May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 1
Assessing Leadership:
Who is a leader and how do we know it?
Tom Mitchell, U. of BaltimoreDivision of Applied Behavioral Sciences
[email protected]://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch
410 837 5348
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 2
Why we need to know
Selection
- hire new managers (first line to mid level)
Promotion
- succession planning and staffing
Development
- training and coaching
- diagnose problems
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 3
Who are they?
• Definitions of leadership:
• Person who motivates others to perform well
• Directing & coordinating group activities (Fiedler, ‘67)
• Influencing others to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2004)
• Building networked relationships to enhance cooperation (Day, 2001)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 4
Conceptual Distinctions
• Born or bred?
• Leader Emergence vs. Effectiveness
• Leadership vs. Management /supervision
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 5
Conceptual Distinctions
• Leadership v. Management– Power sources (French & Raven, ’59)
• Position v. Personal power
• Power source: Power influence:
– 1. Reward: give rewards– 2. Coercive punish– 3. Legitimate demand– 4. Referent identifies with supervisor– 5. Expert knowledge & expertise
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 6
Conceptual Distinctions
• Leadership v. Management
• Power source: Power:
– 1. Reward: give rewards– 2. Coercive punish– 3. Legitimate demand
– 4. Referent identifies with supervisor
– 5. Expert knowledge & expertise
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 7
Leader vs. Manager (Kotter, ‘90)
Establish Directionvision - set strategy
Plan / Budgetresources – time lines
Align Peopleteam building - Commitment
Organize / Staffingestablish rules - hire
Motivate & InspireInspire - empower
Control / Problem SolveIncentives – take action
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 8
Theories: History (short) • Trait (’20s – ’30s) -> dead end
– E.g. height / weight / ambitious / gender
• Behavioral (’50s – ’60s: Ohio state, Fleishman & Harris, ’62)– Consideration / initiating structure (LOQ)
• Contingency (’60s – ’70s: U. MI; Fiedler ‘67) – Situational leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 77)– Path -> Goal (House & Mitchell, ’74)
• Trait (again!)– Charismatic– Transformational v. transactional (Bass, ’06)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 9
Leadership: Factors and Competencies
(Jeanneret and Silzer, 1998)
• Thinking skills– Analyzing information– Solving problems
• Work management skills – Planning and organizing work– Being resourceful
• Interpersonal and communication skills– Building networks– Relating to others
• Leadership skills – Motivating and inspiring others– Coaching and developing others
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 10
Factors and Competencies (cont’)
• Motivation skills– Adapting to change– Showing drive and taking action
• Personal factors– Demonstrating integrity and trust– Modeling cultural values
• Organizational skills – Focusing on customers– Committing to quality
• Technical skills– Demonstrating functional expertise– Knowing the business
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 11
Transformational Leadership(Bass & Avolio, ‘2000)
• Transformational Leadership
• Transactional Leadership
• Passive/Avoidant
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 12
Personal traits: Transformational Leadership
• Transactional leaders – Social exchange
• Transformational leaders– Stimulate and Inspire – Grow and develop – Empower followers
• Passive/Avoidant – MBE / Lassiez Faire
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 13
Transformational Leader Characteristics
• Idealized Influence – Role model / emulation
• Inspirational Motivation– Vision / challenging
• Intellectual Stimulation – Encourages creativity
• Individualized Consideration – Coaching / mentoring
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 14
Assessing Leadership
• Who they are (now we know)
• How do we know?– Why do we need to know? – Identifying and Assessing Leaders
(assessment strategies)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 15
Need to Identify Them
– Recruitment – Selection– Succession planning (promotion)– Development
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 16
Assessment: How to
• Start with Job analysis:• Id SMEs
– Conduct interviews
• Review job description • Confirm leadership duties and KSAOs
– (use factors and competencies)
• Develop matrix (duties & competencies)• Document Job Analysis findings
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 17
Assessment: Issues in Assessing
• Validity & reliability
• Utility (effectiveness and cost)
• Test portability (VG)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 18
Assessment: Issues
• Validity strategies– Content validity– Criterion related validity– Construct validity– Face validity
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 19
Assessment: Issues
• Utility– Effectiveness – Logistics– Screening or ranking
• Costs– Internal: Agency Personnel– External: Vendors = $$$
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 20
Assessment: Issues
• Validity Generalization– Constructs are valid– Job analysis: JA verification
• Test portability– Why re-invent the wheel?
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 21
Assessment: Principal Traits
(Northouse, ’04)
• Intelligence
• Self-confidence
• Determination
• Integrity
• Sociability
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 22
Assessment: Methods
• Personal History
• Assessment center
• Behavioral interview / Oral board– handout “Candidate Leadership Ratings”
• Written tests / inventories
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 23
Assessment: Personal History
• Supplemental application blank
• References
• Past performance reviews
• Past accomplishments
• Peer assessments (promo / dev) – 360 / multi-rater
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 24
Assessment: Assessment Center
• Situational interview
• In-basket technique
• Job simulation
• Leaderless Group Discussion– Leader emergence
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 25
Assessment: Written tests/ inventories
• Cognitive ability
• Integrity inventories
• Personality inventories
• Leadership ability tests
• Biodata
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 26
Assessment: Cognitive Ability
• Watson-Glazer Critical Thinking Appraisal(Psychological Corporation: Harcourt Brace, Pub)
• -> Measures:– Inference– Recognition of Assumptions– Deduction– Interpretation (generalizing, conclusions)– Evaluation of Arguments
• Wonderlic Personnel Test – (Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc., 1992. 1-800 323-3742 )
• -> Measures– “g” general intelligence (potential for development)– Extensive norms
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 27
Assessment: Integrity
• Integrity tests– Overt– Personality
• Hogan Personnel Selection Scale – (organizational delinquency)– http://www.hoganassessments.com/
– Polygraph (?)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 28
Assessment: Personality Inventories
• NEO-PI (Five factor model)– (Costa & McRae, ’92)
• CPI (California Psychological Inventory)– CPP (Gough)
• HPI (Hogan Personality Inventory)– (R. & J. Hogan)
• IPIP (International Personality Item Pool) – (L.Goldberg)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 29
Five Factor Model: Big Five Personality Dimensions (C A N O E) (Barrick & Mount, ’91
• Conscientiousness – persistence, doggedness, hardworking, dependable, – thorough, and responsible.
• Agreeableness
– being liked, courtesy, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft hearted.
• Neuroticism – anxiety, depression, anger worry, and insecurity.
• Open to Experience
– imaginative, creative, broad-minded and intelligent.
• Extroversion – sociability, gregariousness, talkativeness, and activity.
.
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 30
NEO-PI
• NEO-PI-R (Costa & McRae, ‘92)
– NEO Personality Inventory: Revised• Long & short version• Management report• Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. (PAR)
http://www3.parinc.com/
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 31
CPI:Psychological Personality Inventory (3rd ed)
• 20 scales (approximate “Big five”)
• 2 special scales:– Managerial Potential (Mp)– Leadership Potential (Lp)
• Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. (CPP)– http://www.cpp.com/
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 32
Hogan Personality Inventory:(HPI)
• 7 traits: BIG Five– Adjustment (Neuroticism)– Ambition / Sociability (Extraversion)– Likeability (Agreeableness)– Prudence (Conscientiousness)– Intellectance & (Openness)– school success
• Hogan Assessments, Inc. http://www.hoganassessments.com/
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 33
IPIP
• IPIP International Personality Item Pool – (L.Goldberg) http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/
• Five Factors:– http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIP/ – Long version: 300 items (40-60 minutes)– Short version: 120 items (15-20 minutes)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 34
Leadership Ability:Measures
• Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ)– (Self report)
• The Supervisory Behavior Description (SBD) – (used by subordinates to rate supervisor)
• (E. Fleishman, Ohio State studies)
• Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)• (B. Bass, transformational Leadership)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 35
Leadership Ability: LOQ
• Two dimensions (independent constructs)
– Consideration• Concern for others
– Initiating structure• Task oriented
– Creative Organizational Design, Inc. (COD)• http://www.creativeorgdesign.com/testpages/loq.htm
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 36
LOQ: Consideration
• Relationships with subordinates characterized by: – Mutual trust – Respect for their ideas – Consideration of their feelings – Warmth between manager and subordinate
• High score: Good rapport and two-way communications
• Low score: More impersonal in relations with group members
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 37
LOQ: Initiating Structure
• Defines own and subordinates’ roles toward goal attainment
• High score: Takes very active role in directing activities through
– Planning– Communicating information – Scheduling– Criticizing– Trying new ideas
• Low score: Relatively inactive in directing activites
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 38
LOQ used for:
• Training
• Assessment of culture
• Selection
• Coaching
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 39
MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio)
• Transformational Leadership
• Transactional Leadership
• Passive/Avoidant• Mindgarden, Inc. http://mindgarden.com/products/mlqr.htm
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 40
MLQ: Used for
• Selection
• Succession Planning
• Development (3600 Feedback)
• Diagnosis / coaching
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 41
Some Vendors
• CCL Center for Creative Leadership– http://www.ccl.org/leadership/index.aspx
• PDI Personnel Decisions International– http://www.personneldecisions.com
• DDI Development Dimensions International – http://www.ddiworld.com/our_expertise/leadership.asp
• Personnel Testing Council Metropolitan Washington– http://www.ptcmw.org/
(I/O consulting firms)
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 42
Conclusion
• Because
– We know who they are &– Can identify them
• We can
– Improve Agency functioning & productivity • Through effectiveness
– Reduce costs• Improve the bottom line
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 43
Leadership
• Comments?
• Questions?
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 44
Online Sources:
• Center for Creative Leadership• http://www.ccl.org/leadership/index.aspx
• Development Dimensions International (DDI)• http://www.ddiworld.com/our_expertise/leadership.asp
• Personnel Decisions International• http://www.personneldecisions.com
• Hogan Personnel Selection Scale • http://www.hoganassessments.com/
• Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire• http://mindgarden.com/products/mlqr.htm
• Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ)• http://www.creativeorgdesign.com/testpages/loq.htm
May 17, 2006 Md. SHA 45
References
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
• Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, pub.• Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (2000). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 2nd ed. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO PI Personality Inventory: NEO PI and NEO Five Factor
Inventory (NEO FFI: Professional Manual: Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.) • Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.• Fleishman, E. A. & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and
turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.• French, J. R. P, & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright. (Ed.),
– Studies of social power ) pp. 150-157. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. • Jeanneret, Richard, & Silzer, Rob. (1998). Individual Psychological Assessment Predicting behavior in
organizational settings. Jossey Bass pub. Chapter 12 Shaping organizational leadership.• Johnson, Jeff W., Questar Data Systems, Inc. Mineapolis, MN [email protected] • (Handout for ratings leadership characteristics)• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of Organizational Behavior, 3rd 3d. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall• House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-
97.• Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management (pp. 3-8). New York: Free Press• Northouse, Peter G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Sage, pub.