Assessing & Reporting Paradoxical Leadership Competencies beyond Traditional One-dimensional Continuums/Scales

(The views expressed in this article are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of H&S)

- Raman Kumar, Manager H&S KMC

"He can step on your shoes, but he doesn't mess up your shine. It is hard to miss the underlying message in the quote above: that balanced or optimized skills and personal attributes are valued, admired and desired in leaders. A key leadership competency is to be able to deal with paradoxes without being construed as polar. For example, a leader may need to be tough and yet also empathetic or act in accordance with a certain situation (situational leadership) while still maintaining consistency. Various assessment methodologies exist that aim to evaluate leaders against an agreed set of competencies, values and related behavior. Most are based on carefully designed questionnaires where respondents typically opine over a continuum of qualifiers or response options presented in the form of a linear scale. These continuums measure either in terms of how well tasks are performed / behaviors displayed (Ability Continuum) or in terms of how often or how seldom (Prevalence Continuum) certain competency linked behaviors are observed for an executive. Ability Continuum Respondents use this continuum to assess executive behaviors against qualifiers or response options such as: substantially below target, below target, on target, above target, substantially above target or not developed, under-developed, effective, very strong, outstanding or ineffective, adequate, effective, very effective, outstanding A number of semantic variations of these qualifiers have been attempted to hone in on the essence of a response to a behavioral statement. However, most variations of the ability continuum seem to imply that higher the amount of a certain skill, value or competency-related behavior observed/displayed; the better it is for the executive. This may not be accurate as heightened use or overuse or exaggerated use of strength can actually become a weakness and a cause of stress for others. For example, a response of under-developed or below target or ineffective on a behavior of expresses his/her stand on issues only conveys a development need but nothing on what essentially is/are the factor(s) that could have lead to this response and hence the underlying reason for the ineffectiveness. Prevalence Continuum - On the other hand, prevalence continuum describes the frequency at which certain behaviors are or are not observed. Qualifiers or response options such as: seldom, sometimes, reasonably or generally, quite often, mostly are provided against which respondents rate value or competency-related behaviors. However, it is not clear if a response of mostly against a behavior of expresses his/her stand on issues is good or bad or in the range of acceptable force. The

behavior is related to assertiveness and by merely knowing that the behavior is displayed mostly one cannot understand whether this is a desirable frequency or not. It is observed that such one-dimensional continuums alone may not be sufficient to assess as well as convey useful context to the many multi-dimensional behavioral aspects of leaders, particularly those related to paradoxical attributes. This is significant in the backdrop of todays global organizations having culturally ever more diverse employees and work situations. As a result, this paper intends to explore and present a two-dimensional frame of reference to capture more meaning and color to leadership assessment responses (to carefully designed assessment questionnaires) when compared with the responses captured through a predominant use of one-dimensional continuums, such as the ability and prevalence continuums, in assessment questionnaires. More specifically, this paper presents that it would be useful to calibrate certain paradoxical value, skill or competency-related behaviors against a Calibration Continuum in conjunction and reference to other continuums such as the ability and/or prevalence continuum(s). The calibration continuum is designed with qualifiers such as diminished use/display or underuse or underdone at one end of the spectrum and exaggerated use/display or overuse or overdone at the other end, as shown below:

In the foregoing description an attempt is made to present and explain, using examples, how the calibration continuum can be used with the ability or prevalence continuums or any other continuum/scale to develop a more robust and contextual two-dimensional frame of reference for paradoxical competency, skill and/or value assessments. Balancing Assertiveness with Responsiveness Let us assume that we wanted to assess the assertiveness of an executive. Now, one of the underlying drivers of assertiveness is the skill or ability to have opinions/viewpoints and then be able to effectively express them. A traditional way of ascertaining this is to put the following simple statement in the assessment questionnaire and ask respondents to rate the statement on an ability or prevalence scale: Expresses his/her opinion or view-point on issues------- Statement A We know there is a thin line of distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness. Also, responsiveness towards others thoughts or view-points is an attribute

complementary to assertiveness. Successful executives are those who are able to strike a balance between attributes of assertiveness and responsiveness without being perceived as aggressive. However a respondents response, say on an ability continuum, on Statement A will only convey how much the executive, being assessed, is able to express his/her opinion on issues. In other words a response of say very strong would suggest that the executive has well developed ability to generate his/her views on issues and share those with others. But then that is all the ability continuum does not allow such meaningful responses that could help in better understanding the assertiveness, aggressiveness and responsiveness equation for the executive. This deficiency can be overcome by incorporating the following additional statement in the questionnaire and asking the respondent to, this time, respond on a calibration continuum for this statement: Defends personal opinions or view points --------- Statement B By combining responses on two different continuums for Statements A & B lot more meaning and context can be drawn for the benefit of the executive being assessed. Figure 1 depicts a twodimensional frame of reference constructed by having, for example, Statement A with ability continuum on x-axis and Statement B with calibration continuum on y-axis. In this model it is assumed that responses of effective, very effective and outstanding (on the x-axis) represent desired levels of competency-related behaviors. Similarly, it is assumed that responses of optimal, bit underuse, bit overuse (on the y-axis) represent calibrated or acceptable levels of the competency-related behaviors. The desirable or Figure 1 acceptable levels can of course be customized in terms of the granularity of the scale. Also, the frame of reference is customizable to replace ability continuum with relevance continuum or with any other continuum known. Example analytical inferences, for responses falling in various ranges (shown by green to varying degree of shades of red), are also described in Figure 1. However, the inferences are one set of various ways of looking at the responses and are in no way exhaustive or conclusive.

Readers may ask - if the calibration continuum effectively allows assessing an executive for being at optimal levels or not, with reference to a competency, then why not exclusively use the calibration continuum for all statements in a questionnaire? In other words by using the calibration continuum for Statement B what possibly is the need left for Statement A? The answers to these questions lie in understanding the calibration continuum more closely, which is that the calibration continuum in case of Statement B implicitly assumes that the executive already possesses the skill/competency being assessed. The calibration continuum only conveys the deviation from optimal and not necessarily the presence/absence or under-development of a skill. To allow for fairness of the assessment questionnaire designs, this may be a big assumption. Analysis Paralysis: achieving a balance between Practicality/Reasoning and Vision, Creativity or Innovation Another interesting illustration of paradoxical competency behaviors is that of achieving a balance between being practical and being creative or innovative. Reason oriented executives are likely to be logical, realistic and rational. Such executives depend and look for facts, data and what is known and certain. Such leaders are perceived as down-to-earth, practical and sensible and their analytical and logical reasoning approach is seen as evidence of wisdom and commonsense. However if taken too far an over-emphasis on logical reasoning can be perceived as negative or result in acting as a hindrance to higher achievements. Leaders may become so focused on facts and data that they shun experimental or visionary possibilities which is an important ingredient for innovation and creativity. They could become so glued to logic that they become illogical in other words it becomes a typical case of hyper reliance on rationality and pragmatism. We need to recognize such paradoxes and then design assessment statements that allow for diagnosing their balance. For example we could have assessment statements that check for analytical and logical approach on an ability scale. After all we do need to see if someone is perceived to be logical in absolute terms. However, we need to also balance this with assessment statements that check if hyper reliance on logic and data is leading to suppression of innovation and creativity. The balancing assessment statement can therefore be designed for use with a calibration scale. Thereafter, the responses to the statements on the two scales can be juxtaposed in a two dimensional frame of reference (as illustrated earlier with assertiveness example) for diagnosis. The following table provides examples of paradoxical competency related behaviors. It also provides examples of two sets of assessment questionnaire statements first set, that are designed to be used normally with Ability Scales and the second set that are designed to be used with Calibration Scales and thereby are complementary to the statements for the first set. Responses to these two sets of statements when analyzed in two dimensions (as illustrated earlier with assertiveness example) are likely to provide more help and context to executives for adjusting or fine-tuning their abilities to deal with such paradoxical scenarios.

EXAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENTS THAT CAN USE CALIBRATION SCALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH ABILITY SCALES TO ASSESS PARADOXICAL COMPETENCY BEHAVIORS Assessment questionnaire statements that are Assessment questionnaire statements which can be designed to be used with Ability Scales, such as: used to calibrate or optimize corresponding paradoxical competency behaviors and therefore are designed to be used with Calibration Scales, such as:

Assertiveness vs. Responsiveness Expresses his/her opinion or view-point on Defends personal opinions or view points issues Participates in discussions Risk-taking and decisiveness vs. logical reasoning/analysis Analyzes pertinent information to better understand its impact prior to making decisions Produces logical and practical recommendations that contribute to effective decision-making Collaboration/Team work vs. Speed/urgency Solicits input and feedback of team members on important decisions impacting the team Goal orientation vs. Efforts orientation Focuses on results Creates an environment for the team to over achieve Makes decisions quickly & shows a bias for action Creates an environment where prudent risk-taking is valued and encouraged

Makes decisions quickly & shows a bias for action

Holds team members accountable for delivering timely & high quality results on their goals Recognizes peoples work and effort towards their goals

Having said that we do not argue that all organizations should always desire to develop executives who are balanced vis--vis paradoxical behaviors. What we are saying is that such optimization would lead to better chances of leadership success provided the optimization is made in the context relevant to the organizational need. Thus, it is reasonable to understand that certain conditions, in which organizations could be in, may actually require skewed competencies as opposed to balanced ones for success. For example, an executive/leader in a startup fast paced technology company (such as those developing Artificial Neural Networks) may need to be slightly skewed towards innovation and creativity for success. On the other hand, an executive/leader in an organization operating in a mature industry (such as Oil & Gas) might want to be more wedded to practicality, logic and pragmatism. Again, an R&D Head might want to be more process, data and logic oriented when assessing projects for deploying funds and quick decision-making may actually not be so desirable from him. On the other hand, leaders of an FMCG giant may need to be seen as quick decision makers (to seize rapidly changing market situations).

Each organization has a culture shaped by the business it is in and the people who run the business. Executives are themselves products of the unique cultures in which they have learned and conducted business. For example, let us think of a situation in which a British executive who was trained at an American business school is asked to run the Argentine manufacturing facility of a Japanese firm. What leadership attributes should this executive work to develop: Japanese? Argentine? American? British? An executive needs to develop bespoke leadership attributes, tailored to the unique culture within which he or she works. Again, a general description of a leader might be someone who is charismatic and seeks to develop a transformational style of leadership. But different cultural groups may vary in their conceptions of the most important characteristics of charismatic/transformational leadership. In some cultures, one might need to take strong, decisive action in order to be seen as a leader, while in other cultures consultation and a democratic approach may be the preferred approach to exercising effective leadership. For example, American managers are more likely to provide directions to subordinates on a face-to-face basis while Japanese managers are likely to use written memos. In the U.S. subordinates are usually provided negative feedback directly from their supervisors, while in Japan such feedback is usually channeled through a peer of the subordinates. Generic Two-dimensional Competency Assessment & Reporting Frame of Reference Figure 2 sums up the discussion, thus far, in the form of a generic two-dimensional competency assessment and reporting frame of reference. In this model, the x-axis represents the Ability or the Prevalence Continuum while the y-axis represents the Calibration Scale as shown below:

In the generic model of Figure 2 the y-axis or the Calibration Scale has been kept more granular in comparison to those of Figure 1 and qualifiers or response options have been replaced with negative-to-positive numerals just to more generically represent the calibration continuum. Similarly, on the x-axis qualifiers or response options have been replaced with an increasing order of numerals representative of the ability and prevalence continuums.

The x and y axes intersect at mid points of the respective continuums that they represent. Thus, for the calibration continuum optimum (represented by numeral 0) is the mid point; for ability continuums effective (represented by numeral 3) is the mid point while for a prevalence continuum reasonably or sometimes (represented by numeral 3) is the mid point. The generic model of Figure 4 also illustrates example inferences that can be drawn on competencies / behaviors depending on which quadrant the response(s) fall in.

Circular-Track Chart for Viewing and Reporting Multiple-Competency Calibration Curve (for a single executive)

Figure 5 depicts a useful way of viewing and reporting an executives skew on multiple competencies that were evaluated with questionnaire statements using the Calibration Scale. This method of reporting allows depiction of multiple competency-related behaviors, on a single chart, where behaviors are represented by the radii on the chart Behavior 1 to Behavior n. Each radius represents a Calibration Scale as exemplified by the radius titled Behavior 1. Responses (to a leadership assessment questionnaire) are plotted on the chart as nodes on respective behavior-radius. The nodes when joined together represent, what we call, an executives Calibration Curve. The Circular-Track Chart way of reporting is intuitive in the sense that shrunk and bloated Calibration curves (represented by pink tracks) imply deviation from the optimal or acceptable or desirable levels (represented by green tracks). To conclude, this paper proposes carefully designed assessment questionnaires that deploy a judicial use of the two continuums for gauging paradoxical competencies. Once responses are received, the two-dimensional frames of reference for assessing and calibrating executive competencies/behaviors and methods of reporting described in this paper can be advantageously implemented in software with built in algorithms to analyze the responses. ..