Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for …kaplandevries.com › ... ›...

Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for an Age of Uncertainty


“Institutionally, the ability to be agile enough is the gut issue in leading an organization today.”James McNerneyCEO

Assessing Flexible Leadership as a Mastery Assessing Flexible Leadership as a Mastery of Oppositesof Opposites Rob Kaiser & Darren Overfield

The Many Faces of Learning Agility The Many Faces of Learning Agility Kenneth P. De Meuse, Guangrong Dai, & George S. Hallenbeck

Relax, It's Only UncertaintyRelax, It's Only UncertaintyRandall P. White



Handouts available atHandouts available atwww.kaplandevries.comwww.kaplandevries.com

Relax, It's Only UncertaintyThe Case for Higher Order

Leadership Skills

Randall P. White, Ph.D.2009 SCP Mid-Winter Conference

Uncertainty Gap

Unc

erta

inty

Time

Uncertainty gap

Uncertainty in problem or situation

Capability to deal with uncertainty

The Future of Leadership, White, Hodgson & Crainer, 1996

C-suite executives reveal a high degree of ‘being

comfortable with discomfort.’ They accommodate

ambiguity and the uncertainty it brings. They tend

to have ‘solid cores’ that allow them to accept not

knowing everything. They tend to have a longer

view because they see time as a continuum in

which uncertainty will come and go as they

progress. Being uncertain doesn’t stifle them.

– Liz Mellon, Duke Corporate Education

We have a hypothesis ... that emerging market

(non-Western) leaders are actually much better

suited to the way the world is going ... The classical

leadership way of thinking that many business

schools and many corporations used ... assumed a

world that was controllable and predictable ... one of

the things our leaders have always had to do was

deal with masses of ambiguity, enormous amount of

change.

— Christine Williams, Standard Bank (South Africa)

Three types of leadership

Command and control—leader knows where to go and how to get there

Situational Leadership, Paul Hersey, 1979


Empowerment– leader knows where to go but not how to get there

Quality

Acceptance

Time


Learning– leader faces great uncertainty about where to go and thus doesn’t know how to get there

Value to the organization

Difficult learning

Possibility of failure

High

Low

Low High

Relax, It’s Only Uncertainty, Hodgson & White, 2001


Command and control—leader knows where to go

and how to get there

Empowerment– leader knows where to go but not

how to get there

Learning– leader faces great uncertainty about

where to go and thus doesn’t know how to get there

In each case, the leader is teacher versus followers who are learners.

Missing variables in assessing leadership

Learning agility

Dealing with ambiguity/uncertainty

Leadership versatility

Emotional intelligence

Tacit knowledge

Optimism

Leadership leaps

First Supervisory Experience

Managing Managers (mid-level)

General Manager

Be strategic

Deal with ambiguity

“I can’t do this job all by myself.”

Give up technical mastery

Direct and motivate creative problem-solving

People are a problem.

Making the Wrong Choice, White & DeVries, 1990

Enablers

Mystery seekers

Continually curious people attracted to areas and

problems unknown to them

Risk tolerators

Make decisions when necessary, despite incomplete

information, and will risk failure

Future scanners

Either futurists, gazing into the future and imagining the

possibilities or drill deep, asking the right question at the

right time

Enablers

Tenacious challengers

Motivated when told that something can’t be done or

has never been tried

Invigorators

Inject enthusiasm and spontaneity into the work and

invigorate the team

Flexible adjusters

Make on-line adjustments, recognizing the situation has

changed or can sell change to colleagues

Enablers

Simplifiers

Convey ideas and information simply yet completely.

They can be essence detectors who get to the core of

the description, clarifiers who ruthlessly eliminate

ambiguity and uncertainty, or interpreters who use

symbols or images to communicate crisply and easily

Focusers

Keep an eye on a few specific objectives, no matter

what else may be going on

Restrainers

Trouble with transitions

Not motivated by work

Conflict avoiders

Muddy thinkers

Complex communicators

Detail junkies

Narrow

Tethered to the past

Alpha Coefficients

.86Restrainers

.73Focus

.88Simplifier

.78Flexible

.85Creates Excitement

.78Tackles Tough Issues

.83Scans Ahead

.76Risk Tolerant

.69Motivated by Mysteries

The Ambiguity Architect User’s Manual, White, Hodgson, Lombardo & Eichinger, 1999

The Ambiguity Architect User’s Manual, White, Hodgson, Lombardo & Eichinger, 1999

Copyright © 2009 Korn/Ferry International. All Rights ReservedCopyright © 2009 Korn/Ferry International. All Rights Reserved

THE MANY FACES OF LEARNING AGILITYTHE MANY FACES OF LEARNING AGILITY

Kenneth P. De Meuse

Guangrong Dai

George S. Hallenbeck


Situational Leadership

Historically

Fiedler (1967)

Vroom & Yetton (1973)

Graen et al. (1982)

Recently

» McCall, Lombardo & Morrison (1988)

» Brousseau et al. (2006)

» Goldsmith & Reiter (2007)


Learning Agility

DefinitionAbility and willingness to learn from experience, and then applythat learning to perform successfully under new situations.

Focus – Vertical Leadership

Identification and development of Hi‐Po’s


The Leadership Pipeline

Adapted from Adapted from The Leadership Pipeline The Leadership Pipeline (Charan, Drotter, & Noel (2001)(Charan, Drotter, & Noel (2001)


Historical Roots

People develop on the job

Development depends on raw talent, the experiences one has, and what one does with them

Some experiences are more developmental than others

25


Glaring difference between successful people and those whose careers falter…is their ability to wrest meaning from experience (i.e., learning agility).

The Lessons of Experience

McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison (1988)


Half the leaders I have met don’t need to learn what to do. They need to learn what to stop.


Leaders create meaning out of events and relationships that devastate non‐leaders…they look at the same events that unstring those less capable…and see something useful …The signature skill of leaders is the ability to process new experiences… and to integrate them into their life.

28

Geeks and Geezers: Bennis & Thomas (2002)

Learning Agility


29

Learning Agile People Do Four Things WellLearning Agile People Do Four Things Well

1. They are critical thinkerswho examine problems carefully

and make fresh connections

2. They know themselves and are able to handle tough situations

3. They like to experiment and can deal with the discomfort of change

4. They deliver results in first‐time situations through team

building and personal drive

29


30

Learning Agility:Learning Agility:A MultiA Multi--Dimensional ConceptDimensional Concept

MentalAgility

MentalAgility

People Agility

People Agility

LearningAgility

LearningAgility

ChangeAgility

ChangeAgility

ResultsAgility

ResultsAgility

Think through problems from a fresh point of view, are

comfortable with complexity, ambiguity and explaining their

thinking to others.

Curious, have a passion for ideas, like to experiment

with test cases, and engage in skill building

activities

Get results under tough conditions, inspire others to perform beyond normal, exhibit the sort of presence that builds confidence in others.

Know themselves well, learn from experience, treat others constructively, cool and resilient

under the pressures of change


31

Description of Mental AgilityDescription of Mental Agility

31

▪▪ CuriousCurious▪▪ Reads broadly and has wide interestsReads broadly and has wide interests▪▪ Gets to root causesGets to root causes▪▪ Comfortable with ambiguity and complexityComfortable with ambiguity and complexity▪▪ Finds parallels and contrasts easilyFinds parallels and contrasts easily▪▪ Questions conventional wisdomQuestions conventional wisdom▪▪ Finds solutions to tough problemsFinds solutions to tough problems


32

Description of People AgilityDescription of People Agility

32

▪▪ SelfSelf‐‐awareaware▪▪ Comfortable with diversity and differences ofComfortable with diversity and differences ofopinionopinion

▪▪ Understands othersUnderstands others▪▪ Can play many roles simultaneouslyCan play many roles simultaneously▪▪ Politically agilePolitically agile▪▪ Deals with conflict constructivelyDeals with conflict constructively▪▪ Relishes helping others succeedRelishes helping others succeed▪▪ Skilled communicatorSkilled communicator


33

Description of Change AgilityDescription of Change Agility

33

▪▪ Loves tinkering and trying new thingsLoves tinkering and trying new things▪▪ Easily accepts challengesEasily accepts challenges▪▪ Accepts responsibility and accountabilityAccepts responsibility and accountability▪▪ Introduces new slants on old ideasIntroduces new slants on old ideas


34

Description of Results AgilityDescription of Results Agility

34

▪▪ ResourcefulResourceful▪▪ Builds highBuilds high‐‐performance teamsperformance teams▪▪ Has tremendous drive to accomplish tasksHas tremendous drive to accomplish tasks▪▪ Very flexible and adaptableVery flexible and adaptable▪▪ Has significant personal presenceHas significant personal presence



Distribution of Learning AgilityDistribution of Learning Agility

36


Are All Learning Agile Created Equal?Are All Learning Agile Created Equal?

▪▪ MultiMulti‐‐dimensional constructdimensional construct

▪▪ High on one dimension High on one dimension –– Low on anotherLow on another

▪▪ Profiles of high learning agile peopleProfiles of high learning agile people

▪▪ ImplicationsImplications

▫▫ Selection by profileSelection by profile▫▫ Develop by profileDevelop by profile

38


The Problem Solver


The Thought Leader


The Trailblazer


The Champion


The Pillar


The Diplomat


The Energizer


46

How do you identify high potential talent??


Beware of the Beware of the Self ReportSelf Report . . .. . .

47

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

Low Middle High

Self Others


THE MANY FACES OF LEARNING AGILITYTHE MANY FACES OF LEARNING AGILITY

Kenneth P. De Meuse

Guangrong Dai

George S. Hallenbeck

Assessing Flexible Leadership as a

Mastery of Opposites

Robert KaiserDarren OverfieldRobert KaiserDarren Overfield

In concurrent session, Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leadership for an Age of Uncertainty

Flexibility is crucial…

But how to assess it?

Yukl & Lepsinger (2004). Flexible leadership. Jossey-Bass.

The obvious answer…Trait — flexibility as a generic tendency to adapt behavior to changing circumstances

Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig (2007). Assessing flexibility. Int’l Journal of Selection & Ass’t

Items• Varies approach with the

situation• Makes adjustments in

behavior • Takes ideas different from

own seriously• Not set in his/her ways• Thinks in terms of trade-offs

•Not compelling conceptually

•Not behaviorally precise; hard to act on

•Weakly related to effectiveness

Mastery of Opposites — capability and skill with complementary behaviors that seem incompatible

•Conceptual/theoretical basis

•Behaviorally specific/prescriptive

•More predictive of effectiveness


An Alternative

Wisdom of opposites

Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management.

People & Relationships

Process & System

Efficiencies

Adaptation to External

Environment

Production & Results

Competing Values Framework

Human Relations

Open Systems

Internal Processes

Rational Goals


Human Relations

Rational Goals

Push for productivity while also building cohesion & morale

Tough-Love


Open Systems

Internal Processes

Practical-Vision

Adapt/introduce change and maintain stability & predictability

“…playing multiple, even competing roles, in a highly integrated & complementary way” Hooijberg & Quinn (1992). Behavioral complexity

“…leader effectiveness entails the mastery of countervailing behavior patterns“Zaccaro (2001). Nature of executive leadership

“…using opposing approaches, unrestricted by bias for one and prejudice against the other.” Kaplan & Kaiser (2006). The versatile leader

Assessment Behavioral content Measurement method Quantifying a higher-order concept

– integrating opposing scores

Behavior

Initiation ConsiderationAutocratic Participative

Task-oriented People-orientedTransactional Transformational

Short-term Long-termStability Change

Efficiency Innovation

Tough-Love

Practical-Vision

Short-term execution

Collaborative and supportiveSelf-assertive and directive

Implementation and Tactical DetailsEfficiency and Conservation

Stability and Reliability

Empowerment and DelegationDemocratic and ParticipativeSupportive and Considerate

Long-term strategyVision and Direction Setting

Growth and ExpansionInnovation and Adaptation

Interpersonal HowHow

OrganizationalWhatWhat

Management Management Realizing efficiency through

command and control

LeadershipLeadershipInspiring people with a

vision for change

Taking Charge and Initiative Autocratic and Decisive

Expectations and Accountability

Measurement 1-to-5 rating scales “Opposites” are positively related

Kaiser & Kaplan (2005). The folly of linear scales. Performance Appraisals: A Critical View

N = 493 executives People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

1 2 3 4 5

12

34

5

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

12

34

5

r = +.49

Kaiser & Kaplan (2005). Overlooking overkill? Human Resources Planning Journal

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much

Too little Too muchamountThe right

+1 +2 +3 +4

New response scale

-2 -1 0 +1 +2

EnablingToo little Too much

The right amountToo little Too much

The right amount

-2-1

0+

1+

2

Forc

eful

Too

little

Too

muc

hTh

e rig

ht

amou

ntTo

o lit

tleTo

o m

uch

The

right

am

ount

-2 -1 0 +1 +2



The right amount

-2-1

0+

1+

2

Forc

eful

Too

little

Too

muc

hTh

e rig

ht

amou

ntTo

o lit

tleTo

o m

uch

The

right

am

ount

r = -.59

-2 -1 0 +1 +2

OperationalToo little Too much


The right amount

-2-1

0+

1+

2

Str

ateg

icTo

o lit

tleTo

o m

uch

The

right

am

ount

Too

little

Too

muc

hTh

e rig

ht

amou

nt

-2 -1 0 +1 +2



The right amount

-2-1

0+

1+

2

Str

ateg

icTo

o lit

tleTo

o m

uch

The

right

am

ount

Too

little

Too

muc

hTh

e rig

ht

amou

nt

-2 -1 0 +1 +2



The right amount

-2-1

0+

1+

2

Str

ateg

icTo

o lit

tleTo

o m

uch

The

right

am

ount

Too

little

Too

muc

hTh

e rig

ht

amou

nt

r = -.21

N = 484 middle to senior managers

Polarity effect

-2 -1 0 +1 +2



The right amount

-2-1

0+

1+

2

Forc

eful

Too

little

Too

muc

hTh

e rig

ht

amou

ntTo

o lit

tleTo

o m

uch

The

right

am

ount

-2 -1 0 +1 +2



The right amount

-2-1

0+

1+

2

Forc

eful

Too

little

Too

muc

hTh

e rig

ht

amou

ntTo

o lit

tleTo

o m

uch

The

right

am

ount

r = -.59

r = +.49

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

1 2 3 4 5

12

34

5

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

People-oriented

Task

-orie

nted

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

12

34

5

r = +.49

Methods Matter

Integrating opposing scores

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much


+1 +2 +3 +4

1 2 3 4 5not Once in Sometimes Fairly Frequently,

at all while often if not always

Different response scales, different methods


1-to-5 Ratings

Bobko & Schwartz (1984). Integrating related constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment

Integrative balance = [(k-1) – (|X – Y|)] * [(X + Y)/2]– X and Y are opposites to be integrated– X and Y are measured on a k-point scale

02.544.54

3.567.584.5

810.5127.54

13.51610.562.5

2013.583.50

1 2 3 4 5DIRECTIVE

12

34

5C

OLL

ABO

RATIV

E

20

16

0

0

4

8

12

“Too much/Too little” Ratings

Too LittleCOLLABORATIVE

Too MuchDIRECTIVE

Too LittleDIRECTIVE

Too MuchCOLLABORATIVE

+4+2

-2

-4

+4

+2

-2-4

+1

+3

-1

-3

-1-3 +3+1

A

B

C

Kaiser, Overfield, & Kaplan (2010). Leadership Versatility Index 3.0 Facilitator’s Guide

Too MuchDIRECTIVE

Too LittleDIRECTIVE

+4+2

-2

-4

+4

+2

-2-4

+1

+3

-1

-3

-1-3 +3+1

50%

75%

25%

100%75%Too LittleCOLLABORATIVE COLLABORATIVE

Too Much

Kaiser, Overfield, & Kaplan (2010). Leadership Versatility Index 3.0 Facilitator’s Guide

ForcefulForcefultaking the lead and pushing

for performance

EnablingEnablingcreating conditions for others

to lead and contribute

OperationalOperationalfocusing the organization on

the short term

StrategicStrategicpositioning the organization

for the future

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much


+1 +2 +3 +4- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0

Muchtoo little

Barelytoo little

Barelytoo much

Muchtoo much


+1 +2 +3 +4

Copyright © 2006-2009. Kaplan DeVries Inc. All rights reserved.

Predicting effectiveness

Kaplan & Kaiser (2006). The Versatile Leader. Pfiefer/Wiley.

How You Lead

Operational Leadership

Enabling LeadershipForceful Leadership

focusing the organization onthe short term

creating conditions for others to lead and contribute

taking the lead and pushing for performance

What You Lead

OrderEfficiencyExecution

SupportsPushesListens/includesDeclares/decidesEmpowersTakes charge

•••

••••••

Strategic Leadershippositioning the organization

for the future

InnovationGrowthDirection

•••

Effectiveness indicators

Perceived overall effectivenessSingle-item rating on 10-pt scale, 5 = “adequate”, 10 = “outstanding”(peer ratings)

Team performanceVitality (subordinate ratings of morale, engagement, & cohesion)

Productivity (superior ratings of quantity, quality, & overall output)

Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig (2008). Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. American Psychologistologist

Research method 484 managers

126 GM or Executive 204 Functional head, Middle manager110 Manager or supervisor

44 did not indicate level

Mostly N. American (<20% EU, AP) Each rated by avg of 13 coworkers

2 Superiors5 Peers 6 Subordinates

MethodUse avg. All Coworker ratings of behavior to predict effectiveness

Peer ratings of Overall EffectivenessSubordinate ratings of Team VitalitySuperior ratings of Team Productivity

TeamVitality(subs)

Overall Effectiveness

(peers)

Team Productivity

(boss)

Forceful-EnablingVersatilityStrategic-Oper’lVersatility

Model RN = 484 middle to senior managers. Versatility based on average rating across all coworkers. Effectiveness based on peer ratings; Team Vitality based on subordinate ratings; Team Productivity based on superior ratings.

.30***

.38***

.64***

-.02

.38***

.36***

Flexibility & leader effectiveness

.32***

.16*

.46***

How

Wha

t

Copyright 2006-2009. Kaplan DeVries Inc. All rights reserved.

78%

Shortcoming Strength overused

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Strength

YS

PD

YS

PD

Copyright 2006-2009. Kaplan DeVries Inc. All rights reserved.

Too little Too muchThe right amount

Too little Too muchThe right amount

1s. Thinks broadly—takes a big-picture perspective.

1o. Pays attention to detail—has a finger on the pulse of day-to-day activities.

Relative Advantages

Mastery of Opposites Reflects the tensions and

tradeoffs managers are familiar with

More highly related to leadership effectiveness

Behaviorally specific; more diagnostic value

Dovetails with theory— Situational (“when to do what”)— Developmental (Jung, Erickson)

Trait Approach Simple and intuitive,

familiar method Requires fewer items,

— esp. important if required to use elaborate competency model

Straight forward computation of scores (compared to “black box” in Mastery of Opposites methods)

Use existing tools based mastery of opposites

Apply methodology to existing competency models/360s

Create your own assessment protocol

Human RelationsHuman

RelationsOpen

SystemsOpen

Systems

Internal Processes

Internal Processes

Rational Goals

Rational Goals

Competency Model

1. Action -oriented

2. Team player

3. Visionary

4. Upward influence

5. Political savvy

6. Decisive

7. Drive for results

8. Customer focus

9. Delegation

10. Participative

11. Networking

12. Integrity

13. Sfds afsd fds

14. Dsfasdsd

15. Opeofweio

16. fsaopjojpldfopdpas

17. Upward influence

18. Political savvy

19. Delegation

20. Participative

21. Networking

22. Integrity

23. Visionary

24. Decisive

25. Action -oriented


27. Customer focus

28. Sfds afsd fds

29. Dsfasdsd

30. Opeofweio

31. Fjojpldfopdpas

32. Sadfasdlk

Competency Model

1. Drive for results-

2. Team player

3. Visionary

4. Upward influence

5. Political savvy

6. Decisive

7. Action-oriented

8. Customer focus

9. Delegation

10. Participative

11. Networking

12. Integrity

13. Mentoring

14. Coaching

15. Negotiation

16. Interpersonal skill

17. Resourcefulness

18. Public speaking

19. Business acumen

20. Empowering

21. Stress tolerance

22. Honesty

23. Master complexity

24. Manage self

25. Composure-

26. Emotional IQ

27. Learning agility

28. Diversity

29. Culturally Aware

30. Change agent

31. Courage

32. Creativity

Competency Model

1. Action -oriented

2. Team player

3. Visionary

4. Upward influence

5. Political savvy

6. Decisive


8. Customer focus

9. Delegation

10. Participative

11. Networking

12. Integrity

13. Sfds afsd fds

14. Dsfasdsd

15. Opeofweio

16. fsaopjojpldfopdpas

17. Upward influence

18. Political savvy

19. Delegation

20. Participative

21. Networking

22. Integrity

23. Visionary

24. Decisive

25. Action -oriented


27. Customer focus

28. Sfds afsd fds

29. Dsfasdsd

30. Opeofweio

31. Fjojpldfopdpas

32. Sadfasdlk

Competency Model

1. Drive for results-

2. Team player

3. Visionary

4. Upward influence

5. Political savvy

6. Decisive

7. Action-oriented

8. Customer focus

9. Delegation

10. Participative

11. Networking

12. Integrity

13. Mentoring

14. Coaching

15. Negotiation

16. Interpersonal skill

17. Resourcefulness

18. Public speaking

19. Business acumen

20. Empowering

21. Stress tolerance

22. Honesty

23. Master complexity

24. Manage self

25. Composure-

26. Emotional IQ

27. Learning agility

28. Diversity

29. Culturally Aware

30. Change agent

31. Courage

32. Creativity

Applications

Construct leadership models in terms of opposites

Cover interpersonal how and organizational what

Don’t assume “more is better”—assess for too little and too much

Start

Stop

Continue



Short-term execution

Collaborative and supportiveSelf-assertive and directive

Implementation and Tactical DetailsEfficiency and Conservation

Stability and Reliability

Empowerment and DelegationDemocratic and ParticipativeSupportive and Considerate

Long-term strategyVision and Direction Setting

Growth and ExpansionInnovation and Adaptation






command and control


command and control


vision for change


vision for change


vision for change

Taking Charge and Initiative Autocratic and Decisive

Expectations and Accountability

Create your own

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.“

F. Scott Fitzgerald"The Crack-Up" (1936)

Handouts available atHandouts available atwww.kaplandevries.comwww.kaplandevries.com

Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for …kaplandevries.com › ... ›...

Documents

Transcript of Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for …kaplandevries.com › ... ›...