As a seasoned leadership assessor I have worked with many different leadership frameworks over the years, all of which claim to have found the holy grail of executive assessment, and to be better able to answer the perennial question asked by clients – “inspirational corporate titan, or couldn’t manage their way out of a paper bag?”
The science of leadership assessment and framework design is heavily influenced by competency theory, which attempts to break down the requisite qualities into clearly defined, non-overlapping, and measurable attributes (‘orthogonal’ is the technical term used). These can then be evaluated through a combination of interview, psychometric tests, simulations, case studies and other exercises.
There are a number of issues with the traditional approach, including:
- Complexity – as ‘new’ requirements of leaders become in vogue, additional competencies are added (but none subtracted!), leading to huge and unwieldy competency ‘dictionaries’
- Hair-splitting – organisations often want leaders at different levels of seniority to have different competency levels, leading to a plethora of overlapping definitions that are impossible to measure robustly (e.g. first line leaders “give credit and praise for good performance” whereas mid level leaders “offer appreciation and thanks for good performance” – spot the difference!)
- Hard-wiring – some aspects of leadership performance are obviously more trainable than others (if not at all trainable why have leadership development programmes, if totally trainable why put so much effort into selection?). Few leadership frameworks split out what’s easy vs hard to develop, and identify / measure them differently.
- The myth of the leader for all seasons – most leadership frameworks and assessment processes take no account of the fact that a good leader in one context may fail in another. An entrepreneurial change agent driving a high growth strategy is very different from a steady-as-she-goes ‘business as usual’ leader from whom predictability and operational efficiency are the key requirements.
- The ‘dark side’ – most leadership frameworks assume that the traits they purport to measure are stable. But under pressure most people revert to type, and learned coping mechanisms unravel. Signature strengths become derailers.
- Motivation is key – you can have a leader who in theory ticks all the right boxes, but if what is required doesn’t energise them or isn’t aligned with their values, their sense of purpose will not be ignited.
The solution, as in most things in life, is KISS – keep it simple (p)sychologist. Figure out what the absolutely critical capabilites you need to measure are – 8 generic leadership capabilities and (at most) 2 function-specific are plenty. Differentiate between developable and relatively hard-wired attributes, and when selecting future leaders, concentrate on the latter. Ensure you understand what makes life meaningful for this leader. Simplify the levels – pay grades or organisational levels are a rabbit hole you don’t ever want to disappear down; focus instead on changes in psychological demand as seniority increases, or the transitions you identify won’t be robustly measurable. 5 levels can define individual contributor to C Suite performance comprehensively if well designed. Create a role profile that defines the levels required for a specific role, and don’t over-specify by saying that the successful candidate needs to be brilliant at everything, or you needlessly restrict the pool you are fishing in. Don’t fall into the trap of assuming that assessment centre exercise performance is a simulation of anything other than… assessment centre exercise performance. Much better at senior levels to use expert and in-depth psychological assessment supported by psychometric data. Don’t assume that this can be done in an hour. It can’t, and penny pinching here could potentially cost hundreds of thousands later.
We all know good leadership when we see it or are touched by it, and we all know a sweet smelling rose whether it’s a Rosa Grandiflora or a Floribunda. The knack is to know which one likes a sunny spot, and which prefers the shade, which will produce a beautiful bloom for a year and then wilt, and which will keep going year after year. You don’t need a 400 page botanical dictionary for that, just expertise and insight… and green fingers.