“Honesty may be the best policy, but it’s important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.”

George Carlin

I think we can all agree that we’d like leaders (and all talent) to possess a high degree of trustworthiness, honesty and integrity. If only we could figure out the best way to measure and predict these traits in leaders!

A sizeable body of research has accumulated on honesty/integrity assessments and a fairly recent issue of Personnel Psychology contains the fifth in a series of comprehensive reviews on the “state of the art” of testing in this area¹.

In general, integrity and honesty tests can be “overt” (e.g., theft attitudes and admissions of wrongdoing) or “covert” (typically personality based assessments attempting to get at underlying traits and qualities that might predict dishonesty, counterproductive work behavior, etc.).

Four highlights of this wonderful update are worth noting:

1. Honesty/Integrity Assessments Do Predict Counterproductive Behavior: More research suggests that these tests do a pretty good job of predicting fraud, theft, stealing, absenteeism and even academic cheating.

2. Peers May Be Valuable at Predicting Integrity: Some recent research has found that peer reported integrity correlate with interview ratings of integrity (r = .28).

3. You Can Fake Honesty Tests But Not Much Evidence that Leaders Actually Do: One interesting finding in this review suggests that “coaching” someone to fake one of these assessments is really no more effective than asking a respondent to fake. Even more interesting are questions that are invasive in nature: items rated as more private and invasive are less fakable.

4. Integrity Assessments Tend to Engender More Negative Reactions Than Other Types (e.g., personality, interviews): In previous research even graphology (handwriting analysis) had a better image but as the authors point out this often cited study might be hard to generalize since it was based on “perceptions” of which selection approach was most favorable.

Implications for Leadership and Talent Management Selection:

1. Maybe more talent management/succession ratings should consider including peer ratings specific to “integrity” of future leaders.

2. Most unstructured interview processes don’t add much to predicting future leadership success–they have poor “incremental validity” beyond personality and intelligence (OK, I know everyone uses them anyway) so maybe more time should be spend trying to measure key relationship intelligence and collaboration factors that are negatively associated with counterproductive work behaviors.

3. Double check references and focus on peer ratings for supplementing data you have on “handicapping” leadership success and future performance.

4. Most of the current generation “five factor” personality inventories don’t explain much variance in predicting honesty so it’s best to use both an overt personality measure (e.g., “Big 5″ assessment) and covert honesty test to do a better job of predicting dishonesty and counterproductive behavior in applicants at all levels.

5. Get to know candidates outside the formal application process and work setting. The game of “mutual seduction” is pretty compelling and with the current leadership pipeline shortage everyone tells each other what they want to hear. You learn alot about a person outside the formal selection interviews so take a walk and head to lunch to learn more about their experiences, passions and signature strengths.

If you haven’t heard, a fairly recent study study for the Center for Academic Integrity at Duke University found 56 percent of MBA students acknowledged cheating, compared with 54 percent in engineering, 48 percent in education and 45 percent in law school. Maybe we need to start earlier in the honesty/integrity assessment process…..Be well….

Technorati Tags: interviews, integrity, honesty, counterproductive work behaviors, dishonesty, theft, cheating, absenteeism, performance, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Berry, C., Sackett, P. & Wieman, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271-301 [↩]

“If you don’t know where you are going you might wind up somewhere else”
 
Yogi Berra

I just finished two 3.5 day developmental assessment centers with a large University medical center and another with a state university system for high potential leaders.  At the end of the assessment center, it was surprising to note that 10 to 15 percent of those attending confessed they really preferred to remain in independent contributor roles and that they were negatively challenged to be dealing with what is expected of those supervising, managing and leading others.
 
A five year study conducted by ConceptReserve (Colorado based consulting and training company) revealed that 86 percent of 2,600 managers have trouble transitioning from specialist/independent contributor roles into leadership roles. While this finding may not be a surprise, what is how often organizations tend to “tease” their best performing specialists to take leadership roles that many talent find to be poor fits for their interests and skills.

There appears to be some evidence that personality and propensity to move within leadership roles may even have a genetic predisposition to it.

Avery and colleagues, based on twin studies, estimate that about 33% of the variance in holding leadership roles is due to genetic factors¹. Findings from numerous studies of personality show that genetic effects account for approximately 50% of the variance in five factor domains².

If leaders truly understood the pre-wiring of the interests, values and motives of talent and tried to use this information to lead them more effectively they would be able to unlock some of the mystery surrounding effective leadership.

Understanding the “Wiring” of Specialists versus Leadership Oriented Individuals

SPECIALIST/INDEPENDENT CONTRIBUTOR CAREER PATH — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in remaining in one career field or profession for much of their working life. Along the way, these specialists are able to highly refine their technical knowledge, skills and abilities. These individuals are less interested in moving up as they are in becoming the expert and having autonomy to do things their way.

LEADERSHIP CAREER PATH — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in continually moving vertically up the organizational ladder into traditional supervisory and managerial positions with increasing spans of control, responsibility, power, and authority.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include power, influence, leadership, control, task accomplishment, status, managerial competence, and directing others. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include: upward mobility, promotion, special perks, titles, and organizational symbols of success (e.g., profit sharing incentive plans, company car, stock options, financial planning, expense account, club memberships, etc.).

How to Avoid the Mistake of Moving Specialists into Leadership Roles

1. Conduct a “stay interview” and identify the signature strengths and activities that provide engagement and passion for all your talent (yep, just flat out ask if “leading” is interesting and stimulating).

2. Provide realistic job previews (e.g., managerial Inbasket simuations) that help talent understand the skills required to perform supervisory and leadership roles and where they have strengths to build on and areas to sharpen should they decide to move into leadership roles.

3. Ask managers to become better performance coaches and take time each appraisal to provide feedback on leadership skills that they see their direct reports do well and areas they can improve–whether or not they are specialists or currently supervisiing others.

4. During talent management/succession planning differentitate those interested in line management, project management and specialist type of roles/activities.

5. Create multiple career and compensation paths so specialists aren’t motivated organically to tweak into leadership roles to obtain the most updated Blackberries, increase their salary and take advantage of the management perks within your culture.

6. Identify, using employee engagement surveys, pockets of leadership incompetence and analyze if those in place are truly a good “fit” for the leadership role they are in.

 Not all transitions for those who are specialists end up badly when they are moved into leadership roles but enough do to be a strong warning to most organizations who tend to repeat this mistake far too often.  Maybe I should ask our 10-month year old guide dog puppy Ajax what he wants to be when he grows up….Be well….

Technorati Tags: career paths, specialists, project managers, interests, specialists, career anchors, independent contributors, entrepreneurial behavior, coaching, leadership, talent management, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Avery, R.D., Zhang, Z. Avolio, B. & Kreuger, R.F. (2007).  Developmental and gentic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706 [↩]
2. Bouchard, T.J. & Loehlin, J.C. (2001).  Genes, evolution and personality.  Behavior Genetics, 21, 243-273 [↩]

“Statistics are like bikinis.  What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”

 

Aaron Levenstein

Another addition of leadership and talent management “facts” from all over the world. Some are very intuitive and some are not….what do you think?

1. A recent 2009 survey of 372 human resources professionals by industry publication Workforce Management were asked about their experiences in conducting layoffs.  Over 50% reported they have suffered from sleeplessness, 35% have considered changing their careers and 23% have occasionally used a “substance” to cope.  Only 9% reported using their own employee assistance program (EAP) services to deal with their own work and life stress.

2. A 2009 telephone survey of 1,000 senior executives conducted on behalf of staffing firm Accountemps revealed that just one typo in a resume can cost you a job.  40% reported they wouldn’t hire a candidate who had a typo at all. I’m glad I’m not out actively looking for a new job…..

3. A 2009 poll of 2,261 U.S. adults by Harris Interactive on behalf of employer information website Glassdoor.com found that unemployed husbands and wifes reported more stress than single job seekers (81% to 51%, respectively).  Two thirds of the respondents said that the stress affected other areas of their jobs and 40% said it hindered personal relationships with friends and family.

4. A recent 2009 Executive Quiz results released today by The Korn/Ferry Institute reveal that nearly half (47 percent) of employed executives are either somewhat or very dissatisfied with their current position.

5. In the same Kron Ferry International Executive Quiz a surprising 31 percent of executives stated they do not trust their boss. Despite this, however, three-quarters gave them favorable performance ratings: excellent (19

percent), above average (35 percent) or average (22 percent). Even worse, 36 percent of executives reported they do not trust their CEO. In fact, when asked if their current CEO is the best person for the job, only 38 percent said “absolutely,” while 34 percent responded “somewhat” and 28 percent said “not at all.”

6. Women control almost $12 trillion in consumer spending, 65% of the global total. By 2028, they will control 72% of worldwide consumer spending. But contrary to stereotype, a BCG survey of over 12,000 women in 22 countries found that only 5% of women say shopping makes them extremely happy, compared to pets (42%), sex (27%), and food (19%).

7. People who suffer from insomnia take sick days twice as often as those who do not, according to a report by The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. The study found that over a six-month period, the condition cost employers an average of 4.4 days of wages for each untreated sufferer, plus indirect costs due to lower productivity and mistakes made because of lack of sleep.  Better get your zzzzzz tonight!

8. Both men and women put on weight in response to work-related stress and difficulty paying bills, according to a longitudinal study published this month in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Men also gained weight because they felt they lacked decision authority or skill discretion (the ability to learn new skills and to choose to do new or different tasks) at work. For women, weight gain was also likely to be associated with a feeling of constraint in their lives in general and having difficulty with family relationships. During the 9.2 years of the study, men added an average of 1.37 kg/m2 to their body mass indices, while women added an average of 1.57 kg/m2 (Note: kg = 2.204623 lb).

9. A 2009 survey by the Trust for America’s Health found that The rate of physical inactivity among adults increased in 9 percent in U.S. states last year. (Physical inactivity is defined as engaging in no exercise other than their regular jobs for 30 days.) Except for New Jersey, the states with the highest rates of physical inactivity also rank among the top 15 in obesity. The least inactive states included Minnesota (16.3% adults are inactive) and Oregon (17.6%) and the most inactive states included Mississippi (31.8% are inactive) and Kentucky (30.4%).

10. Workers who use the web for entertainment while at work — whether they’re tweeting, watching YouTube videos, shopping, or catching up with the news — are 9% more productive than those who don’t, according to a recent study by Professor Brent Coker at the University of Melbourne. (As long as they don’t spend more than 20% of their time in the office doing what Dr. Coker calls “workplace internet leisure browsing”.) Why? People need quick breaks in order to maintain a high level of concentration throughout the day.

11. In a 2009 survey by CareerBuilder, laid-off workers are finding ways to make the best of a difficult time, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey of 1,800 unemployed American adults. In addition to looking for work, 22% are spending more time with family and friends, 15% are fixing up their homes, 14% are exercising more, 11% are finally taking time to relax, 8% are volunteering, and 7% are going back to school.

12. Women are under-represented not only in the C-suite, but also in the high-potential leadership development programs that would help them get there, according to an analysis of 12,000 leaders in 76 countries by Development Dimensions International. Researchers found 28% more men than women in early-career high-potential programs and 50% more men in executive-level high-potential programs.

Back to research some new talent development facts….Be well….

Technorati Tags: talent management, succession planning, leadership development, succession planning, micromanage, performance review, performance appraisal, overweight, obesity, wellness, coaching, executive coaching, executive development, surveys, kenneth nowack, Envisia, Envisia Learning, leadership development, ken nowack, Nowack

“First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure.”

Mark Twain

The prevalence of self-enhancement (i.e., high regard for one’s own skills and abilities) is not hotly debated but there is controversy on whether it is adaptive or maladaptive which has implications for understanding and interpreting multi-rater feedback¹.  If self-enhancement means seeing one’s self more positively than others, then the outcomes (performance, health, career and life success) are frequently more favorable but if it is defined as having higher self-ratings than others who provide feedback, then the outcomes are frequently less than favorable.

Much of the literature in 360-degree feedback research suggests that self-ratings tend to be inflated relative to others including some of my own work².  It has been suggested that these inflated self-ratings contribute to the “no clue” gene that many leaders have leading to being “blinded” by how others in their organizations really see them.

In fact, It has been estimated that 65%-75% of the employees in any given organization report that the worst aspect of their job is their immediate boss. In fact, estimates of the base rate for managerial incompetence in corporate life range from 30% to 75% with the average level of poor leadership hovering at about 50%³.

But are leaders viewed the same way by others? 

Do bosses filter the world through their own lenses and are these different from direct reports, peers at the same level and other team members at different levels of the organization?

We analyzed data from three of our most popular multi-rater assessments to test these questions (Emotional Intelligence View 360, Executive View 360, and Manager View 360).  We took a random sample of participants in our data base and compared how self-ratings compared to those of bosses, direct reports, team members and peers.  This sample represents diverse industries and a mix of males and female leaders across three assessments with distinctly different competency models.

What we found in our analyses surprised us a bit:

1. First, contrary to earlier research, self-ratings were not inflated relative to others.
2. We consistently found significant differences in our statistical analyses in the mean ratings of leaders by bosses, direct reports, peers and team members (ANOVAs p’s < .01).
3. Bosses consistently were the toughest evaluators and their ratings were significantly lower than other rater groups.
4. Direct reports tended to consistently and significantly rate leaders higher than any rater groups except for “Team Members” who might lack a “day to day” perspective.

There is some evidence that the different rater groups have different lenses they use to rate and evaluate leaders⁴).

Supervisor feedback tends to be based on bottom-line results (are tasks completed on time and well), technical competence and whether an employee’s behavior draws complaints from colleagues or clients.

By contrast, direct reports base their reviews on factors such as willingness to involve the direct report in decisions, interest in a direct report’s professional development and trustworthiness (i.e., interpersonal and process).

Peers, who lack perspective on their colleagues’ day-to-day performance, tend to focus on leadership potential. Their remarks often reflect opinions on whether the participant has the “right stuff” to motivate and create a compelling vision for others to follow.

Bosses might be tougher in evaluating talent because they are held accountable for the “bottom line” and are more apt to focus on task (what gets done) over process (how things get done).  Our analysis suggests that if your boss has any influence over your career, you might want to find out what makes them look good to senior management and play the political game of emphasizing what you have accomplished (results focused advertising). Our results don’t guarantee that your boss or direct reports will value what you do and how you do your work but it does suggest we are all “feeling different parts of the same elephant.”

I am going to stop now and go ask my boss for some feedback about this Blog…..Be well….

Technorati Tags: self-ratings, distortion, self-awareness, multi-rater feedback, leadership effectiveness, 360 feedback, self-insight, emotional intelligence,   kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Nowack, K. (in press).  Leveraging 360 degree feedback to facilitate behavior change.  Consulting Psychology: Practice and Research [↩]
2. Nowack, K. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a dimension of management development. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 3, 141-155 [↩]
3. Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. (2005).  What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology. 9 (2), 169-180 [↩]
4. Nowack, K. (2002). Does 360 Degree Feedback Negatively Effect company performance: Feedback Varies With Your Point of View. HR Magazine, Volume 47 (6 [↩]

Another addition of leadership and talent management “facts” from all over the world. Some intuitive and some not….what do you think?

1. During the 2009 recession, dating web sites like Match.com and eharmony.com have experienced their greatest membership growth since 9/11 (20%).  No mention if office romances have also increased.

2. US employers expect health care cost increases to hold steady at 6 percent and more plan to adopt consumer directed health plans to control costs in 2009-2010 according to the Annual National Business Group on Healthy/Watson Wyatt Report (2009).  In 2006, health care costs for companies went up 8 percent.

3. The top five industries for involuntary part-time workers include: 1) Retail (860,000); 2) Hotel/Food Service (860,000); Education and Health Services (801,000); Construction (602,000); and Health Care/Social Assistance (469,000).In November 2008,7.3 million individuals were working 35 hours or less per week because of the poor economy–almost double the number in June 2006 according to the US Department of Labor.

4.  According to the National Association of Colleges and Employer’s Outlook 2009 report, the percentage change in hiring expectations of new college grads from August to October 2008 included: Construction (-19.6%), Utilities (-17.6%), Agriculture (-14.2%), Trade (-7.4%), Finance/Insurance (-6.2%), Business services (-3.2%), Manufacturing (.03) and Government (19.8%).

5.  According to a new survey by Proudfoot Consulting, employees in Canada only receive an average of 8 days of training annually only slightly ahead of the UK (7.6 days) and only 55% of Canadian companies regularly assess training needs compared with 84% in Brazil or 83% in India.  Additional survey results suggested that supervisors in Canada only devote 6% of their time to active supervision and training of their staff.

6.  A 2008 Blessing and White paper on coaching surveying over 2,000 managers in 17 countries found that establishing specific goals is the least valuable coaching action but honest dialogue and guided independent work are the most important. 

7. A recent 2009 survey of 71 learning professionals from a variety of industries (the majority employed 1,000 or more individuals) found that only 25% reported integration between their talent development initiatives.  The most integrated processes were learning and performance management, compensation and performance management and recruiting and compensation.  The primary factors limiting integration included cost (70%) and lack of management buy-in (61%).

8.According to a 2009 survey by Corenet on working at home found that 86% of organizations surveyed in North America had some kind of flexible workspace program (e.g, telecommuting or working remotely) compared to 51% in Europe, 33%in Asia-Pacific regions and 31% in India.

9. According to a 2009 study by Novations, 30% of managers believe that twenty percent of their staff are really the “go to” high performers on a consistent basis supporting the popular Jack Welch 20-70-10 management philosophy popularized several years ago.

10. According to a 2009 AchieveGlobal sutdy called “Leading in Tough Times” 54% of leaders rated their employees’ level of stress as a problem or severe problem and 38% rated poor employee morale as a problem or severe problem,  Approximately 70% reported they motivate their employees through ongoing and positive communications and 49% offer special rewards and recognition for those who perform well.

11. In a new 2009 report by Cogniso called “Knowledge: the New Commodity” large organizations in the U.S., reduced training staff from 5.1 to 3.4 from 2007 to 2008.  Investments in employee training declined 11% from the same years and is expected to drop again this year. 

12. A follow up to a 1982 study found that employees exposed to lead on their jobs showed significant memory loss and cognitive problems later in life  and in workers over 55, the higher bone lead levels predicted poor cognition (Neuropsychology, Vol. 23, No.1, 2009).
I’m glad I sucked on my No. 2 lead pencil only in kindergarten and the first grade….Be well….

“Learn to see, and then you’ll know that there is no end to the new worlds of our vision.”

Carolos Casteneda

I just got back from a short work and play weekend in Denver and had a chance to bring along Ajax, our guide dog puppy in training for the blind.  We are doing everything we can to socialize him and expose him to new experiences to facilitate his leadership development.  What an adventure for him as he took his first plane ride (right under our seats), rode on multiple buses, went to the Colorado Rockies baseball game (his favorite S.F. Giants team was crushed) and went for a hike in the Rocky Mountain National Park.  So many people keep asking “how is he doing” and “do you think he will pass?”  It’s so hard to predict leadership success and perhaps easier to really predict who is not likely to succeed.

To stimulate research on the topic of poor leadership, Robert Hogan in 1990 suggested that the base rate of leadership incompetence was between 60% and 75%. Other research has confirmed that approximately one out of two executive leaders fail in corporate America. These leaders seem to consistently lack emotional intelligence, be overly controlling, poor at delegation and problem solving and untrustworthy.  Leaders may be made but clearly finding the ones that are born with “leadership set points” would appear to maximize the success of organizations.

Based on several recent surveys (e.g., Abderdeen Group and Rocket-Hire), the utilization of assessment tools for pre-employment selection and promotion is approximately 60% to 70% across all industries with some projections of increased use in the next 12 months of about 14%. 

Of those using pre-employment assessments across job levels, the most popular approaches continue to be evaluation of work history, candidate interviews, skill and aptitude tests, and personality inventories.  Which approach to measuring key aspects of potential talent’s knowledge, experience and competence actually do a good job of predicting future success and performance? The table below summarizes a large number of recent meta-analytic research studies in the industrial/organizational psychology literature across diverse industries, job levels and different measures of job performance and success.

The numbers in the column are called validity coefficients and they can range from 0 (no association with performance outcomes) to 1.0 (perfect association).  This table is based on very diverse industries for leadership positions across all levels using a wide variety of specific measures of success, salary, promotion, and performance in mind.  In the industrial/organizational literature, it is not unusual to find that most assessments today are only modest at actually predicting future success of leaders in any industry—regardless of how it is defined and measured.  The use of two or more of these pre-employment and selection methods doesn’t dramatically increase predictive validity but relying on only approach may lead to erroneous hires and selection decisions (e.g., relying only on personality inventory results or interviews).

Any of these methods can be used for selecting talent as long as they are based on a systematic job analysis summarizing relevant knowledge, skills and abilities required for successful performance.  There are many ways to establish validation of a pre-employment assessment with the most common methods used including content validation (showing a link between the job requirements and the content of an assessment) and criterion related validation (showing a statistical relationship between the assessment and some measure of performance) methods.

What We Know About Selecting Successful Leaders in the Future

A number of practical and important observations can be made by looking at the relative average predictive validities (correlation coefficients) ranging from the highest (.54 for work samples) to the lowest (.01 for age). 

• No specific assessment approach is statistically very strong in predicting success or performance although work sample simulations, cognitive ability tests for entry positions and more structured interviews are the strongest and practially very useful.
• The standard “mutual seduction” interview is probably only modest at predicting future performance.  Predictive validity increases as interviews become more structured, based on a comprehensive review of the position requirements and based either on specific situations that can be reliably evaluated or behavioral samples from the past.
• Interests are quite poor at telling us much about future performance or competence (just watch the television show American Idol and you can see this in action). However, interests are strong predictors of job satisfaction and turnover so it is important to get a sense of what will maximally engage talent.
• Although reference checks have legal restrictions that minimize their usefulness, in concept they should be pretty revealing if you can get information to be shared by previous colleagues, peers and employers given the predictive power of peer and supervisory ratings.
• Minimize stereotypes about the value of talent with particular educational backgrounds and age—both are virtually useless for making predictions about future leadership success.
• Those who demonstrate cognitive ability seem to learn more rapidly and assimilate information.  Cognitive ability tests are known for potential adverse impact and are often viewed more negatively by prospective candidates.  At higher levels there is a compression of mathematical-logical intelligence making these type of assessments less useful (predictive).
• It’s not how smart you are but how you are smart.  Interpersonal competence, self-awareness and social awareness (ingredients of emotional intelligence) are probably better predictors of who won’t succeed than who will.  Be careful about overstated claims about the predictive power of emotional intelligence on job performance.
• “Show me” assessments or simulations appear to be universally strong predictors of leadership success.  These types of measures have been incorporated into assessment centers with strong predictive validity and little or no adverse impact.  Because they are designed around the job in question, candidates also respond much better than to pre-employment approaches that don’t appear to be immediately relevant to the position (e.g., intelligence tests, personality inventories).
• Personality measures are only modest predictors of job success with two “universal” or generalizable factors typically found to have the strongest association with job performance across diverse settings: conscientiousness (driven, dependable, organized, achievement oriented, responsible) and emotional stability (self-confident, even tempered, adaptable, resilient, emotionally well adjusted).
• When job performance depends on leading and influencing–sales and managerial positions–extraversion is a significant personality predictor and for customer service oriented positions interpersonal factors (agreeableness) appears most strongly associated with performance and success.
• In positions requiring creativity and innovation, a personality factor often referred to as “openness to experience” is quite predictive.

There isn’t much argument that selecting and promoting the best leadership talent is a strategic competitive advantage.  However, what approach to use for “human handicapping” is an important decision when companies, large and small, begin to introduce specific assessment methods for pre-employment hiring and promotional decisional making.  Most are significantly better than chance and some are certainly better at increasing the odds of predicting high performers.

As for Ajax becoming a guide dog for the blind–I want to believe….Be well…

Technorati Tags: leadership development, personnel selection, interviews, work sample simulations, emotional intelligence, personality assessments, Envisia learning, performance, derailment, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

“Life’s challenges are not supposed to paralyze you, they’re supposed to help you discover who you are.”
 
Bernice Johnson Reagon

Ajax, our guide dog puppy in training is being stretched each day to reinforce new habits and to learn new things.  As a leader, we are learning about the importance of “developmental assignments to help him to respond to new challenges in a way that doesn’t stress him but stimulates an eagerness to learn and grow.  The trick is finding the right “developmental challenge” so he is not overly stressed and one that isn’t too easy or just boring.

Some new research offers some insights about the importance of “developmental activities” to enhance the skills of talent.  It also sheds light on how developmental “challenges” can have detrimental outcomes if it is too taxing or promotes too much anxiety.  Since 45% of the $56 billion that organizations spend on leadership development we might expect that we have a pretty good return on investment.  Actually, formal training programs contribute less than 10% of a leader’s development and estimates are that over 70% of all leader development really happens informally and through on-the-job experiences.

Based on a study of 225 on-the-job experiences with 60 managers, research by DeRue & Wellman (2009) suggest that the relationship between developmental challenge and leadership skill development exhibits a pattern of diminishing returns¹.  Their findings suggest that developmental challenges (a feature of the experience) are positively associated to leadership skill development but only up to a certain point.  If the developmental challenge was too stressful or evoked too high a level of anxiety the value of the development experience actually caused “cognitive overload and diminished leadership skill development.”

Most interesting, these authors found that the pattern of diminishing returns were most apparent for interpersonal and business leadership skills suggesting that enhancing social competence and emotional intelligence through developmental experiences might need to be very carefully orchestrated.

Finally, the authors found one antidote to minimize these “diminishing returns.”  It seems that talent who had access to feedback was less likely to experience the negative impacts associated with high levels of developmental challenges.  Although the authors only measured “availability” of feedback, it is likely that quality and frequency of feedback will also shape our developmental experiences are assimilated by talent.

I am learning how “tone of voice” is so important to Ajax in learning to differentiate between commands (”leave it” and “down” have a certain directive tone but “come” is much more playful).

Lessons about Developmental Challenges for Leadership Development

1.  Compare your talent’s current skills and competence level to those required by the developmental challenge or on-the-job experience. The personality of the individual you are dealing with is critically important–for example, those who are more entrepreneurially oriented (high on openness to experience) will be most comfortable taking new risks and dealing with the most ambiguity and even failure.  Those most neurotic are likely to be easily overwhelmed in new situations that “stretch” them to grow and develop.

If the reaction of the talent is to report high levels of anxiety, fear or of they “freeze” and demonstrate “behavioral paralysis” you have inadvertently overwhelmed them and should immediately re-evaluate the challenge or reduce its complexity or difficulty.

2.  Built in greater frequency and availability of ongoing feedback (both praise and feedforward) as this seems to help moderate any negative impacts associated with overly difficult developmental challenges.

3.  Look for ways to enhance peer support to reinforce new behaviors, analyze and share difficulties and build a supportive community for new behavioral learning to take place.  These forms of support can occur through both informal social networks as well as structured relationships. Helping talent develop informal support and peer coaching might be one of the most important ways that organizations can enhance the developmental value of on-the-job experiences.

4.  Encourage any mechanisms to facilitate self-refection (e.g., developmental journals, peer support meetings) and transfer of learning from the on-the-job experiences back to the job.

Well, I’m off to take Ajax for his next Guide Dog puppy training.  It’s really designed for me to become a much better leader of future leaders.  I hope they don’t challenge me too much today…Be well….

Technorati Tags: StressScan, health stressors, financial stressors, stress, health, job burnout, hassles, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. DeRue, D. & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing Leaders Via Experience: The Role of Developmental Challenge, Learning Orientation and Feedback Availability.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 859-875 [↩]

“If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.”

Tom Peters

Ajax, the guide dog puppy we are raising has finally been able to go to the public park in Santa Monica to interact with other dogs.  We can tell right away that is certainly isn’t the alpha dog around others but he is curious to approach and play with any size dog.  It’s interesting to see who turns out to be the true leader in a pack, who the true bully is and who follows.  Who emerges as leaders in groups is practically important in every organization.

One of the things our company has done for the last 20 years is to develop and administer  leaders¹.   These are almost always several days long and encompass a wide range of exercises, simulations and assessments observed by other psychologists and training assessors. 

In each assessment center we always create at least one or two leaderless group exercises (e.g., problem solving or consensus seeking) measuring leadership, interpersonal and problem solving behaviors.  We always ask participants at the end of the exercise to rank and rate each other (a very difficult and challenging task) and we use this data to help identify how our own perceptions of who emerges as leaders matches with those of the other participants,  We also try to compare these results with one of our own 360 feedback assessments being used to evaluate interpersonal competence like our Emotional Intelligence View 360 (EIV360).

One universal observation is that the most dominant members (those who come across as verbal, confident and the most talkative) appear to emerge initially as the leader in a group but many, if not most, tend to fade into the sunset.  A couple of new studies tend to illuminate what we have seen for many years.

Personality Attributes of Those Who Wind Up Actually Leading Groups

There has been a great deal of research validating the “five factor” personality model and its relationship to leadership effectiveness (and health).  These “five factors” tend to commonly be known as Extraversion (assertiveness, positive affect), Emotional Stability (negative affectivity, stress tolerance), Openness to Experience (risk taking, artistic predispositions, openness), Conscientiousness (achievement striving, dependability, organized) and Agreeableness (caring for others, collaborative).

A fairly recent study by Tim Judge and colleagues at the University of Florida has analyzed how these five factors are related to leadership emergence and effectiveness².

They found that Extraversion emerged as the most consistent correlate of leadership when controlling for the other Big Five traits. His findings suggest that Extraversion is the most important trait of leaders and effective leadership (Note: Extraversion was more strongly related to leader emergence than to leader effectiveness). These results for Extraversion make sense, as both sociable and dominant people are more likely to assert themselves in group situation, but the most talkative and appear most “leader like” initially.

Do Dominant Group Members Begin as Leaders?

In two very recent studies by Cameron Anderson at UC Berkeley, dominant leaders appeared to achieve influence in their groups in part because they were seen as more competent by fellow group members³

To measure task competence, they included ratings of task expertise and general cognitive abilities. To measure social competence, they included ratings of leadership and verbal skills by observers.  They used a set of group exercises that was designed to be engaging and evoke a lot of discussion.  After all group sessions had been conducted, outside observers watched a videotape of the sessions and rated group members on the same dimensions on which group members rated each other.

Consistently, the group members who spoke up the most were rated the highest for such qualities as “general intelligence” and “dependable and self-disciplined.”  The ones who didn’t speak as much tended to score higher for less desirable traits, including “conventional and uncreative.”

These findings suggest that dominant individuals (social, talkative, confident) may emerge as early leaders in group settings by appearing helpful to the group’s overall success as opposed to aggressively grabbing power. It seems that dominance leads to influence at least in part because it entails more confident and initiative-taking behaviors. An overwhelming 94% of the time, the groups in the study used the first answer anyone shouted out — mostly ignoring the ideas of others even if they were actually better. 

Anderson and his colleagues also designed a second study to evaluate if it was possible that people who talked more did so because they simply had more to contribute.  They found that people who spoke up more were again more likely to be described by other group members as “leaders” and likelier to be rated as competent in the task they were working on.   Just being more verbal and assertive seemed to signal “leadership presence” to the other group members initially.

Do Dominant Leaders at the Beginning Remain Valued Over Time?

One way to answer this question is to review a classic study by Palhaus who explored the emergence of leadership in groups⁴. His study and findings can be summarized below:

• Two longitudinal studies (7 weeks) explored leadership dynamics in unstructured groups in which participants were strangers
• Narcissism predicted making a strong initial impression and being selected as leader
• These individuals were subsequently rated negatively by the group as a result of arrogance and high-handedness at the end of the 7 week period

His findings suggest that just acting confident and speaking up seem to be the initial ingredients for the emergence of leadership. Why they do isn’t really clear because most group theories suggest that people can’t attain influence simply by behaving assertively and forcefully—they really need to have intelligence and skills.

So, if you want to fake being “leader like” it appears you just need to talk – and talk a lot when you first get into new groups.  If you want to remain being seen as a leader you might consider trying harder to learn from others than assert your own ideas and opinions.

It’s fun to get together with all the other guide dog puppy raisers and to watch the young leaders interact.  It’s even more fun based on their interactions to try to guess who will actually emerge to become a guide dog leader in the future.  Right now, Ajax seems more interested in “playing” then leading around other dogs…we wonder if he has the right stuff to be followed as he gets older and more mature….Be well….

Technorati Tags: personality, leadership, Narcissus, competent jerks, stress, job burnout, leadership, heart disease, talent management, engagement, productivity, bad bosses, group leadership, Envisia Learning, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, Nowack

1. Nowack, K. (1997). Congruence Between Self and Other Ratings and Assessment Center Performance.   Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Volume 12, 145-166 [↩]
2. Judge, T. et al. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 50-66 [↩]
3. Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in groups? A competence-signaling account of personality dominance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96, 491-503 [↩]
4. Paulhaus, D. (1998).  Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptivenessoftrait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 197-208 [↩]

“Seeing within changes one’s outer vision”

Joseph Chilton Pearce

Our guide dog puppy in training named Ajax is still growing and expressing all aspects of his personality and interests (e.g., pushing rocks around our deck, finding joy in pulling down toilet paper rolls from the bathroom, exploring things in the sky that fly, and wanting to play with other dogs that walk by while he is working).

We can’t help but wonder if he will emerge to become a leader and become an official guide dog.

One earlier guide dog puppy named Elmo was unbelievable but made a career change from majoring in “special education”  to “recreation” after he wasn’t able to handle the stress of being a guide dog.  His career path preference was clearly to be more of a devoted “stay at home” pet (specialist) then to enter the leadership track and become an official guide dog.  Other guide dogs also become “specialists” and are kept for breeding while others go on to other service dog positions using their initial guide dog training (generalists).

If leaders truly understood the pre-wiring of the interests, values and motives of talent and tried to use this information to lead them more effectively they would be able to unlock some of the mystery surrounding effective leadership.  Our interests, motives and values seem to be set at late teen age years (in most of us!) and remain stable for the rest of our life. 

Understanding the Four Career Path Preferences

MANAGERIAL – This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in continually moving vertically up the organizational ladder into traditional supervisory and managerial positions with increasing spans of control, responsibility, power, and authority.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include power, influence, leadership, control, task accomplishment, status, managerial competence, and directing others. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include: upward mobility, promotion, special perks, titles, and organizational symbols of success (e.g., profit sharing incentive plans, company car, stock options, financial planning, expense account, club memberships, etc.).

SPECIALIST/INDEPENDENT CONTRIBUTOR — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in remaining in one career field or profession for much of their working life. Along the way, these specialists are able to highly refine their technical knowledge, skills and abilities. These individuals are less interested in moving up as they are in becoming the expert and having autonomy to do things their way.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include technical and functional competence, expertise, skill mastery, service to others, independence, affiliation and security. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include: job enrichment, continuing education, membership in professional associations, recognition, motivational programs, organizational benefits, sabbaticals, tenure and job security.

ENTREPRENEURIAL — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in rapid job, career, and occupational changes over short periods of time. These individuals enjoy working on diverse projects, tasks, assignments, and business ventures with measurable and visible outcomes.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include: entrepreneurship, achievement, autonomy, variety, risk, challenge, change, freedom from organizational constraints, flexibility, creativity and diversity. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include flexible schedules, short-term projects, independent contracts, consulting assignments, start-up operations, job sharing, and bonuses.

GENERALIST — This career path preference is best characterized by those who gradually change jobs and career over time but utilize the foundation of previously acquired skills, knowledge and abilities. These generalists generally move either laterally or upwards increasing their breadth of knowledge and experience along the way. Individuals who follow this career path tend to prefer new challenges and assignments that will enable them to grow and develop professionally. This career path preference is particularly well suited for project and program management assignments within organizations.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include professional growth and personal development, learning, coaching, developing others, and innovation. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include cross training, job rotation, project management, tuition and educational reimbursement and coaching and mentorship assignments.

Of course we find combinations of these drivers.  For example those of you high in both “specialist” and “entrepreneurial” anchors are likely to be attracted to external consulting.  Others with a combination of “managerial” and “generalist” love “fix it” assignments and short term challenges before moving on to another leadership opportunity.

So, stop teasing that specialist/independent contributor about leading–they really just want to practice their craft and be left alone.  Oh, and stop trying to lead them too!  You will only frustrate yourself and drive key talent away.

We hope Ajax will have a strong proclivity towards both the Managerial and Specialist career paths to guide the way for someone lucky enough to be his partner….Be well….

Technorati Tags: career paths, specialists, project managers, interests, entrepreneurial behavior, coaching, leadership, talent management, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

80% of success is showing up” 

Woody Allen

Ajax, our new guide dog puppy is learning how to lead.  It’s amazing how many people we meet (always with a smile, greeting and interesting questions–I often wonder what happened to those behaviors when you don’t have a guide dog you are raising??) typically ask two things:

1. How can you give him up after 12-18 months?
2. Do you think he will pass to become a guide dog

The last question is a great one because every organization I consult with asks this same question of high potential talent they are grooming for future leadership positions.  Do they really have the “right stuff” to become effective leaders?  How do you know if they have any “blind spots” that might potentially derail them?  How confident are we that they will be successful?  Is there any measure of future leadership success that we can use now to increase our confidence level?

I’ve published an earlier article on  approaches to selecting high performing talent that suggest we might actually consider calling it “human handicapping” as we might actually do a better job of predicting those who don’t succeed better than predicting those who do ((Nowack, K. M. (2007). Predicting the Future Success of Talent. Talent Management, 3 (2), p.14)).  We do have a number of assessments available that we could use to measure future leadership success–none are perfect but some are much better predictors than others.

Which approach to measuring key aspects of potential talent’s knowledge, experience and competence actually do a good job of predicting future success and performance? How should you go about making them legally defensible¹?

Current research on personality², emotional intelligence³ and traditional techniques⁴ provide some answers to these questions.

I’ve tried to summarize about 50+ years of research below and each time I look at the usefulness of various “human handicapping” approaches it is still surprising to me. 

Don’t be fooled about some like cognitive ability (intelligence) testing as “it’s not how smart you are, but how you are smart that really matters!  Even the traditional interview (the mutual seduction) can be improved by making it job related, structured and focused more on behavioral questions.  Finally, just forget about using interests/values to make a prediction about future performance or success–they are pretty strongly associated with satisfaction but it is easy to get these two outcomes mixed up when you are assessing these in candidates!  Whenever prospective candidates tell me with great passion just how much they “like doing things” I always politely thank them for sharing this with me and then find a way for them to actually demonstrate they possess the skill or ability to perform what they have a passion for on the job.

RANKING OF ASSESSMENT APPROACHES TO SELECTION (VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS)

Work Sample Tests (.33 to .54)
Cognitive Ability/Intelligence Tests (.27 to .51)
Assessment Centers (.41 to .50)
Peer/Supervisory Ratings (.41 to .49)
Work History (.24 to .35)
Emotional Intelligence (.20 to .24)
Unstructured Interviews (.15 to .38)
Personality Inventories (.15 to .31)
Reference Checks (.14 to .26)
Training Ratings (.13 to .15)
Self-Ratings (.10 to .15)
Education/Grade Point Average (.00 to .10)
Interests/Values (.00 to .10)
Age (.-.01 to .00)

Ajax certainly has demonstrated desire to work harder when he is wearing his “work clothes” which at this time is his yellow bib identifying him as an official “Guide Dog Puppy in Training.”  He has a personality that might be described as curious, stubborn, risk taking, playful, challenging and sweet.  He demonstrates the ability to learn quickly but to “do things his way.” 

Our “work sample” assessments suggest that at an early age he likely is to go on to become a successful leader. 

You might want to hold onto this prediction–our first guide dog (Ernie) was an absolute “devil” that nobody believed would make it and he went on to have a wonderful leadership career.  And our latest puppy (Elmo) who was an “angel” was tauted early as the “perfect guide dog” but he made a career transition from special education to recreation and lived with us until we had to say goodbye to him late last year.  So, our rate of predicting leadership success is pretty bad so far…..It will be fun to see if our predictions improve a bit now that we are raising Ajax….Be well…..

tags]pre-employment selection, assessment, interviewing, behavioral interviewing, emotional intelligence, personality inventories, work history, validation, interests, assessment centers, intelligence tests, cognitive ability measures, reference checks, peer ratings, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack[/tags]

1. Nowack, K. M. (1988). Approaches to validating assessment centers. Performance and Instruction, 27, 14-16 [↩]
2. Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780 [↩]
3. Van Rooy, D.  & Viswesvaran, C.(2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95 [↩]
4. Schmidt, F. &  Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274 [↩]