I said, it is also speculative.

23:07Uh, we're still waiting for the field to find a way to interpret these vectors that, that doesn't sound so, uh, difficult to manage. You know, people want a cleaner answer because, um, and I agree, it feels more satisfying to say, for example, you know, personality is really just these five things that I can, I can list with my fingers, you know, the big five or, uh, whatever you like. I get that. And so for those folks, I tone it down. I might just say, you know, personality is the psychological ways that people differ, right? That's the most straightforward. I think it's easy

23:38and accurate. Uh, and it's an honest answer, but it's, it's not really the whole story, but you know, it's an important question, even though, you know, my, my answer, as we've discussed, there's a lot of ways that people think about it. And my answer is pretty complex. It's really important. Um, you know, how you, how you carve personality because of, uh, the fact that, you know, these differences really do, they do shape, uh, the things that people care about the most in their lives. Um, I already mentioned, it's both the very small decisions we make and the very consequential, but I mean, just to give some examples, it's, it's who, uh, you know, who,

24:13who thrives in a job, what jobs we pick, um, which relationships, uh, we, we prioritize and, and, uh, whether or not they last, I mean, really important stuff. So, um, yeah, I do think this definition, this philosophical question about how personality could be defined is, um, it's hard, but it's also, you know, it's a, it's a big one. Um, so we should keep trying. You know, David, I, I agree. I think it's hugely important. And in fact, I remember some years ago, and I think it's still true today going to the Wikipedia page for personality. And I think it

24:46opens with, I think the opening sentence is, you know, researchers, scholars, personality psychologists do not agree on one single definition of personality, which, uh, doesn't really bode well, I think in some ways for a field that you think, wow, there's no real, no real consensus about what the thing even is. But I think there's, there is a fair amount of consensus around things. I mean, you gave a definition that I, I'm certain, certain you learned in graduate school. The one that I learned in graduate school was about a characteristic pattern of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors and,

25:16and the mechanisms behind those. And then it was about whether or not those mechanisms were hidden or, or also in, in plain view, right? So that was, that was the definition that I learned of personality. But I do think it is important that you are clear about what definition you're using when you're doing personality research, whether it contains those mechanisms that are driving in these kinds of behaviors, or whether you're really just focusing on reputation, whether you're focusing on identity, as you mentioned earlier, because if we're going to talk about things

25:49like personality change, which is a really big topic today, it's really important that you're clear about what's changing. What is the thing that's actually changing? Is it the mechanisms that are driving behavior? Is it the behaviors themselves? Is it someone's reputation? Is it their identity, the way they're thinking about themselves? And research on personality change, and not just personality change, this is not, I'm not picking on that topic. There's lots of research on different personality topics where definitions are not consistent, where one researcher

26:20will use one definition, another researcher will use another definition. They'll come to very different conclusions about, let's say, personality change. But it really depends on what definition of personality you're using. And, you know, for me, I don't know that it's a necessity that you say, this is the one definition of what personality is. But I do think it is important for researchers to be clear about what they mean when they're using personality. I've even seen in a single article, researchers use the word personality in different ways to mean different things throughout the

26:56article. And so even researchers themselves, I think, get confused by this and aren't necessarily sticking to one definition. We have a tendency to pick one that's convenient for the sentence I'm currently writing versus sticking with one throughout an article on the topic. But I think it is essential for answering some of these questions, again, like we mentioned with personality change. Absolutely. Yeah, I agree. I agree completely. I mean, it's really what you're describing is the importance of clear operationalization. I mean, I would even add to some of what you said that

27:29not only are the definitions inconsistently used, but by nature, you know, by their very nature, the boundaries around what folks are talking about, those boundaries are usually not hard and fast and clear. You know, I mean, it's a slippery slope to some extent, in my experience, where if you really want to get something that you can get your arms around, the definition necessarily slips down to something like individual differences, right? I mean, talk about a jargony phrase, but, you know,

28:00because individual differences is something that we can sort of all agree on in terms of what they are and what they aren't. And even then, you know, there are certainly exceptions. I've had esoteric discussions about like, well, is that an individual difference? The problem with using individual differences, from my perspective, though, is that you run into boundary issues about what's personality versus, you know, what's personal history, what are, what are socio-demographics, you know, things like that. Well, that was going to be my natural question of that, David. I'm sure you've had many times

28:37before, which concerns intelligence, right? Because intelligence is an individual difference. Is that considered personality? I, of course, there are entire, you know, some people might argue that you should just get rid of personality altogether, and it should just be into study of individual differences. And that should be all there is to it. But, but, but anyway, I mean, I think that's a question for you, then, is, you know, where do you see things like intelligence falling in this, in this field? Yeah, I mean, there, what I thought you were gonna, where I thought you were going with part of your statement is that there have been like books written on this question. Is it an

29:09intelligence part of personality or not? And I think there's a strong argument, actually, in some areas, the term personality is, you know, in some places, the term personality is explicitly avoided. So they study differential psychology, for example, some European institutions.

29:28Yeah, to be, to specifically get back to your question, I do think, I do think intelligence is part of personality. But then that doesn't really help much, because then it's, it leads to the question, what is intelligence, right? I mean, you know, certainly individual differences in cognition are truly and deeply important, in, in everyday life. So that's why I feel that intelligence is part of personality. But intelligence itself is, has such a complicated history, in many ways, and is challenging to define. So it's, it's a partial answer, probably not as thorough as,

30:06as I'd like it to be. But, you know, what do you think is intelligent? I'm curious, Ryan, what would you say, if I can ask the interviewer? Is intelligence part of personality? Yeah, I mean, I tend to, to, for me, I tend to divide things partly based on the test. And again, this is where it comes to defining, you know, what are the boundaries? What are the things that you want to use to define it? So for me, when we think about things like an assessment for personality, when I look at personality assessment questions, to me, there is no right or wrong answer.

30:37Whereas for intelligence questions, there usually is one clear right answer. And so for me, that's a critical distinction between intelligence and personality, but it really has to do with the assessment of them. You know, in some ways, I also have a tendency to define competencies as things where you would always want more of a competency. And I can see intelligence falling into that category. I would always want more of this. Like, I'm sure people can come up with reasons where, you know, all more intelligence is bad. But I don't think the data really bear that out. I mean,

31:11you know, people will talk about examples where people overthink problems. You can talk about examples where, you know, somebody who is really, really intelligent, use poor judgment. But to me, that's more of a deficiency in some other quality than, than an issue with being overly intelligent. So, you know, so for me, when I see things like, like intelligence or other kind of competencies in the workplace, I tend to define those as a separate category from personality, because in those cases, more is almost always better. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah, it's a good point. I mean,

31:41I love that adage that your greatest strength is your greatest weakness. So even if you were to come up with something related to, you know, an excess, you know, an example of where an excess of intelligence is relevant, it's probably just that it's, it's getting in the way of adaptive, you know, personality functioning in some other area. The example you gave is a good one. I can imagine someone who's extremely intelligent may have a more difficult time making, you know, difficult decisions, you know,

32:11just acquiescing or are satisfying something like that. But yeah, it's interesting. Your, your, your, your explanation is one I'd have to, I'd have to think through. I mean, it may just be the nature of the intelligence tests too, that you're describing as well. Like you could always come up with harder and harder questions where, or more complex questions, maybe there's a way to think about it where there isn't a clear, right answer. You know, many of the biggest problems that our society faces are, and that, that deeply intelligent people are working on are related to topics that, you know, they don't, they don't have a good answer,

32:44right? We don't have a clear solution. We just have to find the middle ground that balances the tension between two and two paths forward. But now we're getting far afield. Anyway. Yeah. I mean, this is part of why I love being a personality psychologist. Okay. Gentlemen, I don't want to derail us here, but I had to pull up based on Ryan's mention of the Wikipedia page for personality. It does not lead off with what you said, Ryan. Although for the third sentence in the, in the first paragraph of the, the entry, it says, although

33:18there is no consensus on the definition of personality, most theories and personality focus on traits, motivation, skills, and identity. Okay. So there's that. What did shock me in reading this was the sentence just before that, just because there's so many people out there who, or studies you see that kind of make the news here or there, maybe it's just the world we live in, but that says personality is relatively stable, but can change over time due to experiences and developmental processes. That's actually, I feel like that's making some progress based on what

33:52we've been saying at Hogan for a long time is that, you know, personality is stable where I think a lot of people like to think they can change and not saying it can't, but I think it's interesting that the second sentence says that it is stable. What do you all think about that?

34:08Well, I think, I think it is accurate to describe personality as relatively stable. You know, the question is in relation to what, but I mean, it's, it's an, it provides some leeway with respect to the question of can it change or does it change? Certainly we do see change most often over longer periods of time than, uh, under, uh, you know, short window than in short windows of time. Um, but yeah, I think it is, I think it is stable. You know, we refer to them as stable, uh, or excuse me, uh, dispositional, uh, individual differences. Um, you know, we, we, people tend to behave in ways that

34:45are recognizable. Um, now I think it's also a major shortcoming that many people who, uh, try to apply personality, you know, sort of casually in their everyday life, they assume it's deterministic. Um, and, and that's, that's a big pitfall that folks fall into, but it is stable, um, in that it's recognizable from one person to the next and over time. Yeah. I think that that is one of the areas where there's a big consensus, right? When we talk about definitions, right? So there, there is a consensus around,

35:16you know, the relative stability of personality. There is consensus, I believe around it. So I'm what having some behavioral basis, right? We can talk about cognitive and emotional and motivational kinds of patterns as well. But at the end of the day, there is some sort of behavioral basis to it as compared to say other individual differences. Like you mentioned some earlier about demographic individual differences, which, you know, aren't really behaviorally based, right? Um, you know, hair color and things like that. I mean, obviously you can change your hair colors

35:49if you want to call that behavior based, but I'm talking about, you know, your sort of natural hair color and those kinds of things are not behaviorally based. Uh, and so I think to me, those are the kind of key things that show up when we talk about a common definition of personality. It's the relative consistency. It is that there are individual differences and it is that it's somewhat based in some kind kind of behavior that's observable. Yeah. Yeah. I might even go one step further. I was, your comments prompted me to think, you know, in some sense, it's not personality if it lacks stability.

36:24Right. You know, too much. Right. I mean, if it's, I mean, my advisor, uh, used to say that when you see people behaving very randomly, you know, it's a signal that something's wrong, you know, that there's a problem. Uh, if folks are not behaving with any, uh, consistency from one situation to the next. And I, I agree with that too. I mean, personality is stable because, you know, it's almost like, um, definitionally the case that it must be somewhat stable because that's what, what makes it a person's personality. Okay, David. So when launching a new organization like the SPI, how do you decide

36:58what to prioritize first? You know, what, what initiatives do you think need to be addressed sooner rather than later? Oh, yeah. You know, there's a nice parallel here. I think too. Um, I've been, it's occurred to me lately, uh, this last month that I've been on the job that I think there's a nice parallel to the personality definition I described earlier, uh, around identity and reputation. I mean, maybe it's a little, it takes some explanation, I guess, but, um, I'll try. So, you know, the identity of an organization, a new one especially is, um, based on what the folks involved decide that the

37:34organization will stand for, you know, it's the internal aspects, the, um, the things that you have some control about, you know, on day, on day one or day 100. Um, whereas the reputation is how the, the outside world, um, comes to describe and view the organization. So those are the things that you don't necessarily get to set. I mean, you have control, but it's, it's a bit indirect. So, um, anyway, I, I find that metaphor, um, useful in the work that I'm doing as, you know, given my background and personality. So the first set of things, the first real decisions that fall into

38:07that identity category, uh, I mean, maybe I should have started when you're starting something new from scratch. I learned a long while back, the pieces are, uh, the mission, people, strategy, and then, uh, execution and pivoting. Right. So let me, let me unpack that a bit. The identity piece, put you in a portion would be like this stuff, those, those first three things. So it's deciding what you're about, uh, pulling together, you know, the team, taking stock of the team,

38:37its capabilities and weaknesses, uh, and then setting a strategy that builds from your strengths and what you hope to do, the mission. It's all kind of, uh, tied up together, the mission, the people and the strategy. Um, but you want to, you want to have a strategy that, that, uh, builds on your competitive advantages. And then from there, it's more about building a reputation over time. So how well do you execute your strategy? Um, and then perhaps more importantly, how well do you, you know, repair when the execution is not going the way you planned or when you realize

39:09the world doesn't work the way, uh, you hoped, or, uh, you know, basically your strategy is not aligned with the mission. You're not getting it done, uh, more simply. So, yeah, I mean, the, you know, thinking about what we hope to do sooner rather than later, I mean, we want to, um, avoid the pitfalls. Um, you know, the most obvious failure mode, uh, in my mind is trying to execute on a strategy that's way too broad or just poorly aligned, um, with, with our, our strengths, our strengths, our assets. Uh, you know, I think that, that you see that all the time,

39:39people that, that they tried to do too much or they pushed too hard. And the result is that, you know, things end up coming across as, as sloppy or you're, you're over promising and under, under delivering. I mean, I think that's, it's all too common of a problem. One of my personal models, mottos, um, has been for, for many years to just do things good, which is actually a little more sophisticated than it seems, uh, and sort of intentionally, uh, humble that, that model. But, you know, you basically, you have to actually do things and then you, you have to get them all

40:10the way done to completion and, and you should do them well because the failure to, to get things done or to do them well, uh, is where you really run into trouble. It's visible and, uh, and you end up not accomplishing much. Now, in truth, some of our ambitions, uh, will be slower to materialize than, than, than, than others, of course. I mean, some of what we've, we've, um, put into our scope is, um, very ambitious. Um, and so that, that would be something we'll have to balance, but I hope that, um, you know, we can get the, the mission and the strategy. Certainly we already have a good team to, to lean on. We hope we can get those things, um, headed in the right direction

40:43in these first few months and then build from there.

40:48Yeah. I mean, I, I totally agree with you, David. I do think one of the concerns you see with any kind of operation is, you know, trying to do too much, um, or, or, I mean, actually you made a really good point there about trying to do things that you don't have the, you know, the, the count, the talents or the capabilities to achieve, you know, Blake and I love a good sports reference. And I, I think, uh, you see that show up a lot in sports where a team will try to play in a way that doesn't match with their own strengths, doesn't match with their own talents, doesn't match with their own capabilities. Uh, we're recording this the day

41:22after the U S men's national soccer team, uh, didn't have their best performance, let's say against Belgium. Uh, and you know, I will say certainly from my view of the match, it looked like they were outclassed at times. Um, but I also wonder to what extent, you know, trying to execute a strategy that doesn't play with your strengths. And I, and I'm not saying that that's what they're trying to do there, you know, um, you know, is it's a failure, not just in sports, but it's also a failure in, in sort of business as a failure. And I think an institution like the science personnel

41:52Institute as well. So I do think it makes a lot of sense for you and your team to consider what are your strongest areas? What are the things that we're, we're the, we can be the best at what are the resources that we have available at Hogan and where can we really, uh, excel the most? Um, I think is, is totally the right way to go because, um, you know, trying to do things that are outside of the scope of our capabilities is almost certainly, uh, a recipe for disaster.

42:21Absolutely. Yeah, I agree. I, I, I agree. Uh, uh, it happened, like I said, it does happen all too often that, um, you know, your aspirations may get ahead of you. Um, and it can, it can manifest in terms of trying to do things you don't have the capacity to handle or just trying to do too many things too quickly, uh, as I said, but certainly, you know, uh, for the team, we, we, we intend to, uh, build from a foundation of success because that's good on all fronts. And it makes, uh, for my, you know, quicker and more rapid, uh, reputational, you know, uh, perception.

42:53And it also just feels good, right? I mean, to be building from success, you get some early wins, um, can be very motivating. Fortunately, I'm working, I'm, I'm, I'm walking into a, uh, an organization that has a history of, uh, strong, uh, research publications and, uh, dissemination through, through Hogan press as well. So, um, right off the bat, I'm starting, uh, with, with a group that, that has a lot going forward. Well, David, I'm curious, uh, onto my next question. How much will

Collaboration at SPI

43:18collaboration play a role at the SPI? You know, are there going to be other people from Hogan involved, which I mean, I assume there will be, and also will there, will you be working with external researchers and practitioners to accomplish the Institute's goals? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, collaboration is not really, you know, uh, not really a nice to have. It is, it is critical. It's most of the, of the model. Um, you know, I've in various capacities, I've worked with a number of institutes, uh, over the years. And I think there's a really important distinction to be made between an Institute and, and, uh, a lab, right? I mean, uh, an Institute that only produces its own, uh,

43:57in-house research. It's not really an Institute. It's more like, it's more like a lab. You're functioning more like a lab. And so the whole value proposition, uh, you know, that we're putting forth is, uh, based on the idea that, you know, we want to be a place where people that don't normally work together end up in the same room because they share, uh, passion and interest around a similar idea or a related idea. And, and, you know, speaking on a more personal level, I actually have found historically that virtually all of my successes have come from collaborative work. Uh, and I think

44:28that's, that's for many reasons. That's not to say I've only done collaborative work, but I find that it tends to, uh, tends to just not, not turn out. It doesn't, it's not as visible. It tends to not turn out as well as, uh, the collaborative stuff. And I don't know if that's because it's just, uh, you know, if it's a signal that it's more, uh, something I'm more passionate about than the world at large, there's a lot of things like that. I think that's the essence of being a bit nerdy, but, uh, I, I think there are other reasons too. You know, the, the collaborative work tends to be better because it's informed by more opinions. Uh, it has, it gets benefits from, you know, just having more energy,

45:02more volume, uh, uh, you know, it's, it's actually more focused despite having, you know, greater diversity of input. It tends to be more focused and clean. It's sort of like you have a lot more editors, right. Uh, in some sense, I mean, that's a very specific, um, task aspect of research, but I think the idea applies generally to all of the work that's being done. Yeah. And then the difficulty, uh, you know, collaborative work is, um, organizing, you know, and motivating, keeping people on task and, and keeping people motivated, but that's really, that's the work we need to do. So, um, we have to lean,

45:36we have to lean into that. And, and, but I guess I should also mention, you, you know, you made this distinction between the internal and external, uh, uh, nature of collaboration. It will, it will be both. I hope it will be, I hope we can blur the lines a little bit actually by, um, you know, getting people, getting people to tell one another and, and work together. Um, and we'll take good ideas anywhere we can find them and energy as well. So yeah, collaboration, uh, is a lot of what we're doing. If we're doing it right, you know, in, in five years, um, I think the best work of the SPI will have,

46:07have, um, many names on it, you know, many people who believe that, uh, they deserve part of the credit. I hope that will happen. You know, part of me, David, that what I really love about, about this SPI and what I really love about the Institute here is that it really follows on this sort of lifelong goal of RT, lifelong, uh, mission of RT to, uh, or Robert Hogan, for those of you who don't know who I'm talking about, um, to continue the, uh, the progress around personality psychology,

46:43um, to, uh, keep personality psychology alive, as he would put it. Uh, there, there was a time in history where personality psychology was, uh, where it really struggled, where it was struggle to get grant funding. If you're a personality psychologist, struggle to be able to conduct research as a personality psychologist, certainly a struggle to publish research and to have a career as a personality psychologist. So to me, one of the really cool things about the SPI is that it is keeping that mission and the message around the importance of personality alive. And what I guess

47:18I really appreciate about it the most is it tells you that despite running a really successful business, like Hogan assessments that the Dr. Hogan created his real passion is around the science, his real passion is around the topic of personality. And this is what he wants to invest in, right? Most businesses would say, we're not going to invest in this kind of thing, but this is really what he cares about. And, and yes,

47:48there's a business in the business exists, but that was never his primary driver was, was about the business. The primary driver was always about this mission around personality psychology.

48:01Totally agree. I mean, he's a pioneer. I actually, I don't know if, if, if, uh, folks in the more recent generations of, uh, personality research appreciate the extent to which he had a pioneering influence on the field. I mean, that's something I think we ought to try and, uh, try and, you know, message we ought to try and share, but, um, I totally agree with what you're saying. And I, I, it's inspiring to me personally, sincerely, especially as someone who feels sort of, um, I mean, I, I view myself as being quote unquote evangelical when it comes to, uh, the importance

48:34of personality science. And I don't, you know, I don't think I do it as much or as well as, as, uh, as, as RT is, as Bob Hogan does. Um, I, I aspire to do it better, but it's just so important, um, and really central to the goals of, of the SPI. Um, yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's really hard to overstate the situation. You referred back to, um, an earlier crisis that personality suffered through, uh, you know, back in the seventies, uh, in spilling over into the eighties. I think there,

49:06um, you know, there could be similar crises, uh, in the future relating to personality. Um, if, if the field, uh, isn't careful, you know, if we're, we're not able to attend to some of the shortcomings that I've mentioned earlier. Um, but we're here to keep that from happening and, and above all, just encourage folks to innovate, you know, to, to see personality for, for, uh, for what it is and how important it is and, um, push things forward. That's, that's really is the, the primary goal. Um, and, and, and I hope that other people will share my, um,

49:38my sense of mission around it. Well, David, I think it's the perfect time to peer into the crystal ball as we start, uh, as we start bringing this episode to a close. So if you could fast forward five years, what outcomes would make you say the SBI has been a success?

49:54Well, you know, most simply I would go back to the goals we talked about, uh, you know, at the beginning, advancing the science and then, and then helping to improve the dissemination of personality science, um, you know, in new ways, uh, not just more volume, but also, uh, broader reach and in new ways. But as far as goals go, I mean, well, here's a concrete one that I actually care about quite a lot. Um, people who know my work will, will, will recognize my research in this, but I personally, I would like to hear, uh, personality and assessment psychologists

50:26reaching for the big five, a lot less, you know, and similar, not just the big five, but, uh, these low dimensional models of, of, uh, uh, you know, trait theory, um, low dimensional models of personality, like the big five, they've become the sort of mindless default, if I can be a bit, you know, uh, a bit critical. And, and I see that as, as a problem. That's really the one I had in mind a moment ago where I, I, uh, uh, made the, you know, the, the darker, uh, comment around, like, we need to, we need to proceed with caution, um, because I think it's overdone. I think the big five,

50:58five factor model is a real achievement, but it's just become, um, you know, the reflexive frame that, uh, personality folks often use, you know, personality researchers, they often use it, um, without asking whether it's the right model for the question in front of them. Uh, so within five years, the, the field is holding that model a little more lightly, um, and using it, you know, really it's just one lens, uh, to, to apply to personality, then that will, that will be success. Uh, and I, I'd like to hope that the SPI will have a part in,

51:31uh, in, in that happening, but yeah, I mean, another couple of, um, the goals, I mean, the biggest marker of our success is harder to, uh, is, is harder to articulate, um, because there's really not much precedent for it. We've talked about it a little bit, but I, I want the SPI to become a model for what, you know, serious personality science can look like outside of the university. I think part of, um, you know, uh, advancing personality is, is ensuring that there are,

52:02uh, diversity of healthy ways for personalities, you know, healthy places for personality scientists to work. Right now, um, the, the context of personality work is fairly one dimensional in the sense that it's often done, most often done, uh, in academia. Hogan already does provide, um, you know, a pretty great, uh, research, uh, framework outside of academia, but that work is, um, it's mainly commercial and applied, you know, it is, it is product driven, you know, at the, at the most basic level. And so what I'm hoping is that the SPI can provide a place where

52:36that same level of rigor, uh, and innovation can, can also be done, uh, you know, uh, in, you know, a less commercial context, not because it's, uh, we're developing a product that, that someone needs, but that we are advancing science. Uh, it's, that one's a tough one. Cause it's more like, I'll know it when I see it, you know, I'm, uh, as far as goals go, it doesn't have a metric tied to it. Um, but I think the field will know it too, if, if, uh, and recognize it if we are successful in creating that sort of model. Um, yeah, those, those are my, my main answers. I

53:07don't know. Um, uh, I'd be curious to hear Ryan's thoughts on this one too. What, what should the goals of our success, um, be, you know, five, 10 years out? Yeah. You know, I, I do think those are some of the really important goals. I know one of the things you and I, David have talked about is, um, is using our network, using Hogan's, you know, a vast network of, uh, distributors, uh, our vast network of partners all over the world who are working with some of the top leaders around

53:37the world to, uh, on a more regular basis, say something about the state of leadership and, and what we can know about today's leaders and how can we can develop the future, uh, you know, leaders of our workforce and, you know, what kinds of reporting mechanisms we might have available to us in the SPI to deliver that kind of information at a, at a broad scale. Just earlier this year, we launched and we did a podcast episode not too long ago about it. The global leadership effectiveness survey, which was later renamed the leadership divide, leadership divide report

54:10came out and this was the result of a really large survey effort. And I wondered to what extent the SPI can lead these kinds of efforts going forward to bring those kinds of insights to the public. I mean, I think that's what the whole goal of the leadership divide report was to say something to the public about leadership and what we know about the current state of leadership and, and what we ought to aim for going forward. And I think we can continue to do those kinds of things, uh, through, through the SPI. But I also wonder about the future, some future research in the SPI around different

54:42kinds of assessments. So as artificial intelligence has become more important impact in our lives and people are using artificial intelligence more, I wonder about how assessments might change. Will we continue to see people taking Likert type response assessments where you from strongly disagree to strongly agree like we see today or, or will people be assessed in different ways? Will they be assessed via a conversation with an AI? Will they be, be, be assessed via responding to situations and scenarios

55:14that are sort of text-based where they write down their responses and, and what are the implications for that? And, and I wonder to what extent the SPI is going to be used to help us discover what the future of assessment may or may not look like. Yeah. Wow. That's a great answer. I, I totally agree with you in terms of these sort of, uh, uh, uh, maybe one way to frame what you described with, with respect to the leadership divide is these are almost like special topics, you know, topics that deserve, um, higher status in terms of their consequence for personality, how personality relates to outcomes. Several come to

55:47mind. You know, I, I can imagine, uh, continuing the work that was done on leadership. That may be the most important. It's probably, um, uh, what a good reason to have started there, but, you know, other topics that are, um, nearly as important relate to things like creativity, you know, what matters about personality, uh, as the world is changing in the context of AI. Um, and, and then as, as you suggested too, I, I do think the, uh, methodological change, you know, is on the horizon, uh, for, for personality and many other fields in the social sciences. And the reason is because, uh, we really want to capture

56:20those complex vectors of, uh, uh, you know, that in my philosophical answer earlier, we want to find better ways to capture those complex vectors that are, um, driving the decisions people make. Uh, about how to behave and how to interact with one another, uh, and, and how to, you know, live their lives basically. So, um, yeah, that's, I like hearing your answer. I appreciate that. Uh, took some notes on it while you were talking and I, I think, uh, the SBI is better positioned than any, uh, organization I can think of to, to do those things, you know, to pull that stuff off successfully.

56:53Well, David, this has been an awesome conversation. One, one last question before we let you go. Uh, uh, and I, I want to, you know, just hear from you on a personal level. So what excites you the most personally about leading this new effort? Yeah, well, well, there's a couple of things that come to mind. I mean, the, I guess one of them is, is maybe a bit, uh, a bit, a bit selfish, you know, which is that you just don't frequently get the opportunity to build something, uh, on the science side from a, from a, from a nearly blank page. Um, and I have really appreciated that about the

57:26opportunity. The folks that I'm working with, um, are treating it exactly that way. You know, my own career, uh, excuse me, like most people, you know, uh, has been spent working in contexts that, uh, existed before I got there, you know, and in that sense, you're sort of entering a conversation that's already underway and dealing with, um, the structures and constraints, you know, the stuff that goes with, with, um, those situations. And this one's a little bit different, you know, getting to decide what an institute stands for, um, uh, you know, having to, to, to live with that, to stand it up, that's a rare opportunity. I'm, I don't, I don't take it lightly

58:01by any means. Um, but yeah, I mean, a bigger one, you know, bigger, a bigger topic that, that I'm, I'm very excited about that is not just relevant for me is that it, you know, the opportunity sits on this interesting boundary, um, between rigorous science on the one hand and, and the application, uh, on the, on the other hand, you know, whether any of that science actually helps people to live better lives. Uh, and I've spent, I spent a long time on both sides of that. You know, we didn't get into, uh, my, my prior work before, uh, becoming a psychologist, but I, but I have spent time on both

58:34sides of that, that line, uh, doing the rigorous basic science and then thinking about more, um, you know, thinking more intensively about applied, uh, settings, the application of science to new opportunities, but to try to walk the line in between the two, uh, is very exciting. I mean, the chance to spend the next stretch of my career, um, bridging that gap. And that does it for the science of personality podcast, episode 153. Be sure to join us in two weeks for another fun and informative episode.

59:05Cheers, everybody.

59:08That's why I'm here. And, uh, that's where I think we'll, we'll get a lot of growth and, and realize, um, you know, serious potential from the opportunity. So I would do that. You know, I'll be here on all the hard days. That's what's going to motivate me when, when things get tough and I'm excited to do it. Um, which is, which is how I know it's the right thing to be doing.

59:28Well, I'll, I'll just say, David, we're super excited to have you here. Um, you, you know, I mentioned at the, at the outset of the episode that you're somebody I've known for a long time. And when I first heard about this role, you were certainly one of the first people to come to mind for leading up this initiative and this Institute. So super excited that, uh, we finally get to work together after so many years and, um, happy to have you here. Now you did mention at the start of the episode that you were a, uh, a long time listener. And so I have to ask who is your favorite cohost of the

1:00:03science of personality. Big question, David. I'm just kidding. You don't have to answer that one. Oh, okay. Fair enough. Good. I was going to cop out anyway and take the easy, you know, uh, say that I think you, what I really love is actually the way you guys relate to one another. Um, and, and actually that's worth saying, uh, despite it being sort of a cop out answer, you have such great rapport together. It's pretty impressive. Well, rapport just doesn't, doesn't happen overnight. Now that we're, you know, this would be in the episode, you know, you're going to establish it, whether you like it or not.

1:00:37Right, Ryan? Yeah, absolutely. That's right. No, no. Ryan and I always had a good rapport even going back to before we started the podcast. Uh, but, uh, but, but yeah, you can, you can tell it comes through and it means a lot. It makes the content more interesting. Yeah. Yeah. You really get to know it. I mean, or to establish it and develop it even more when you're doing this and releasing a new episode every two weeks for, you know, over six years now, but, but no, no, it's a, it's, it's been a fun ride. Uh, but you don't realize just how much better you're getting at

1:01:13doing this whole thing until you kind of reflect on it a little bit. But, uh, I'm glad David, you, you decided not to, to give a direct answer on that one. And we'll just wrap this up right now. Uh, but appreciate you coming on, uh, looking forward to, to working with you more in the future. I know our, our paths will cross quite a bit, um, you know, from time to time here and in the, the coming months and weeks and days or whatever you want to look at it. So, uh, looking forward to having you, uh, at Hogan and getting to meet you in person.

1:01:46Thanks so much. Yeah. I'm thrilled to be thrilled to be here at Hogan and very happy to have been part of the science of personality podcast, just a, just a small slice, but, uh, I'm, I'm, I'm proud of it. Thanks for having me. And that does it for the science of personality podcast, episode 154. Be sure to join us in two weeks for another fun and informative episode. Cheers, everybody.

1:02:14This has been the science of personality podcast brought to you by Hogan assessments. You can access all episodes on our website, the science of personality.com or on the streaming service of your choice. See you next time.