Managerial Performance Across the Hierarchy. Robert Hogan and Brent Holland. Hogan Assessment Systems

Transcription

1 Managerial Performance Across the Hierarchy Robert Hogan and Brent Holland Hogan Assessment Systems Introduction. Kellerman (2004) notes that, to write a best selling business book, one must write a hymn in praise of America s corporate elite. One needs to describe the wondrous characteristics that set American CEOs and other top managers apart from the hoi polloi, the unwashed masses who are fortunate enough to be able serve the titans of industry. This paper makes three points. First, precisely the same bias affects Industrial/Organizational (I/O) Psychology, which depicts the characteristics of senior managers in American business as a race of heroes. Second, we believe senior executives differ from junior managers in terms of: (a) experience and political skill; (b) whom they report to; and (c) little else that is measurable. Third, the paper presents data comparing managers at three levels in a multi-national corporation; the data reveal no difference in the defining characteristics of the managers across the three levels. In a recent (March, 2004) but rare television interview, William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, said the key to becoming Chief Justice is to be there when the bus pulls up. This is almost certainly the key to becoming a CEO. Concerning our first point, everywhere one looks in the professional literature one is told that, compared to lower level managers, senior managers are brighter, more cognitively complex, and think in terms of longer time horizons. But we don t know of any data that support these claims. Obviously older managers are older and have had more experience than younger managers that much seems obvious. More than that, however, remains to be demonstrated.

2 Method. In the process of a large scale succession management study with a multi-national corporation, we gathered data from three levels of senior managers, all of whom were being evaluated for their potential ultimately to run the company (N = 170). There were five data sources: (1) Job analysis data from our personality-based job analysis instrument; (2) Scores on the Watson-Gleser Critical Thinking measure; (3) Scores on the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), a measure of normal personality (the bright side); (4) Scores on the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), a measure of derailment tendencies (the dark side); and (5) Subordinates ratings on a competencybased 360 rating form. The data analyses consisted of calculating mean scores on the psychometric devices and comparing the means. In addition, we calculated correlations between scores on the three psychometric tests and subordinates ratings of supervisors performance. Results. Table One presents the job analysis data. As will be seen, the three levels of management seem to require the same, and same level of, capabilities and competencies to do the work. Notte bene: incumbents across three levels of management describe their jobs in almost precisely the same way. Table Two contains the Watson Gleser data for the three levels of management. The data clearly indicate no increase in psychometric intelligence as one moves up the hierarchy. Table Three contains HPI data for the three levels of management. The HPI was developed exclusively on working adults and designed to predict occupational performance. Over one million adults have completed the inventory, it has been used in over 500 validity studies, it is an exceptionally well-validated measure of individual differences in performance, and there are no differences in HPI scores across the three levels of management. Table Four

3 presents HDS data for the three groups. The HDS is designed to forecast managerial derailment, which means that, in general, lower scores are better. As will be seen, there are no differences in mean scores across the scales of the HDS for the three groups of managers. Astute methodologists will point out that the lack of mean differences across these groups says nothing about differential validity within the groups. Table Five concerns the topic of differential validity; as will be seen, there isn t any. Conclusions. This is probably the largest single data set available to evaluate the notion that senior managers are different from junior managers. These data seem to support three conclusions. First, there are virtually no differences in managers across three levels in this very large corporation in terms of job requirements, measured cognitive ability, normal personality, or dysfunctional personality characteristics. Second, good managers differ from poor managers in consistent and measurable ways, independent of the managerial level good managers are the same at each level. And third, personality is a much better predictor of managerial performance than cognitive ability. Advocates of cognitive ability measurement will say that, in this sample, restrictions of range prevent cognitive ability from predicting performance. However, the same considerations apply to the personality measures. We understand that psychologists who consult with business are under considerable financial pressure to tell their clients an interesting story about their capabilities. We think it is equally important to tell them a true story.

4 References Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton. Kellerman, B. (2004). Leadership Warts and all. Harvard Business Review, January, McCall, M.W., & Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed (Tech. Rep. No 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

5 Table 1. Job Analysis Descriptive Statistics Across Four Job Grades. Grade I Grade II Grade III Grade IV PIC Job Analysis Scales Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Adjustment Ambition Sociability Interpersonal Sensitivity Prudence Inquisitive Learning Approach Critical Competencies Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Trustworthiness Integrity Decision Making Leadership Initiative Work Attitude Judgment Flexibility Problem Solving Strategic Vision Achievement Orientation Note. Table 1 presents only those competencies (i.e., 11/56) rated as most critical across job grades. Grade I (N = 254); Grade II (N = 244); Grade III (N = 149); Grade IV (N = 58). One-way analysis of variance results indicated that (a) there are no significant differences between grades across the PIC Job Analysis scales and (b) there are no significant differences between grades across the 56 competencies.

6 Table 2. Watson Glaser Descriptive Statistics Across Four Job Grades. Watson Glaser Raw Score Job Grade Mean SD Grade I Grade II Grade III Grade IV Note. Grade I (N = 207); Grade II (N = 21); Grade III (N = 17); Grade IV (N = 64). Oneway analysis of variance results indicated that there are no significant differences between grades on the Watson Glaser.

7 Table 3. Hogan Personality Inventory Descriptive Statistics Across Four Job Grades. Grade I Grade II Grade III Grade IV HPI Scales Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Adjustment Ambition Sociability Interpersonal Sensitivity Prudence Inquisitive Learning Approach Note. Grade I (N = 219); Grade II (N = 22); Grade III (N = 17); Grade IV (N = 63). Oneway analysis of variance results indicated that there was one significant difference between groups on the Sociability scale (F = 3.21 (3), p <.05). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that Grades II and IV were significantly different (mean difference = 19.68) on Sociability. All remaining one-way analysis of variance results were not significant.

8 Table 4. Hogan Development Survey Descriptive Statistics Across Four Job Grades. Grade I Grade II Grade III Grade IV HPI Scales Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Excitable Skeptical Cautious Reserved Leisurely Bold Mischievous Colorful Imaginative Diligent Dutiful Note. Grade I (N = 220); Grade II (N = 22); Grade III (N = 17); Grade IV (N = 66). Oneway analysis of variance results indicated that there was one significant difference between groups on the Excitable scale (F = 3.19 (3), p <.05). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that Grades I and II were significantly different (mean difference = 15.87) on Excitable. All remaining one-way analysis of variance results were not significant.

9 Table 5. Correlates Across Job Grades and Differential Validity Comparisons. Leadership Factors Strategic Achievement Team Personal Hogan Personality Inventory Adjustment.24**.25**.23**.26** Ambition.23**.19**.19**.19** Sociability Interpersonal Sensitivity Prudence.14*.13*.14*.16** Inquisitive Learning Approach.20**.15**.19**.13* Hogan Development Survey Excitable -.20** -.21** -.24** -.23** Skeptical -.13* -.14* -.18** -.18** Cautious -.23** -.20** -.20** -.17** Reserved Leisurely -.17** -.17** -.17** -.20** Bold Mischievous -.13* -.15* -.14* -.17** Colorful Imaginative -.17** -.14* -.15* -.13* Diligent.14*.08.15*.07 Dutiful Watson Glaser Watson Glaser Note. Results reflect validity coefficients across job grades. N = 290. Hogan Personality Inventory validity coefficients: only 1% (2/168) of comparisons using Fisher s r to z transformation showed significant differences [(1) Ambition: Personal Leadership between Grades I and III (r =.29 and r = -.31, respectively; (2) Learning Approach: Strategic Leadership between Grades III and IV (r =.54 and r = -.02, respectively]. Hogan Development Survey validity coefficients: only 2% (6/264) of comparisons using Fisher s r to z transformation showed significant differences [(1) Reserved: Personal Leadership between Grades I and III (r = -.12 and r =.50, respectively; (2) Colorful: Personal Leadership between Grades I and III (r =.09 and r = -.53, respectively); (3) Imaginative: Team leadership between Grades I and III (r = -.12 and r = -.69, respectively); (4) Excitable: Achievement Leadership between Grades II and III (r = -.53 and r =.27, respectively); (5) Cautious: Achievement Leadership between Grades II and IV (r = -.41 and r =.13, respectively); and (6) Colorful: Personal Leadership between Grades III and IV (r = -.53 and r =.06, respectively). Watson Glaser validity coefficients: only 8% (2/24) of comparisons using Fisher s r to z transformation showed significant differences [(1) Strategic Leadership between Grade I and Grade III (r =.04 and r =.61); and (2) Strategic Leadership between Grade II and Grade III (r = -.10 and r =.61).