Report II: Cluster Level Norms and Analysis

Transcription

1 THE LEADERSHIP ARCHITECT 2009 GLOBAL NORMS Report II: Cluster Level Norms and Analysis Technical Report October 2009 Guangrong Dai King Yii Tang Kenneth P. De Meuse

2 Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary Sample Description... 5 Part I: Part II: Global Cluster Level Skill Norms Ratings and Rankings Regional Ratings Regional Rank Orders...10 Ratings and Rankings by Gender Ratings and Rankings by Position Level Global Cluster Level Importance Norms Ratings and Rankings Regional Ratings Regional Rank Orders...18 Ratings and Rankings by Gender Ratings and Rankings by Position Level Appendix Leadership Library Structure

3 Executive Summary This technical report presents the results of the 2009 Cluster Level Global Norms Study. The data for this study were obtained from the VOICES online surveys administered between April 2008 and May The total sample size ranged from 1,664 to compute the skill norms to 1,288 to calculate the importance norms. Participants worked in a variety of organizations located across the globe, including North America, Europe, New Zealand/Australia, Asia, South America, and Africa. Raters who take VOICES evaluate an individual (so-called learner ) on two different scales. One scale measures the degree to which the learner is skilled on a specific competency of leadership (e.g., directing others, planning). The Skill Rating Scale ranges from 1 (a serious issue), 2 (a weakness), 3 (skilled/ok), 4 (talented), to 5 (a towering strength). Naturally, the higher the mean rating, the more skilled the learner is on that competency. The second scale assesses how important the various competencies are to the performance of one s job. The Importance Rating Scale ranges from 1 (not important), 2 (less important), 3 (useful/nice to have), 4 (very important), to 5 (mission critical). The higher the mean score, the more important the competency is to job performance. Since the evaluation of learners at the cluster (rather than the competency) level initially began in 2008, the sample size of individuals rated at the cluster level remains quite small. Consequently, we computed the current norms by rolling up the individual competencies within each respective cluster to obtain the current norms. In total, the norms on 21 leadership clusters are reported in this report. Part I of the report presents the cluster level skill rating norms. Overall, the findings indicated that Acting with Honor and Character was the most skilled leadership cluster (M = 3.97); whereas, Inspiring Others was the lowest rated (M = 3.43). Very few meaningful differences were observed among the six global regions we investigated. Inter-regional correlation coefficients ranged from a low of r = 0.78 (between Africa and South America) to a high of r = 0.98 (between North America, Europe, and New Zealand/Australia). Thus, all learners irrespective of location were evaluated very similarly with regard to their leadership skills at the cluster level. Likewise, gender played little role in the leadership ratings. The only differences found were consistent with other research findings in the management literature. Males were rated slightly higher on the cluster Understanding the Business, while females were rater slightly higher on the cluster Caring about Others. The findings with regard to a learner s organizational position level also were as expected. In general, executives tended to be viewed as more skilled than the other positions, particularly on business and strategic issues (e.g., Understanding the Business, Focusing on the Bottom Line, and Being Organizational Savvy. In addition, the results demonstrated that leadership cluster 3

4 skills were related to position level in another manner. Specifically, the skill level of positions that directly aligned with one another (e.g., entry and senior individual contributor, supervisor and manager) were perceived more similarly than when positions were distant (see pp ). Part II presents the norms pertaining to cluster importance. The results indicate that (a) Acting with Honor and Character, (b) Focusing on the Bottom Line, and (c) Keeping on Point were the most important; whereas, Caring About Others was perceived as relatively less important. Overall, there was much similarity among the six regions of the world regarding cluster importance (most correlation coefficients were in the 0.80s and 0.90s). There was virtually no difference in the way male and female learners were rated on the clusters. The largest gender gap was 0.05 on the 5-point scale. There were two noteworthy findings with regard to position level. First, as expected, cluster importance ratings were consistently highest for executive jobs. Executives received the highest mean ratings on 18 of 21 clusters. Likewise, entry individual contributors obtained the lowest mean ratings on 18 of the 21 clusters. Second, a correlational analysis found that the similarity of cluster importance between two position levels decreases as the organizational hierarchical distance between them increases. Thus, as we would expect, the importance of a given leadership cluster is aligned to the level of a position in an organization (see pp ). 4

5 Sample Description Skill Ratings Data The total sample size for this part of the normative study is 1,664 learners who were rated on all 67 competencies. Approximately 75% (N = 1,235) of the learners were from 12 client companies. The remaining participants (N = 429) were from three consulting companies. The demographic breakdown is as follows: By Region Sample Size Percentage North America (NA) % Europe (EU) % New Zealand/Australia (NZ/AU) % Asia % South America (SA) % Africa (AF) % Not Specified % By Gender Sample Size Percentage Female % Male % Not Specified % By Age Sample Size Percentage Less than % 31 to % 36 to % 41 to % Over % Not Specified % By Position Level Sample Size Percentage Entry-level Individual Contributors % Senior Individual Contributors % Supervisor % Manager % Director % Senior Executives % Not Specified % 5

6 By Years of Managerial Experience Sample Size Percentage Less than 1 year % 1-2 years % 2-3 years % 3-5 years % 5-10 years % 10 years above % Not Specified % 6

7 Importance Ratings Data Total sample size for this part of the normative study is 1,288 learners who were rated on all 67 competencies. Approximately 82% (N = 1,061) of the learners were from 11 client companies. The remaining participants (N = 227) were from three consulting companies. The demographic breakdown is as follows: By Region Sample Size Percentage North America (NA) % Europe (EU) % New Zealand/Australia (NZ/AU) % Asia % South America (SA) % Africa (AF) % Not Specified % By Gender Sample Size Percentage Female % Male % Not Specified % By Age Sample Size Percentage Less than % 31 to % 36 to % 41 to % Over % Not Specified % By Position Level Sample Size Percentage Entry-level Individual Contributors % Senior Individual Contributors % Supervisor % Manager % Director % Senior Executives % Not Specified % By Years of Managerial Experience Sample Size Percentage Less than 1 year % 1-2 years % 2-3 years % 3-5 years % 5-10 years % 10 years above % Not Specified % 7

8 Part I: Global Cluster Level Skill Norms In Part I of this report, we present the specific mean ratings and rankings for each of the 21 Clusters in the Leadership Architect. Throughout the report, the mean ratings are based on the All Others rating category. This set of ratings is calculated by computing the average mean rating of all rater sources, excluding self. Typical other raters include the immediate boss, peers, and direct reports. In some cases, companies also ask customers and other individuals to provide a rating. The Skill Rating Scale ranges from 1 (a serious issue), 2 (a weakness), 3 (skilled/ok), 4 (talented), to 5 (a towering strength). Thus, the higher the mean rating, the more skilled the learner. The evaluation of learners at the cluster level initially began in 2008, and the sample size of individuals rated at the cluster level remains quite small. Consequently, we computed the current norms by rolling up the individual competencies within each respective cluster to obtain the current norms. The Appendix presents the structure of the Leadership Library, highlighting the 21 clusters and the specific competencies within each one (see pp ). Global Cluster Skill Ratings and Rankings The table below presents the global mean ratings and the rankings of the 21 clusters based on the entire data set of 1,664 individuals collected from companies around the world. For your information, we depict the sample size (N), minimum and maximum mean learner values, the mean rating, standard deviation (Std), and rank for each cluster. The clusters are presented in rank order from highest to lowest mean rating. Cluster Cluster Text N Min Max Mean Std. Rank R Acting with Honor and Character J Focusing on the Bottom Line A Understanding the Business B Making Complex Decisions M Managing Up N Relating Skills P Managing Diverse Relationships O Caring About Others L Communicating Effectively

9 Cluster Cluster Text N Min Max Mean Std. Rank K Being Organizational Savvy E Getting Organized D Keeping on Point H Dealing with Trouble S Being Open and Receptive G Managing Work Process I Making Tough People Calls C Creating the New and Different U Balancing Work/Life F Getting Work Done Through Others T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility Q Inspiring Others As can be seen, Acting with Honor and Character (M = 3.97) has the highest mean value by a large margin. In contrast, Inspiring Others is the lowest rated cluster (M = 3.43), but by only the smallest of margins. Regional Cluster Skill Ratings The table below presents the mean Cluster Skill Ratings for the six international regions. Means displayed in green denote the highest mean value among the six global regions suggesting the region that has learners with the highest level of skill. Means displayed in red denote the lowest mean value among the six regions suggesting the region with the lowest skilled individuals. The last row indicates the average rating across all 21 clusters. Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF A Understanding the Business B Making Complex Decisions C Creating the New and Different D Keeping on Point E Getting Organized F Getting Work Done Through Others G Managing Work Process H Dealing with Trouble I Making Tough People Calls J Focusing on the Bottom Line K Being Organizational Savvy L Communicating Effectively M Managing Up N Relating Skills

10 Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF O Caring About Others P Managing Diverse Relationships Q Inspiring Others R Acting with Honor and Character S Being Open and Receptive T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility U Balancing Work/Life Overall Mean Rating Similar to what we found at the competency level, learners in North America have the highest skill relative to the other global regions. In fact, North America is rated the highest on 20 of the 21 clusters. We must interpret this finding with caution, however. There is evidence suggesting that raters in North America tend to be more lenient with their evaluations. Consequently, the high ratings for North American learners might be (in part) due to such a rating pattern. Managers located in Asia and South America were rated lowest on the most leadership clusters. Regional Cluster Skill Rank Orders The following table presents the rank orders of the 21 clusters for each of the six international regions. Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF R Acting with Honor and Character J Focusing on the Bottom Line A Understanding the Business B Making Complex Decisions M Managing Up P Managing Diverse Relationships N Relating Skills O Caring About Others L Communicating Effectively E Getting Organized K Being Organizational Savvy D Keeping on Point S Being Open and Receptive H Dealing with Trouble G Managing Work Process I Making Tough People Calls U Balancing Work/Life

11 Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF C Creating the New and Different F Getting Work Done Through Others T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility Q Inspiring Others As can be observed in the table, there is much consistency in rank-orders across regions. Acting with Honor and Character is the #1 cluster across the globe. Focusing on the Bottom Line and Understanding the Business generally were ranked #2 and #3, respectively. In general, there appears to be more rater agreement with regard to the most skilled clusters than the least skilled clusters. Overall, the six international regions are highly correlated with each other on the cluster skill ratings. The table below indicates the inter-regional correlation coefficients. The coefficients above the diagonal (in bold) depict correlations for the mean ratings. The coefficients below the diagonal depict correlations of rank orders. Region NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF Note. All the correlation coefficients are statistically significant, p <.001. The data for South America appear slightly different than the other regions. For example, as can be observed in the table of correlational coefficients, South America has relatively lower inter-regional correlations than the other regions. Further, South America has two clusters which are ranked quite differently than the other regions. Making Tough People Calls is ranked the 7 th for South America but ranked substantially lower in the other regions. Caring about Others is ranked 19 th for South America but ranked much higher for others regions. However, these results should be interpreted with extreme caution, because the sample size for South America in this study is very small (N = 19). Cluster Skill Ratings and Rankings by Gender The table on the next page presents the mean skill ratings and rank orders of the 21 clusters for males and females, respectively. The differences between males 11

12 and females on the skill ratings for the 21 clusters also are depicted. The last row presents the average ratings across all 21 clusters. As can be seen, the mean differences between males and females are small. Overall, the average difference is 0.01 (as indicated in the last row). Only two clusters had double digit differences. The cluster entitled, Understanding the Business, suggested males were slightly more skilled (M = 3.86) than females (M = 3.72). For the cluster called, Caring about Others, females were slightly more skilled (M = 3.73) than males (M = 3.59). Male Female Item Cluster Mean Std. Rank Mean Std. Rank d Mean R Acting with Honor and Character A Understanding the Business J Focusing on the Bottom Line B Making Complex Decisions M Managing Up N Relating Skills P Managing Diverse Relationships L Communicating Effectively K Being Organizational Savvy O Caring About Others D Keeping on Point E Getting Organized H Dealing with Trouble S Being Open and Receptive G Managing Work Process C Creating the New and Different U Balancing Work/Life I Making Tough People Calls Q Inspiring Others F Getting Work Done Through Others T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility Overall Mean Rating Note. d Mean is the difference between females and males on the mean skill ratings. When we performed a correlational analysis between the 21 mean cluster ratings for males and females, the coefficient was (r = 0.93, p <.001). Likewise, the rank orders were highly correlated (r = 0.92, p <.001). Thus, the results reveal that there is great similarity between males and females among the 21 leadership clusters. 12

13 Cluster Skill Ratings and Rankings by Position Level Cluster ratings and rankings were computed for the following six position levels: (a) entry-level individual contributor, (b) senior individual contributor, (c) supervisor, (d) manager, (e) director, and (f) executive. The table on the next page reports the mean skill ratings for each of these positions. Means depicted in green denote the highest mean value among the six positions. Means displayed in red denote the lowest mean value among the six levels. The last row indicates the average rating across all 21 clusters. Entry Senior Item Cluster IC IC SUPV MGR DIR EXEC A Understanding the Business B Making Complex Decisions C Creating the New and Different D Keeping on Point E Getting Organized F Getting Work Done Through Others G Managing Work Process H Dealing with Trouble I Making Tough People Calls J Focusing on the Bottom Line K Being Organizational Savvy L Communicating Effectively M Managing Up N Relating Skills O Caring About Others P Managing Diverse Relationships Q Inspiring Others R Acting with Honor and Character S Being Open and Receptive T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility U Balancing Work/Life Overall Mean Rating As can be observed in the table, executives received the highest skill rating in 12 of the 21 clusters. This result is expected, because we would hope that leadership skills would be more highly developed as individuals are promoted up the organizational ranks. On the other hand, somewhat surprisingly, entry level individual contributors had the highest rating skills on the remaining nine clusters. The findings suggest those entry-level professionals are more skilled in peoplerelated clusters (e.g., Caring About Others, Managing Diverse Relationships, and Relating Skills ); whereas, executives are more skilled on business and 13

14 strategic issues (e.g., Understanding the Business, Focusing on the Bottom Line, and Being Organizational Savvy. When we focus on the position levels with the lowest mean ratings, the findings are less clear. The senior individual contributor position had the lowest ratings on 10 clusters and the director level position had the lowest ratings on 7. From a leadership development perspective, these findings suggest that individuals at the director level will need to improve their skills greatly before moving to the next organizational level. The table on the next page presents the rank orders for the six position levels. Two observations are most apparent. One, the Acting with Honor and Character cluster is the highest ranked for all six position levels. Further, several clusters, such as Focusing on the Bottom Line, Making Complex Decisions, and Understanding the Business, are consistently among the top ranked for all positions. Other clusters, such as Inspiring Others and Demonstrating Personal Flexibility, are consistently among the bottom ranked for all positions. The second observation that is quite apparent is that many skill rankings vary considerably among the six positions. Entry Senior Item Cluster IC IC Sup. Mgr. Dir. Exec. R Acting with Honor and Character O Caring About Others J Focusing on the Bottom Line B Making Complex Decisions A Understanding the Business N Relating Skills P Managing Diverse Relationships M Managing Up E Getting Organized D Keeping on Point U Balancing Work/Life S Being Open and Receptive F Getting Work Done Through Others L Communicating Effectively G Managing Work Process T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility I Making Tough People Calls C Creating the New and Different H Dealing with Trouble Q Inspiring Others K Being Organizational Savvy

15 In an attempt to analyze the level of similarity among the six position levels, we conducted a correlational analysis. The table on the following page illustrates the correlation coefficients among the six positions. Numbers above the diagonal (in bold) are the coefficients of mean skill ratings. The numbers below the diagonal are the coefficients of rank orders. As can be seen, the relationship (i.e., correlation coefficient) between two positions decreases as the organizational hierarchical distance between the two positions increases. For example, entry-level individual contributors have the highest mean rating correlation coefficient with senior individual contributions (r = 0.88) but the lowest correlation with executives (r = 0.61). Similarly, executives have the highest correlation with directors (r = 0.97). The results occur when examining the rank order correlation coefficients. Position Entry IC Senior IC SUPV MGR DIR EXEC Entry IC Senior IC Supervisor Manager Director Executive Note. All the correlation coefficients are statistically significant, p <

16 Part II: Global Cluster Level Importance Norms In Part II of this report, we present the specific mean ratings and rankings with regard to the perceived job importance for each of the 21 leadership clusters. Again, the ratings are based on the All Others rating category. And, again, we calculated the norms by rolling up the individual leadership competencies within each respective cluster (see Appendix for details). The Importance Rating Scale ranges from 1 (not important), 2 (less important), 3 (useful/nice to have), 4 (very important), to 5 (mission critical). Hence, the higher the mean score, the more important the cluster is to job performance. Global Cluster Importance Ratings and Rankings The following table reports the global mean importance ratings and rankings for each of the 21 clusters collected from organizations around the world. For your information, we provide the sample size (N), minimum and maximum mean learner values, the mean rating, standard deviation (Std), and rank for each cluster. The clusters are presented in rank order from highest to lowest mean rating. Cluster Cluster Text N Min Max Mean Std Rank R Acting with Honor and Character J Focusing on the Bottom Line D Keeping on Point B Making Complex Decisions E Getting Organized Q Inspiring Others F Getting Work Done Through Others A Understanding the Business H Dealing with Trouble L Communicating Effectively P Managing Diverse Relationships N Relating Skills K Being Organizational Savvy I Making Tough People Calls C Creating the New and Different G Managing Work Process T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility M Managing Up S Being Open and Receptive

17 Cluster Cluster Text N Min Max Mean Std Rank U Balancing Work/Life O Caring About Others As can be observe, three of the clusters were rated as very important Acting with Honor and Character (M = 4.15), Focusing on the Bottom Line (M = 4.02), and Keeping on Point (M = 4.01). Caring About Others was rated the lowest (M = 3.51). In an attempt to determine the extent to which perceived importance was related to leadership skill, we correlated the global mean importance ratings and the global mean skill ratings. (See Part I for global mean skill ratings). We found that the two ratings were positively correlated (r = 0.48, p <.05). This finding suggests that managers generally appear to be skilled in areas that are perceived important for their jobs. However, this relationship although statistically significant is moderate in effect size. It would seem additional leadership development is required to bridge the skill-importance gap. Regional Cluster Importance Ratings Table below presents the mean Cluster Importance Ratings for the six international regions. As reported previously, means depicted in green denote the highest mean value among the six global regions suggesting this cluster is relatively more important in the region than other regions. Means displayed in red denote the lowest mean value among the six regions suggesting the cluster is relatively less important in the region than other regions. The last row indicates the average rating across all 21 clusters. Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF A Understanding the Business B Making Complex Decisions C Creating the New and Different D Keeping on Point E Getting Organized F Getting Work Done Through Others G Managing Work Process H Dealing with Trouble I Making Tough People Calls J Focusing on the Bottom Line K Being Organizational Savvy L Communicating Effectively M Managing Up N Relating Skills

18 Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF O Caring About Others P Managing Diverse Relationships Q Inspiring Others R Acting with Honor and Character S Being Open and Receptive T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility U Balancing Work/Life Overall Mean Rating The pattern of results is interesting. Importance ratings were lowest in Europe for all the clusters, except two. For Being Organizational Savvy and Relating Skills, Asia had the lowest ratings. In contrast, 15 of the 21 clusters were rated highest in importance in South America. However, before drawing firm conclusions regarding the regional importance of each cluster, we must remember that this pattern of results might be influenced by the inherent rating bias (leniency versus harshness) among different global regions. An investigation of the rank order differences can shed additional light on this issue. Regional Cluster Importance Rank Orders The following table presents the importance rank orders for the six international regions examined in this study. Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF R Acting with Honor and Character J Focusing on the Bottom Line D Keeping on Point B Making Complex Decisions E Getting Organized Q Inspiring Others F Getting Work Done Through Others A Understanding the Business H Dealing with Trouble P Managing Diverse Relationships N Relating Skills L Communicating Effectively K Being Organizational Savvy I Making Tough People Calls C Creating the New and Different G Managing Work Process T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility

19 Cluster Cluster Text NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF M Managing Up S Being Open and Receptive U Balancing Work/Life O Caring About Others Overall, there is much similarity among the cluster rank orders across the six regions. Acting with Honor and Character, Focusing on the Bottom Line, and Keeping on Point are consistently among the top ranked important clusters. Likewise, Caring About Others, Balancing Work/Life, and Being Open and Receptive are consistently among the bottom ranked important clusters. A few clusters appear to vary across regions with regard to importance but not many (e.g., Getting Organized, Making Tough People Calls, and Being Organizational Savvy ). The following correlational analysis demonstrates the high consistency among the six international regions in the manner in which the importance of the leadership clusters are viewed. The numbers above the diagonal (in bold) are correlation coefficients depicting the mean ratings of importance. The numbers below the diagonal report correlations of rank orders of importance. As can be observed, the vast majority of coefficients are in the range, suggesting a very high agreement among the six regions. Region NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF NA EU NZ/AU Asia SA AF Note. All the correlation coefficients are statistically significant, p <.001. Cluster Importance Ratings and Rankings by Gender The table on the following page presents the mean importance ratings and rank orders of the 21 clusters for males and females, respectively. The differences between males and females on the importance ratings for each of the 21 clusters also are reported. The last row presents the average ratings across all 21 clusters. 19

20 Male Female Item Cluster Mean Std. Rank Mean Std. Rank d Mean R Acting with Honor and Character J Focusing on the Bottom Line D Keeping on Point B Making Complex Decisions E Getting Organized Q Inspiring Others F Getting Work Done Through Others A Understanding the Business H Dealing with Trouble P Managing Diverse Relationships N Relating Skills L Communicating Effectively K Being Organizational Savvy I Making Tough People Calls C Creating the New and Different G Managing Work Process T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility M Managing Up S Being Open and Receptive U Balancing Work/Life O Caring About Others Overall Mean Rating Note. d Mean is the difference between females and males on the mean importance ratings. Overall, the mean gender differences are very, very small. No gender difference is greater than 0.05 for any cluster; the average mean rating difference across all 21 clusters is only Further, a correlational analysis of the cluster mean ratings and rank orders showed extremely high agreement (rs = 0.99, ps <.001). Thus, the findings clearly indicate no differences between males and females with regard to the perceived importance of the 21 leadership clusters. Cluster Importance Ratings and Rankings by Position Level The following table presents the mean importance ratings for each of the 21 clusters for the six position levels investigated in our norms study. As we have done previously, means depicted in green denote the highest mean value among the six positions. Means displayed in red denote the lowest mean value among the six levels. The last row indicates the average rating across all 21 clusters. 20

21 As expected, cluster importance ratings were consistently highest for executive jobs. Executives received the highest mean ratings for 18 of the 21 clusters. Likewise, entry-level individual contributors obtained the lowest mean ratings on 18 of the 21 clusters. Overall, the mean ratings steadily increased as one ascended the organizational hierarchy from entry-level individual contributor (M = 3.62) to senior-level individual contributor (M = 3.74) to supervisor (M = 3.79) to manager (M = 3.83) to director (M = 3.89) to executive (M = 3.92) see last row in table on the next page. This finding suggests that these leadership clusters are perceived more and more important as one moves up the organization. Certainly, this data confirm our suspicions of the importance of developing an individual s leadership skills to achieve organizational promotions. Entry Senior Item Cluster IC IC SUPV MGR DIR EXEC A Understanding the Business B Making Complex Decisions C Creating the New and Different D Keeping on Point E Getting Organized F Getting Work Done Through Others G Managing Work Process H Dealing with Trouble I Making Tough People Calls J Focusing on the Bottom Line K Being Organizational Savvy L Communicating Effectively M Managing Up N Relating Skills O Caring About Others P Managing Diverse Relationships Q Inspiring Others R Acting with Honor and Character S Being Open and Receptive T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility U Balancing Work/Life Overall Mean Rating The table on the next page presents the importance rating rank orders for the six position levels. As can be seen, some clusters such as Focusing on the Bottom Line, Acting with Honor and Character, and Keeping on Point are consistently ranked as very important clusters for all positions. At the same time, some clusters (e.g., Caring about Others ) are viewed as relatively less important the positions. As one moves up the organizational hierarchy, there are some substantial changes in the relative importance of some leadership clusters. For example, 21

22 Making Tough People Calls is dead last for entry-level individual contributors and 7 th out of 21 for executives. Inspiring Others, Dealing with Trouble, and Getting Work Done Through Others make similar moves as one climbs the organizational ladder. Entry Senior Item Cluster IC IC SUPV MGR DIR EXEC J Focusing on the Bottom Line E Getting Organized R Acting with Honor and Character D Keeping on Point A Understanding the Business B Making Complex Decisions N Relating Skills P Managing Diverse Relationships T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility K Being Organizational Savvy L Communicating Effectively S Being Open and Receptive G Managing Work Process C Creating the New and Different U Balancing Work/Life M Managing Up Q Inspiring Others H Dealing with Trouble F Getting Work Done Through Others O Caring About Others I Making Tough People Calls Finally, we performed a correlational analysis of perceived cluster importance by position level. The numbers in the following table represent correlation coefficients. Those values above the diagonal (in bold) are the correlations of mean importance ratings. The numbers below the diagonal are the correlations of rank orders. Position Entry IC Senior IC SUPV MGR DIR EXEC Entry IC Senior IC Supervisor Manager Director Executive Note. All the correlation coefficients are statistically significant, p <

23 As we previously observed with the skill ratings and rankings, the relationship between two positions decreases as the organizational hierarchical distance between the two positions increases. Essentially, it simply means that entry-level and senior individual contributors have more leadership facets in common with each other than with directors or executives. This finding is not too surprising. On the other hand, it is reassuring that the data appear to be measuring the dynamic nature of leadership in a logical, predictable fashion. 23

24 Appendix Leadership Library Structure Factor I: Strategic Skills Cluster A Understanding the Business 5. Business Acumen 24. Functional/Technical Skills 61. Technical Learning Cluster B Making Complex Decisions 17. Decision Quality 30. Intellectual Horsepower 32. Learning on the Fly 51. Problem Solving Cluster C Creating the New and Different 2. Dealing with Ambiguity 14. Creativity 28. Innovation Management 46. Perspective 58. Strategic Agility Factor II: Operating Skills Cluster D Keeping on Point 16. Timely Decision Making 50. Priority Setting Cluster E Getting Organized 39. Organizing 47. Planning 62. Time Management Cluster F Getting Work Done Through Others 18. Delegation 19. Developing Direct Reports and Others 20. Directing Others 27. Informing 35. Managing and Measuring Work Cluster G Managing Work Processes 52. Process Management 59. Managing Through Systems 63. Total Work Systems 24

25 Appendix (continued) Factor III: Courage Cluster H Dealing with Trouble 9. Command Skills 12. Conflict Management 13. Confronting Direct Reports 34. Managerial Courage 57. Standing Alone Cluster I Making Tough People Calls 25. Hiring and Staffing 56. Sizing Up People Factor IV: Energy and Drive Cluster J Focusing on the Bottom Line 1. Action Oriented 43. Perseverance 53. Drive for Results Factor V: Organizational Positioning Skills Cluster K Being Organizationally Savvy 38. Organizational Agility 48. Political Savvy Cluster L Communicating Effectively 49. Presentation Skills 67. Written Communications Cluster M Managing Up 6. Career Ambition 8. Comfort Around Higher Management Note. In total, there are 6 factors, 21 clusters, and 67 competencies in the Leadership Library. The empirical support for rolling up competencies in to the respective clusters can be found in the following research paper: Dai, G., and De Meuse, K. P. (2008). Construct validation of Lominger leadership model and library structure. Minneapolis: Korn/Ferry Institute. 25

26 Appendix (continued) Factor VI: Personal and Interpersonal Skills Cluster N Relating Skills 3. Approachability 31. Interpersonal Savvy Cluster O Caring About Others 7. Caring About Direct Reports 10. Compassion Cluster P Managing Diverse Relationships 4. Boss Relationships 15. Customer Focus 21. Managing Diversity 23. Fairness to Direct Reports 42. Peer Relationships 64. Understanding Others Cluster Q Inspiring Others 36. Motivating Others 37. Negotiating 60. Building Effective Teams 65. Managing Vision and Purpose Cluster R Acting with Honor and Character 22. Ethics and Values 29. Integrity and Trust Cluster S Being Open and Receptive 11. Composure 26. Humor 33. Listening 41. Patience 44. Personal Disclosure Cluster T Demonstrating Personal Flexibility 40. Dealing with Paradox 45. Personal Learning 54. Self-Development 55. Self-Knowledge Cluster U Balancing Work/Life 66. Work/Life Balance 26