Printer Friendly

The theoretical basis and dimensionality of the talent management system.

INTRODUCTION

After more than 15 years of development, field completion by more than 10,000 executives, and rigorous statistical evaluation, the collection of instruments incorporated in the ExecuSmart Talent Management System is highly reliable, valid and robust. Existing research shows that past attempts to predict leader behavior based upon a single cognitive mechanism has not demonstrated the predictability that business and Human Resource Leaders find useful in assessing and developing leadership capability. The Talent Management System is predicated on the idea that key cognitive dimensions have the ability to be predictive of performance only when they are specified together in a unified model. In this article, the scholarly background of the collection of instruments is presented and the statistical testing which demonstrates a robust nature is described.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM

The Talent Management System is an integrated set of analytical tools for the creation and management of Talent Knowledge. The Research Team established the System on a theoretical foundation, enlightened by actual field experience and application, and concentrated on a process of continuous improvement based upon actual implication impact. It includes four modules: the Leadership Success Profile, the Leadership Capability Indicator, the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment, and the Talent Director, each of which is an instrument based tool, and each of which contributes to the completion of a system of talent management for organizations involved in executive and leadership assessment, evaluation, training and development.

The first step in the process is the Leadership Success Profile. This instrument, which requires about 45 minutes to complete, is administered to an organization's subject matter experts: those individuals who have a high level of knowledge about the company and the specific position in the organization which is under review. The instrument assesses the shared perspectives of the top management team of the specific, ranked, leadership competencies which are necessary for success in a specific leadership position within that organization, taking into consideration the market and competitive environment of the organization, its strategic orientation and culture. These ranked competencies are therefore unique to the individual company, and form a foundation for understanding the leadership needs of a given position within that company. The process uses a forced choice format built upon a foundation of redundancy which avoids the potential for response bias and fosters the development of a set of Tier One, Two and Three, empirically defined specific competencies required for success by an individual executive in a specific leadership position within a specific organization.

The second step in the process is the Leadership Capability Indicator. This instrument, which requires about 45 minutes to complete, is administered to a specific individual who is the subject of assessment, evaluation, training or development. It is a forced choice format in 22 dimensions which assesses an individual's self evaluation of his or her leadership behavior predispositions with respect to Five Cs of Leadership: Leadership Capacity, Leadership Character, Leadership Communication, Leadership Collaboration and Leadership Change. It produces an empirically defined perspective of an individual's cognitive natural state with regard to the various leadership behaviors and compares those to benchmark averages of the other executives in the specific organization, and to a selected group of executives, which can consist of Fortune 1000 or Inc. 500 executives, or executives from any of more than 40 specific industries.

The third step in the process is the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment. This instrument, which requires about 45 minutes to complete, is administered to a specific individual in a specific position within an organization, and to that individual's superiors, peers, and subordinates. The instrument is a forced choice format in 16 dimensions which permits the identification of perceived and preferred behaviors with respect to the Four Types of Leadership: Directive Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, and Empowering Leadership. It produces an empirically defined comparison of an individual's perspective of the intensity of a leadership behavior which is desired by the organization to that individual's self evaluation of his or her delivery of that leadership behavior. Further, the instrument produces a comparison of the individual's perceptions to those of his or her superiors, peers and subordinates.

The fourth step in the process is the Talent Director, which is a graphical interface of the previous three measures. Specifically, the Talent Director prioritizes graphical representations of the outcomes of the Leadership Capability Indicator and the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment, to the prioritized leadership competencies identified by the organization through the Leadership Success Profile. The outcome is an empirically derived fit index which demonstrates the percentage of each specific desired leadership competency which the individual embodies in his or her cognitive predispositions.

Taken as a whole, the Talent Management System is a complete package which provides empirical support to an organization in the executive recruitment and assessment process, executive evaluation process, and executive training and development process. As it is customized to a given organization and position, it is useful in determining positional fit and in establishing experience ladders for targeted, long term, executive development.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE LEADERSHIP SUCCESS PROFILE

The first component of the System, the Leadership Success Profile, began with a rejection of traditional competency model building. The traditional approach is to utilize leadership competency interviews with selected executives or teams of executives within an organization, or to rely on focus groups of executives within the organization. Such approaches are highly dependent on the expertise of the facilitator. They are extremely time consuming and can be prohibitively expensive. Further, they are subject to varying and unidentifiable levels of response bias. When groups are used, differences of opinion which arise within the groups are difficult to resolve and may lead to yet more response bias and political issues. When individuals are surveyed, establishing priorities among the resulting myriad of competencies becomes highly subjective.

The Research Team evolved an approach which eliminates response bias and empirically and independently establishes priorities of leadership competencies. The approach involves beginning with a predetermined set of leadership competencies. The Leadership Success Profile starts with a list of 45 specific leadership competencies which the research team identified as having strong theoretical support in the literature. The specific competencies have been identified over a period of years and are still evolving as research team members continue their research. These competencies are displayed in Table One, along with the specific theoretical support for each competency. Administrators of the System can expand the initial list when requested by a specific organization with competencies which its executives feel are omitted, however, training of the administrators emphasizes the need for extreme care in such an expansion, due to the potential for response bias identified above.

The Research Team recognized that a strong library of leadership competencies has limited value for a specific organization without empirical prioritization. The number of competencies which are identified as valuable is simply too large to be of practical value to the organization. Those competencies must be ranked in a way which establishes the most critical of skills without conflict of interest challenges and without participant bias. Consequently, the Team developed a Patent Pending process which is based on an advanced conjoint application. Such conjoint applications have been demonstrated to be effective in a range of situations that require an understanding of the importance of certain characteristics or capabilities (see Louviere, 1988; Wittink and Cattin, 1989; Green and Srinivasan, 1990; and Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001, for some key examples). As described above, the conjoint application involves a forced choice pairing of the various competencies in a redundant model which permits the independent, empirical determination of ranked outcomes.

The outcomes are tested for agreement using James, Demaree, and Wolf's (1984) RWGJ approach to testing and understanding agreement. This provides the administrator an understanding of agreement or consistency between the various executives who have been involved in the process. Further, the system produces specific measures of the consistency of each individual's responses across the large number of matched pairs. The combination of the two tests informs the administrator as to the level of agreement on each competency and the consistency of the responses of each executive participant. Administrators are trained to conduct outlier analysis when the results of the tests demonstrate the need. Administrators are cautioned, however, as to the danger of excessive interference in the process as each human intervention has the potential to introduce bias.

From a theoretical perspective, Hoyle, Harris and Judd (2002) were very clear that a field application with a larger number of subjects will have higher reliability and validity. Podsakoff and Organ (1986) reported that designs with multiple informants are capable drivers of reliability and validity. The Leadership Success Profile incorporates both aspects.

A series of interviews were conducted with actual, trained administrators of the System with regard to their experience with outliers. Without exception, the administrators reported that outliers were rare in practice. When an individual competency has a low level of agreement, the administrators remove it from the ranked list of competencies. Given the large number of competencies which result from the process, the authors find that to be a robust approach to preserving the reliability and validity of the process.

The Tier 1 and Tier 2 competencies which emerge from the empirical process become the customized foundation for the implementation of the System. However, the individual competencies themselves are problematic. Both Hoyle, Harris and Judd (2002) and Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) report that outcome variables such as these leadership competencies are difficult to directly measure. Consequently, the actual measurement process is based upon examination of underlying drivers of the various leadership behaviors. The rest of the System is devoted to examining those drivers. Consequently, the overall reliability and validity of the Leadership Success Profile is deeply bound with that of the other modules of the System. The authors will examine each of the remaining modules in turn, before arriving at an overall assessment of the System.

Theoretical Foundation, Reliability and Validity of the Leadership Capability Indicator

Judge and Bono (2000) and Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoresen (2003) developed the concept of Core Self Evaluations as a means of understanding key cognitive patterns that drive behaviors. Judge and Bono (2000) and Judge et al. (2004) demonstrated empirically that there is a strong linkage between these core self evaluations and leader behaviors like transformational leadership. Ensley, et al. (2001; 2003; 2006) expanded this work and demonstrated this link to directive, transactional and empowering leader behaviors. However,

Judge and Bono (2000) and Judge and Hurst (2008) argue that the core self evaluations model and the Big Five personality model are too coarse and that there is a need to refine a cognitive patterning model or set of core self evaluations. In response to that call, the Research Team refined the core self evaluations concept to include a full range of cognitive functions. The result was a set of 22 dimensions of cognitive predispositions. Table Two outlines each of the expanded set of core self evaluations and presents examples of the literature support which links the variables to leadership behaviors.

A sample of 1,754 executives from 44 industries was developed to examine the reliability and validity of the Leadership Capability Indicator. The subjects were 68% male, held a variety of managerial positions, and ranged in age from 28 to 71. The participants were chosen on a convenience basis. The central limit theorem (Tijms, 2004) suggests that, due to the sample size, the level of confidence of this sample approaches that of a random sample. This provides us with a higher level of confidence such that the findings can be extrapolated to the broader universe of all executives.

Using this sample, Internal Consistency (Cronbach's Alpha), Split Half, and Test Retest reliability were assessed. Reliability refers to the consistency of an instrument, or the tendency for that instrument to produce the same outcomes consistently over time. Table Three outlines our findings. Cronbach's Alpha is a statistic commonly used as an estimator of the internal consistency reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of subjects. It was first named as alpha by Lee Cronbach in 1951 (Cronbach, 1951). In general, the higher the statistic, which ranges from 0 to 1, the higher the reliability of the instrument. The alphas ranged from 0.69 to 0.92, strong findings, across the 22 dimensions.

The Spilt Half test is estimated as the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between two halves of the instrument, treated as alternate forms of the measure (Allen and Yen, 2002). Again, the statistic ranges from 0 to 1, and the higher the statistic, the higher the reliability of the instrument. The split half reliability range was 0.64 to 0.94, strong findings, across the 22 dimensions.

The test-retest involved a second administration of the instrument to the subjects 24 months after the first administration. To estimate reliability, the authors calculated the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of the two administrations (Allen and Yen, 2002). The test-retest statistics ranged from 0.59 to 0.88, strong findings, across the 22 dimensions.

Reliability is not the same thing as validity. Reliability means that an instrument is measuring something and measuring it consistently. That does not mean that the instrument is measuring what it is supposed to be measuring. Consequently, in evaluating an instrument, validity is tremendously important, yet it is not the authors' intention to downplay the importance of reliability. The entry in Wikipedia (2009) is instructive: "... reliability is precision, while validity is accuracy."

In determining the best approach to examining validity, the Research Team recognized that practical application of an instrument with 22 dimensions was challenging. Consequently, the Team established a mapping of the 22 dimensions into five constructs, which they called the Five Cs of Leadership. These are Leadership Capacity, Leadership Character, Leadership Communication, Leadership Collaboration, and Leadership Change. As these constructs constitute the actual application of the instrument in practice, it is the accuracy, or validity, of the instrument to produce measures of the constructs that are of value. Consequently, a confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to assess the validity of the instrument.

Exploratory factor analysis is inappropriate in this situation, because it seeks to uncover the underlying structure of a set of variables, like the 22 dimensions in this instrument. In this method, one begins with an a priori assumption that any variable may be associated with any factor. One does not have prior theory and one uses the factor loadings to intuit the structure of the data (Kim and Mueller, 1978). In this case, a theoretical foundation was established and the Research Team mapped the dimensions into five factors. Consequently, an identification of the correct approach to Confirmatory factor analysis was indicated which seeks to determine if the number of factors and the loadings of the various measures conform to what the Research Team expected on the basis of its a priori theory (Kline, 1998). The Team selected indicator variables from the 22 dimensions and structured them into five factors on the basis of prior theory. That means that a test is needed as to whether the Team structured the dimensions properly. Confirmatory factor analysis will do this, and it will establish whether the measures mapped into each of the five factors actually belong together. In other words, confirmatory factor analysis will assess how well the proposed model captures the covariance between all the items on the instrument. If the fit is poor, that may imply that some of the items measure multiple factors, or it may imply that some items within one or more of the factors are more related to each other than other items. If the fit is good, it will confirm construct validity. That is, it will confirm that the appropriate variables have been mapped into the appropriate constructs and that the model accurately measures what it purports to measure.

The authors used the approach to confirmatory factor analysis suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) to test the within and between structural relationships. Figure One displays the outline of the confirmatory factor analysis and presents the goodness of fit measures. The level of fit is high under the Bollen (1989) vote method. Further, the Goodness of Fit Index, the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, the RSMEA, and the Chi Square Statistic all demonstrate sufficient fit to confirm construct validity. That is, the model as specified by the Research Team is a valid instrument.

One might note that there are some significant cross-loadings in the confirmatory factor analysis displayed in Figure One. Most important among these are the cross-loadings on Leadership Change. It was concluded that the loadings are appropriate as leading through change is one of the most prominent subjects in all of the management literature (Hofer and Schendel, 1978; Aldrich, 1979; Rumelt, 1986; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). In fact, the purpose of much of the strategy literature is to understand and adapt to change (Mintzberg, 1987; Miller and Friesen, 1981). Clearly, the theoretical foundation for the model recognizes the value of treating leadership change as a separate latent variable, separate from leadership capacity.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

A cross-loading between leadership communication and leadership collaboration was observed, thus it was concluded that the loadings are appropriate. As the Team has defined it, leadership collaboration is clearly a latent construct which is independent from leadership communication. Collaboration is more than building and maintaining relationships; it is feedback enabled and goes to a willingness to effectively share information.

As a further test of construct validity, an examination of convergent and discriminant validity was conducted. Convergent and discriminant validity are subtypes of construct validity. An explanation by Trochim (2006) is instructive: If the measures of a construct which have been theoretically identified as being related to each other are, in fact, observed to be related to each other, then the authors have demonstrated a convergence between similar constructs. Secondly, if the measures of a construct which have been theorized as not related to each other are, in fact, observed to not be related to each other, then the authors have demonstrated a discrimination between dissimilar constructs.

The best approach to testing convergent and discriminant validity remains the Campbell and Fiske (1959) Multi-Trait-Multi-Method approach. This approach requires one to measure the same variables with a completely different approach and then correlates the measures to test conformity between the different methods with different traits and approaches. A sample of 783 executives from 31 industries was utilized. The sample ranged in age from 33 to 71 and averaged 23 years of industry experience. As before, the sample was convenience based, but the central limit theorem (Tijms, 2004) suggests that, due to the sample size, the level of confidence of this sample approaches that of a random sample. As before, the authors believe that this establishes a high level of confidence such that the findings can be extrapolated in this study to the broader universe of all executives.

To execute the Multi-Trait-Multi-Method approach, the authors administered the Leadership Capability Indicator to the sample of executives. This constituted the first method of measurement. Secondly, detailed interviews with each participant across all 22 of the dimensions were conducted. Patton's (1990) "conversation with a purpose" approach was utilized to collect data on each of the executives. A Delphi Process was subsequently employed to create scaled ratings of each dimension for each executive. The details of the process are outlined in the following steps.

1. The authors recorded, then transcribed the responses of each Executive to the 22 conversational questions related to the dimensions. Then they analyzed the transcriptions using Ethnograph 5.0, a program specifically designed for purposes of content analysis. Ethnograph 5.0 reports frequencies of words and word phrases, and these frequencies are used to identify patterns in the responses provided by participants.

2. The results provided by the Ethnograph 5.0 program were discussed in detail with a panel of three Industrial Psychology/Organizational Behavior Ph.D. students who were trained in methods of content analysis and the use of the Delphi technique. Panel members, who were blind to the identity of the executives and did not know whether they were high or mid level executives, then met and rated all 22 dimensions for the 783 executives. The ratings were dependent on the emphasis of the dimension on the interaction, how often particular word or word patterns were found, and how they were used in the responses. The ratings were made on 10 point scales.

3. The findings of the Ethnograph 5.0 assessment were utilized in conjunction with the deliberations by panel members to produce a score for each participating executive on each of the 22 indicators. Following the process outlined by the Campbell and Fiske (1959) Multi-Trait-Multi-Method, these scores were correlated with the 22 dimensional measures which resulted from the administration of the Leadership Capability Indicator.

4. The Multi-Trait-Multi-Method matrix which resulted from the work is displayed in Table Four. An examination of the findings in the Table shows that the 22 Leadership Capability Indicator measures and the 22 Interview measures are highly and significantly correlated with each other, demonstrating convergent validity. The correlations ranged from 0.38 to 0.83 with all correlations significant at the 0.01 probability level. Further, the Table shows little to no significant correlations between the measures that were not theorized to correlate, demonstrating discriminant validity.

Next the authors performed the final test of validity: predictive validity. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) and Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) make it clear that effective prediction is predicated on two key factors. First, is the creation of a fully specified model of normal, reliable, and valid measures. Secondly, is a sufficient understanding and norms for those measures to establish a prescriptive understanding of the implications of prediction which the measure purports to make. The previous reliability and validity testing satisfies the first requirement.

In essence, if the System which is being tested does in fact achieve its stated objective, then the performance of subject executives should improve and the financial performance of the organizations for which they work should improve. Consequently, the authors focused their efforts on testing whether such improvements did, in fact, occur.

The sample of 783 executives which was described in the previous section was utilized. Each of these executives had actually been a subject of application of the System, and each had either been selected as a result of the utilization of the System or had been involved in training and executive development efforts supported by the System which were targeted at improving his or her performance. The authors identified a large number of executives to whom these 783 subjects reported or who reported to them, and asked these executives to participate in the study. A total of 3,289 executives participated in the study, and a ninety minute interview with each of those executives was conducted. The purpose of the interview was to determine how each executive perceived the subject to be performing with regard to each of the 45 leadership competencies identified in the Leadership Success Profile. This was an extensive and exhaustive process, which also followed the Patton (1990) "conversation with a purpose" approach, followed by application of the Delphi technique. The details of the process are outlined in the following steps.

1. The authors developed 45 conversational questions which related to the 45 leadership competencies. They then asked these questions of multiple direct report informants, an average of three for each subject, and recorded and transcribed their answers. The authors analyzed the transcriptions by Ethnograph 5.0.

2. The results provided by the Ethnograph 5.0 program were then discussed in detail by a panel of three Industrial Psychology/Organizational Behavior Ph.D. students who were trained in methods of content analysis and use of the Delphi technique. Again, panel members were blind to the identity of the executives and did not know whether they were high or mid level executives. The panel members met and rated each dimension for each of the 45 leadership competencies for each of the 783 subject executives. The ratings were dependent on the emphasis of the dimension on the interaction, how often particular word or word patterns were found, and how they were used in the responses. The ratings were made on 10 point scales.

3. The authors used the findings of the Ethnograph 5.0 assessment in conjunction with the deliberations by panel members to produce a score for each participating executive on each of the 45 leadership competencies. If, in fact, the System had been successful as a screening or training device, then the original 22 ratings resulting from the application of the Leadership Capability Indicator should predict the results of the 45 leadership competency scores. To test that point, regression analyses were conducted using the leadership competency scores as dependent variables, and the 22 dimensional ratings as independent variables for each subject executive.

Regression analysis is widely used for prediction, but is also used to understand which among the independent variables are related to the dependent variable. It can also be used to infer causal relationships between the independent and dependent variables (Berk, 2004). In the application, the authors intended to test whether the application of the System has influenced the perceptions of performance of the direct report executives. Specifically, they wanted to examine the impact of the System. Impact factors are defined by Cohen and Cohen (1983) as the effect of a particular individual predictor variable or set of predictor variables on a chosen predicted variable.

The control variables which were included in the analysis were age, industry experience, functional experience, and gender. In addition, the authors collected performance appraisal data on all 783 executives in the sample. This data was included as an additional dependent variable in the regression analysis. Finally, the authors created a leadership balance index based on the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment for each executive. The authors utilized the c360[degrees] Index as a final independent variable.

4. The outcomes of the 45 regressions are presented as impact factor ranges in Table Five. Because of the large number of regressions, the authors have presented ranges of impact factors for the 45 regressions. The impact factors demonstrate a highly predictive linkage between the instrument and perception of leadership capability. There was a strong and statistically significant relationship with performance appraisal, as the [R.sup.2] was 0.32 and the adjusted [R.sup.2] was 0.25. Finally, the analysis showed a strong and statistically significant relationship with the 360[degrees] Index, as the R2 was 0.54 and the adjusted [R.sup.2] was 0.42. The authors concluded that the Leadership Capability Indicator has predictive validity.

The authors have applied established empirical evaluation methodologies to the Leadership Capability Indicator in the evaluation of reliability and validity. A test of predictive validity, which is often omitted in empirical evaluations of such instruments, was conducted. The findings to this point are that the Leadership Capability Indicator is a reliable and valid instrument.

Theoretical Foundation, Reliability and Validity of the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment

The Research Team designed the c360[degrees] to be an instrument of leadership balance. Leadership Balance is based on Fiedler's (1966 & 1971) Contingency Theory of Leadership, and the Situational Leadership Theory developed by Kerr and Jermier (1978). The essence of these leadership theories is principally that leaders have to read and understand their direct reports and execute leader behaviors at a level which will be most motivating for the group. While this perspective may appear simplistic, leadership is an extremely complex phenomenon. Yukl (1999) was insistent that Transformational Leadership, a form of leadership on which many leadership assessment instruments are based, has a series of conceptual and practical weaknesses. Consequently, the practice of Transformational Leadership alone, is not likely to be adequate to establish a high level of leadership capability in the modern world. Jaques and Clement (1991) argued that managing in more complex and difficult environments required leadership to be fully multi-dimensional. Schein (2004) indicated that it takes a range of leadership styles to maintain and drive effective organizational cultures.

As a result of its review of the foregoing and other research streams, the Team decided to expand its instrument to establish an understanding of an individual's ability to apply Directive, Transactional, Transformational and Empowering leader behaviors in his or her particular leadership role in a given organization. Pearce, Sims, Cox, Ball, Schnell, Smith and Trevino (2003) present a detailed conversation about these various leader behaviors. The Team developed a series of measures based on refinements of the scales of Pearce and Sims (2002) and Cox and Sims (1996). Edwards (2008) demonstrated the power of such comparative or fit based approaches but argued that traditional difference scores have a range of methodological challenges. Consequently, the Team configured the measures to comply with the Edwards' perspective.

Leadership balance, as viewed by the Team in its development of this instrument, is largely a broad measure of leadership fit. That is, not only does one need to understand how an individual perceives his or her execution of the various leader behaviors, one needs to know whether the direct reports of that individual feel that the execution fits their needs and circumstances. Consequently, the instrument includes evaluation of the needs of direct reports and the influence potential for each of the four leadership styles (Pearce and Sims, 2002; Ensley, Pearce and Hmieleski, 2006).

The Team identified 16 specific leader behaviors which are mapped to the four leadership styles. The perspective of the System is that leadership balance is evidenced by the appropriate use of all four leadership styles, and that all 16 leader behaviors fit the context in which the leader works. The instrument avoids interpretive assumptions by creating performance and influence scores for each subject. Performance scores indicate the use of leadership style or behavior on the part of a particular leader, and influence scores indicate the need which a particular set of followers has for that particular leader behavior. Leadership balance is then presented as the fit between what leadership is required by a particular set of direct reports and the extent to which the leader executes those leader behaviors effectively.

As before, the authors began the assessment of reliability with tests of Internal Consistency, Split Half, and Test-Retest. The same sample was used to test reliability for the Leadership Capability Indicator. Table Six outlines the findings of the reliability analysis across all 16 dimensions of the instrument. Internal consistency measures using Cronbach's Alpha ranged from 0.73 to 0.91 across the 16 dimensions. The split half reliability range was 0.66 to 0.88 across the 16 dimensions. The test-retest reliability at 24 months ranged from 0.44 to 0.77 across the 16 dimensions. All of these factors indicate a high level of reliability.

As discussed in the assessment of the Leadership Capability Indicator, it was determined that the mapping of the 16 dimensions in the four leadership styles suggested that the most appropriate assessment tool would be confirmatory factor analysis. Consequently, that analysis and the findings are displayed in Figure Two. As before, the approach suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) was utilized to demonstrate that the model has sufficient within and between statistical structure to consider that the authors have established construct validity. The level of fit using Bollen's (1989) vote method is high.

The Goodness of Fit Index, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, RSMEA, and Chi Square all demonstrate sufficient fit to confirm construct validity.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

As before, this examination was followed with a test of convergent and discriminant validity. The Campbell and Fiske's (1959) Multi-Trait-Multi-Method approach, which requires the measurement of the same variables with a completely different approach and then correlates the measures to test conformity between the different methods with different traits and approaches was utilized. The authors used a sample of 598 executives from 27 industries. The sample ranged in age from 31 to 63 and averaged 19 years of industry experience. As before, the sample was convenience based, but the central limit theorem (Tijms, 2004) suggests that, due to the sample size, the level of confidence of this sample approaches that of a random sample. As before, the authors believe that this establishes a high level of confidence and that the findings can be extrapolated to the broader universe of all executives.

To execute the Multi-Trait-Multi-Method approach, the authors administered the c360[degrees] to each of the subjects and to each of the superiors, subordinates and peers of each subject executive. This constituted the first method of measurement. Secondly, detailed interviews were conducted with each participant across all 16 of the dimensions. The authors used Patton's (1990) "conversation with a purpose" approach to collect data on each of the executives. A Delphi Process was subsequently employed to create scaled ratings of each dimension for each executive. The details of the process are outlined in the following steps:

1. The authors recorded, then transcribed the responses of each Executive to the 16 conversational questions related to the dimensions. Counting the subjects, their superiors, peers and subordinates, the authors completed 3,708 one hour interviews. The authors concentrated on understanding the extent to which each particular leader behavior was executed and the extent to which that behavior was influential. As before, the transcriptions using Ethnograph 5.0 were analyzed. Ethnograph 5.0 reports the frequencies of words and word phrases, and these frequencies are used to identify patterns in the responses provided by participants.

2. The authors discussed the results provided by the Ethnograph 5.0 program in detail with a panel of three Industrial Psychology/Organizational Behavior Ph.D. students who were trained in methods of content analysis and the use of the Delphi technique. Panel members, who were blind to the identity of the executives and did not know whether they were high or mid level executives, then met and rated all 16 dimensions for the 598 executives. The ratings were dependent on the emphasis of the dimension on the interaction, how often particular word or word patterns were found, and how they were used in the responses. The ratings were made on 10 point scales.

3. The authors used the findings of the Ethnograph 5.0 assessment in conjunction with the deliberations by panel members to produce a score for each participating executive on each of the 16 indicators. Following the process outlined by the Campbell and Fiske (1959) Multi-Trait-Multi-Method, the authors correlated these scores with the 16 dimensional measures which resulted from the administration of the c360[degrees].

4. The Multi-Trait-Multi-Method matrix which resulted from this work is displayed in Table Seven. An examination of the findings in the Table shows that the 16 c360[degrees] measures and the 16 Interview measures are highly and significantly correlated with each other, demonstrating convergent validity. The correlations ranged from 0.63 to 0.92 with all correlations significant at the 0.01 probability level. Further, there was little to no significant correlations between the measures that were not theorized to correlate, demonstrating discriminant validity.

As before, the authors now turned to a test of predictive validity. The sample of 598 executives described in the previous section were utilized. Each of these executives had actually been a subject of application of the System, and each had been involved in training and executive development efforts supported by the System, which was targeted at improving his or her performance. The authors identified a large number of executives to whom these 598 subjects reported or who reported to them, and asked these executives to participate in the study. A total of 1,908 executives participated in the study, and the authors conducted a sixty minute interview with each of those executives. The purpose of the interview was to determine how each executive perceived the subject to be performing with regard to each of the 45 leadership competencies identified in the Leadership Success Profile. This was an extensive and exhaustive process, which also followed the Patton (1990) "conversation with a purpose" approach, followed by application of the Delphi technique. The details of the process are outlined in the following steps.

1. The authors developed 45 conversational questions which related to the 45 leadership competencies. They then asked these questions of multiple direct report informants, an average of three for each subject, and recorded and transcribed their answers. The transcriptions by Ethnograph 5.0 were analyzed.

2. The results provided by the Ethnograph 5.0 program were then discussed in detail by the panel of three Industrial Psychology/Organizational Behavior Ph.D. students who were trained in methods of content analysis and use of the Delphi technique. Again, panel members were blind to the identity of the executives and did not know whether they were high or mid level executives. The panel members met and rated each dimension for each of the 45 leadership competencies for each of the 598 subject executives. The ratings were dependent on the emphasis of the dimension on the interaction, how often particular word or word patterns were found, and how they were used in the responses. The ratings were made on 10 point scales.

3. The authors used the findings of the Ethnograph 5.0 assessment in conjunction with the deliberations by panel members to produce a score for each participating executive on each of the 45 leadership competencies. If, in fact, the System had been successful as a training device, then the original 16 ratings resulting from the application of the c360[degrees] should predict the results of the 45 leadership competency scores. To test that point, regression analyses were conducted using the leadership competency scores as dependent variables, and the 16 dimensional ratings as independent variables for each subject executive.

The control variables included in the analysis were age, industry experience, functional experience, and gender. In addition, performance appraisal data on all 598 executives in the sample were collected. This data was included as an additional dependent variable in the regression analysis. Finally, a leadership balance index based on the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment for each executive was created. As discussed in preceding sections, the c360[degrees] produces an assessment of each of four leader behaviors. The authors utilized the 16 measures which are mapped into those four behaviors to produce a single score of leadership balance. Recognizing that the purpose of the instrument is to evaluate an individual's delivery of each behavior in an intensity which fits his or her organizational situation, the authors combined the scores into a single index number, which is called the c360[degrees] Index. The c360[degrees] Index was utilized as a final independent variable.

4. The outcomes of the 45 regressions are presented as impact factor ranges (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) in Table Eight. Because of the large number of regressions, the authors have presented ranges of impact factors for the 45 regressions. The impact factors demonstrate a highly predictive linkage between the instrument and perception of leadership capability. There was a strong and statistically significant relationship with performance appraisal, as the [R.sup.2] was 0.37 and the adjusted [R.sup.2] was 0.29. Finally, the analysis showed a strong and statistically significant relationship with the c360[degrees] Index. The authors concluded that the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment has predictive validity.

The authors have applied established empirical evaluation methodologies to the c360[degrees] in the evaluation of reliability and validity. The authors have included a test of predictive validity, which is often omitted in empirical evaluations of such instruments. The findings to this point are that the c360[degrees] is a reliable and valid instrument.

Theoretical Foundation, Reliability and Validity of the Talent Director

The purpose of the Talent Director is to create a way to take the findings of the initial three modules of the Talent Management System and present that data in a way that is easy to use in practical settings. To that end, the Research Team designed a graphical interface that uses the outcomes of the Leadership Success Profile to prioritize a series of graphical representations of the Leadership Capability Indicator and the Context Based 360[degrees] Leadership Assessment measures, along the lines of the interaction analysis and graphing described by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) . The precise algorithms that the Research Team employs to produce the prioritization of the Talent Director graphs are maintained as a Trade Secret. The Research Team reports that it used a global set of predictive models.

Despite the absence of the linking algorithms, it is clear that a test of the efficacy of the Talent Director would involve an assessment of the impact factors. As defined by Cohen and Cohen (1983), an impact factor is the effect of a particular individual predictor variable or set of predictor variables on a chosen predicted variable. If the Talent Director produces results which are reliable and valid, those results should have strong impact scores. Using the sample of 598 executives described in the preceding section, the authors calculated the impact factors for each of the 45 leadership competencies identified in the Leadership Success Profile. The results are displayed in Table Nine. As before, the specific beta weights from each of the models are not presented as they are the foundation of the algorithms that drive the prioritization of the graphs and are viewed as intellectual property by the Executive Assessment Institute. As the Table shows, the impact factors are strong and statistically significant. The authors concluded that the Talent Director has a high level of reliability and validity.

Conclusion

The Talent Management System developed by the Research Team of the Executive Assessment Institute is a broad and deep instrument. It is administered only by trained and certified agents. The various components are far reaching in applicability and surprisingly direct in interpretation. The authors have employed a vast number of test subjects and employed well established and broadly accepted empirical assessment tools to evaluate the reliability and validity of this collection of instruments and tools. The component instruments have performed well in every test to which they have been subjected. Consequently, the System appears to be statistically robust, reliable and valid.

References

Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allen, M. & Yen, W. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Avolio, B. & Bass, B. (1995). Individual Consideration Viewed at Multiple Levels of Analysis: A Multi-level Framework for Examining the Diffusion of Transformational Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 199-218.

Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1994). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. International Journal of Public Administration, Spring: 112-121.

Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving Organization Effectiveness: Through Transformational Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baum, R., Locke, E. & Kirkpatrick, S. (1998). A Longitudinal Study of the Relation of Vision and Vision Communication to Venture Growth in Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83 (1): 43-54.

Bennis, W. & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83 (5): 96-104.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Berk, R .(2004). Regression analysis: A constructive critique. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bono, J. & Judge, T. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (5): 901-910.

Boyatzis, R.E., Smith, M.L., and Blaize, N. 2006. Developing Sustainable Leaders Through Coaching and Compassion. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 5(1): 8-24.

Brockner, J. & Higgins, E.T. (2001). Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 86 (1): 35-66.

Brodbeck, F.C, Frese, M. and Javidan, M. (2002) Leadership made in Germany: Low on Compassion, high on performance. Academy of Management Executive. 16(1): 16-25.

Brown, D. & Keeping, L. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2): 245-272.

Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12 (4): 637-647.

Conger, J. (1998). The Dark Side of Leadership. Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cox, J. F., & Sims, H. P. (1996). Leadership and team citizenship behavior: A model and measures. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 3, 1-41.

Cox, T. & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5 (3): 45-56.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Day, D., Gronn, P. & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership Capacity in Teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6): 857-880.

Edwards, J.R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should ... overcome methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 469-491.

Ensley, M.D. & Pearce, C.L. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2): 145-160.

Ensley, M.D., Pearce, C.L. and Hmieleski, K.M., (2006). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 243-263.

Ensley, M.D., Pearson, A. & Pearce, C.L. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 329-346.

Ensley, M.D., Hmieleski, K.M. & Pearce, C.L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3): 217-231.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fiedler, F.E. (1966). The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance: A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(3): 237-264.

Fiedler, F.E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2): 128-148.

Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why Smart Executives Fail. Penguin Group.

Furnham, A. & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of the Concept, its Measurement and Applications. Current Psychology, 14 (3): 179-199.

Ghoshal, S. & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost theory. The Academy of Management Reviewf21 (1): 13-47.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, March-April.

Gordon, M., Slade, L.A. & Schmitt, N. (1986). The "Science of the Sophomore" Revisited: From Conjecture to Empiricism. The Academy of Management Review, 11 (1): 191-207.

Green, P.E. & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. The Journal of Marketing, 54 (4): 3-19.

Hofer, C.W. & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9 (1): 42-63.

Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. & Dodge, G. (1997). Leadership Complexity and Development of the leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23 (3): 375-408.

Hopper, J. & Nielsen, J. (1991). Recycling as Altruistic Behavior: Normative and Behavioral Strategies to Expand Participation in a Community Recycling Program. Environment and Behavior, 23 (2): 195-220.

Hoyle, R., Harris, M., & Judd, C. (2002). Research methods in social relations. Fort Worth, TX: Wadsworth.

Ilies, R., Judge, T. & Wagner, D. (2006). Making Sense of Motivational Leadership: The Trail from Transformational Leaders to Motivated Followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13 (1): 1-22.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1): 85-98.

Jaques, E., & Clement, S.D. (1991). Executive leadership: A practical guide to managing complexity. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 751-765.

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits--self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability--with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 80-92.

Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J., (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a Measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2): 303-331.

Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): Relationship of core selfevaluations to trajectories in attaining work success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 849-863.

Judge, T., Van Vianen, A. & De Pater, I. (2004). Emotional Stability, Core Self-Evaluations, and the Job Outcomes: A Review of the Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research. Human Performance, 17(3): 325-346.

Karaevli, A. & Hall, D.T. (2003). Growing Leaders for Turbulent Times: Is Succession Planning Up to the Challenge? Organizational Dynamics, 32 (1): 62-79.

Kark, R. & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation To Lead, Motivation to Follow: The Role of the Self-Regulatory Focus in Leadership Processes. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2): 500-528.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403.

Kim, J. & Mueller, C. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Kipnis, D. & Lane, W. (1962). Self-confidence and Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46 (4): 291-295.

Kipnis, D. & Vanderveer, R. (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17 (3): 280-286.

Kirkman, B. & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42 (1): 58-74.

Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: Guilford Press.

Krishnan, V. & Ulrich, K.T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Science, 47(1): 1-21.

Lawrence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lengnick-Hall, M. & Lengnick-Hall, C. (1999). Leadership Jazz: An Exercise in Creativity. Journal of Management Education, 23 (1): 65-70.

Lim, B. & Ployhart, R. (2004). Transformational Leadership: Relations to the Five-Factor Model and Team Performance in Typical and Maximum Contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (4): 610-621.

Lipshitz, R. & Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69 (2): 149-163.

Lombardo, M. & Eichinger, R. (2000). High Potentials as High Learners. Human Resource Management, 39 (4): 321-329.

Louviere, J. (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Madzar, S. (2001). Suboridnates' Information Inquiry: Exploring the effect of perceived leadership style and individual differences. Journal of Occupational and Organization Psychology, 74 (2): 221-232.

Miller, D., Kets De Vries, M. & Toulouse, J. (1982). Top Executive Locus of Control and It's Relationship to Strategy-Making, Structure, and Environment. The Academy of Management Journal, 25 (2): 237-253.

Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1981). Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy, Harvard Business Review

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Paglis, L. & Green, S. (2002). Leadership Self-Efficacy and Managers' Motivation for Leading Change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (2): 215-235.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pearce, C.L. & Sims, H.P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2): 162-197

Pearce, C.L., Sims, H.P., Cox, J.F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K.A. & Trevino, L.( 2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: a multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22 (4), 273- 307.

Penley, L. & Hawkins, B. (1985). Studying Interpersonal Communication in Organizations: A Leadership Application. The Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2): 309-326.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, W. & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management, 22 (2): 259-298.

Podsakoff, P.M. & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531-544.

Rumelt, R.P. (1986). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Russell, R. (2001). The Role of Values in Servant Leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22 (2): 76-84.

Schein, E., (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shamir, B., House, R. & Arthur, M. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4 (4): 577-594.

Sosik, J. & Godshalk, V. (2000). Leadership Styles, Mentoring Functions Received, and Job-Related Stress: A Conceptual Model and Preliminary Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (4): 365-390.

Sosik, J. & Megerian, L. (1999). Understanding Leader Emotional Intelligence and Performance. Group & Organization Dynamics, 24 (3): 367-390.

Tijms, H. (2004). Understanding probability: Chance rules in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trochim, W. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net /kb/convdisc.php on December 12, 2009.

Wikipedia. (2009). Reliability. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(statistics), December 12,

Wittink, D. & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. The Journal of Marketing, 53(3): 91-96.

Yukl, G., (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly 10, 285-305.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zaleznik, A. (2004). Managers and Leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 82 (1): 74-81.

Michael D. Ensley, Executive Assessment Institute

James W. Carland, Carland College

Rhonda L. Ensley, Executive Assessment Institute

JoAnn C. Carland, Carland College
Table One: Theoretical Foundation for the Leadership Success
Profile

Leadership Competency   Citation

Able to effectively     Paglis, L. & Green, S. 2002. Leadership Self-
confront Direct         Efficacy and Managers' Motivation for Leading
Reports                 Change. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
                        23 (2): 215-235.

Action Oriented         Kirkman, B. & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond
                        self-management: Antecedents and consequences
                        of  team empowerment. The Academy of
                        Management Journal, 42 (1): 58-74.
                        Bass, B. 1998. Transformational leadership:
                        Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact.
                        Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Approachable and Warm   Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, W. & Bommer, W.
                        1996. Transformational Leader Behaviors and
                        Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of
                        Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and
                        Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal
                        of Management, 22 (2): 259-298.
                        Hopper, J. & Nielsen, J. 1991. Recycling as
                        Altruistic Behavior: Normative and Behavioral
                        Strategies to Expand Participation in a
                        Community Recycling Program. Environment and
                        Behavior, 23 (2): 195-220.

Challenges the Status   Dess, G. & Pciken, J. 2000. Changing Roles:
Quo                     Leadership in the 21st Century.
                        Organizational Dynamics, 28 (3): 18-34.
                        Zhou, J. & George, J. 2003. Awakening
                        Employee Creativity: The Role of Leader
                        Emotional Intelligence. The Leadership
                        Quarterly, 14 (4-5): 545-568.

Composed in Pressure    Burke, C.S., Fiore, S. & Salas, E. 2002. The
Situations              Role of Shared Cognition in Enabling Shared
                        Leadership and Team Adaptability. Shared
                        Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of
                        Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
                        Goleman, D. 2000. Leadership That Gets
                        Results. Harvard Business Review,
                        March-April.

Creative                Bellows, R.M. 1959. Creative Leadership.
                        Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
                        Ford. C. 1996. A Theory of Individual
                        Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains.
                        The Academy of Management Review, 21 (4):
                        1112-1142.

Deals well with         Cameron, K. 1986. Effectiveness as Paradox:
Paradox                 Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of
                        Organizational Effectiveness. Management
                        Science, 32 (5): 539-553.
                        Farson, M. 1996. Management of the Absurd:
                        Paradoxes in Leadership, New York, NY:
                        Touchstone.

Delegates Effectively   Klein, K., Ziegert, J., Knight, A. & Xiao, Y.
                        2006. Dynamic Delegation: Shared,
                        Hierarchical, and Deindividualized Leadership
                        in Extreme Action Teams. Administrative
                        Science Quarterly, 51 (4): 590-621.
                        Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1994. Improving
                        Organization Effectiveness: Through
                        Transformational Leadership, Thousand Oaks,
                        CA: Sage.

Develops Subordinates   Yukl, G.A. 1989. Leadership in Organizations
                        (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
                        Hall.
                        Kuhnert, K. 1994. Transforming Leadership:
                        Developing People Through Delegation.
                        Improving Organizational Effectiveness
                        Transformational Leadership, Thousand Oaks,
                        CA: Sage Through

Effective at giving     Goleman, D. 2000. Leadership That Gets
orders                  Results. Harvard Business Review,
                        March-April.
                        Pearce, C. & Sims, H. 2002. Vertical versus
                        shared leadership as predictors of the
                        effectiveness of change management teams: An
                        examination of aversive, directive,
                        transactional, transformational, and
                        empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
                        Theory, Research, and Practice, 6 (2):
                        172-197.

Effective at Managing   Howell, J. & Avolio, B. 1993.
Innovation              Transformational leadership, transactional
                        leadership, locus of  control, and support
                        for innovation: Key predictors of
                        consolidated-business-unit performance.
                        Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (6):
                        891-902.
                        Tushman, M. & Anderson, P. 1997. Managing
                        Strategic Innovation and Change. New York:
                        Oxford University Press.

Effective               Marks, M., Zaccaro, S. & Mathieu, J. 2000.
Communicator            Performance implications of leader briefings
                        and team-interaction training for team
                        adaptation to novel environments. Journal of
                        Applied Psychology, 85 (6): 971-986.
                        Jarvenpaa, S. & Leidner, D. 1999.
                        Communication and Trust in Global Virtual
                        Teams. Organization Science, 10 (6): 791-815.

Effective Listener      Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 2003. Leaders:
                        Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY:
                        HarperCollins.

Effective Negotiator    Kozlowski, S. & Doherty, M. 1989. Integration
                        of Climate and Leadership: Examination of a
                        Neglected Issue. Journal of Applied
                        Psychology, 74 (4): 546-553.
                        Tepper, B., Uhl-Bien, M, Kohut, G.,
                        Rogelberg, S., Lockhart, D. & Ensley, M.
                        2006. Subordinates' Resistance and Managers'
                        Evaluations of Subordinates' Performance.
                        Journal of  Management, 32 (2): 185-209.

Effective Planner       Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. 1985. of
                        Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent.
                        Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257-272.
                        Ancona, D. 1990. Outward Bound: Strategies
                        for Team Survival in an Organization. The
                        Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2):
                        334-365.

Effective               Vandewalle, D. 2001. Goal Orientation: Why
Presentation Skills     Wanting to Look Successful Doesn't Always
                        Lead to Success. Organizational Dynamics,
                        30(2): 162-171.
                        Conger, J. 1991. Inspiring Others: The
                        Language of Leadership. Academy of Management
                        Executive, 5 (1): 31-45.

Effective Team          Dirks, K. 2000. Trust in Leadership and Team
Builder                 Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball.
                        Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6):
                        1004-1012.
                        Druskat, V. & Wheeler, J. 2003. Managing from
                        the Boundary: The Effective Leadership of
                        Self-Managing Work Teams. The Academy of
                        Management Journal, 46 (4): 435-457.

Effective Time          Yukl, G.A. 1989. Leadership in Organizations
Manager                 (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
                        Prentice-Hall.
                        Marx, R. 1982. Relapse Prevention for
                        Managerial Training: A Model for Maintenance
                        of  Behavior Change. The Academy of
                        Management Review, 7 (3): 433-441.

Effectively Sets        Zohar, D. 1980. Safety Climate in Industrial
Priorities              Organizations: Theoretical and Applied
                        implications. Journal of Applied Psychology,
                        65 (1): 96-102.
                        Morden, T. 1997. Leadership as Competence.
                        Management Decision, 35 (7): 519-526.

Effectively Solves      Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F. &
Problems                Jacobs, T. 2000. Leadership Skills for a
                        Changing World: Solving Complex Social
                        Problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1):
                        11-35.
                        Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. 1991. Leadership:
                        Do Traits Matter? Academy of Management
                        Executive, 5 (2): 48-60.

Focused on Customers    Miller, D. 1986. Configurations of Strategy
                        and Structure: Towards a Synthesis. Strategic
                        Management Journal, 7 (3): 233-249.
                        Slater, S. & Narver, J. 1995. Market
                        Orientation and the Learning Organization.
                        Journal of  Marketing, 59 (3): 63-74.

Goal Oriented           House, R. 1971. A Path Goal Theory of Leader
                        Effectiveness. Administrative Science
                        Quarterly, 16 (3): 321-339.
                        House, R. 1996. Path-goal Theory of
                        Leadership: Lessons, Legacy, and a
                        Reformulated Theory. The Leadership
                        Quarterly, 7 (3): 323-352.

Great at Motivating     Vera, D. & Crossman, M. 2004. Strategic
Others                  Leadership and Organizational Learning.
                        Academy of  Management Review, 29 (2):
                        222-240.
                        Katz, D. & Kahn, R. 1978. The Social
                        Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY:
                        Wiley.

Has Work and Life in    Lambert, S. 2000. Added Benefits: The Link
Balance                 Between Work-Life Benefits and Organizational
                        Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management
                        Journal, 43 (5): 801-815.
                        Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A., Ferris, M. &
                        Weitzman, M. 2001. Finding an Extra Day a
                        Week: The positive Influence of perceived job
                        Flexibility on Work and Family Life Balance.
                        Family Relations, 50 (1): 49-58.

High Levels of          Kim, P., Ferrin, D., Cooper, C. & Dirks, K.
Integrity and Trust     2004. Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The
                        Effects of Apology Versus Denial for
                        Repairing Competence-Versus Integrity Based
                        Trust Violations. Journal of Applied
                        Psychology, 89 (1): 104-118.
                        Wicks, A., Berman, S. & Jones, T. 1999. The
                        structure of optimal Trust: Moral and
                        Strategic Implications. Academy of Management
                        Journal, 24 (1): 99-118.

Inspirational           Boas, S., House, R. & Arthur, M. 1993. The
                        Motivational Effects of Charismatic
                        Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory.
                        Organization Science, 4 (4): 577-594.
                        Bass, B. 1988. The Inspirational Processes of
                        Leadership. Journal of Management
                        Development, 7 (5): 21-31.

Interpersonally Savvy   Giglio, L, Diamante, T. & Urban, J. 1998.
                        Coaching a Leader: Leveraging Change at the
                        Top. Journal of Management Development, 17
                        (2): 93-105.
                        Lipman-Blumen, J. 2000. Connective
                        Leadership: Managing in a Changing World. New
                        York: Oxford University Press.

Is Compassionate        Frost, P. 2004. Handling Toxic Emotions: New
                        Challenges for Leaders and their
                        Organization. Organizational Dynamics, 33
                        (2): 111-127.
                        Brodbeck, F.C, Frese, M. and Javidan, M.
                        (2002) Leadership made in Germany: Low on
                        Compassion, high on performance. Academy of
                        Management Executive. 16(1): 16-25.
                        Boyatzis, R.E., Smith, M.L., and Blaize, N.
                        2006. Developing Sustainable Leaders Through
                        Coaching and Compassion. Academy of
                        Management Learning and Education. 5(1):
                        8-24.

Learns on the Fly       Kirkman, B. & Rosen, B. 2000. Powering Up
                        Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28 (3):
                        48-66.
                        Karaevli, A. & Hall, D.T. 2003. Growing
                        Leaders for Turbulent Times: Is Succession
                        Planning Up to the Challenge? Organizational
                        Dynamics, 32 (1): 62-79.

Makes Decisions When    Van De Ven, A. & Delbecq, A. 1974. The
They Need to be Made    Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and
                        Interacting Group Decision Making Processes.
                        The Academy of Management Journal, 17 (4):
                        605-621.
                        Eisenhardt,, K. & Bourgeois, L.J. 1988.
                        Politics of Strategic Decision Making in
                        High-Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange
                        Theory. The Academy of Management Journal, 31
                        (4): 737-770.

Managerial Courage      Adair, J. 1983. Effective Leadership. London:
                        Pan.
                        Kotter, J. 1990. A Force for Change: How
                        Leadership Differs from Management. New York,
                        NY: Free Press.

Manages Conflict        Thomas, K. 1992. Conflict and Conflict
Well                    Management: Reflections and Update. Journal
                        of  Organizational Behavior, 13 (3): 265-274.
                        Pondy, L. 1967. Organizational Conflict:
                        Concepts and Model. Administrative Science
                        Quarterly, 12 (2): 296-320.

Manages                 Baum, R., Locke, E. & Kirkpatrick, S. 1998. A
Organizational Vision   Longitudinal Study of the Relation of Vision
and Purpose             and Vision Communication to Venture Growth in
                        Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of Applied
                        Psychology. 83 (1): 43-54.
                        Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. 1996. Direct and
                        Indirect Effects of Three Core Charismatic
                        Leadership Components on Performance and
                        Attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81
                        (1): 36-51.

Manages Up Well         Spreier, S., Fontaine, M. & Malloy, R. 2006.
                        Leadership Run Amok: The Destructive
                        Potential of Overachievers. Harvard Business
                        Review, June.

Perseveres through      Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. 1991. Leadership:
Difficult Times         Do Traits Matter? The Executive, 5 (2): 48-
                        60. Norman, S., Luthans, B. & Luthans, K.
                        2005. The Proposed Contagion Effect of
                        Hopeful Leaders on the Resiliency of
                        Employees and Organizations. Journal of
                        Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12 (2):
                        55-64.

Politically Savvy       Rosenbloom, R. 2000. Leadership,
                        Capabilities, and Technological Change: The
                        Transformation of NCR on the Electronic Era.
                        Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10/11):
                        1083-1103.

Reads People Well       Goleman, D. 1998. What Makes a Leader?
                        Harvard Business Review, 76: 93-104.
                        Kellettm J., Humphrey, R. & Sleeth, R. 2002.
                        Empathy and Complex Task Performance: Two
                        Routes to Leadership. The Leadership
                        Quarterly, 13 (5): 523-544.

Rewards People          Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1994. Transformational
Effectively             Leadership and Organizational Culture.
                        International Journal of Public
                        Administration, Spring: 112-121.
                        Katz, D. & Kahn, R. 1978. The Social
                        Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY:
                        Wiley.

Self Confident          Paglis, L. & Green, S. 2002. Leadership
                        Self-Efficacy and Managers' Motivation for
                        Leading Change. Journal of Organizational
                        Behavior, 23 (2): 215-235.
                        Shamir, B., House, R. & Arthur, M. 1993. The
                        Motivational Effects of Charismatic
                        Leadership: A Self Concept Based Theory.
                        Organization Science, 4 (4): 577-594.

Smart                   Finkelstein, S. 2003. Why Smart Executives
                        Fail. Penguin Group.
                        Day, D., Gronn, P. & Salas, E. 2004.
                        Leadership Capacity Teams. The Leadership
                        Quarterly, 15 (6): 857-880.

Tolerates Ambiguity     Lengnick-Hall, M. & Lengnick-Hall, C. 1999.
                        Leadership Jazz: An Exercise in Creativity.
                        Journal of Management Education, 23 (1):
                        65-70.
                        Furnham, A. & Ribchester, T. 1995. Tolerance
                        of Ambiguity: A Review of the Concept, its
                        Measurement and Applications. Current
                        Psychology, 14 (3): 179-199.

Understands the         Bennis, W. & O'Toole, J. 2005. How business
Business                schools lost their way. Harvard Business
                        Review, 83 (5): 96-104.
                        Gordon, M., Slade, L.A. & Schmitt, N. 1986.
                        The "Science of the Sophomore" Revisited:
                        From Conjecture to Empiricism. The Academy of
                        Management Review, 11 (1): 191-207.

Very Organized          Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 2003. Leaders:
                        Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY:
                        HarperCollins.
                        Zaleznik, A. 2004. Managers and Leaders: Are
                        they different? Harvard Business Review, 82
                        (1): 74-81.

Very Patient            Russell, R. 2001. The Role of Values in
                        Servant Leadership. Leadership & Organization
                        Development Journal, 22 (2): 76-84.
                        Conger, J. 1998. The Dark Side of Leadership.
                        Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New
                        Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
                        Baum, R., Locke, E. & Kirkpatrick, S. 1998. A

Visionary               Longitudinal Study of the Relation of Vision
                        and Vision Communication to Venture Growth in
                        Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of Applied
                        Psychology. 83 (1): 43-54.
                        Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. 1987. Toward a
                        Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership
                        in Organizational Settings. The Academy of
                        Management Review, 12 (4): 637-647.

Table Two: Theoretical Foundation for the Leadership Capability
Indicator

Leadership Measure               Citation

Self Regulation                  Kark, R. & Van Dijk, D. 2007.
                                 Motivation To Lead, Motivation
                                 to Follow: The Role of the
                                 Self-Regulatory Focus in
                                 Leadership Processes. Academy of
                                 Management Review, 32 (2):
                                 500-528.
                                 Brockner, J. & Higgins, E.T.
                                 2001. Regulatory Focus Theory:
                                 Implications for the Study of
                                 Emotions at Work. Organizational
                                 Behavior and Human Decisions
                                 Processes, 86 (1): 35-66.

Cognitive Activity               Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. & Dodge,
                                 G. 1997. Leadership Complexity
                                 and Development of the
                                 leaderplex Model. Journal of
                                 Management, 23 (3): 375-408.
                                 Day, D., Gronn, P. & Salas, E.
                                 2004. Leadership Capacity in
                                 Teams. The Leadership Quarterly,
                                 15 (6): 857-880.

Ambiguity Tolerance              Madzar, S. 2001. Subordinates'
                                 Information Inquiry: Exploring
                                 the effect of perceived
                                 leadership style and individual
                                 differences. Journal of
                                 Occupational and Organization
                                 Psychology, 74 (2): 221-232.
                                 Cox, T. & Blake, S. 1991.
                                 Managing cultural diversity:
                                 Implications for organizational
                                 competitiveness. Academy of
                                 Management Executive, 5 (3):
                                 45-56.

Coping Mechanisms                Sosik, J. & Godshalk, V. 2000.
                                 Leadership Styles, Mentoring
                                 Functions Received, and Job-
                                 Related Stress: A Conceptual
                                 Model and Preliminary Study.
                                 Journal of Organizational
                                 Behavior, 21 (4): 365-390.
                                 Lipshitz, R. & Strauss, O. 1997.
                                 Coping with Uncertainty: A
                                 Naturalistic Decision-Making
                                 Analysis. Organizational
                                 Behavior and Human Decision
                                 Processes, 69 (2): 149-163.

General Outlook                  Brown, D. & Keeping, L. 2005.
                                 Elaborating the construct of
                                 transformational leadership: The
                                 role of affect. The Leadership
                                 Quarterly, 16 (2): 245-272.
                                 Ilies, R., Judge, T. & Wagner,
                                 D. 2006. Making Sense of
                                 Motivational Leadership: The
                                 Trail from Transformational
                                 Leaders to Motivated Followers.
                                 Journal of Leadership &
                                 Organizational Studies, 13 (1):
                                 1-22.

Big Five Personality Factors:    Schien, E. 2004. Organizational
    Emotional Stability          Culture and Leadership. San
    Agreeableness                Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lim,
    Openness                     B. & Ployhart, R. 2004.
    Conscientiousness            Transformational Leadership:
    Extraversion                 Relations to the Five-Factor
                                 Model and Team Performance in
                                 Typical and Maximum Contexts.
                                 Journal of Applied Psychology,
                                 89 (4): 610-621.
                                 Bono, J. & Judge, T. 2004.
                                 Personality and Transformational
                                 and Transactional Leadership: A
                                 Meta-Analysis. Journal of
                                 Applied Psychology, 89 (5): 901-
                                 910.

Individual Consideration         Kipnis, D. & Vanderveer, R.
                                 1971. Ingratiation and the use
                                 of power. Journal of
                                 Personality and Social
                                 Psychology, 17 (3): 280-286.
                                 Avolio, B. & Bass, B. 1995.
                                 Individual Consideration Viewed
                                 at Multiple Levels of Analysis:
                                 A Multi-level Framework for
                                 Examining the Diffusion of
                                 Transformational Leadership. The
                                 Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2):
                                 199-218.

Learning Agility                 Karaevli, A. & Hall, D.T. 2003.
                                 Growing Leaders for Turbulent
                                 Times: Is Succession Planning Up
                                 to the Challenge? Organizational
                                 Dynamics, 32 (1): 62-79.
                                 Lombardo, M. & Eichinger, R.
                                 2000. High Potentials as High
                                 Learners. Human Resource
                                 Management, 39 (4): 321-329.

Need for Achievement             Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in
                                 Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
                                 NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hofstede, G.
                                 1980. Motivation, Leadership,
                                 and Organization: Do American
                                 Theories Apply Abroad?
                                 Organizational Dynamics, 9 (1):
                                 42-63.

Need for Control and             Miller, D., Kets De Vries, M. &
Locus of Control                 Toulouse, J. 1982. Top Executive
                                 Locus of Control and Its
                                 Relationship to Strategy-Making,
                                 Structure, and Environment. The
                                 Academy of Management Journal,
                                 25 (2): 237-253.
                                 Etzioni, A. 1964. Modern
                                 Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
                                 NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ghoshal, S. &
                                 Moran, P. 1996. Bad for
                                 Practice: A Critique of the
                                 Transaction Cost theory. The
                                 Academy of Management Review321
                                 (1): 13-47.

Self Confidence                  Kipnis, D. & Lane, W. 1962.
                                 Self-confidence and Leadership.
                                 Journal of Applied Psychology,
                                 46 (4): 291-295.
                                 Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. 1987.
                                 Toward a Behavioral Theory of
                                 Charismatic Leadership in
                                 Organizational Settings. The
                                 Academy of Management Review, 12
                                 (4): 637-647.

Self Awareness: Emotional        Goleman, D. 2000. Leadership
Quotient                         That Gets Results. Harvard
                                 Business Review, March-April.
                                 Sosik, J. & Megerian, L. 1999.
                                 Understanding Leader Emotional
                                 Intelligence and Performance.
                                 Group & Organization Dynamics,
                                 24 (3): 367-390.

Communication Competence         Penley, L. & Hawkins, B. 1985.
                                 Studying Interpersonal
                                 Communication in Organizations:
                                 A Leadership Application. The
                                 Academy of Management Journal,
                                 28 (2): 309-326.
                                 Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1994.
                                 Improving Organization
                                 Effectiveness Through
                                 Transformational Leadership,
                                 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Table Three: Reliability Test Results for the Leadership
Capability Indicator

                                      Cronbach's    Split     Test
Instrument Dimensions                   Alpha       Half     Retest

Cognitive Activity                       0.89       0.80      0.76
Learning Agility                         0.83       0.71      0.71
Ambiguity Tolerance                      0.91       0.74      0.81
Self Regulation--Prevention              0.72       0.77      0.67
Self Regulation--Promotion               0.74       0.79      0.65
General Outlook                          0.77       0.71      0.73
Emotional Quotient/Self Awareness        0.84       0.83      0.77
Self Confidence                          0.79       0.90      0.68
Individual Consideration                 0.73       0.81      0.63
Locus of Control                         0.78       0.72      0.59
Need for Control                         0.83       0.84      0.81
Need for Achievement--External           0.87       0.67      0.71
Need for Achievement--Internal           0.76       0.72      0.67
Problem Solving                          0.71       0.64      0.65
Support Seeking                          0.69       0.77      0.77
Problem Avoidance                        0.73       0.81      0.66
Communication Competence                 0.68       0.71      0.74
Emotional Stability                      0.91       0.86      0.83
Extraversion                             0.88       0.91      0.87
Openness                                 0.87       0.93      0.79
Agreeableness                            0.88       0.89      0.88
Conscientiousness                        0.92       0.94      0.84

Table Four: Leadership Capability Indicator Multi-Trait
Multi-Method Matrix

                                      Correlation to Delphi
Instrument Dimensions                  Interview Measures

Cognitive Activity                           0.76 *
Learning Agility                             0.54 *
Ambiguity Tolerance                          0.63 *
Self Regulation--Prevention                  0.77 *
Self Regulation--Promotion                   0.79 *
General Outlook                              0.69 *
Emotional Quotient/Self Awareness            0.67 *
Self Confidence                              0.52 *
Individual Consideration                     0.63 *
Locus of Control                             0.59 *
Need for Control                             0.83 *
Need for Achievement--External               0.71 *
Need for Achievement--Internal               0.76 *
Problem Solving                              0.65 *
Support Seeking                              0.51 *
Problem Avoidance                            0.47 *
Communication Competence                     0.38 *
Emotional Stability                          0.81 *
Extraversion                                 0.74 *
Openness                                     0.68 *
Agreeableness                                0.79 *
Conscientiousness                            0.81 *

* p < 0.01

Table Five: Leadership Capability Indicator Dimensions Regressed
Against Delphi Based Measures of Success Profile Leadership
Competencies

                                               Impact Factor Ranges 22
Success Profile Leadership Competencies            LCI Dimensions

Able to effectively confront Direct Reports         0.08 to 0.33
Action Oriented                                     0.11 to 0.41
Approachable and Warm                               0.06 to 0.24
Challenges the Status Quo                           0.12 to 0.37
Composed in Pressure Situations                     0.09 to 0.31
Creative                                            0.11 to 0.44
Deals well with Paradox                             0.07 to 0.29
Delegates Effectively                               0.13 to 0.51
Develops Subordinates                               0.07 to 0.25
Is effective at giving orders                       0.15 to 0.36
Effective at Managing Innovation                    0.11 to 0.39
Effective Communicator                              0.12 to 0.23
Effective Listener                                  0.07 to 0.35
Effective Negotiator                                0.04 to 0.21
Effective Planner                                   0.15 to 0.44
Effective Presentation Skills                       0.11 to 0.29
Effective Team Builder                              0.12 to 0.43
Effective Time Manager                              0.14 to 0.37
Effectively Sets Priorities                         0.17 to 0.46
Effectively Solves Problems                         0.14 to 0.33
Focused on Customers                                0.08 to 0.21
Goal Oriented                                       0.14 to 0.29
Great at Motivating Others                          0.07 to 0.32
Has Work and Life in Balance                        0.04 to 0.19
High Levels of Integrity and Trust                  0.05 to 0.16
Inspirational                                       0.09 to 0.27
Interpersonally Savvy                               0.11 to 0.31
Is Compassionate                                    0.08 to 0.27
Learns on the Fly                                   0.12 to 0.44
Makes Decisions When They Need to be Made           0.09 to 0.28
Managerial Courage                                  0.14 to 0.39
Manages Conflict Well                               0.08 to 0.34
Manages Organizational Vision and Purpose           0.04 to 0.27
Manages Up Well                                     0.06 to 0.23
Perseveres through Difficult Times                  0.11 to 0.37
Politically Savvy                                   0.07 to 0.19
Reads People Well                                   0.10 to 0.28
Rewards People Effectively                          0.05 to 0.27
Self Confident                                      0.06 to 0.39
Smart                                               0.08 to 0.33
Tolerates Ambiguity                                 0.05 to 0.42
Understands the Business                            0.17 to 0.31
Very Organized                                      0.06 to 0.26
Very Patient                                        0.11 to 0.24
Visionary                                           0.06 to 0.31

Using age, gender, and industry experience as control variables
N=783

990 Total Regressions

Table Six: Reliability Test Results for the Context Based 360 Leadership
Assessment

                                    Cronbach's                 Test
c360 Dimension                        Alpha      Split Half   Retest

Management by Exception--Active        0.73         0.88       0.54
Management by Exception--Passive       0.79         0.81       0.57
Instruction and Command                0.81         0.75       0.49
Assigned Goals                         0.87         0.79       0.71
Contingent Reprimand                   0.76         0.71       0.59
Structure                              0.91         0.84       0.73
Contingent Personal Reward             0.83         0.77       0.53
Contingent Material Reward             0.76         0.81       0.44
Stimulation and Inspiration            0.66         0.74       0.56
Vision                                 0.85         0.79       0.74
Challenge to Status Quo                0.79         0.86       0.70
Individualized Consideration           0.89         0.82       0.68
Encourages Opportunity Thinking        0.73         0.66       0.55
Encourages Self Leadership             0.86         0.77       0.71
Participative Goal Setting             0.81         0.69       0.47
Encourages Teamwork                    0.77         0.81       0.57
Invective Leadership                   0.89         0.83       0.61
Active Resistance                      0.86         0.75       0.65
Negotiation                            0.91         0.83       0.77

Table Seven: Context Based 360 Leadership Assessment Multi-Trait Multi
Method Matrix

                                     Correlation to c360 Delphi
c360 Dimension                        Based Interview Measures

Management by Exception--Active                0.81 *
Management by Exception--Passive               0.76 *
Instruction and Command                        0.87 *
Assigned Goals                                 0.91 *
Contingent Reprimand                           0.75 *
Structure                                      0.71 *
Contingent Personal Reward                     0.79 *
Contingent Material Reward                     0.84 *
Stimulation and Inspiration                    0.71 *
Vision                                         0.78 *
Challenge to Status Quo                        0.63 *
Individualized Consideration                   0.90 *
Encourages Opportunity Thinking                0.77 *
Encourages Self Leadership                     0.82 *
Participative Goal Setting                     0.71 *
Encourages Teamwork                            0.89 *
Invective Leadership                           0.92 *
Active Resistance                              0.72 *
Negotiation                                    0.83 *

* p < 0.01

Table Eight: c360[degrees] Dimensions Regressed against Delphi
Leadership Competency Measures

Success Profile Leadership             Impact Factor Ranges on 16
Competencies                            c360[degrees] Dimensions

Able to effectively confront Direct
  Reports                                     0.11 to 0.43
Action Oriented                               0.08 to 0.48
Approachable and Warm                         0.05 to 0.24
Challenges the Status Quo                     0.12 to 0.37
Composed in Pressure Situations               0.08 to 0.29
Creative                                      0.07 to 0.21
Deals well with Paradox                       0.13 to 0.33
Delegates Effectively                         0.06 to 0.41
Develops Subordinates                         0.09 to 0.27
Is effective at giving orders                 0.16 to 0.44
Effective at Managing Innovation              0.04 to 0.25
Effective Communicator                        0.07 to 0.21
Effective Listener                            0.10 to 0.29
Effective Negotiator                          0.14 to 0.40
Effective Planner                             0.06 to 0.53
Effective Presentation Skills                 0.12 to 0.26
Effective Team Builder                        0.16 to 0.44
Effective Time Manager                        0.06 to 0.27
Effectively Sets Priorities                   0.09 to 0.31
Effectively Solves Problems                   0.05 to 0.27
Focused on Customers                          0.03 to 0.19
Goal Oriented                                 0.08 to 0.26
Great at Motivating Others                    0.05 to 0.34
Has Work and Life in Balance                  0.09 to 0.17
High Levels of Integrity and Trust            0.04 to 0.16
Inspirational                                 0.11 to 0.26
Interpersonally Savvy                         0.08 to 0.19
Is Compassionate                              0.05 to 0.28
Learns on the Fly                             0.14 to 0.36
Makes Decisions When They Need to
  be Made                                     0.11 to 0.41
Managerial Courage                            0.06 to 0.47
Manages Conflict Well                         0.11 to 0.20
Manages Organizational Vision and
  Purpose                                     0.07 to 0.39
Manages Up Well                               0.05 to 0.18
Perseveres through Difficult Times            0.11 to 0.26
Politically Savvy                             0.08 to 0.21
Reads People Well                             0.07 to 0.17
Rewards People Effectively                    0.09 to 0.23
Self Confident                                0.12 to 0.31
Smart                                         0.14 to 0.29
Tolerates Ambiguity                           0.08 to 0.34
Understands the Business                      0.16 to 0.41
Very Organized                                0.07 to 0.27
Very Patient                                  0.11 to 0.21
Visionary                                     0.09 to 0.34

Using Age, Gender, and Industry Experience as Control Variables

N=598

720 Total Regressions

Table Nine: Delphi Based--Success Profile Leader Competency
Measures Regressed against LCI 5-C and c360[degrees] Leadership
Style Measures

                                                 Adjusted
Success Profile Leadership Competencies          [R.sup.2]

Able to effectively confront Direct Reports       0.68 *
Action Oriented                                   0.57 *
Approachable and Warm                             0.39 *
Challenges the Status Quo                         0.63 *
Composed in Pressure Situations                   0.51 *
Creative                                          0.36 *
Deals well with Paradox                           0.52 *
Delegates Effectively                             0.47 *
Develops Subordinates                             0.40 *
Is effective at giving orders                     0.60 *
Effective at Managing Innovation                  0.44 *
Effective Communicator                            0.31 *
Effective Listener                                0.36 *
Effective Negotiator                              0.29 *
Effective Planner                                 0.42 *
Effective Presentation Skills                     0.21 *
Effective Team Builder                            0.47 *
Effective Time Manager                            0.27 *
Effectively Sets Priorities                       0.33 *
Effectively Solves Problems                       0.59 *
Focused on Customers                              0.35 *
Goal Oriented                                     0.31 *
Great at Motivating Others                        0.47 *
Has Work and Life in Balance                      0.19 *
High Levels of Integrity and Trust                0.39 *
Inspirational                                     0.51 *
Interpersonally Savvy                             0.43 *
Is Compassionate                                  0.17 *
Learns on the Fly                                 0.57 *
Makes Decisions When They Need to be Made         0.41 *
Managerial Courage                                0.38 *
Manages Conflict Well                             0.29 *
Manages Organizational Vision and Purpose         0.45 *
Manages Up Well                                   0.16 **
Perseveres through Difficult Times                0.32 *
Politically Savvy                                 0.26 *
Reads People Well                                 0.34 *
Rewards People Effectively                        0.23 *
Self Confident                                    0.31 *
Smart                                             0.46 *
Tolerates Ambiguity                               0.37 *
Understands the Business                          0.56 *
Very Organized                                    0.31 *
Very Patient                                      0.19 *
Visionary                                         0.33 *

Using Age, Gender, and Industry Experience as Control Variables.
N=598

* p < 0.01

** p < 0.05
COPYRIGHT 2011 The DreamCatchers Group, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ensley, Michael D.; Carland, James W.; Ensley, Rhonda L.; Carland, JoAnn C.
Publication:Academy of Strategic Management Journal
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2011
Words:13147
Previous Article:White vs. blue: does the collar color affect job attitudes and behaviors?
Next Article:Small firm strategy in turbulent times.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters