Follow the Leader

Not everyone can, nor should, try to be an exceptional leader. For the corporation, this means development investment must be aimed at the right audience.

Assessment results and performance data from leaders tracked over a six-year period identified factors that linked directly with actual promotions and performance evaluations. This generates an approach that is concrete and repeatable. Thus, the development "skirmish line" can be deliberately narrowed, while the potential for tangible, bottom-line results is optimized.
 

Making the Cut

The four most telling leadership traits, according to a six-year study of business leaders, identified four primary factors that linked directly with actual promotions and performance evaluations: 1. Takes initiative in a business unit. Active management was not enough; focused, proactive leadership tactics were demanded. High performance ratings went to those who anticipated and tackled problems before they erupted. Buckling down and doing the job thoroughly and systematically was essential. On any task assigned, aggressive leadership was expected from startup all the way through completion. 2. Efficient decision making. The ability to distinguish and then focus energy on important issues was a key quality. The best performers delegated routine matters whenever possible while consistently monitoring the delegate’s performance. Such leaders insisted on being informed of all factors touching on their area of responsibility. They then used their own intuitive knowledge to sort through this information and formulate a decision. Subsequent actions were timed carefully to balance known obstacles against favorable conditions to achieve the greatest potential for success. Such leaders recognized that being 70 percent right today was infinitely more valuable than being 100 percent right when it was too late. 3. Inspires accountability and teamwork. Leaders’ people skills were vital. High performers continuously motivated subordinates in the most efficient, effective way. Rewards and penalties were tied directly and clearly to the employee’s performance and personality. Such leaders worked to engender loyalty and commitment in their subordinates. Leadership status and power were earned instead of demanded. 4. Willing to take appropriate risks. The ability to make decisions effectively was not sufficient. Highly rated performers made decisions even when some influences were unknown. They avoided blind or impulsive risks by taking such actions only when tentative data could be backed by sound assumptions. Such leaders stretched past comfortable performance levels to seek challenges and new success horizons.

The performance criteria used to select high-potential candidates evolved from a focused interview process. Leaders were interviewed using a structured interview format, generating a wide variety of responses. Similar responses and concepts were grouped together and categorized, leading to the identification of 13 key performance factors:

• Takes the initiative in a business unit (72 percent);
• Decides efficiently (70 percent);
• Inspires accountability and teamwork (67 percent);
• Takes appropriate risks (67 percent);
• Decides accurately (66 percent);
• Directs and controls others in a corporate setting (61 percent);
• Takes responsibility for results as a corporate manager (59 percent);
• Presentation skills (53 percent);
• Adeptness in spoken communication (43 percent);
• Ability to handle stress (42 percent);
• Technical competence in area of specialty (41 percent);
• Technical competence in related areas (28 percent); and
• Skillfulness in written communication (28 percent).

This process was repeated for each organization. Based on the findings, the legitimate selection factors could be identified for each individual corporation.

Out of the 13 performance factors, four key performance factors statistically best identified the criteria senior executives' used for identifying potential future leaders in their organizations: takes initiative in a business unit, decision making efficiency, inspires accountability and teamwork and willingness to take appropriate risks. The factors were determined by correlating senior executives' ratings of these performance factors against ratings of overall competence and potential.

These four performance factors repeatedly marked exceptional capacity in developing leaders. This surprised participants, who had believed that business and technical competencies, as well as the softer communication skills and presentation skills, were more crucial to their success. These latter factors were not unimportant; rather, they were a common requirement of all successful employees and, therefore, were non-distinguishing. At a high mid-management level, essentially all those assessed had sufficient technical competence.

These performance factors introduced a means to control several hazy areas. Candidates could be more accurately identified and more effectively developed. Succession plans could target leaders ready for advancement when the opportunity arose. Also, companies that needed to "buy" talent from outside sources could use these factors to measure potential candidates' existing abilities and predict their future success.
 

Avoiding Potential Risks
These criteria served as the "first cut" in the selection of high-potential exceptional leaders. They were a quick, useful and a comparatively inexpensive tool. Furthermore, the four key performance criteria proved so clear-cut and relatively simple to observe and evaluate that the other "observable" performance factors could be demised in importance. They were sufficient criteria for the first screening to identify potential candidates for fast-track development. To some extent, these visible behaviors were driven by, and linked to, intelligence and motivation.

Neither initiative nor intelligence could be created where it did not exist, nor could such be taught. Therefore, when faced with a candidate with low initiative ratings and high technical competence, the choice became clear. Technical deficiencies were often correctable; the lack of initiative was not.

Despite their effectiveness in predicting early promotion decisions, these performance criteria could not adequately predict the future success of leaders who were promoted. These criteria essentially "described" their present level of competence in their existing jobs; but, as the longitudinal research discovered, they we inadequate in predicting their success in future positions.

Only one factor associated with reported assessment center results predicted ultimate promotions: whether an individual was chosen to be evaluated in an assessment center.

This text was supplied by Chally Group Worldwide (www.chally.com), based in Dayton, Ohio. The company helps clients increase sales and management productivity and profitability by systematically matching sales, service and leadership personnel to performance needs.