Appendix B

RESEARCH METHODS BEHIND KORN FERRY’S INCLUSIVE LEADER MODEL

THE FINDINGS IN THIS BOOK DRAW ON multiple original research methods used to collect and analyze data that includes psychometric-based assessments, surveys, interviews, and focus groups. The results provide a rich, scientifically grounded lens with which to define and measure inclusive leadership. Throughout this book, we have used general language to describe key concepts, while explaining technical terms where necessary.

More detailed descriptions of the various scientific and field-based research methods we used to develop the inclusive leader model are presented here.

ASSESSMENT DATA ANALYSIS

In collaboration with the Korn Ferry Institute, we developed an Inclusive Leader model based on Korn Ferry’s “whole person” assessment data, especially the data on competencies and traits, and on the deep subject matter expertise of Korn Ferry’s diversity and inclusion consultants. Then, we conducted analyses to test the model and to use it to better understand inclusive leadership.

TESTING THE INCLUSIVE LEADER COMPETENCIES AND TRAITS COMPOSITES

The process was as follows: Based on deep field experience doing diversity and inclusion strategy and programmatic and coaching work, and on the growing literature on cultural agility, we delved into the Korn Ferry library of competencies and traits to develop a hypothesis of what an inclusive leader would look like. Next, we conducted analyses to test our hypothetical model by validating the competency and trait composites. Specifically, we tested whether observed data fit the proposed mapping of competencies and traits. That is, we analyzed data to evaluate whether our proposed map of competencies accurately portrayed how scores on our competency measures relate to each other. Similarly, we analyzed data to evaluate whether our proposed trait clusters reflected relationships among trait scores.

Both the competencies and traits were measured with Korn Ferry assessments that use forced choice response options, combined with item response theory–based scoring. The forced choice response option format reduces the opportunity to either consciously or unintentionally distort responses, while the scoring method used helps avoid a problem that has affected most forced choice tests in the past. This problem, known as ipsativity, involves an individual’s scores being inappropriately restricted. In essence, scores on one part of an ipsative assessment fix or determine the scores on another. Scores that are ipsative should not be used for some statistical analyses or for comparing one person to another.

We consistently find that leaders who score higher on Korn Ferry assessments are more highly engaged in their jobs. For example, leaders who closely fit with traits and drivers in client-customized profiles are up to thirteen times more likely to be highly engaged in their jobs.¹ Our longitudinal research also has found that executives’ scores on Korn Ferry competencies, traits, and drivers also are related to job performance about one year later.² Therefore, the Korn Ferry Inclusive Leader model includes competencies and traits that are relevant to leadership roles and predictive of leaders’ success in their roles.

Analyses also previously demonstrated that Korn Ferry’s assessments have good reliability. This means that the assessments meet or exceed guidelines for how consistently people are expected to score on them.³ For example, all things being equal, if a person takes the assessment multiple times, the scores will be similar across those times.

The specific analysis we used to test the fit of the observed data to our models is called confirmatory factor analysis, which is a type or subset of analysis within structural equation modeling. We used commercially available software to execute these analyses (IBM’s SPSS module, called AMOS). Comparable analyses could be executed on other software, including R, which is in the public domain.

Best practice guidelines for interpreting the results of structural equation models, including confirmatory factor analyses, call for computing multiple fit indexes. Different indexes have different strengths and limitations, providing different insights on fit. Those we examined, including the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI), were within standards indicating good fit. (For competencies, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.91; for traits, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.90.)

Consequently, this research provides support for the validity of the Inclusive Leader model. When rolled together as the model indicates, scores on the competency and trait clusters provide meaningful insights.

Thus, Korn Ferry’s Inclusive Leader assessment is a scientifically supported and field-researched instrument informed by analysis of Korn Ferry’s database. The Inclusive Leader assessment captures thirteen competencies and eleven traits, each organized in five key clusters. The five trait clusters are referred to as the enabling traits, and the five competency clusters make up the five disciplines.

INCLUSIVE LEADERS BY REGION, INDUSTRY, AND FUNCTION

One of the questions we were curious about was where the inclusive leaders are. Are there more (or fewer) inclusive leaders in different regions, industries, or functional areas?

To address this question, we again utilized a data set compiled by Korn Ferry from individuals around the globe, who typically had been invited by an organization to complete our assessments. We computed scores on the five enabling trait composites and the five disciplines of inclusive leadership for approximately twenty-four thousand leaders, who ranged from C-suite leaders to first-level team leads.

Then we examined the scores to see what proportion of leaders scored in the top twenty-fifth percentile on all ten composites. Interestingly, we found that no one did. Leaders who score high across many of the inclusive leader disciplines and enabling trait composites are rare. Only about 5% of leaders are in the top twenty-fifth percentile on six or more composites. This means the model sets a very high standard.

Of course, there were variations. Nearly 10% of leaders working for nonprofits are in the top twenty-fifth percentile on six or more composites, followed by about 9% in government and 7% in health-care delivery. By country, New Zealand (13%), Australia (11%), the United Arab Emirates (10%), and the United States (10%) have the highest percentage of inclusive leaders. Note that these results reflect the leaders in our data set who are working in these countries, not the culture of the country itself.

As for the functional roles, the highest percentage of inclusive leaders was in creative and among executives/general management. The functional roles with the next higher percentage of inclusive leaders are technology, human resources, and financial services. Those with the lowest percentages of inclusive leaders were administrative services, legal, and sales.

HEAD AND HEART INCLUSIVE LEADERS

Using the same data set, we examined, via cluster analysis, the patterns of scores to see if there tended to be any typical profiles of strengths across the ten inclusive leader composites. A number of distinct patterns emerged.

One pattern involves high average scores on two enabling trait composites (flexibility and inquisitiveness) and two competency composites (applies an adaptive mindset and achieves transformation). This cluster can be described as more mindset- and action-oriented, and people with score profiles like this one may be thought of as leading inclusively with their heads.

In contrast, a second cluster stood out for high average scores on people-related constructs. With high scores on two trait clusters (authenticity and emotional resilience) and three competency clusters (optimizes talent, integrates diverse perspectives, and builds interpersonal trust), these leaders can be described as leading with their hearts.

Taken together, our research shows that we can assess inclusive leadership in a sound, psychometrically based way using Korn Ferry’s world-renowned leadership assessment tool, and then coach accordingly. The head and heart clusters provide additional ways to interpret the assessment results and to interpret their implications for individual leadership and coaching, as well as organizational strategy for greater inclusion.

INCLUSIVE LEADER SURVEY WITH DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION, HUMAN RESOURCES, AND TALENT EXPERTS

Once we had our scientifically tested model, we applied traditional work analysis methods and sought out the opinions of diversity and inclusion, HR, and talent management experts, asking whether, in their experience and knowledge, what we had identified as core competency and trait clusters are important to being an effective inclusive leader.

This approach is a well-established step in the process of describing jobs and figuring out the tasks and/or knowledge, skills, and other abilities that are needed to successfully perform a particular job or role. In conventional work analysis, the ratings are provided by those familiar with the role—typically job incumbents or their supervisors. We adapted the method to evaluate by asking D&I, HR, and talent management leaders and professionals what competencies and traits are important to being an effective inclusive leader.

An invitation to complete the survey was sent out via email to a group of leaders and professionals on Korn Ferry’s diversity and inclusion newsletter mailing list. The survey was set up in Qualtrics. We received insights from twenty-five participants, and although the sample size is not quite large enough to meet minimum thresholds for certain types of statistical analyses (conventionally, n = 30), it is robust from a qualitative perspective.

To help understand who responded, the survey included questions about people’s background, jobs, and careers. Not everyone completing the survey answered these questions about themselves. Of those who did:

• ■ 57% identified as female, 39% identified as male, and 4% chose not to say;

• ■ 13% were 31 to 40 years old, 39% were 41 to 50, 39% were 51 to 60, 9% were 61 and over; and

• ■ 96% were from North America.

Most of the respondents were seasoned experts. Thirty percent were senior executives who report to the CEO, 43% were senior leaders, 9% were midlevel managers, 9% were first-level supervisors, and 9% were individual contributors. And a majority of those who reported their experience had worked more than ten years in human resources, diversity and inclusion, or talent management.

The results, which have been summarized throughout this book, reinforce the importance of the inclusive leadership traits and competencies. Almost all respondents rated all of the inclusive leader competencies as extremely important or very important to being an effective inclusive leader. A somewhat smaller but still substantial majority saw all the inclusive leader traits as extremely important or very important to being an effective inclusive leader. This pattern is consistent with traits being enablers of inclusivity.

GATHERING PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE LEADER IMPACT ON TALENT

Among the survey respondents, there was complete or near consensus on the positive impact inclusive leaders have on their talent, including helping talent to feel free to bring their authentic selves to work, giving them a sense of empowerment, reassuring them that there is fairness, and ensuring that they will be challenged with stretch opportunities (see table B-1).

GATHERING PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE LEADER IMPACT ON ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS

Consensus also showed up in the survey participants’ beliefs about the impact inclusive leaders have on their organizations, including leading their organization to greater innovation, fostering marketplace growth, creating more inclusive management practices, and influencing their organizations to embrace diversity as a vital part of an economic business case (see table B-2).

Table B-1: How Inclusive Leaders Help Individuals

Source: Korn Ferry Inclusive Leader survey, 2019–2020.

GATHERING PERSPECTIVES ON IMPACT OF EXPERIENCES ON INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP

Among the survey respondents, diverse experiences were not considered as important to being an inclusive leader as were the inclusive leader competencies and traits. Yet it was still rated extremely or very important by 24% to 48% of respondents (table B-3). The range was due to the type of experience. The highest vote getter was having had the experience of working in an organization with a meaningful amount of diversity; 48% said this was extremely or very important. The lowest scored experience (24%) was having lived in a different country or in a heterogeneous region within one’s own country.

Table B-2: How Inclusive Leaders Help Organizations

Source: Korn Ferry Inclusive Leader survey, 2019–2020.

Table B-3: Why Leaders Should Seek New Experiences

Source: Korn Ferry Inclusive Leader survey, 2019–2020

While there were mixed opinions about the importance of past diverse experiences, there was unanimous consent (when combining the extremely important and very important answers) that inclusive leaders must seek to gain new and diverse experiences in the present and the future. Additional experiences that were seen as valuable were those where leaders not only received something but also were actively involved in giving something back. Specifically, sixty-eight percent said sponsoring and mentoring people from different backgrounds was extremely or very important.

LEADER INTERVIEWS

Using the Inclusive Leader model to obtain examples of inclusive leadership in action, we conducted interviews with inclusive leaders who were nominated by others from various organizations across the globe. We interviewed inclusive leaders from Austria, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United States. (For the full list of leaders, titles, companies, and countries see the acknowledgments.)

In conducting the interviews, we used a behavioral-based interview protocol that sought examples of how these leaders had demonstrated inclusive leadership behaviors in each of the competencies within each of the five disciplines. We also obtained formative biographical and career information from each of them to better contextualize who they were as inclusive leaders.

We did not formally probe these leaders on the enabling traits, though we were able to infer a good amount of how certain traits manifested for these leaders. Nevertheless, the main objective of these interviews was to obtain qualitative data around the five disciplines.

YOUNG PROFESSIONALS FOCUS GROUPS

At the back end of our research, we went out to test how our assumptions and findings would play out with young professionals of the Millennial and Gen Z generations, who are not yet fully in positions of power and broad influence in critical mass numbers but who soon will be.

We did this by desk research, examining trends as documented in various journalistic and academic publications on how these two younger generations (who will make up over 70% of the workforce by 2025 and will keep increasing their percentage every year after that) choose to be inclusive. We then heard it in their own words during five mixed-gender focus groups, in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. These focus groups were all conducted virtually, as detailed in chapter 12.