Assessing and Reporting Paradoxical Leadership Competencies Beyond Traditional One-Dimensional Continuums

8/4/2019 Assessing and Reporting Paradoxical Leadership Competencies Beyond Traditional One-Dimensional Continuums

1/8

1

Assessing & Reporting Paradoxical Leadership Competencies beyond

Traditional One-dimensional Continuums/Scales

- Raman Kumar, Manager H&S KMC(The views expressed in this article are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of

H&S)

"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 oroptimized skills and personal attributes are valued, admired and desired in leaders.A key leadership competency is to be able to deal with paradoxes without beingconstrued as polar. For example, a leader may need to be tough and yet alsoempathetic or act in accordance with a certain situation (situational leadership)while still maintaining consistency.

Various assessment methodologies exist that aim to evaluate leaders against anagreed set of competencies, values and related behavior. Most are based on carefullydesigned questionnaires where respondents typically opine over a continuum ofqualifiers or response options presented in the form of a linear scale. Thesecontinuums measure either in terms of how well tasks are performed / behaviorsdisplayed (Ability Continuum) or in terms of how often or how seldom(Prevalence Continuum) certain competency linked behaviors are observed for anexecutive.

Ability Continuum Respondents use this continuum to assess executive behaviorsagainst qualifiers or response options such as:

substantially below target, below target, on target, above target, substantiallyabove 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 inon the essence of a response to a behavioral statement. However, most variations ofthe ability continuum seem to imply that higher the amount of a certain skill, valueor 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 ofstrength can actually become a weakness and a cause of stress for others. Forexample, a response of under-developed or below target or ineffective on abehavior 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 responseand hence the underlying reason for the ineffectiveness.

Prevalence Continuum - On the other hand, prevalence continuum describes thefrequency at which certain behaviors are or are not observed. Qualifiers or responseoptions 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 expresseshis/her stand on issues is good or bad or in the range of acceptable force. The


2/8

2

behavior is related to assertiveness and by merely knowing that the behavior isdisplayed mostly one cannot understand whether this is a desirable frequency ornot.

It is observed that such one-dimensional continuums alone may not be sufficient toassess as well as convey useful context to the many multi-dimensional behavioralaspects of leaders, particularly those related to paradoxical attributes. This issignificant in the backdrop of todays global organizations having culturally ever morediverse employees and work situations.

As a result, this paper intends to explore and present a two-dimensional frame ofreference to capture more meaning and color to leadership assessment responses (tocarefully designed assessment questionnaires) when compared with the responsescaptured through a predominant use of one-dimensional continuums, such as theability 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 inconjunction and reference to other continuums such as the ability and/or prevalencecontinuum(s).

The calibration continuum is designed with qualifiers such as diminished use/displayor underuse or underdone at one end of the spectrum and exaggerated use/displayor overuse or overdone at the other end, as shown below:

In the foregoing description an attempt is made to present and explain, usingexamples, how the calibration continuum can be used with the ability or prevalencecontinuums or any other continuum/scale to develop a more robust and contextualtwo-dimensional frame of reference for paradoxical competency, skill and/orvalue assessments.

Balancing Assertiveness with Responsiveness

Let us assume that we wanted to assess the assertiveness of an executive. Now, oneof the underlying drivers of assertiveness is the skill or ability to have opinions/view-points and then be able to effectively express them. A traditional way of ascertainingthis is to put the following simple statement in the assessment questionnaire and askrespondents 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


3/8

3

complementary to assertiveness. Successful executives are those who are able tostrike a balance between attributes of assertiveness and responsiveness withoutbeing perceived as aggressive. However a respondents response, say on an ability

continuum, on Statement A will only convey how much the executive, beingassessed, is able to express his/her opinion on issues. In other words a response ofsay very strong would suggest that the executive has well developed ability togenerate 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 inbetter understanding the assertiveness, aggressiveness and responsiveness equationfor the executive.

This deficiency can be overcome by incorporating the following additional statementin the questionnaire and asking the respondent to, this time, respond on a calibrationcontinuum for this statement:

Defends personal opinions or view points --------- Statement B

By combining responses on two different continuums for Statements A & B lot moremeaning and context can be drawn for the benefit of the executive being assessed.

Figure 1 depicts a two-dimensional frame ofreference constructed byhaving, for example,Statement A with abilitycontinuum on x-axis andStatement B with calibrationcontinuum on y-axis. In thismodel it is assumed that

responses of effective, veryeffective and outstanding(on the x-axis) representdesired levels ofcompetency-relatedbehaviors. Similarly, it isassumed that responses of optimal, bit underuse, bitoveruse (on the y-axis)represent calibrated oracceptable levels of thecompetency-relatedbehaviors. The desirable or

acceptable levels can ofcourse be customized interms of the granularity of

the scale. Also, the frame of reference is customizable to replace ability continuumwith relevance continuum or with any other continuum known.

Example analytical inferences, for responses falling in various ranges (shown bygreen 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 noway exhaustive or conclusive.

Figure 1


4/8

4

Readers may ask - if the calibration continuum effectively allows assessing anexecutive for being at optimal levels or not, with reference to a competency, thenwhy not exclusively use the calibration continuum for all statements in a

questionnaire? In other words by using the calibration continuum for Statement Bwhat possibly is the need left for Statement A? The answers to these questions lie inunderstanding the calibration continuum more closely, which is that the calibrationcontinuum in case of Statement B implicitly assumes that the executive alreadypossesses the skill/competency being assessed. The calibration continuum onlyconveys the deviation from optimal and not necessarily the presence/absence orunder-development of a skill. To allow for fairness of the assessment questionnairedesigns, 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 ofachieving a balance between being practical and being creative or innovative. Reasonoriented executives are likely to be logical, realistic and rational. Such executivesdepend and look for facts, data and what is known and certain. Such leaders areperceived as down-to-earth, practical and sensible and their analytical and logicalreasoning approach is seen as evidence of wisdom and commonsense.

However if taken too far an over-emphasis on logical reasoning can be perceived asnegative or result in acting as a hindrance to higher achievements. Leaders maybecome so focused on facts and data that they shun experimental or visionarypossibilities which is an important ingredient for innovation and creativity. They couldbecome so glued to logic that they become illogical in other words it becomes atypical 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 relianceon 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 firstset, that are designed to be used normally with Ability Scales and the second set thatare designed to be used with Calibration Scales and thereby are complementary tothe statements for the first set. Responses to these two sets of statements whenanalyzed in two dimensions (as illustrated earlier with assertiveness example) arelikely to provide more help and context to executives for adjusting or fine-tuningtheir abilities to deal with such paradoxical scenarios.


5/8

5

EXAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENTS THAT CAN USE CALIBRATION SCALES IN

CONJUNCTION WITH ABILITY SCALES TO ASSESS PARADOXICAL COMPETENCY BEHAVIORS

Assessment questionnaire statements that aredesigned to be used with Ability Scales, such as:

Assessment questionnaire statements which can beused to calibrate or optimize correspondingparadoxical competency behaviors and therefore aredesigned to be used with Calibration Scales, such as:

Assertiveness vs. Responsiveness

Expresses his/her opinion or view-point on

issues Participates in discussions

Defends personal opinions or view points

Risk-taking and decisiveness vs. logical reasoning/analysis

Analyzes pertinent information to betterunderstand its impact prior to makingdecisions

Produces logical and practicalrecommendations that contribute to effectivedecision-making

Makes decisions quickly & shows a bias for action Creates an environment where prudent risk-taking

is valued and encouraged

Collaboration/Team work vs. Speed/urgency

Solicits input and feedback of team members

on important decisions impacting the team

Makes decisions quickly & shows a bias for action

Goal orientation vs. Efforts orientation

Focuses on results Creates an environment for the team to over

achieve

Holds team members accountable for deliveringtimely & high quality results on their goals

Recognizes peoples work and effort towards theirgoals

Having said that we do not argue that all organizations should always desire todevelop executives who are balanced vis--vis paradoxical behaviors. What we aresaying is that such optimization would lead to better chances of leadership successprovided 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 asopposed to balanced ones for success. For example, an executive/leader in a start-up fast paced technology company (such as those developing Artificial NeuralNetworks) may need to be slightly skewed towards innovation and creativity forsuccess. On the other hand, an executive/leader in an organization operating in amature 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 andlogic oriented when assessing projects for deploying funds and quick decision-makingmay actually not be so desirable from him. On the other hand, leaders of an FMCGgiant may need to be seen as quick decision makers (to seize rapidly changingmarket situations).


6/8

6

Each organization has a culture shaped by the business it is in and the people whorun the business. Executives are themselves products of the unique cultures in whichthey 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 torun the Argentine manufacturing facility of a Japanese firm. What leadershipattributes should this executive work to develop: Japanese? Argentine? American?British? An executive needs to develop bespoke leadership attributes, tailored to theunique culture within which he or she works.

Again, a general description of a leader might be someone who is charismatic andseeks to develop a transformational style of leadership. But different cultural groupsmay vary in their conceptions of the most important characteristics ofcharismatic/transformational leadership. In some cultures, one might need to takestrong, decisive action in order to be seen as a leader, while in other culturesconsultation and a democratic approach may be the preferred approach to exercisingeffective 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 apeer 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-dimensionalcompetency assessment and reporting frame of reference. In this model, the x-axisrepresents the Ability or the Prevalence Continuum while the y-axis represents

the Calibration Scale as shown below:


7/8

7

In the generic model of Figure 2 the y-axis or the Calibration Scale has been keptmore granular in comparison to those of Figure 1 and qualifiers or response optionshave been replaced with negative-to-positive numerals just to more generically

represent the calibration continuum. Similarly, on the x-axis qualifiers or responseoptions have been replaced with an increasing order of numerals representative ofthe ability and prevalence continuums.

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


8/8

8

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 onmultiple competencies that were evaluated with questionnaire statements using theCalibration Scale. This method of reporting allows depiction of multiplecompetency-related behaviors, on a single chart, where behaviors are represented

by the radii on the chart Behavior 1 to Behavior n. Each radius represents aCalibration Scale as exemplified by the radius titled Behavior 1. Responses (to aleadership assessment questionnaire) are plotted on the chart as nodes onrespective 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 andbloated Calibration curves (represented by pink tracks) imply deviation from theoptimal or acceptable or desirable levels (represented by green tracks).

To conclude, this paper proposes carefully designed assessment questionnaires thatdeploy 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 reportingdescribed in this paper can be advantageously implemented in software with built inalgorithms to analyze the responses.

..

Documents

Assessing and Reporting Paradoxical Leadership Competencies Beyond Traditional One-Dimensional Continuums