Many rising leaders have strong opinions about how to succeed in business and can be reluctant to accept the notion that they have development needs. Their egos and successful track records can also stand in the way of making a personal commitment to change.

The key to overcoming those roadblocks is to provide feedback from an honest, credible source. The best source that we know of is an Acceleration Center professional. The professional can help pool members understand their behaviors relative to the organization’s competencies and derailers, and integrate behavioral observations and indications with personal attributes that have been determined by a variety of self-report instruments (see Chapter 7). Pool members need to see how competencies and derailers interact; that is, being strong in one competency (e.g., Decisiveness) can magnify the impact of another (e.g., Low Judgment). Also, the professional can help pool members integrate information from 360° feedback and other sources to provide holistic insights that are compelling and challenging.

Acceleration Center professionals who provide feedback about competencies and derailers do so through high-level themes that pull together certain competencies and derailers. They cite specific behavioral examples of what the individual said or did in the simulations to support their observations.

Acceleration Pool members often will have multiple-perspective data from previous jobs or applications in their current organization. Multirater (360°) instruments are so prevalent today that it’s not unusual for a pool member to have data from four or five of them. Pool members should be encouraged to bring in that information for their discussion of strengths and development needs. At the very least they should be prompted to recall the results of previous 360° instruments when considering their current data. It’s also a good idea for pool members to bring performance appraisals or other performance-related forms to the discussion because they can be helpful in identifying behavioral trends or issues.

The more sources of available information, the better pool members will be able to understand their situation and pinpoint the implications of their data. For example, an Acceleration Center found one person to be weak in planning, although 360° data indicated that she had no problem in this area. During the discussion with the assessment professional, the pool member explained that her direct reports respected her planning skills because she delegated almost all the planning tasks. This insight explained the apparent disparity and confirmed the Acceleration Center’s judgment that the pool member was strong in delegation. It also prompted the pool member to think about how her deficiencies in planning skills might affect her performance at higher organizational levels.

In another situation the Acceleration Center evaluated a manager as adequate in judgment, while his direct reports rated him as weak. Discussions revealed that the Acceleration Center had focused primarily on financial and other data-driven judgments, which were, in fact, a strength. In areas concerning the deployment of people, the Acceleration Center found his judgment to be average at best. Obviously, this was the aspect of judgment being rated by his direct reports in the 360° survey.

Overall, the discussion of competencies and derailers usually lasts several hours, including time for the final prioritization of strengths and development needs. Discussions should be held face-to-face if possible; a videoconference is usually the next best alternative. A phone conference is the least desirable option, but it can be effective if the pool member receives an Acceleration Center report and discussion questions in advance.

When an Acceleration Center professional is not available, other people can help pool members integrate data and prioritize development needs. These people include:

Providing feedback about Acceleration Center results can be a very intimidating task because of the personal impact that such data can have and because the people receiving the feedback are such high-powered individuals.

For example, not long ago a highly regarded executive (a member of the chairman’s committee) at a major automotive manufacturer participated in an in-depth Acceleration Center assessment. This executive received a descriptive report in preparation for a coaching session with an assessor, one of the authors of this book. Upon arriving at the session, the assessor was met with a gruff greeting and escorted to a large conference table. The executive began by dropping his assessment report onto the table with a resounding slap and taking a seat—hands behind his head, feet up on the polished mahogany table. Obviously annoyed, he said, “I just want you to know right now that I ain’t changin’ one damn iota based on this stuff.”

The “feedback and coaching” session that followed took on a life of its own, but not the planned one. A series of questions and answers confirmed the assessment results, which identified profound strengths as well as equally profound development needs. But the conversation quickly moved away from diagnosis and into the fundamental value of assessment and diagnosis. “Why even do this?” the executive asked, as he insisted that change was neither necessary nor possible.

Still, there were the assessment results, which the executive wholeheartedly acknowledged as accurate—and amusing. He was characterized by intense volatility, impatience, and work practices that, at times, bordered on the despotic. Ironically, he was regarded as one of the most inspirational and visionary leaders in the organization’s history. He was feared and loathed by some, yet loved and revered by others. This bipolar persona required reconciliation. He explained that passion, love of the business, insistence on high performance, and the desire to win were behind his behavior. His pride in success and in having survived many corporate catastrophes led him to conclude that his style worked.

However, the conversation took a different turn when the auto executive was asked whether he would recommend his style to emerging leaders in the organization. Although he had quickly touted his style’s merits in his own case, he said that he regarded its proliferation in the organization as a potential poison. Slowly, after many probing questions about the relationship of his style and the emerging leadership trends within the organization, he began to articulate a different opinion about his willingness to act on the assessment results. He ultimately acknowledged responsibility for making his organization aware that his style was generally ineffective in today’s leadership environment. He also conceded that he would be unlikely to succeed with this style if he were starting his career today. In the end the executive pointed out—accurately—that the power of the assessment process was not in the diagnosis, but in the discussion of the diagnosis.

This example underscores a lesson that we have learned through years of providing feedback to thousands of executives worldwide. Even the most accurate, comprehensive assessment will be meaningless unless the person being assessed recognizes the accuracy and value of the data and accepts the diagnosed strengths and development needs. One of the main advantages of using simulations in Acceleration Centers is the availability of specific observations and descriptions of actions. Those observed behavioral data—coupled with other behavioral data from the background interview and multiple-perspective (360°) instruments and augmented by interpretive insights from self-report instruments—are usually enough to convince people about what they need to emphasize and what they need to change. Usually—but not always.

When a doubting individual needs to be further convinced that he or she needs development (or when there is a need to check the accuracy of a diagnosis), an organization has several alternatives:

Compared to dealing with the more personal issues of competencies and derailers, it is relatively easy to diagnose and prioritize development needs in the areas of job challenges and organizational knowledge. Most Acceleration Pool members have fairly accurate insights about what they know and what they need to learn, and they are less sensitive about admitting that they have things to learn in these areas. However, to ensure accurate ratings, the person counseling the pool member should closely review the self-report data provided on the development targets and ask questions about any job or organizational insights gained, any skills developed, and the person’s ease (or difficulty) of learning new skills and adapting to the new situation. For example, a pool member who reports experience in a new plant start-up might have been only peripherally involved in the effort and, therefore, learned relatively little about the trials and tribulations that it involved. A few questions can usually prompt realistic self-evaluations of such experiences.

The HR representative who works with the Executive Resource Board usually discusses job challenges and organizational knowledge with pool members. The representative will understand the board’s standards relative to the job challenges and organizational knowledge and thus be able to ask questions that reflect its concerns. As in competency and derailer discussions, a face-to-face meeting is best, but if that is not practical, the discussion can be held over the phone. These discussions usually last one to two hours, depending on the number of job challenges, volume of organizational knowledge required, and whether the pool member had been asked to provide examples of experiences that relate to the targeted challenges and organizational knowledge (proof of self-evaluation).

While an HR representative usually holds these discussions, another excellent alternative is to have a member of the Executive Resource Board discuss job challenges and organizational knowledge with the pool member. A senior executive can bring a wealth of insights about the board’s standards—as well as the prestige of the position—to such a meeting. To the pool member, this involvement is yet another indication of the importance of being in the Acceleration Pool.

During these meetings the pool member should be asked about any personal or retention issues that would affect assignments or learning. Possible responses might include family constraints (e.g., a strong desire not to be moved until a child graduates high school), education plans (e.g., one year left to finish a Ph.D.), or geographic preferences (e.g., hates cold climates). The organization’s representative needs to probe for the criticality of these issues. Would an issue be so strong that ignoring it would propel the person to seek a recruiter? Such personal retention needs should be communicated to the Executive Resource Board.

We have found that clients usually have two basic questions about these discussions:

Figure 8-1 depicts an example Development Priority List completed by a first-level manager. The pool member has received Acceleration Center feedback and 360° feedback on competencies and derailers from peers and direct reports and has also discussed job challenges and organizational knowledge with a member or representative of top management. The Development Priority List shows that the pool member has chosen and prioritized the competencies, job challenges, organizational knowledge, and derailers that she needs to develop. Some descriptor categories have more areas to develop than others. The development targets in each category are listed in order of importance or need. To increase the precision of the diagnosis, the manager has noted unique information or clarification in a number of areas. This information came out of her discussion about her Acceleration Center results.

There are many variations of Development Priority Lists. For example, an organization often will provide Acceleration Pool members with a preprinted form that lists all or some of the company’s executive descriptors (see Appendix 8 on the next page). Organizations use a variety of scales to evaluate development priorities, but most methods are quite similar. The choice of a rating scale should be based on the organization’s culture and past practices.

Some Development Priority Lists include space for pool members to note progress and change ratings after they have completed an assignment or training program. This not only helps people feel good about the progress they are making, but it also provides useful information for the Executive Resource Board.

Pool members send completed Development Priority Lists to the Executive Resource Board for approval. The board’s review and approval are important for several reasons:

The Executive Resource Board usually accepts each pool member’s Development Priority List at face value, although there are occasions when the board will revise it. Any revisions must be explained to the pool member.

(Formatted form for typed entry by user; would be tailored to each organization.)