Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for an …kaplandevries.com/images/uploads/MasteryOpposites_Div13...Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for an Age of Uncertainty
Post on 09-Mar-2018
220 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for an Age of Uncertainty
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
Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for an Age of Uncertainty
Assessing and Developing Adaptable Leaders for an Age of Uncertainty
Handouts available atHandouts available atwww.kaplandevries.comwww.kaplandevries.com
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
Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig (2007). Assessing flexibility. Int’l Journal of Selection & Ass’t
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
Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management.
Human Relations
Rational Goals
Push for productivity while also building cohesion & morale
Tough-Love
Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management.
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
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
r = -.59
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
OperationalToo little Too much
The right amountToo 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
OperationalToo little Too much
The right amountToo 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
OperationalToo little Too much
The right amountToo 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
r = -.21
N = 484 middle to senior managers
Polarity effect
-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
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
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
Too little Too muchamountThe right
+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
Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig (2007). Assessing flexibility. Int’l Journal of Selection & Ass’t
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
Too little Too muchamountThe right
+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
Too little Too muchamountThe right
+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
26. Drive for results
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
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
26. Drive for results
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
Too little Too muchamountThe right
Too little Too muchamountThe right
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
Interpersonal HowHow
OrganizationalWhatWhat
OrganizationalWhatWhat
Management Management Realizing efficiency through
command and control
Management Management Realizing efficiency through
command and control
LeadershipLeadershipInspiring people with a
vision for change
LeadershipLeadershipInspiring people with a
vision for change
LeadershipLeadershipInspiring people with a
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
top related