Sixteen Critical Leadership Competencies

Here are the 16 critical competencies that distinguish good leaders from exceptional leaders. These 16 competencies are ones that should be built into any selection process.

Use these when interviewing candidates to assess leadership strength.

The Sixteen --

Living by personal conviction means you know and are in touch with your values and beliefs, are not afraid to take a lonely or unpopular stance if necessary, are comfortable in tough situations, can be relied upon in tense circumstances, are clear about where you stand, and will face difficult challenges with poise and self-assurance.

Possessing emotional intelligence means you recognize personal strengths and weaknesses; see the linkages between feelings and behaviors; manage impulsive feelings and distressing emotions; are attentive to emotional cues; show sensitivity and respect for others; challenge bias and intolerance; collaborate and share; are an open communicator; and can handle conflict, difficult people, and tense situations effectively. Emotional intelligence may often be labeled EQ, or emotional intelligence quotient.

Being visionary means that you see the future clearly, anticipate large-scale and local changes that will affect the organization and its environment, are able to project the organization into the future and envision multiple potential scenarios/outcomes, have a broad way of looking at trends, and are able to design competitive strategies and plans based on future possibilities.

Communicating vision means that you distill complex strategies into a compelling call to march, inspire and help others see a core reason for the organization to make change, talk beyond the day-to-day tactical matters that face the organization, show confidence and optimism about the future state of the organization, and engage other to join in.

Earning loyalty and trust means you are a direct and truthful person; are willing to admit mistakes; are sincerely interested in the concerns of others; show empathy and a generally helpful orientation toward others; follow promises with actions; maintain confidences and disclose information ethically and appropriately; and conduct work in open; transparent ways.

Listening like you mean it means you maintain a calm, easy-to-approach demeanor; are patient, open minded, and willing to hear people out; understand others and pick up the meaning or their messages; are warm, gracious, and inviting; build strong rapport; see through the words that others express to the real meaning (i.e., cut to the heart of the issue); and maintain formal and informal channels of communication.

Giving feedback means you set clear expectations, bring important issues to the table in a way that helps others “hear” them, show an openness to facing difficult topics and sources of conflict, deal with problems and difficult people directly and frankly, provide timely criticism when needed, and provide feedback messages that are clear and unambiguous.

Mentoring others means you invest the time to understand the career aspirations of your direct reports, work with direct reports to create engaging mentoring plans, support staff in developing their skills, support career development in a nonpossessive way (e.g., will support staff moving up and out as necessary for their advancement), find stretch assignments and other delegation opportunities that support skill development, and role model professional development by advancing your own skills.

Developing teams means you select executives who will be strong teams players, actively support the concept of teaming, develop open discourse and encourage healthy debate on important issues, create compelling reasons and incentives for team members to work together, effectively set limits on the political activity that takes place outside the team framework, celebrate successes together as a unit, and commiserate as a group over disappointments.

Energizing staff means you set a personal example of good work ethic and motivation; talk and act enthusiastically and optimistically about the future; enjoy rising to new challenges; take on your work with energy, passion, and drive to finish successfully; help others recognize the importance of their work; are enjoyable to work for; and have a goal-oriented, ambitious, and determined working style.

Generating informal power means you understand the roles of power and influence in organizations; develop compelling arguments or points of view based on a knowledge of others’ priorities; develop and sustain useful networks up, down, and sideways in the organization; develop a reputation as a go-to person; and effectively affect the thoughts and opinions of others, both directly and indirectly, through others.

Building consensus means you frame issues in ways that facilitate clarity from multiple perspectives, keep issues separated from personalities, skillfully use group decision techniques (e.g. Nominal Group Technique), ensure that quieter group members are drawn into discussions, find shared values and common adversaries, and facilitate discussions rather than guide them.

Making decisions effectively means you make decisions based on an optimal mix of ethics, values, goals, facts, alternatives, and judgments; use decision tools (such as force-field analysis, cost-benefit analysis, decision trees, paired comparisons analysis) effectively and at appropriate times; and show a good sense of timing related to decision making.

Driving results means you mobilize people toward greater commitment to a vision, challenge people to set higher standards and goals, keep people focused on achieving goals, give direct and complete feedback that keeps teams and individuals on track, quickly take corrective action as necessary to keep everyone moving forward, show a bias toward action, and proactively work through performance barriers.

Stimulating creativity means you see broadly outside of the typical, are constantly open to new ideas, are effective with creativity group processes (e.g. brainstorming, Nominal Group Technique, scenario building), see future trends and craft responses to them, are knowledgeable in business and societal trends, are aware of how strategies play out in the field, are well read, and make connections between industries and unrelated trends.

Cultivating adaptability means you quickly see the essence of issues and problems, effectively bring clarity to situations of ambiguity, approach work using a variety of leadership styles and techniques, track changing priorities and readily interpret their implications, balance consistency of focus against the ability to adjust course as needed, balance multiple tasks and priorities such that each gets appropriate attention, and work effectively with a broad range of people.

Adapted from Exceptional Leadership by Dye and Garman, Health Administration Press, 2006

Choosing Leaders Using the Wrong Criteria (Traits)

Another look at the danger of using traits in selection is described on the following very excellent site – 

When leaders are chosen, the decision is often based on the wrong criteria. Many look to people with strong, charismatic personalities, or passion for personal achievement. They may also look to people who are commanding or who manage the efforts of others well. Some people even look to physical attributes as an indication of leadership ability.

The misconceptions of what makes a person a good leader are not limited to these factors, nor a particular field of business, they can apply to everything from educational leadership to business administration. They also include our choices of personality characteristics. Some see great leaders as people who can mesmerize a crowd with their stage performance, who can make those around them relax with their confidence, or who can think circles around other senior people in the organization. In reality, these traits and characteristics are not indicators of great leaders. Rather, great leaders are characterized by their focus on integrity over stage performance, passion for what is best for the company over self-importance, humility and passing forward credit over ego, and empowering their people over making decisions on their behalf. There have been numerous books written, researches conducted, and data compiled that point to these findings; however, even extraordinary companies with insightful, intelligent, and experienced boards of directors and senior executives have erroneously chosen leaders based on their perception of leadership capabilities.

Read the rest of the article at http://learnthis.ca/2009/12/the-problem-with-leadership/

It is well done.

When I put leadership into the sphere of selection, I am constantly finding that I am fighting with others about their use of traits and chemistry and charisma to make selection decisions. I must say that I am on a mission to make selection more scientific. It can be done. More on this as the weeks unfold.

Leadership Traits Give Me Heartburn

My major concern with leadership traits – and as an executive recruiter they truly give me heartburn – is that they become the major drivers of selection decisions. Consider: 

• When a hiring manager is      making a decision to hire one person over another person, what goes      through his/her mind that drives that choice?
• How do individuals typically      make “selection” decisions?

• What are the factors that      drive these all-important decisions?

Even more important is the hiring decision when the person being hired will be a leader in the organization.

There are generally six key “screens” or factors that drive hiring decisions. Essentially, these are the judgments and thoughts that go through the hiring manager’s mind when the decision is made regarding which candidate to hire. These screens are:

The “chemistry” screen – “I really like him/her.” “I could get      along quite well with this person.” Often this happens because the person      comes from a similar background as the hiring manager (or went to the same      graduate school or likes the same things or has the same hobbies). These      are often described as the “halo” effect and the “similar-to-me” effect. This      is the trait theory of leadership raising its ugly head.

The “presentation” screen – “He/she has great presentation /      speaking skills.” “He/she just looks good.” “He/she looks like a      high-quality leader.” This is often called the “charisma” factor and may      include a great sense of humor, body language, strong listening skills,      display of empathy, or good communication and interpersonal skills in      general

The “accomplishment” screen – “I really like what this person      has done.”

The “context” screen – “I like where this person has worked.”      “I like the people with whom this person has worked.” “This candidate has      worked for one of the best organizations in our industry.”

The “culture” screen – “I think he/she would be a great fit in      our organization.” “He/she has the set of values that goes well in our      organization.”

The “leadership competency” screen – “He/she has the right      leadership competencies.” 

The sad reality is that in typical hiring scenarios, Factors One and Two usually take on far greater importance and weight than they should. While important and certainly worthy of consideration, this factor often drives the hiring decision to the exclusion of the other factors.

Consider these points as you think about making hiring decisions. More discussion to come.

Traits versus Competencies - Part II

A more in-depth look at the difference between traits and competencies is described perfectly in an article by S.A. Kirkpatrick and E.A. Locke. The article, entitled, “Leadership: Do Traits Really Matter?” (from the Academy of Management Executive Number 5, 1991) talked about six core characteristics that the majority of effective leaders possess. Those are:

1. Drive. Leaders are ambitious and take initiative.
2. Motivation. Leaders want to lead and are willing to take charge.
3. Honesty and integrity. Leaders are truthful and do what they say they will do.
4. Self-confidence. Leaders are assertive and decisive and enjoy taking risks. They admit mistakes and foster trust and commitment to a vision. Leaders are emotionally stable rather than recklessly adventurous.
5. Cognitive ability. Leaders are intelligent, perceptive, and conceptually skilled, but are not necessarily geniuses. They show analytical ability, good judgment, and the capacity to think strategically.
6. Business knowledge. Leaders tend to have technical expertise in their businesses.

The article continues in providing the contrast between traits and competencies. Kirkpatrick and Locke write, “Whereas traits are the characteristics of leaders, skills are the knowledge and abilities, orcompetencies,of leaders. The competencies a leader needs depends upon the situation.

These competencies depend on a variety of factors:

1. The number of people following the leader
2. The extent of the leader's leadership skills
3. The leader's basic nature and values
4. The group or organization's background, such as whether it's for profit or not-for-profit, new or long established, large or small
5. The particular culture (or values and associated behaviors) of whomever is being led

This final section introduces the concept of contingency leadership very effectively.

Hopefully these past two posts have clarified the differences and have helped readers see that traits are not competencies.

Traits or Competencies?

A couple of individuals challenged me the other day on my approach and use of leadership competency models. Essentially they said that competency theory (their choice of words) was nothing more than trait theory that was the first theory of leadership appearing in the early 20th century.

However, in point of fact, trait theory assumes that the “traits” that are essential for leadership are already inborn, natural, or inherited. They cannot be changed – read, “acquired” or “strengthened.” Trait theory did not contemplate the possibility that new leaders who lacked required traits could develop them.  That is one of the primary shortcomings to trait theory.

In some respects, the competency approach to leadership theory did in fact emanate from the trait theory. Competency theory focuses on skills, or behaviors, which make leaders effective.

Two other similar theories exist although not as well known.  The first, called the three-skill theory approach suggests that leadership skills/behaviors are tied to the level in which the person works in the organization. As leaders move from supervisory positions to broader more strategic positions, the skills/behaviors that become more important shift technical to human to conceptual. The second is the five-skill theory and indicates that the factors of effective leadership are (1) competencies; (2) individual attributes; (3) outcomes; (4) career experiences; and (5) environmental influences.  Quite frankly, I do not find much use for either or these but they are useful in considering the trait versus competency debate.

More On Leadership Competencies

I had to add this -- once again, understanding the meaning of "competencies" helps when determining how many are enough --

This is from:http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/case/compet1.html

Competencies are probably most closely related to abilities. However, in our craft, the term ability normally means either able to do or a special talent; while competencies relate more to expertise and experience. Competencies can be thought of as the state or quality of being well qualified to perform a task. A person gains competency through education, training, experience, or natural abilities. Klemp (1980, p21) defined competence as “an underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective and/or superior performance on the job.” While a more detailed definition is “a cluster or related knowledge, skills, and attitudes that reflects a major portion of one's job (a role or responsibility), that correlates with performance on the job, that can be measured with well-accepted standards, and that can be improved with training and and development (Parry, 1996, p50).“

While there are many definitions of competency, most of them have two common elements:

• The competency is an observable and measurable knowledge and skills.
• The knowledge and skills must distinguish between superior performers (or exemplary performance) and other performers.

Too Many Leadership Competencies

I received some push back on the post about the number of competencies -- comments such as these --

"Your list is not comprehensive."

"Leadership is too complex to be covered by a short list like that."

"Your list misses the competency of "values."

I think this merits more consideration.

Consider the following well-written blog post from Steve Arneson (http://www.examiner.com/leadership-in-national/the-eight-most-critical-leadership-competencies):

"In their 2001 book The Leadership Machine, Michael Lombardo and Robert Eichinger presented a leadership competency framework that included 67 competencies. Yes, you read that right – 67. That’s a lot of competencies for us to master!  Based on extensive research, the list covers the universe of leadership competencies, from “price of admission” skills like ethics and integrity to competitive differentiators such as business acumen and decision quality.   The list is so exhaustive that when the authors examined over 100 corporate leadership competencies, they found that 85% of those competencies could be found in their framework. Leadership may be a complex animal, but it certainly has been well examined and classified." 

The Leadership Machine is a very worthwhile lead for anyone wanting to know more about leadership competencies.

I plan to explore this some more in the next few blogs.

How Many Leadership Competencies Are Reasonable?

I did not plan to write this but I noticed this on the same website as the prior posting about the number of leadership competencies ---

Pick out the key competencies that would really make the biggest difference in the success of your business. Go back to your interview notes and highlight the phases that you heard over and over. Use that same language (for buy-in), but cross-reference the phrase to ensure they are part of at least two research-based models. 8-12 competencies is probably a good number, if only for focus. (a good test one year later is to ask managers if they can name them all). (from Great Leadership - http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2008/09/how-to-develop-leadership-competency.html)

What is my point?

My single biggest problem with practically all competency models is that there are too competencies!

One very well known competency model lists 68 while a large international firm well known for its leadership development lists 128! This is too many. Too many to track, too many to bring into focus, too many for day-to-day line managers to relate to. (Perhaps this attached picture gets the concern across better -- scroll way down for the summary)

While it may sound self-serving, this is why Dr. Andy Garman and I wrote our book with Health Administration Press. Our research showed that sixteen competencies stood out as being the truly critical ones. I have discussed these in prior posts so I will not repeat.

Consider - how many do you feel are ample?

Competencies and Interviews

As most readers know, I am mostly interested in how competencies impact selection. As a recruiter with Witt / Kieffer, I am constantly assessing leadership competencies. While I am very much a behavioral interviewer, I am also always considering all answers as they relate to competencies.

I found the following quote useful -

A leadership competency model should serve as the foundation for any organization’s leadership development system. An effective model allows an organization to clearly define what leadership competencies are required in order for an organization to be successful, both now and in the future. Leadership development systems (selection, assessment, development, performance management, succession planning) can then be aligned to support the development of these competencies.

(see Great Leadership - http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2008/09/how-to-develop-leadership-competency.html)

Consider how you use competencies in your selection interviews.

If your interviews do not include targeted questions designed to assess leadership competencies, they are are not as effective as they could be.

Working on Leadership Competencies

Happy New year to all -- we are back to the issue of competencies - which I think most readers will recall is my answer to the mystery of leadership.

What is it that a leader does?

What are the leader behaviors that are important?

And, how can leadership be developed?

Andy Garman and I wrote about competencies and how difficult they were to learn. I get concerned these days that many think that a few leadership workshops will help someone turn into a great leader. Not so.

As we wrote about competencies in Exceptional Leadership: 16 Critical Competencies for Healthcare Leaders (Health Administration press, 2006),competencies are not skills that can easily be learned --

As deeper-level constructs, competencies are not something you can learn from a day-long training workshop or even a class.  They are more accurately described as improving slowly over time – as a result of mindful practice, feedback, and more practice.