Comprehensive Leadership Measurement
drives Enterprise Performance
By Dr. Robert Dew
Contents
Valid leadership measurement must be a priority .....................................................................................2
The Leadership Measurement Problem .....................................................................................................2
Case study: Line Management at Global Services ......................................................................................3
Comprehensive Leadership Results at GS ..................................................................................................4
Comprehensive Leadership Report Excerpt 1 ........................................................................................4
Comprehensive Leadership Report Excerpt 2 ........................................................................................5
Comprehensive Leadership Report Formats ..........................................................................................5
Importance of an Evidence Based Approach..............................................................................................6
The Science of Leadership Evaluation ........................................................................................................7
Comprehensive Leadership Model .........................................................................................................7
Beware Other ‘Research Based’ Leadership Tools .....................................................................................8
About Employment Office ..........................................................................................................................9
About the Author......................................................................................................................................10
Valid leadership measurement must be a priority
Attracting the right people for your organisation and developing effective leaders is critical to your
organisation’s profitability. Research shows that Leadership has a direct relationship to organisational
efficiency and company survival (Bohn and Grafton, 2002)1. The research is also compelling in terms
of staff retention: Leadership at different levels of the firms influences employee motivation and
intent to stay, with senior management leadership support showing greater impact than mid-level
leaders. These findings apply for employees in both low- and high-status positions but there was a
stronger impact on intent to stay for workers in high-status positions (Basford et al, 2012)2. The key
question then becomes... How to define, determine and develop leadership?
The Leadership Measurement Problem
The most important barrier to effective leadership in an organisation is
that it is not systematically measured. Without a way to measure
leadership, large organisations that employ hundreds of people can
find it impossible to correctly determine which leaders should be
given greater responsibility to guide their firms to deliver the greatest
economic returns.
At the time of writing this paper, a Google search for ‘leadership
development’ resulted in 624,000,000 results. It is little wonder that
companies are having problems identifying how to select and develop
leaders within their organisations: there are simply too many
approaches out there to be sure which program for leadership
development is the correct one.
Most organisations look to past performance measures as the basis for
selecting the best leaders, but this approach has two risks:

Internal promotions may result in ‘Peter Principal’ situations where a past performer ends up
out of their depth.
1
Bonh and Grafton 2002 ‘The relationship of perceived leadership behaviours to organisational efficiency’ Journal of Leadership and
Organisational Studies Vol 9 No 1 pp 65-79
2
Basford et al 2012 ‘Considering the Source : The Impact of Leadership Level on Follower Motivation and Intent to Stay’ Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies Vol 19 No 2 pp 202 -214
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 2 of 10

New comers to the organisation may use leadership approaches that clash with the prevailing
organisational culture
Kim et al’s 2004 study3 found that followers acceptance of a leader’s behaviour depended on
organisational culture. This means that leadership approaches that work in one firm will fail in
another. What is needed is a more robust and practical approach to working out how leadership is
unique to a company. One that combines available data with management insights to provide
evidence based leadership development, specific to the firm.
Case study: Line Management at Global Services
Global Services (GS)4 is a powerful example of how to increase organisation effectiveness by adopting
an evidence-based approach to leadership development.
GS’s business is a network of international retail agencies where consumer service and sales happens
in real time, face to face with customers. The company has experienced extensive challenges in the
past decade including the Global Financial Crises and increased competition from suppliers wanting to
sell their own products at the same time that online rivals were implementing lower cost business
models. GS had leaders at various levels, in a variety of different cultures trying to deliver financial
results and balance this against the problems of staff turnover greater than 60% per year.
GS’s challenge was to decide how to select Supervisors to promote to Line Managers. In the past GS
had considered current job performance as the best predictor of who to select for leadership roles.
This was coupled with an internal interview process. The results had not been encouraging – some
Supervisors promoted to Line Managers had failed spectacularly. As a response GS added on a 360
degree feedback program for Supervisors, Line Managers and Regional Managers. Over time this had
devolved into a kind of internal public relations approach to validate why some people were promoted
and others weren’t. This happened in response to political issues and complications involving
performance reviews. Eventually many employees became demotivated by what they felt was a
largely arbitrary process used to validate essentially subjective decisions about who got promoted.
There were also concerns about the impact of the 360 degree reports on performance bonuses. A key
issue was that the 360 program was not linked to actual business results.
The firm knew leadership was important, the current approach wasn’t working and that some leaders
were jaded. What was missing was a data driven approach to determine who would be the best
choice for increased responsibility and how those still maturing in their roles could assess what they
needed to change about their leadership styles and capabilities. Employment Office was able to offer
The Comprehensive Leadership Model to fix these problems.
3
Kim et al 2004 ‘A Multiple-level theory of leadership: The impact of culture as a moderator’ Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies
Vol 11 No 1 pp 78-92
4
Employment Office Comprehensive Leadership Report 2012 [company name & some data changed to preserve commercial confidentiality]
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 3 of 10
Comprehensive Leadership Results at GS
The Comprehensive Leadership approach is based on collecting 360 degree survey data relating to a
single level of leaders in an organisation. Comprehensive Leadership is adapted from the Avolio and
Bass 2009 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Unlike other tools, this survey is based on 25
years of leadership research, including factor analysis studies with thousands of participants in
business and military organisations. See the section ‘Science of Leadership’ below for more on the
validity of the Employment Office method.
Comprehensive Leadership measures leadership outputs of team effectiveness, follower satisfaction
and follower extra effort. The model measures leadership inputs as 9 sets of leadership behavioural
approaches. Three of the leadership inputs are transactional based approaches: Assertive, Corrective
and Deferred Leadership. Five of the leadership inputs are transformation based approaches: Iconic,
Lateral, Moral, One to One and Positive Leadership. There is also a Hands’ Off approach to leadership
which is not transformational or transactional.
In the GS example, 41 Line Managers and their 388 followers answered 45 questions about each
leader’s tendency to use the 9 leadership approaches and 3 leadership output measures that
comprise Comprehensive Leadership. The GS response data was analysed on both a group and
individual basis, with part of the group analysis shown in the diagram below.
Comprehensive Leadership Report Excerpt 1
4 Others
15%
8%
Lateral↓
-12%
Deferred↓
-12%
Iconic↑
35%
Moral↑
18%
At the group level Employment Office was able to statistically determine via multiple linear regression
how important that each of the 9 behaviours in the Comprehensive Leadership Model was for
achieving a given leadership outcome. The resulting Comprehensive Leadership model was able to
explain more than 98% of the variation in leadership outputs. For example in the graphic above the
pie chart shows the five most important leadership approaches in GS for Supervisors to influence their
followers to commit to discretionary extra effort in their roles. Combined, these 5 factors explain more
than 80% of Line Manager ability to motivate extra effort in GS.
In this case the most important factor is being an Iconic Leader (someone who attracts respect
because followers perceive them to be confident, powerful and charismatic and this influences their
followers to be proud to be associated with the leader). Interestingly the graphic also shows that two
leadership approaches (Deferred Leadership, which is about intervening after followers make either
serious or chronic mistakes; and Lateral Leadership, which is about prompting followers to innovate by
seeking new perspectives and options after questioning underlying assumptions) were negatively
correlated with extra effort. This means that leaders who used these approaches more frequently
were less likely to motivate discretionary effort from their followers than those who didn’t. In the case
of Deferred Leadership, this result was quite surprising for GS enterprise leaders who had been
championing a focus on accountability with direct reports in the firm.
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 4 of 10
The 5 most important behaviours for Line Managers are interesting because of the behaviours that are
not indicated: for example Assertive Leadership and One to One Leadership. Assertive Leadership is a
transactional style of leadership where the leader assigns role responsibilities and sets rewards for
appropriate behaviour. One to One Leadership is about expressing empathy for followers as
individuals, rather than as team members, and coaching them to develop their specific strengths. This
example shows how promoting a high performing Supervisor into Line Manager role could result in a
spectacular failure. Neither of these forms for transactional leadership is important for Line Managers,
even though other data shows that these elements are critical for effective Supervisors.
Comprehensive Leadership Report Excerpt 2
The second report excerpt graphic above shows an individual level of analysis of Effectiveness for one
Line Manager in GS. This shows the leader where they are within the range of Line Managers in GS for
each of the most important effectiveness leadership approaches. For example for Deferred Leadership,
this Line Manager is in the lower part of the range. For Moral Leadership (which relates to promoting
the mission, vision and values of the organisation and being explicit about the ethical dimension of
decisions) this leader is in the higher part of the range. Importantly, this leader can identify that for
most of the important leadership elements for effectiveness their job role, they are perceived by
followers as being in the upper half of the range for all Line Managers in GS. This person would also be
able to notice that their followers rate them more highly than they rate themselves for Iconic, Hands
Off and Moral Leadership. It is also apparent that this leader rates them below the level of overall
effectiveness in leading their team than that attributed by their followers.
The report above provides a way to give leaders specific feedback about how their leadership
approaches are perceived by their followers and how this links to overall leadership performance.
Importantly it provides an evidence based approach for leadership development. Employment Office
packages the survey results an analysis into a range of different reports, based on their intended
receiver and application. These are shown in the table following.
Comprehensive Leadership Report Formats
Individual
Group
Functional
Personal profile
Leader level/ role profile
Management
Leader development plan
Potential leaders identified
Enterprise
Career development strategy
Org leadership capability
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 5 of 10
The Comprehensive Leadership modelling work completed by Employment Office enabled GS to
improve its approaches to selecting which Supervisors had the highest potential to perform as Line
Managers. It also provided an evidence based approach for Supervisors to discuss with their Line
Managers how they might develop their leadership approaches and modify their style to become more
effective. GS was also able to identify where they had made some investments in leadership
development that were not based on evidence.
For example, the group had recently developed a video that stressed the importance of their firm’s
mission – that GS wasn’t just about selling their core product. Instead the video was designed to
encourage employees to think about the fact that they were helping thousands of people each day
enjoy the retail experience and explore new purchasing environments. It was hoped that employees
would be more satisfied with the roles if they bought into this organisational mission and that this
would improve retention rates. This message content fits completely within the Moral Leadership
dimension in the Comprehensive Leadership model.
Moral leaders assert the organisation's purpose, identity and culture for
people to buy into and align with. The results from the 360 degree
feedback showed that Moral Leadership was negatively correlated for
follower satisfaction at the Line Manager level in GS. This meant that
Line Managers who promoted the video to the Supervisors were likely
were damaging their satisfaction with their role.
This highlights a common problem with companies that try to implement
leadership development in their organisations without using an evidence
based approach. The story normally goes that an influential manager in the organisation reads a
popular book on leadership theories or the biography of a high profile business, military or political
leader and commences to change their organisation based on the perceived insights received. The
results are variable, but the business continues with the new vision of leadership until the next book
comes along.
Importance of an Evidence Based Approach
Unfortunately while it is easy to find any number of approaches to organisational leadership
development, only a few are based on quality research. Widespread acceptance of a well known
leadership development approach is no guarantee of quality. One example is the concept of ‘Servant
Leadership’ branded by Good to Great (2001) author Jim Collins as ‘Level 5 Leadership’5. This definition
of leadership and the assertion of its relevance to company performance gained widespread
acceptance as a definition of what it means to be an effective leader in the 21st century and sadly is
still used by many firms today. Collins has gone on to write a follow up book How the Mighty Fall
(2009) in part to try to explain what went wrong with his original research findings.
In 2008 author Stephen Levitt (Freakonomics) blogged about how two of Collins’
Good to Great firms – Fannie Mae and Circuit City had failed dismally6 despite
Collins’ assertion of their seemingly excellent leadership. In 2012 de Wall and
Sivro7 investigated the relationship between Relation Between Servant Leadership,
Organizational Performance, and the High-Performance Organisational Framework
they found contradictions with Collins’ research. The results showed:
5
See Collins 2005 ‘Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve’ Harvard Business Review Vol 83 No 7,8, pp. 136-139
6
Levitt 2008 http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/28/from-good-to-great-to-below-average/
7
de Waal and Sivro 2012 ‘The Relation Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Performance, and the High-Performance Organisation
Framework’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies Vol 19 No 2 173–190
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 6 of 10
“...no evidence of a direct positive relation between Servant Leadership and organizational
performance. There was evidence of Servant Leadership having an influence on the factors in the
High Performance Organisational framework but this influence was different on various
organizational levels. It was concluded that the role of Servant Leadership in the case
organization was inconsistent.” <Emphasis added>.
It seems that Collins’ Level 5 Leadership was not the holy grail of leadership that had been claimed.
This is a systemic concern with leadership studies based on iconic individuals or only a few cases – it is
risky to assume that the lessons apply elsewhere. The safe alternative is to use findings from studies
based on large numbers of participants. Sometimes the results can be surprising. For example, in an
attempt to determine what worked and what didn’t in one company a 2009 study by Patrick McGurk 8
found:
“...a traditional management development programme led to more effective compliance with
prescribed objectives, yet made little contribution to strategic change; ...an individualised
leadership programme had individual benefits but negligible impact on the business; ... a
collective and emergent approach to leadership development made a significant but unintended
contribution to strategic change.”
The science behind the leadership development approach is important to validate.
The Science of Leadership Evaluation
Employment Office’s proprietary leadership evaluation approach is outlined in the following diagram.
Leadership output is measured in terms of team effectiveness, follower satisfaction and follower
discretionary effort. The 9 approaches to leadership are listed under the diagram.
Comprehensive Leadership Model
8
McGurk 2009 ‘Outcomes of management and leadership development’ Journal of Management Development Vol 29 No 5 pp. 457-470
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 7 of 10
Assertive
Deferred
Sets expectations, assigns responsibility and rewards performance with recognition,
resources or help
Closely monitors to uphold standards by providing real time feedback on mistakes (even
if minor)
Intervenes after it is apparent that mistakes have become potentially serious or repeated
Hands Off
Provides low direction, allowing followers initiative and greater responsibility
Iconic
Attract respect with their confidence, power and charisma because of how they are
perceived
Catalyse changes and creativity by prompting new approaches for projects and problems
Corrective
Lateral
Moral
One to
One
Positive
Assert the organisation's purpose, identity and culture for people to buy into and align
with
Provide individual care and attention to support and develop others in the organisation
via teaching and coaching
Increase individual confidence and belief in organisational success with a positive future
orientation
The Comprehensive Leadership Model is adapted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
researched over 25 years by Avolio and Bass9 which is built on 293 different published studies of
leadership. The final nine factor analysis results were validated by Antonakis et al (2003) in a study
published in Leadership Quarterly10. This work used 2279 males and 1089 female responses. The
results showed valid measurements in the male and female groups and that the nine-factor model was
stable and consistent across similar business contexts. Using the MLQ discriminators and model as the
basis of how to word the Comprehensive Leadership 360 degree survey questions, Employment Office
then applies multiple linear regression techniques to weight the correlation of each of the nine
leadership approaches with the three leadership outputs. The resulting profiles have been typically
able to explain more than 98% of the variance in leadership outcomes (team effectiveness, follower
satisfaction and discretionary effort) for clients using the tool to date.
Beware Other ‘Research Based’ Leadership
Tools
Compare the validity of using this approach to another
established tool like the Life Styles Inventory (LSI). The
problem with personality based tools like the LSI is that
they are only part of what is involved in leadership.
Cooke and Rousseau (1983)11 explain that LSI measures
twelve different life styles that are postulated to fall into
four general areas of concern: Task/satisfaction;
people/satisfaction; task/security; and people/security.
This four-factor model of personal life styles was derived
by combining Maslow’s need theory with person versus
task-centred models of leadership. This means that LSI
leaves out key aspects of transformational leadership
9
Avolio & Bass 2004 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Third Edition Manual and Sampler Set Mind Garden Inc
10
Antonakis et al 2003 ‘Context and leadership: An examination of the nine full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire’ Leadership Quarterly Vol 14 pp 261-295.
11
Cooke and Rousseau 1983 ‘The Factor Structure of Level I: Life Styles Inventory’ Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol 43 Iss 2 pp
449 - 457
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 8 of 10
because it is mostly about transactional leadership and personality.
It is hard to find studies that validate LSI as it applies to leadership. Most findings are inconclusive and/
or based on small sample sizes. The best validation available in the scientific journals found was by
Skenes & Honig (2004) who used LSI with 48 Master students in a Managerial Leadership program. The
self selected students stood to gain a $500 tuition fee discount for their involvement. At the end of the
study only 34 were left, mostly females.
Skenes & Honig documented the students’ LSI responses changed significantly and claimed that this
meant that the LSI was “a sensitive instrument for assessing attitudinal change over time”12. But
despite the fact that they could have linked education or career outcomes with the LSI results, they
present no conclusions about how the LSI relates directly to the leadership outcomes. This is probably
because they did this analysis and it showed no valid statistical correlations. Studies that question the
LSI and leadership are typically more rigorous.
Nediger and Chelladurai (1989) with 581 manager participants (302 male and 274 females) showed
problems with the LSI model when a statistical factor analysis was applied13. In another study in 1985
by Hopper about chief student affairs administrators in Ball State University, no significant differences
were found when responses to all 12 scales of the LSI were grouped together. The problem isn’t that
the LSI is inconsistent – it just doesn’t fully measure leadership. Employment Office is committed to
providing clients with a comprehensive investigation of their leadership.
About Employment Office
Employment Office is a recruitment specialist firm that helps our clients answer these questions:





How do we get the best people to choose us as their employer?
How do we ensure minimum costs in the recruitment process?
What is our preferred employee and how to we contact them?
How do we screen candidates in cost and time effective way?
How we develop the people we have now to improve our organisation’s performance?
Employment Office works with a range of businesses from Fortune 500 Australian companies to
emerging businesses. Our clients include Flight Centre, Uniting Care, Parmalat, Coronis, Corporate
Traveller, Lifestyle Solutions, Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology, Lifeline, Komatsu Australia, Leukaemia
Foundation, Print Systems Australia, RAMS Home Loans, and
Newcastle City Council.
Employment Office Group has been recognised as a leader
in innovative recruitment solutions precisely because we
are not a recruitment agency.
Contact us today on 1300 366 573
12
Skenes & Honig 2004 ‘Pretest/Posttest Use of the Life Styles Inventory for Outcomes Assessment of a Professional Master's in Managerial
Leadership Program’ Group & Organization Management Vol 29 No 2 pp 171-200.
13
Nediger & Chelladurai 1989 ‘Life Styles Inventory: Its Applicability in the Canadian Context Educational and Psychological Measurement’ Vol
49 pp 901-909
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 9 of 10
About the Author
Dr. Rob Dew PhD MBA BAppSc is one of Employment Office’s senior consultants with expertise in
leadership, cognitive psychology, quantitative analysis, innovation management and technology
applications. Rob has provided consultancy services to organisations including Thiess, QR, Flight Centre,
KLM Air France, TAFE Queensland, University of Queensland, Suncorp and Boeing.
Rob has a PhD in Organisational Creativity, an MBA from Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in
2000 and a Bachelor of Applied Science in Physics. In 2000 he won the MBA Medallion from QUT and in
1987 he won the Canberra prize for Physics. He is a co-author of several patents.
Copyright Employment Office Australia 2012
Page 10 of 10