How best to evaluate Leadership?
First things first, what EXACTLY are we trying to evaluate in the first place?? Getting a good handle on what we mean by “Leadership” is the real crux of the challenge.
The underlying perennial dilemma here has always been of how best to define and measure what we mean by “Leadership.” Is it a quality or function of inherent, innate potential that can simply be unlocked and developed? Is it a learned fluency in practiced skills and techniques? Or should it be considered in a similar fashion to athletic or musical aptitude where raw, inborn talent can be intentionally cultivated, but where one’s fullest expressions often have real limits, well short of one’s aspirations?
Some facets of effective leadership have gained consensus. For example, having a sufficiently high IQ, or G-Factor, is commonly understood as an important component in most recipes for Leadership success in today’s VUCA world.
A high EQ, also known as emotional intelligence, has more recently come to the forefront as equally necessary for Leadership success. Many voices now suggest that EQ is in fact much more important than IQ when evaluating or predicting effective Leadership.
Traditional Leadership 360 evaluative methods attempted to simplify matters, but there is broad disagreement across them on how to best define the most basic qualities in play. Even getting some initial alignment on working definitions only gets you to the next dilemma – how to then consistently measure them in ways across your organization that are both meaningful and actionable?
We knew that Coaches could do better, could be more comprehensive, deliver more impactful results, and truly give all parties involved clear assessments and workable prescriptions for improvement. The results of our work, and our clients’ elated response to it, were the proof-of-concept we needed to push on.
Out of this iterative process we developed the concept of the Leadership Effectiveness Quotient, or LEQ. Much like IQ and EQ mentioned above, the LEQ aspires to quantify complex phenomena in a simpler framework that organizes and simplifies things in ways that provide more clarity and direction for meaningful engagement.
A single LEQ score gives you a numerical rating to measure and quantify the effectiveness of your leadership, similar to how an IQ score can be used for general intelligence. Equally important, it highlights the specific areas where you most need improvement and follows up by providing clear directions forward for growth and development.
This LEQ terminology came to fruition when helping my good friend and colleague, David Zeitler, with his new Leadership 360 Assessment & Reporting method. Zeitler had spent several years applying various assessments in his Executive Coaching work and realized that there were three main areas that – taken together – could provide leaders with a more accurate and useful set of perspectives: Capacity (their level of discernment); Character (their perceived integrity); and Culture (the trust of colleagues). He had created something practical and insightful, but had not found a way to put them all together. It was holistic but not integrated.
In his work, Capacity covers the basic G-Factor of general intelligence, but more importantly, seeks to uncover how base aptitude manifests through the complexity of one’s worldview. It looks at one’s depth of meaning-making, as well as the span of a leader’s application of that meaning-making. Beyond this, it has built-in avenues for constructive coaching recommendations to help guide their efforts in increasing capacity, which translates into greater Leadership effectiveness.
Character covers the important issues of integrity and confidence, as measured by a leader’s ability to “walk their talk” when it comes to core values. EQ is touched upon in here, but transcended to allow room for the qualities of judgement, expertise, and significant interpersonal relationships to rise to the forefront. Accurate assessment and diagnosis here can lead directly to prescriptive, proactive Coaching to improve performance along this critical metric.
Culture is so often missed by more traditional Leadership evaluation approaches because they often tend to myopically focus on the individual Leader rather than the complex web of relationships that form the substrate of a company’s identity. Here, interpersonal trust is the main factor – as Zeitler notes throughout his report, “The Leader IS the Culture.” The “trust” focus of this quality highlights their importance as a figurehead and embodiment of the company culture. In other words, how goes the leader, so goes the culture. Again, clarity on the strengths and weaknesses here leads directly to actionable strategy for improvement.
We realized that what was missing from his analysis and reporting was an integration of his 3 Leadership Qualities in a way that would be immediately digestible and recognizable. So together we created a “Leadership Effectiveness Quotient” scoring system. This allowed each of his 3 Qualities to stand alone with their respective category scores, and then also be combined and averaged to generate an overall total LEQ score.
The single scoring metric of the total LEQ allows us to compare individual scores across teams of people and also, and perhaps most importantly, compare any singular leader’s current LEQ score against a previous one to track development and progress. We were able to collaborate together and combine our different areas of expertise to create a better way for leaders to see where they are, and perhaps more importantly, where they have room to grow.
In sum, the true power and utilty of the LEQ is 3-fold. First, it is a powerful diagnostic tool that cuts right to the heart of what all companies are looking for at every level of their operations – Effective Leadership. Second, it follows up this accurate diagnosis with a thorough assessment of each leader’s relative strengths and weaknesses in the core components of Capacity, Character, and Culture. Finally, and most importantly, it delivers actionable Coaching prescriptions tailored directly to each individual’s blind spots that chart a clear path forward for improvement.
Clarity, Purpose, and Direction - What more could you ask for?
David Arrell & David Zeitler
