1shep.files. Web viewIf one were to summarize my personality and how I operate based on my Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Learner Connections Inventory

RUNNING HEAD: Report on Complete 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills Data 1

Report on Complete 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills Data

Scott S. Critzer

Dr. Nancy Powers

EDLP 717—Communicating Research Findings

Author Note

Correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to Scott S. Critzer, Assistant Principal,

Randolph-Henry High School, 755 David Bruce Avenue, Charlotte Court House, Virginia

23923. E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Report on Complete 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills Data2

Report on Complete 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills Data

Similar to the initial report produced in November of 2011, the purpose of this report is to

analyze the data collected from the unpublished 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills as

modified by the Educational Leadership Department of the Virginia Commonwealth University

School of Education. This is a survey of key questions regarding leadership performance and

abilities of each individual member of the 2014 Virginia Commonwealth Ed.D Leadership

Cohort. Each cohort member was asked to fill-out the survey as a self assessment and to submit

the survey to one supervisor, three peers, and three direct reports. As a follow-up to the initial

data, participants were asked to conduct the survey again in January of 2013 and compare and

contrast those results to both the initial findings and other leadership indicators that they have

identified along their leadership journey during the past two years.

Overview of the Report

There are two sets of data represented in this report. The 2011 set includes my own self-

assessment scores as well as scores from five of my seven collaborators. Six collaborators

submitted completed surveys and the one incomplete survey included responses to only eight of

the 58 questions. As a result, I did not include that survey in my data. The 2013 set of data

includes my own self-assessment scores as well as full responses from one peer and three

subordinates. None of the respondents in the 2011 survey were used in the 2013 group.

Similar to the initial report, I again chose to disaggregate responses by role. However,

since my 2011 supervisor data lacked credibility, a topic discussed later, and there was no data


from a supervisor in the 2013 data, the primary comparison in this report will focus on my

personal responses and the peer and subordinate responses. In addition, I will compare overall

ratings among all respondents as well as statistical indicators that suggest areas in need of

improvement.

Threats to Validity

While there is merit to the data collected in the 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills, it is

important to acknowledge some potential threats to the validity of the quantitative data in terms

of a truly experimental model. If the collection of the data in terms of the Virginia

Commonwealth University Doctorate of Educational Leadership program were to be viewed as a

classic experimental pre-test/treatment/post-test model, there are several threats to the validity of

the findings as identified by Mertens & Wilson (2012). The first has to do with the absence of

random selection of participants. I chose the participants purposefully based on those persons I

thought would put thought and effort into the process. These persons also tend to be the most

participatory people at school and, thus, have a high level of job satisfaction. As a result, their

view of the job and, subsequently, my performance may skew their data.

A second threat to the validity of the findings rests in the sampling size (Mertens &

Wilson, 2012). The requested sample size could be considered to be a minimum size that, in and

of itself, does not represent an adequate sample to be considered statistically valid. In addition,

the fact that several of my requests for surveys went unanswered makes my sample size even less

valid. While there is room for comparison among the subordinate responses, for example, there

is no way to quantify whether there is any statistically valid trend in the peer responses since

there is only one in each group.


Anonymity may play a role in the validity of the results, as well. Since respondents were

required to put their names on their surveys, this may contribute to responses that are not as

honest and forthright as they would otherwise be in an anonymous setting. This may be even

more profound among the responses from the subordinates.

Finally, differential selection among the respondents and history could also cause a lack

of validity within the study (Mertens & Wilson, 2012). Since I requested data from completely

different respondents for the 2011 and 2013 surveys, it is impossible to determine if any changes

in the data are due to changes in the perception of my leadership abilities or differences among

the respondents. Similarly, historical changes that occurred in the interim between my 2011 and

2013 assessments, primarily my move from assistant principal to principal and my change from

the high school to the middle school could affect the data from 2011 to 2013.

Representing the Data

My Personal Assessment

Despite the potential lack of validity in a truly experimental sense, the examination of the

data from each sampling group (2011 and 2013) as well as the comparison of the two sets of data

offers a great deal of benefit for analyzing my personal leadership. Table 1 represents a

comparison between the median scores on my 2011 self- assessment and my 2013 self-

assessment in each the ten 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills reporting categories: Setting

Direction, Teamwork, Sensitivity, Judgment, Results Orientation, Organizational Ability, Oral

Communication, Written Communication, Developing Others, and Understanding My Own

Strengths and Weaknesses. The responses were reported as 1-Ineffective, 2-Minimally Effective,

3-Satisfactory, 4-Highly Effective, and 5-Outstandingly Effective.


Table 1—Median Self- Assessment Scores

Setting D

irecti

on

Teamwork

Sensiti

vity

Judgmen

t

Results

Orientati

on

Organiza

tional Abilit

y

Oral Communica

tion

Written

Communication

Developing O

thers

Understan

ding Stre

ngths/W

eakness

es

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

20112013

In looking at my own assessment of my personal leadership skills over a two-year span

represented in Table 1, there are several points that are evident. Overall, I consistently rate myself

highest in areas of Setting Direction, Teamwork, Sensitivity, and Written and Oral Communication. The

first three of these areas; Setting Direction, Teamwork, and Sensitivity. I consistently rated myself the

lowest in Organizational Ability. This is an area that is focused on both delegation and the monitoring

and directing of others.

There is some differentiation in my median scores between the two reportings. While this could

simply be a result of taking the survey a second time, this could also be attributed to a change in

position. Since 2011, I have moved from the position of Assistant Principal at a high school to Principal at

a middle school. This move has caused me to become more confident in some areas of my leadership.


An example of this is my growth in Results Orientation. At the same time, it has caused me to question

and examine other aspects, as indicated in the altered view of my Judgement abilities.

My Direct Reports

The second set of data comparison I did was between the median scores of my direct

reports. The scores received from this group are represented in Table 2 and indicate a consistent

view of my leadership across all categories as being highly effective.

Table 2—Median Subordinate Assessment Scores

Setting D

irecti

on

Teamwork

Sensiti

vity

Judgmen

t

Results

Orientati

on

Organiza

tional Abilit

y

Oral Communica

tion

Written

Communication

Developing O

thers

Understan

ding Stre

ngths/W

eakness

es

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

20112013

There are two particular points of note within this data. The first is that there appears to

be a consensus between the two groups of my leadership abilities as being Highly Effective or


above, even though they represent different faculties. This adds some validity to the data,

indicating that the original scores were replicable from one sampling group to another (Mertens

& Wilson, 2012) and helping to triangulate the data.

In addition, the 2013 direct reports rated me higher in Sensitivity, Written

Communication, and Developing Others than the 2011 group. This is notable because two of the

categories, Sensitivity and Written Communication, are also areas where I rated myself highest,

while the area of Developing Others is an area that I typically do not see as a personal strength.

This is also notable in considering possible reasons for these peaking score categories

from an experimental standpoint. These rating changes could be the result of a true belief in my

abilities in these areas. However, they could also be the result of a contrast between my

predecessor and me. Having worked with him for several years, it is clear that we have differing

styles in these categories, and this could account for the changes.

My Peers

My peers for this process consisted of two fellow administrators in each of the buildings

in which I worked. Table 3 represents their median responses on the surveys. The responses

from my 2011 peer are highest in several areas in which my direct reports and I see myself as

being strong but are consistently lower than my second peer’s scores. Looking at these responses

from a more analytical vantage point, the difference could be attributed to a different view of my

leadership, but could also be indicative of the differences in age and experience between the two

respondents or the duration of time that we have worked together.


Table 3—Median Peer Responses

Setting D

irecti

on

Teamwork

Sensiti

vity

Judgmen

t

Results

Orientati

on

Organiza

tional Abilit

y

Oral Communica

tion

Written

Communication

Developing O

thers

Understan

ding Stre

ngths/W

eakness

es

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

20112013

Overall Reporting

The median scores for all respondents from the 2011 and the 2013 reports are represented

in Table 4. Both reporting groups rated my leadership ability as Highly Effective in seven of the

ten areas, while the 2013 reporting group rated me as Highly Effective or above across all

categories. In keeping with the results from the sub-groups, Sensitivity was noted as a particular

strength, especially by the 2013 group. Although the overall responses for the 2013 respondents

indicated a rating of Highly Effective in Results Orientation and Organizational Ability, the

lower scores in these areas from the previous administration of the assessment suggest that they

may be areas of weakness that require some deeper investigation.


Table 4—Comparison of Median Scores Across Reporting Groups

Setting D

irecti

on

Teamwork

Sensiti

vity

Judgmen

t

Results

Orientati

on

Organiza

tional Abilit

y

Oral Communica

tion

Written

Communication

Developing O

thers

Understan

ding Stre

ngths/W

eakness

es

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

20112013

Deeper Data Analysis

I made several observations during the course of this project both in 2011 and on the

most recent survey. While I am rated consistently high in all categories according to the median

scores, there is enough question about the validity of the scoring and in my own perception of

my performance that I felt I needed to take a deeper look into the data. Since the majority of the

scores for both surveys were 3 or above, I chose to focus on only the top three scores, making 3

—Satisfactory the baseline with the 4—Highly Effective being the neutral score and the 5—

Outstandingly Effective being the highest rating. As a result, as I look at my data, the categories

that I am focusing on are the categories that received the highest concentration of 5—


Outstandingly Effective as being areas that are clearly perceived as my strengths and and 3—

Satisfactory or below as areas needing attention.

On the top end of the scale, I received the highest concentrations of 5-Outstandingly

Effective scores in the areas of Setting Direction, Teamwork, and Sensitivity. Interestingly,

although I scored highest in these areas, there were some questions within these categories that

contained low scores. In Setting Direction, I was rated particularly high in developing alliances

and acknowledging achievement but had several 3—Satisfactory scores in the areas of setting

clear and measurable objectives. In the area of Teamwork, my scores on seeking consensus

among the team contained several scores of 3--Satisfactory or below. Likewise, my rankings in

Sensitivity in the area of communicating information to the appropriate people in a timely

fashion were also low. Thus, the indication is that even though I am perceived as strong in these

areas there are still specific points on which I can improve.

At the other end of the spectrum, there were two main areas in which there were

sufficient scores of the 3—Satisfactory or below range to merit further attention on my part. The

first was in Result Orientation. On the first three questions of the section, taking action towards

closure, initiating action for improvement, and determining criteria to indicate that a problem is

resolved, I received a higher concentration of 3—Satisfactory and below. Similarly, in the area

of Organizational Ability, I received a high concentration of “low” scores on several questions.

Delegation, monitoring delegated responsibilities, developing action plans, and monitoring

progress were all areas that were seen as being weaker areas for me.

Both of these categories represent areas in need of improvement that are in keeping with

my basic personal nature. In considering the questions on which I was scored lower, the


commonality among them is that they require the leader to exert pressure and direction on others.

Given my affinity for extroverted behavior and my collaborative, people-centered nature,

situations where I need to dictate directions and set hard limitations on people are not my go-to

style. I am more likely to do a job myself, for example, than to tell someone else to do it. While I

have the capability to be authoritative and more directive when necessary, this is something I am

aware of within myself. As I have moved into the more directive position of principal, I have

worked to improve these areas. Some growth can be seen in the changes of the scores from the

2011 to the 2013 surveys, but I need to continue to pay particular attention to these tendencies

within own personal leadership style and to continue to try to augment my own “blind spots”

with those fellow leaders who I choose to put around me.

Connection to My Leadership Journey

Any discussion of my leadership capabilities must be rooted in my own base nature.

If one were to summarize my personality and how I operate based on my Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI) and Learner Connections Inventory (LCI) inventories, the two-word description

would be an “organized extrovert.” My MBTI personality type is an ESFJ, described on the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G Report Form (1994) as someone who is, “warmhearted,

conscientious, and cooperative. Want(s) harmony in their environment, (and) work(s) with

determination to establish it.” In short, I am an extremely outgoing and people-loving person

who enjoys all personal interaction but primarily interaction on a positive level. I do not like

conflict and work hard to avoid it most of the time. In addition, I am someone who needs

organization, structure, and planning in order to function comfortably and efficiently. The LCI


indicated that my “use first” response is Sequence and, as such, I prefer structure, hands-on

work, practicality, organization, and tasks that can be started and finished.

While there are other aspects to both the MBTI and LCI inventories, most of my scores

in the other reporting categories were in the neutral range. These findings are in keeping with

my own observations through the years. While I do not have a strong aversion to most methods

(ex/ sensing vs. intuition or technical reasoning vs. confluence), my experience has been that I

always come back to the responses of extroversion and organization.

I see these two main characteristics play-out in my life and work on a daily basis. On an

interpersonal level, a great deal of my time is spent attempting to create harmony. In any given

situation, I am usually trying to create consensus and buy-in from those around me as a means

to avoid having their ideas or beliefs be at odds with mine and create a contentious situation.

This often leaves my mood and effectiveness at the mercy of those around me. If I am able to

get their agreement on whatever issue we are dealing with and make them happy, then I am

happy and effective. If they are not in agreement with what I do or my decisions, then I find it

difficult to be satisfied myself and typically expend extra effort trying to get us both to a point

of agreement.

As a leader, my basic characteristic types afford me many positives. On one hand, my

relative neutrality in most categories of these two indicators allows me a level of flexibility that

is essential to leadership. While Precision, Confluence and Technical Reasoning from the LCI are

not my automatic responses, for example, I am not averse to them and can use them when I


have to. This allows me to be effective in a variety of situations when forced to act in a manner

outside of my preferred comfort zone.

In addition to my flexibility, my need for organization and my extroverted tendencies

predispose me to a collaborative leadership style. As a result, when an area of need has been

established, I am one who likes to create a plan for addressing the need and organize those

around me in making the change. Due to my extroverted nature, it is important to me to have

consensus and “buy-in” with others so that I do not feel like I am forcing anything on them or

that they disagree or disapprove of with what I am doing. This often causes me to over-

communicate in an effort to get everyone on the same page as well as to gathering input on the

issues from all of those involved. These two things, born out of a need to create harmony, often

have the added benefit of helping to create a “buy-in” rooted in a true understanding and

ownership on the part of the group. In this way, my leadership style empowers and enables

those around me and is in keeping with my strong scores in the areas of Teamwork and

Sensitivity on the 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills.

While my primary personality traits offer several benefits to my leadership ability, their

most crucial negative impact is my extroverted need for harmony. While it is often beneficial in

helping create a collaborative work relationship based on mutual understanding, it can also

threaten my effectiveness as a leader if left unchecked. I work best as a leader when I can get

everyone to see things the same way and avoid conflict. The problem, however, is that it is not

always easy, or even possible, to get everyone to come to a consensus or buy-in to what you

are doing. As Patrick Lencioni (2002) asserts in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, the two


foundational dysfunctions of a team (or in this case, a leader) are a lack of trust and an

avoidance of conflict. At times, I believe that I possess a lack of trust in those I deal with that

they will view any disagreement as personal. Therefore, I do not trust them enough to honestly

engage in the conflict that could lead to greater understanding and consensus or necessary

change. As was mentioned earlier, this is the foundation for my lower scores in the areas of

Results Orientation and Organizational Ability. Given that these are both areas where a great

deal of direction, and possible conflict, are necessary, they are not in keeping with my reflexive

tendencies as a leader.

My Leadership Beliefs

My basic tendencies and reflexive styles identified by the MBTI and LCI are evidenced in

my beliefs on leadership as seen in my artifacts over the course of the past two years and

supported by my scores on the 360 Assessment of Leadership. Overall, I believe the purpose of

leadership should be to achieve an end. As one leader suggests, “Leadership is a process by

which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a

way that makes it more cohesive and coherent” (Big Dog’s and Little Dog’s Performance

Juxtaposition Site). While there can be a great deal of variation in methods and styles of

leadership, the ultimate purpose should be to provide vision, guidance, support, and structure to a

person or group of people in such a way as to provide them what is needed to achieve the desired

end.

To achieve this end, the relationship between the leader and his/her followers should be

one of collaboration and collegiality. At the most basic of levels, this is rooted in the idea put

forth by Drath (2001) that, “There can be no leadership without followers.” As such, I believe


strongly in Drath’s (2001) suggestion that all leadership is shared leadership. So, for me, the

authentic elements of my leadership are encompassed by a collaborative, Theory Y, human-

resources approach where the leader is but one part of the larger leadership team (Bohlman and

Deal, 2003). I believe that everyone has a need to feel important and valued and, if they are made

to feel that way, will work to help achieve the group’s goals. Thus, it is incumbent upon the

leader to share the leadership role and work diligently through honest support, caring, and

collaboration to gain the trust, support and buy-in of their constituents.

A key element in my leadership philosophy is the vital importance of communication. As

Covey (1989) suggests in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, in order to get people to

buy-in, you must first know where they are coming from, what he calls “seeking to understand.”

Once you know where they are coming from, you can then begin the process of communicating

your position and reaching a common vision. Without communication, there can be no common

understanding, no trust, and, ultimately, no commitment.

Overall, my leadership beliefs are in keeping with my basic tendencies indicated on the

MBTI and LCI assessments as well as my results from the 360 Assessment of Leadership Skills.

Most notably, my perceived strengths in the areas of Setting Direction, Teamwork, Sensitivity,

and Written and Oral Communication suggest that perceptions of my leadership are in keeping

with my own personal beliefs about what leadership should be.

My Challenges

Although I have several leadership strengths that will benefit me as I move forward as a

leader, our cohort’s study of leadership over the past two years have suggested several leadership

challenges that I will need to address in relation to my 360 survey results. As we have discussed


throughout our coursework, true leadership is more than simply managing a situation. It is

providing vision and direction to move people and organizations in directions that they may not

readily be able to visualize or conceptualize. Drath (2001) suggests, for example, that there are

three main tasks to leadership: Setting Direction, Creating and Maintaining Commitment, and

Adaptive Challenge. In comparing these three challenges to the perceptions of my leadership

provided by the 360 surveys, I can see a key area of concern for my future leadership.

As I have indicated throughout the paper, my reflexive leadership style is one of

collaboration, teamwork, and collegiality. I believe that this kind of leadership translates easily

into Drath’s challenge of Creating and Maintaining Commitment; and I believe that my scores in

the areas of Teamwork, Sensitivity, and Communication indicate that this is a strength for me.

However, true leadership is not just staying the course but Setting Direction to create and

navigate new courses when necessary. While this requires a collaborative and communicative

effort to gain and maintain followership, it also necessitates a certain amount of direction and

risk on the part of the leader. In today’s ever-changing educational landscape, a leader must be

able to visualize ahead, conceptualize a course, and, at times, prescribe and mandate that course

to others in response to what Drath (2001) calls “Adaptive Challenge.” This requires risk and

potential conflict that my 360 assessment results and my own knowledge of myself suggest are

not my go-to styles.

Addressing the Challenges

In relation to the leadership challenges that lie ahead, for me to realize long term success

as a leader, I must work to enhance my abilities in the 360 areas of Setting Direction, Results

Orientation, and Organizational Ability. All three of these areas can be influenced positively by


the inter-personal tendencies and strengths that the surveys indicate I possess, but they cannot be

adequately addressed without risk of inter-personal conflict and discord. There are several steps I

can take to help my leadership in these areas. The first is to make a change within myself and

allow myself to trust more. When I approach situations from a place of trust, it removes the

personal aspect and allows me to approach the issue on its own merit and, even more so, as a

means to improve a situation. For example, rather than worrying about a teacher being angry

over a negative review of an observation, by approaching it unemotionally and looking at the

true intent of trying to help the teacher improve, I am better able to deal with the situation and

take the necessary steps to affect change. In addition, I am finding that dealing with these

potentially difficult personal issues early is much more effective for me. By waiting, I allow the

problem to grow in my mind, making it more likely that I will either not address the situation

appropriately or will not react appropriately when I do address it. In addition, by dealing with

these situations upfront, I remove the emotional toll that awaiting their outcome has one me and,

again, free myself to use that energy in more constructive ways.

In addition to changes within myself, the process of examining my MBTI and LCI

inventories, my 360 assessments, and my leadership views has shown me places that I could

enhance my staff in order to balance-out my own primary personality traits. As I develop teams,

committees, and my leadership staff, I need to include people with several personality tendencies

that differ from mine. In order to balance my extroverted tendencies, I need someone with more

introverted tendencies who is more detail oriented and with more thinking tendencies that would

enable them to deal with the more difficult personal situations more easily than me. In addition,

given my Sensing tendencies, I also need people who are more intuitive and confluent and can

brainstorm, take risks, see new possibilities, innovate, and prepare for change. Finally, in order


to balance my lack of interest in minutia and detail, I need some people who have Precision as

their “use first” response. All of these would help address my needs in the more directional areas

of Results Orientation and Organizational Ability. By surrounding myself with some of these

people, I would be able to create a well-rounded leadership team that would enhance the

positives of all of our basic personality traits.

Conclusion

Overall, the process of taking consecutive 360 surveys over the course of two years has

been a productive one. It has not only allowed me to look at the perceptions of my leadership and

how they have changed during the course of the past two years and my work within the Virginia

Commonwealth University Ed.D. program but has given me an opportunity to reflect on my

leadership in a new context. By getting to see how I was viewed as an assistant principal and

how I am perceived in the principal role, I have gotten an opportunity to gauge my performance

during my freshman year as a head building administrator. Overall, I am pleased with the results

and excited that the overall perception of my leadership abilities has not only remained favorable

but has even improved in some areas. However, as I discussed in the paper, I recognize that I,

like all good leaders, still have much room to grow. A principal’s first year in any building is

often about managing the situation that he or she was given, but although I have seen growth in

myself in my key areas of need as I have taken on more of a leadership role this year, I realize

that these areas will need to continue to improve as I am increasing called upon to help navigate

my school and my staff through the uncharted waters ahead.


Resources

Big Dog’s and Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition Site (2012, January 26). Retrieved from:

.http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.

San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Covey, S. (1989) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Field Press.

Drath, W. (2001). The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership. San Francisco:

Josey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, M. M. & Wilson, A.T. (2012). Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A

Comprehensive Guide. New York: The Guilford Press.

Myers, Peter B. and Katherine D. Myers (1994). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G Report

Documents

1shep.files. Web viewIf one were to summarize my personality and how I operate based on my Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Learner Connections Inventory