Once an organization has identified its high-potential leaders, the next step is to diagnose their strengths and development needs. When that is done, they can get the training and coaching they need to take advantage of their strengths and to fill any development gaps. The targeted, deliberate acquisition of new skills is essential if high potential is to blossom into executive success.
This chapter outlines the tools used in assessing executive-level competencies and derailers and how those tools can be applied in a succession management system. In Chapter 8 we’ll cover diagnosing development needs relative to job challenges and organizational knowledge as well as communicating to pool members about the assessment of all four executive descriptor areas.
Note
denotes that information on this topic is available at the Grow Your Own Leaders web site (www.ddiworld.com/growyourownleaders).
One thing is certain: The targeted development of high-potential people won’t happen if they are simply left to their own devices. The best and brightest generally know they’re good, as do the executives who’ve identified them. Thus, “leadership development” is often perceived as a more or less automatic rite of passage rather than an opportunity to learn important new skills.
Many succession management systems fall apart once the high potentials have been identified. The recognition of potential typically is more successful than the acceleration of readiness. Consider the following example.
“Jose,” a senior manager in the customer service unit of a major Silicon Valley corporation, was identified as a rising star. His record was replete with successful implementations and outstanding “numbers,” such as profit-and-loss data and customer satisfaction metrics. Direct reports respected and admired Jose, and his peers offered glowing evaluations. The succession management review panel uniformly agreed that he was ready to take on an executive role overseeing a much larger proportion of the unit’s operations.
About a year after Jose’s promotion, his reputation had changed quite a bit. Direct reports complained of his micromanagement and unclear objectives and goals. Peers reported a lack of flexibility and cooperation in cross-functional problem solving. Newly launched initiatives faltered under his direction. In just 12 months a highly successful manager had become a failing executive.
Hoping to find a cause for Jose’s poor performance, senior management hired an outside consultant to conduct a comprehensive assessment. The consultant used multiple methods, including leadership simulations, several inventories and tests, an interview, and a multirater (360°) survey, to explore Jose’s executive competencies and derailers. The assessment process revealed that Jose lacked strategic-planning skills. In the discussions preceding his promotion, executives had suggested that such planning was actually one of his strengths; but as they looked more deeply at the assessment results, they could see the problem. They had mistaken implementation planning for strategic planning. They also agreed that Jose had been put at a disadvantage by not receiving any preparation for his new strategic role. Clearly, some level of developmental intervention, such as basic coaching from a skilled internal strategist, would have helped Jose do a far better job in his executive position.
Jose’s story is not uncommon. We have found that such cases are typically based on two faulty assumptions:
Faulty Assumption 1: Having a rigorous process for identifying Acceleration Pool members is enough to improve leadership depth. From that point development will happen “naturally.”
Faulty Assumption 2: The identification process provides the information needed to formulate people’s accelerated-development plans.
The reality, of course, is that identifying individuals with senior management potential is only the first step in building bench strength. Before effective, in-depth action plans can be tailored to each individual, a comprehensive, holistic assessment is needed to pinpoint specific areas that need to be developed related to executive success.
Executive assessment serves three essential functions in a succession management system:
Confirms potential. Although a sound nomination process will tell you who has talent, a good assessment process will tell you what kind of talent you have identified. The nomination process provides preliminary judgments of potential based on past performance in lower-level roles. Follow-up assessment provides analysis needed to confirm that Acceleration Pool members actually have the skills required for higher-level jobs.
Helps target development. Understanding the relationship between individual capabilities and the company’s business objectives is essential to making an Acceleration Pool work. Ideally, high-potential leaders will be developed in ways that help them as individuals while also contributing to the success of the business. To achieve both goals, a fairly deep assessment is needed to provide more diagnostic granularity, or detailed information, so that developmental efforts can be targeted most accurately. We frequently see talented leaders being thrust into roles without regard for their personal development needs. The standard training options or university-based executive education curricula rarely address individuals’ specific needs. A full assessment makes it possible to determine a more customized solution.
Guides placement decisions. An assessment provides critical data that can be used in making placement decisions. The most successful decisions rely on matching an individual to an assignment using an integration of objective assessment data, developmental progress information, and job performance reports. This combined information can reveal insights into people’s characteristics relative to specific positions (e.g., job challenges, amount of support, positive models, time, and other pressure). These insights then help ensure that selected individuals will succeed in the job.
In short, an effective assessment system can give an organization accurate diagnostic data that helps it focus on the right people, target their development most effectively, and ensure that they are placed in roles that take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.
The most accurate way to predict executive success is to use multiple measures to learn about executive competencies and derailers. To understand why, imagine a totally dark room. Seeing only blackness, you have no concept of the size of the room or its contents. Then, a spotlight switches on, shedding light on one simple object—a yellow square that seems to hang in midair, surrounded by blackness. Just as the image of the square becomes clear, a second light coming from a different angle reveals that the yellow square is actually a box or cube. Yet another light comes on, revealing that the box is resting atop a small stool. As each light illuminated the scene from a different angle, you were able to perceive more information about the true nature of the subject—and that your original interpretation was well off the mark.
This analogy holds true for executive assessment. When several complementary assessment tools are used to measure the various aspects of leadership potential, you are in a far better position to predict whether a person will succeed as a leader because you will better understand the person. The more complex (i.e., high level) the job, the more important it is to use multiple assessment methods.
Research and practice have led to the development of many tools for executive-level assessment. The primary categories of tools are:
Simulations—. Professional evaluations of executive competencies and derailers gained by observing behavior in simulated leadership situations.
Multirater (360°) surveys—. Comparison of a person’s self-perceptions with the perceptions of others who are familiar with his or her behavior relative to target competencies and derailers. Paper-and-pencil or web-based questionnaires are used to collect the perceptions. Results are provided on an anonymous basis.
Multirater (360°) interviews—. A systematic means of gathering interview-based competency and derailer information from a number of people who work with the person being assessed. This approach is similar to the one used in multirater surveys, but it is conducted via interview rather than questionnaire.
Personality inventories—. Objective measurements of underlying personality characteristics (e.g., sociability, adjustment, etc.) relative to derailers.
Cognitive ability tests—. Basic measures of intelligence, which is a component of some competencies.
Behavior-based interviews—. Interviews that investigate how past work experiences relate to executive descriptors (competencies, derailers, challenges, and organizational knowledge).
Clinical psychologists—. Licensed professionals who conduct psychological assessments to aid in the development or selection of specific individuals. Assessments are typically done through personality inventories and clinical interviews.
As explained above, any of these methods, if used alone, would fail to provide a comprehensive evaluation of an individual’s strengths and weaknesses. Because each measure offers a different perspective, the secret lies in knowing how to assemble a battery of assessment tools to achieve maximum insight. Table 7-1 illustrates how the tools compare in terms of their ability to measure the four categories of executive descriptors (competencies, job challenges, organizational knowledge, and derailers).
Table 7-1. Quantity and Quality of Assessment Information Provided by Assessment Methodologies
Assessment Tool | Competencies | Challenges | Knowledge | Derailers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
(Note: The Xs denote quantity and quality of information; the more Xs, the greater the quantity and quality of information. Clinical psychologists are discussed separately because they cannot be considered assessment tools, per se.) | ||||
Simulations[*] | XXX | XX | ||
Multirater (360°) Surveys[*] | XX | X | ||
Multirater (360°) Interviews | XX | XX | XX | XX |
Personality Inventories[*] | X | XX | ||
Cognitive Ability Tests[*] | X | |||
Behavior-Based Interviews[*] | XX | XX | XX | |
[*] Often incorporated as a component of an Acceleration Center. | ||||
As Table 7-1 illustrates, each tool measures competencies at some level but differs substantially in the nature and quality of the information gathered. Simulations, for example, provide the most in-depth and direct competency information because they allow experts to observe an individual’s behavior relative to specific competencies, much like an audition or tryout. On the other hand, personality and cognitive ability (intelligence) tests are aimed at gathering underlying trait-type data that would add to the understanding of competencies; however, this information is not as directly related to future job performance. As a result, these are important elements of a larger assessment system but of limited value if used alone. We recommend that personality and cognitive ability tests be used in conjunction with other behavioral measures.
The assessment tools that are usually included in an executive Acceleration Center are simulations, personality inventories, cognitive ability inventories, and behavior-based interviews. Multirater (360°) interviews are used only in special cases, usually for high-level executives. Written (or electronic) 360° surveys are often administered separately from Acceleration Centers, but the data are integrated in the final diagnostic discussions.
We next will discuss each of the assessment tools in more detail.
When designed and administered effectively, simulations in an Acceleration Center are like flight simulators for pilots. They realistically present the decisions, interactions, and strategic challenges that executives face, and they reflect the ambiguous environment in which top-level leaders must operate. Simulations provide insight into a candidate’s ability to address executive-level challenges that require competencies such as Establishing Strategic Direction, Global Acumen, and Change Leadership. Most high-potential individuals lack experience with these types of challenges, so without the simulation, information on their abilities would be unavailable.
Today’s Acceleration Center simulations are a far cry from the assessment center developed nearly 50 years ago by AT&T for the Bell operating companies. The most striking enhancements include:
The use of outside professional assessors rather than a company’s middle managers.
The use of computer-based technology, which speeds and enhances the assessment process.
The use of video to record interactions so assessors have more time to study behavior.
The strategic high-level nature of the simulations, which are integrated to simulate a day in the life of an executive.
The availability of facilities built specifically to conduct the assessment, thus adding to the realism and reliability of the simulation.
Acceleration Center simulations help define specific individual development needs and assist organizations in estimating how far and fast candidates will progress. They look beyond resumes and current performance and help predict a person’s potential to help the company meet future objectives. Moreover, Acceleration Centers can fairly and accurately compare the potential of employees in corporate locations around the world, allowing the organization to fully tap into its global talent.
In an Acceleration Center the prospective Acceleration Pool member assumes the role of a senior leader in a simulated business environment. This person must craft strategic plans using various sources of information (e.g., financial data, customer surveys, competitor analyses, production data), meet with internal partners, coach direct reports, build alliances with other companies, and maintain operational stability. Well-designed simulations place participants in an office environment with all the technology needed to operate effectively (e.g., voice mail, e-mail, personal computer, fax). Professional assessors play roles, such as coworkers, direct reports, vendors, customers, a television reporter, or managers, and interact with the participant. These meetings are recorded for review and evaluation after the event. Overall, the Acceleration Center simulation is a carefully crafted web of activities, each targeted at measuring specific descriptors (i.e., organization-specific competencies and derailers).
During the Acceleration Center simulation, the task of evaluating each part of the simulation is assigned to different professional assessors. Using several assessors to evaluate an individual helps to eliminate unintended biases (e.g., if a person did well in one part of the simulation, there might be the expectation of similar good performance in some other, unrelated part). Multiple assessors also provide different viewpoints on the observed behavior, thereby increasing fairness and objectivity. After each assessor has written a report on his or her assigned portion of the simulation, the assessor team meets to discuss each participant. This discussion process, called data integration, is the nucleus of the Acceleration Center method.
During data integration each assessor presents the observed behavior (what the participant said or did) relative to the targeted competencies and derailers. Using preestablished criteria identified in the competency analysis for the organization, assessors challenge one another to provide behavioral evidence of their conclusions. In time the team reaches consensus and rates the participant’s performance against the organization’s specific executive criteria. Trends and interrelationships of competencies and derailers are discussed, creating holistic insights that are documented. The assessor team also might brainstorm development actions appropriate for the participant’s diagnosed needs that can aid pool members in their thinking about development plans.
The following excerpts from a sample assessment report illustrate the type of data derived from an Acceleration Center. Note that the observations made by the professional assessor team are descriptions of behavior patterns, observed in multiple, integrated simulations by multiple assessors. Results are used for diagnostic purposes.
Following are excerpts from an executive summary of the relative strengths and developmental opportunities that were observed by assessors at an Acceleration Center. Included is an overall summary page, which presents individual competency ratings and a summary of competency “clusters,” or domain trends. Each competency measured in the assessment is explored in depth in the body of the report (not shown in the summary). Specific examples are cited to illustrate and support the overall competency ratings.
Assessment Summary for: A. Candidate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Strength | Proficient | Developmental Opportunity | Domain-Level Comments | |
Interpersonal Skills | ||||
| ✓ | Strong focus on building lasting customer relationships; missed opportunities to collaborate with internal partners. | ||
| ✓ | |||
| ✓ | |||
Leadership Skills | ||||
| ✓ | Could be more inspirational with direct reports; somewhat directive in coaching situations; devised effective change initiatives. | ||
| ✓ | |||
| ✓ | |||
Business/Management Skills | ||||
| ✓ | Demonstrated strong business judgment at an operational level; effective, strategic recommendations. | ||
| ✓ | |||
| ✓ | |||
Personal Attributes | ||||
| ✓ | Diplomatic and even-keeled manner; could have demonstrated greater command presence in formal presentations. | ||
| ✓ | |||
Establishing Strategic Direction: This represented your area of greatest strength. In your efforts to establish a new strategic plan for the company, you began by carefully reviewing the relevant information and data available (e.g., employee satisfaction surveys, customer survey results, product performance data, industry technology trends, profit and loss data, etc.). In addition to considering these pertinent areas, your overview included a gap analysis contrasting your organization to benchmark organizations in the industry. You then recommended a clear and viable set of strategies for aggressively growing market share while preserving the organization’s strong collaborative culture. You also established a clear implementation plan and identified specific action steps, potential roadblocks, monitoring techniques, and contingency plans. The multirater (360°) survey also revealed that your colleagues and direct reports view you to be highly effective in the area of Establishing Strategic Direction.
Customer Orientation: In your dealings with customers, you clearly sought to build long-term strategic partnerships. For example, in the meeting with Marty Morris from Alpha Technologies, you spent considerable time gathering Marty’s ideas on how your unit could support his business objectives. You used diplomacy and built trust by assuring Marty of the importance of the Alpha contract. You also shared your plans about the Alpha strategic plan with your staff. This competency was the most highly rated in the multirater (360°) survey, as indicated by such items as “Seeks to Understand Customer Needs,” and “Ensures Alignment of Strategies and Plans to Meet Customer Goals.”
Selling the Vision: In your presentation to the entire business unit to unveil your market vision, you used a highly logical, rational approach, outlining a series of troubling financial indicators (e.g., the unit’s profit margins in the last four years). While your emphasis on the “financial realities” of the business was convincing, your presentation lacked clarity and focus. It was clear that you were not satisfied with the current return on investment; however, it was not clear how you hoped to change that situation or how you envisioned the future. Additionally, your demeanor was unenthusiastic and generally lacked energy. You could have enhanced your performance by focusing your presentation around a simple, memorable image of how you saw the future being different and by conveying excitement and passion for your vision.
Developing Strategic Relationships: You missed a series of opportunities to develop strategic relationships with your colleagues. For example, you started your meeting with Dana Kupp by informing her that you had no intention of compromising your unit’s operations to accommodate her wishes. When Dana attempted to explain her position, you repeated your statement and prevented further conversation about the topic. You could have improved your performance by more collaboratively discussing the situation and by working with Dana to reach mutual agreement on a solution.
Coaching/Teaching: In meetings with your direct reports, your approach was pleasant yet highly directive. In both of your coaching meetings with Terry and Jill, you asked few questions to learn about the true nature of the situations and moved immediately to prescribe remedies to the issues at hand. Had you taken more opportunity to probe into the issues and solicit the input of your direct reports, you might have more readily gained their commitment to improvement.
For the organization Acceleration Centers represent an opportunity to gauge how talented managers will respond when placed in challenging business situations—and what that might mean for future development and placement decisions. For participants the Acceleration Center offers an opportunity to gain firsthand experience with the challenges facing the organization and to learn which of their behaviors will help or hinder them in such situations. From both perspectives the outcome of the assessment process is a solid foundation from which effective development can be launched. Following is a process flow for a typical Acceleration Center:
Perhaps the most widely used diagnostic methodology is the multirater (360°) instrument. It begins with a set of evaluation criteria—typically, competencies or behaviors that relate to competencies. An individual rates his or her own effectiveness, while coworkers rate the person on the same criteria. The individual’s are then compared with the perceptions of the others. The results show individuals how they are perceived in the work environment by providing insights into specific strengths and development needs as judged by work colleagues, supervisors, direct reports, and customers. Figure 7-1 shows a sample multirater survey report.
Although the value of such feedback is clear, there are a number of issues to keep in mind with the multirater methodology:
One must consider who completes the forms. In most organizations the person being evaluated chooses the “others.” This is fine if that person sees the positive development implications of the process and wants to get the most accurate feedback possible. However, if the individual foresees negative consequences, then it is quite easy to send the forms only to friends or people with whom he or she has had positive interactions. (Many organizations make this a non-issue by deciding who completes the forms.)
Raters are not trained behavioral assessors; therefore, the feedback is subject to biases. Also, they might not understand the competencies or the rating scale being used and, thus, fail to differentiate among the competencies (e.g., having a strong feeling about one competency might influence the ratings on others, avoiding extremes on the rating scale). Rating patterns also have been shown to change based on the purpose of the assessment (e.g., evaluation results are often higher when a promotion is involved).
Not all raters have equal opportunities to observe the target individual on the factors to be rated. For example, peers might not know how to evaluate the target’s coaching behaviors; similarly, direct reports might not be qualified to rate partnership behaviors.
Perhaps most important, accurately rating certain competencies might be impossible because the individual being evaluated has never had an opportunity to exhibit them. This is especially true with many of the executive competencies and derailers that might be targeted in succession management programs. For example, a middle manager possibly would never have had the opportunity to do long-range planning.
We have found that multirater feedback can be a highly valuable developmental tool because it can help people see themselves through others’ eyes, thereby revealing blind spots. It can be especially powerful when combined with other objective behavioral measures (e.g., simulations used in Acceleration Centers or personality inventories) that allow the 360° information to be seen in a larger context. Having a multirater perspective can also create acceptance (buy-in) of developmental needs when someone is defensive about accepting assessment insights from other tools. Because of its inherent limitations, be careful in using multirater feedback in succession management systems. We do not recommend using multirater tools in making selection or placement decisions.
In some cases one-on-one interviews with people’s coworkers, direct reports, and supervisors can be conducted to gather competency or derailer information. This 360° interview approach yields contextual information to supplement the static performance ratings and brief written comments from anonymous parties in 360° questionnaires. A major advantage is that the interviewer can change the interview questions as themes emerge and need follow-up. Even the list of planned interviewees can change if a name comes up frequently in early interviews. Usually, the target manager is the last to be interviewed so that the questioning can focus on issues that arose in the earlier interviews, such as self-perceptions of interpersonal or business relationships. These self-perceptions can be related to the descriptions provided by others, and thus an indication of accuracy of self-insight can be obtained.
All 360° interviews must preserve confidentiality. An interviewer compiles the results and distills outputs into a smaller set of core themes that are fed back to the individual (and/or the organization). Because it is fairly labor intensive, this approach generally is used only in the following situations:
Very important placement/promotion decisions, particularly when doubts exist about whether an individual is in sync with the organization’s vision or values. Sometimes the usual sources of information are not enough and special efforts are needed. Live 360° information can help address lingering questions and doubts. (The use of diagnostic tools in making promotion decisions is discussed further later in this chapter.)
Expatriate assignments. Interviews with colleagues and family members are conducted to gather performance, motivational, and cultural fit data about an individual being considered for an assignment in a different culture.
Senior-level executive coaching. For senior executives facing unique, critical challenges, often the first step for an executive coach is to gather live 360° data. These data are used to help the executive craft an accelerated development plan that can help him or her deal with a crisis, prepare for a major change, or provide assistance to a struggling unit or business (see Chapter 13).
Personality inventories are self-report questionnaires that measure underlying traits—such as ambition, sociability, and interpersonal sensitivity—and potential derailers—such as arrogance, volatility, micro-management, and approval dependence. When interpreted by trained practitioners, these inventories provide important insights into personality characteristics that become increasingly important as a person moves up and his or her personality affects a broader portion of the organization.
For example, a senior vice president of human resources at a large consumer-products manufacturer was known for his autocratic, intimidating style. Assessment showed that, on the positive side, his personality was characterized by high ambition, sociability, and creativity. On the negative side intense arrogance, interpersonal detachment, and emotional volatility emerged when the pressure was on. The negatives affected the vice president’s performance—the HR department was in disarray, with profound discontentment among his staff. Perhaps more troubling, his direct reports had begun exhibiting many of the same dysfunctional behaviors, especially in his presence. His negative side was, in a sense, spreading into the organization.
With the appropriate personality inventories and professional interpretation (in conjunction with simulations and other assessment tools), this executive might have been made aware of the behaviors that emerged from his derailing characteristics. He then could have avoided them and tried to leverage the more positive aspects of his personality.
Cognitive ability tests are essentially intelligence tests. They measure critical thinking, situational judgment, etc. They tell us about others’ intellectual “horsepower”—their ability to process complex information quickly, understand relationships among various sources of information, and arrive at accurate judgments based on their analyses. Cognitive ability has been shown during many years of research (Gottfredson, 1986; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Landy et al., 1994; Schmidt et al., 1992) to be one of the strongest single predictors of managerial success. But as we all know, the smartest people are not necessarily the best leaders.
As with other assessment tools, organizations should bear a number of caveats in mind when considering the value of cognitive ability tests:
Because there are many types of tests to measure cognitive ability, the particular characteristics of the test being used must be known to properly interpret the results. For example, some tests employ arithmetic, while others don’t. Some deal with abstract issues, while others are very down-to-earth and practical.
Is the test timed? This is important because in real life executives work at high speeds, but they also take time to think about important issues. Thus, time-sensitive tests are not very appropriate for executives because they don’t realistically mirror the target job.
Some people freeze up or have other problems in testing situations, rendering their scores unreliable. For example, Winston Churchill was known as a notoriously poor test taker (Leonhardt, 2000).
The correlation between cognitive ability and job success is far from perfect. We all know highly intelligent people who are not successful as well as people of average intelligence who are. Executives need certain minimal-level skills, but in many cases other competencies—including the ability and willingness to perform good, old-fashioned hard work—are more important than cognitive ability.
Again, the lesson here is that cognitive inventories are best used in conjunction with behavioral measures of leadership potential. Ideally, you should measure cognitive ability and observe how an individual applies that ability.
Finally, because of the great potential for misusing cognitive measures, we believe that cognitive ability tests should be chosen and administered only by professionals. We have seen many organizations make arbitrary and limiting decisions concerning cutoff scores (e.g., “people must be above the 85th percentile on a cognitive test to move into an executive position”). Others have mistakenly related high cognitive scores to competencies such as Planning or even Leadership—an inaccurate approach that only clouds the picture.
Behavior-based interviews gather specific examples of past job experiences that relate to future job responsibilities. The methodology is based on the tenet that interviewers who are trained to collect and evaluate job-relevant behavior in a standardized fashion are more accurate in their evaluations (Campion, Campion, & Hudson, 1994; Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1998; Janz, 1982; Orpen, 1985; Wright, Lichtenfels, & Pursell, 1989).
There are many variations on behavior-based interviewing. The most popular method is Targeted Selection® (TS), developed by Development Dimensions International in 1970 and used by thousands of organizations throughout the world. As far as we know, TS was the first behavior-based interviewing system. Its effectiveness is well documented, including the following DDI research studies: Targeted Selection Evaluation Summary (1999), Baptist Health System, Inc. (1997), Equate Petrochemical Corporation (1997), MediaOne Group (1999), Oracle (1999), Kraft Foods (2000), and Targeted Selection (Return on Investment [1998]).
In a TS interviewing system, each interviewer has an interview guide with suggested behavior-based questions for each competency to be evaluated. The target competencies are divided among the interviewers. When more than one interviewer is assigned the same competency, the suggested questions are different. Candidates are typically asked to describe situations in which they used behaviors that will be required in the target job or job level. For example, to learn about coaching behavior, the interviewer might say, “Tell me about a time when you had to work with an employee to help that person improve performance.” Interviewers are trained to ask follow-up questions designed to yield highly specific information about the interviewee’s role, his or her specific actions, and the results obtained from those actions. Several behavioral examples are collected for each competency.
Interviewers are trained to conduct efficient, effective, esteem-enhancing interviews, integrate their findings, and make a final decision. A data integration system is used, much like the one described in the “Simulations” section earlier in this chapter. During data integration the interviewers share their behavioral evidence on each competency and arrive at consensus judgments about each candidate.
Behavior-based interviewing has traditionally been used mostly as a tool for selecting individuals for jobs. In an Acceleration Pool system, this approach is also commonly used in conjunction with an Acceleration Center that uses other evaluation methods as well.
Many organizations have access to a trusted staff psychologist (either in-house or through a consulting or contract arrangement) who senior leaders can approach for help in a variety of situations. These professionals often are used in executive development, coaching, selection, and hiring situations. To perform assessments, most rely heavily on psychological testing (e.g., personality and cognitive inventories) in conjunction with in-depth clinical interviewing.
A caution: Clinical psychologists’ services might not be linked to an organization’s competencies and might, in fact, have no competency structure to them at all, making it difficult to link or contrast their findings with those of an Acceleration Center or 360° instruments. However, psychologists undoubtedly add value at the individual level through their unique insights. They can be effective in coaching executives and can play a key role in supporting the ongoing development of high-potential leaders. When clinical psychologists are used, organizations often restrict this relatively expensive and labor-intense method to a small number of very high-level incumbent executives.
As we have pointed out several times, the best assessment approaches rely on the use of multiple, complementary tools to provide different perspectives on an individual’s potential. The key is to use the right mix of tools and bring them together into a structured system.
In determining which assessment tools to use, consider the following:
Current job performance (e.g., accomplishments, achievements).
Past examples of relevant behaviors.
Behaviors demonstrated in future-focused simulations.
Personal characteristics, such as cognitive ability and personality test results, that will help explain behavioral findings and suggest possible executive derailers.
Figures 7-2 and 7-2a show how various assessment tools map to these four sources of assessment information. The figures underscore that each tool offers a unique perspective on potential and plays an important role in the overall assessment process. For example, an assessment that does not include simulations will fall short in evaluating a person’s behavior in “stretch” roles—an important consideration in evaluating executive candidates. Similarly, processes that omit personality inventories and tests will fail to measure key personal characteristics that can enhance or inhibit potential.
There is a guiding principle to remember when trying to determine the right mix of assessment tools: Ensure that some level of behavioral measurement is combined with measurements of personal characteristics, such as cognitive ability, motivation, and personality. Unlike behaviors, which we can observe, change, and control, personal characteristics are more “fixed” and are fairly difficult to observe directly. Simply put, behaviors represent what we see, while personal characteristics help to explain why we see what we see.
The consideration of both types of information makes for a deeper, more comprehensive assessment. Entrepreneurial qualities, for example, might be identified by examining past situations in which a person had opportunities to build new business. However, knowing about the person’s creativity and propensity for risk taking will provide a more complete picture of entrepreneurial potential over the long term.
Using our guiding principle, numerous combinations of tools are possible for a more holistic process, depending on resources, time, and patience. Some executive assessment systems incorporate personality and cognitive ability tests, multirater inventories, and behavior-based interviews in two-day Acceleration Centers comprising 10 to 15 short, integrated simulations. Others take a more streamlined approach, using fewer simulations—perhaps 2 to 5—in combination with one or two tests and one behavior-based interview or multirater survey.
How streamlined can you get? Some organizations will forego simulations entirely and rely only on maybe a multirater inventory—but that is not a solution that we recommend. These shortcut solutions can be tempting, given that an in-depth approach can cost $5,000–$10,000 per assessment. But in light of the sacrifices they require in terms of thoroughness and accuracy—coupled with the importance of the positions being filled—any cost savings might not be realized in the long run.
In Acceleration Centers individuals are confronted with situations similar to those they would face on a new job. For example, the person being assessed might be asked to handle a difficult interpersonal situation with a “direct report,” whom he would meet with while a trained assessor would evaluate the demonstrated behaviors.
In another common situation the assessee becomes part of a small group that must solve a difficult problem and then present its recommendations to higher management. Change Leadership, Coaching/Teaching, Empowerment/Delegation and other competencies important to leadership are evaluated.
How a person handles these and other exercises is a direct result of his or her emotional intelligence, or EQ. An Acceleration Center measures the output or use of a person’s emotional intelligence—which is what a business really wants to know. If an organization requires a measure of emotional intelligence, an Acceleration Center can obtain this data by assessing all the competencies that make up EQ (i.e., Self-Awareness, Risk Taking, Stress-Tolerance, Adaptability, Initiating Action, Positive Disposition, and Interpersonal Awareness).
Table 7-2 depicts a “Buyer’s Guide,” which describes the various assessment tools available today, along with some comments on when to use them and why they are effective.
Table 7-2. A “Buyer’s Guide” to Diagnostic Tools
Many problems can arise if assessment reports from Acceleration Centers, multirater (360°) instruments, tests, personality profiles, and behavior-based interview reports are misused. An individual’s career can be ruined if an executive misinterprets a report or overgeneralizes its findings. Assessments can also affect the atmosphere in an organization when a manager knows that a person did well and begins treating him or her better than others. This might cause some tension within the workforce. Thus, it is important that organizations using assessment instruments create standards relative to their use. Each organization needs to identify and adhere to standards that address these questions:
Who will have access to the summary report and instrument reports? What are the training requirements for interpreting reports?
Where will reports and other data be stored? How will they be protected from unauthorized access? How long will reports and data be kept on file?
Will individuals have the opportunity to file an objection to their reports?
Often it is useful to draw a grid that delineates who is permitted to have access to which data. Table 7-3 on the next page provides an example.
Table 7-3. Simple Data-Sharing Matrix
Executive Summary | Full Assessment Report | Personality Inventories[*] | Development Priority List | Development Action Forms | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X = Data shared automatically as part of process. | |||||
O = Optional—Data not shared automatically. Participant may share data if he or she chooses to do so. | |||||
Pool Member | X | X | X | X | X |
Human Resources | X | X | O | X | X |
Manager | X | O | O | X | X |
Mentor | X | O | O | X | X |
Executive Resource Board | X | X | O | X | X |
Executive Coach | X | X | X | X | X |
Manager Considering Individual for Promotion | O | O | O | X | X |
[*] With respect to personality inventories, we advise that raw profiles be shared only with trained professionals. Narrative summaries might be shared as shown on this chart. | |||||
For organizations using Acceleration Centers, we advise following the guidelines of the International Congress on Assessment Center Methods (www.assessmentcenters.org).
For organizations operating in European Union countries, we recommend following the E.U. guidelines on handling data and local statutory acts (e.g., the Data Protection Act in the U.K.). See Chapter 16 for more information on the European Union Data Protection Act of 1998, or contact the DDI Resource Center at [email protected].
In some countries special professional and legal conditions apply to the use of psychometric tests and inventories. Readers are advised to consult the relevant professional associations to determine if local restrictions apply.