weLEAD Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright
2004 ã weLEAD, Inc.
Leadership Evaluations: What Do
They Really tell Us?
By
Theresa Muscarella, Ph.D.
In a
recent research study of how leaders are evaluated, data of the findings held surprising
and unexpected results. A reliable and
valid testing device (Managerial Practices Survey, Yukl,
2001) contained fifteen leader behavioral values, based on sets of task,
relations, and transformational behaviors.
The survey, created by one of the
The study used a criteria for participants
of professionals at mid to upper level management, and of the 192 individuals
in the survey evaluating leaders, 159 of that total were from Fortune 100 and
500 companies. In many instances, those
evaluators of leaders were rating the same leader in certain divisions or in
certain companies. Both men (127) and
women (65) rated leaders, (male leaders=149; female leaders=43). In three age brackets, 25-35 (5.7%), 35-49
(61.5%), and 50+ (32.3%), participants represented all six major regions of the
The results of this study supported that
there are wide gaps between how men and women evaluated both male and female
leaders. Interestingly, there were wide
gaps among various regions of the country on leader evaluations, and also among
professions. There were no set patterns
for any one leader on any particular behavior out of the fifteen values of the
survey. Even in situations where many
participants evaluated the same leader, there was little agreement as to the
degree of strength in the demonstration of any one behavior. In other words, leader evaluations were
subjective, not only to individuals, but seemingly to types of businesses and
to areas of the country.
What did all the disparity of the
evaluations mean in terms of how well leaders were conducting appropriate
behavior that is then observed by others?
What could these results possibly suggest to us who are modern leaders?
How can the evaluations help develop others for leadership positions? Do these results perhaps point to a fact that
is often overlooked when grooming a prospective leader, strengthening a leader
already at the helm, or in hiring decisions?
The fact is that long held ideas regarding what constitutes a great
leader may not have encompassed enough of the essential criteria needed to
support the success of the leader and his/her company to sustain success over
time.
Part of what we have known about leadership
is that some leaders may be born; others may have to train themselves to
implement certain actions, certain types of behaviors, and certain demeanors to
become a quality leader. Part of what we
have known is that leadership takes many forms, depending upon the time and
place and situation one is in at a moment along the way. Sound leadership may, by demand of any
particular situation, have defining features congruent with the nature of what
is happening (downsizing, mergers, expansion, changing of mission, shifting of
production and/or product).
So, it is already clear that leadership has
much to do with the person that the
leader is. He or she may have strong
traits, such as assertiveness, high self-regard, high intelligence, broad-based
knowledge of a market, or exceptional networking skills. These differing levels of leadership
characteristics are unique to each and every fine leader, and no two leaders
will be exactly the same in any fashion; what works with one leader’s abilities
may not be duplicated with another leader in another situation or organization.
We also know that situational influences do
impact the leadership aspects of a company; strong leaders may be able to rally
a dying empire and weak leaders have succumbed to mighty falls in lesser
situations.
However, the results
of this recent study seem to point out that even those who possess leadership
behaviors in appropriate and sufficient amounts may not be perceived by
those evaluating him/her in that manner.
We must ask the question why. Why
are supposedly quality leaders, who, in the case of this study’s participants,
are Fortune company top choices, not being rated by peers or employees as
such? Why would male leaders, as a
whole, in this study be rated poorer than female leaders in some regions of our
country? Why would female leaders, as a
whole, in this study be rated poorer by several types of industries?
Could factors that we in leadership
development areas have not yet integrated into the equation, be at work? Could
these factors possibly be undermining leaders when they have their evaluations
carried out by others? The implications
of the study, without going into elaborate detail of all the many statistically
significant data, point toward factors of perceptions of individual evaluators.
Another factor to consider is the perceptions by some industries and areas of
the country. These perceptions are not
pointing to any particular gender stereotyping effects, or extremely provincial
conservative thought about leadership, per se.
What the results of the data seem to imply is that in leadership
development we may have forgotten the impact that employees and others rating a
leader have on the ultimate outcome of evaluations. We may overlook the fact
that if the evaluator does not actually perceive the leader’s behaviors as
sufficient enough, then he/she will not likely rate a leader well.
What this comes down to is that there may
be another facet to great leadership, beyond the basic talents, skills,
abilities and inherent traits of a leader and the defining situations in which
a leader finds him/her self. The other
critical facet may be whether or not the “fit” of leader behaviors and the
evaluator are right. What this proposes is
that a leader may have what it takes to carry a company through to successful
growth and profits, but if his/her employees do not sense (perceive) the
behaviors that he/she feels are necessary and in the appropriate amounts, then
leader evaluations may continue to be lower than expected.
How can we know if those we place in leadership
positions can possibly “fit” the hidden and unknown needs of the organization
enough to eradicate subjective strikes of disapproval by employees? What do we do to ensure that leaders are
“seen” as being, for example, explanatory enough, supportive enough, empowering
enough, encouraging innovative thinking enough, and so forth? How can we have leaders, in any place, before
any group of employees, demonstrate the needed behaviors to satisfy a
workforce, a team effort, a band of managers, or whatever?
Perhaps the crux of the puzzle would be to
research what the employees think the leadership needs of their company
are. Maybe the time has come to canvas
employees and management alike to get some sense of what everyone expects of a
leader. What does that term “leader”
mean to others? What are the
expectations that not only the leader has of the employees, but likewise, what
are the expectations of the workers?
What characteristics, style of leading, behaviors, and actions will be
needed to satisfy the underlying assumptions of what a leader should be? This goes against most theories of designing
leadership from the top down, with leader strengths being honed in an ongoing
enrichment and development regimen.
However, as this study would suggest, even
those in upper Fortune company leadership positions did not necessarily receive
sterling evaluations, and from one employee to another the exact same leader
did not rate similarly. One would have
to ask why, and the only sensible answer seems to be that each individual
evaluator is a person who comes to a company with a set of beliefs, values, and
cognitions already in place. We cannot
go about the business of trying to change how our employees basically size up the
world around them. We cannot take tremendous
time or money to incorporate grand psychological assessments and institute
long-running programs to modify all the faulty cognitions, perceptions and
groundless assumptions many people may have.
What we can do, however, is at least give
some thought to creating dialogue with employees to understand what they want
to see in a leader and what levels of behavior seem to be most desirable in
their company. The study’s analysis of the fifteen behaviors it was discovered
that certain behaviors linked positively to others. For example, some task behaviors linked to
relationship behaviors, some transformational behaviors linked to task
behaviors and so on, by way of statistically significant correlation. What this can say to leadership development
is that particular strengths in one type of behavior may necessitate
improvement in other types, so that certain “sets” of behaviors would be more
suitable for particular employees and/or situations.
What the study
shows is that men and women do rate leaders differently; areas of the country
rate leaders differently, and professions rate leaders differently. This may scream to us that leadership has to
be more versatile and more “user friendly” to employees if we are to bring out
the best in not only our leaders and their evaluations, but in various
situations and with shifting, changing and differing populations. This study has opened up a Pandora’s box of
questions about viewing leadership and the behaviors that we hope are displayed
for maximum benefit for all involved. It
is true that leaders march the companies forward, but the followers determine
the pace and the distance of that leader’s success ultimately. It’s something to think about.
Comments
to: editor@leadingtoday.org
BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE
About the author:
Theresa Muscarella has had a
previous background in college teaching and college administration. She
has a Master's degree in Counseling and Human Development, BA in Psychology,
and a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Theresa is now
developing plans for a consulting and coaching business for individuals and
corporations, concentrating on issues of leadership and business enrichment for
companies. Plans are also on the future horizon to write book, after collecting
and gathering data from other Fortune companies about quality leadership within
their ranks.