Effective Leadership Takes Talent. Consider These Research Findings

It doesn’t take a brainiac to know that effective leadership requires talent. A fair question is, what specific talents make the most difference?

Barry Conchie and Sarah Dalton offer a thoughtful contribution to the discussion in their book The Five Talents That Really Matter.

Conchie is an expert in leadership research and development, and succession planning. Previously a senior scientist in the Gallup organization, he’s now president of Conchie Associates, a consulting company focused on psychometric talent assessments and executive coaching. Dalton, a partner at Conchie Associates, works with leaders and managers to better understand the attitudes and behaviors that drive performance.

Their book features the results of meticulous research, assessment, and testing of more than 58,000 executive leaders in a wide range of industries. According to their research, the five evidence-based talent dimensions of high-performing leaders are:

• Setting Direction – guiding the organization through complex situations in ways that promote motivation and engagement
• Harnessing Energy – driven by a strong work ethic, giving employees appropriate attention and support
• Exerting Pressure – asserting a clear point of view and persuasively driving change and improvement
• Increasing Connectivity – prioritizing people, establishing effective followership
• Controlling Traffic – driving superior performance by establishing protocols and guardrails while showing agility and flexibility

You might be wondering, as they assessed tens of thousands of executives, when did the predictors of success begin to emerge?

“The predictions happen in two phases,” Conchie says. “First, the initial research validation established that The Five Talents predicted successful leadership 8 times out of 10, and weak leadership 9 times out of 10, from our synthetic testing of about 5,000 leaders. Second, as our database has grown, we have carried out multiple validations that have strengthened these findings.

Dalton describes some of the most interesting findings in their leadership research.

• “Not everyone can be a top-level leader of a company or organization. People have their limitations, and companies need to be more objective about this and stop putting people into positions that set them up for failure.
• “The strengths of male and female leaders who take the assessment are virtually identical. However, for female applicants to be appointed to executive level roles, they need to score significantly higher than their male counterparts. Standards for female leaders seem to be much higher than they are for male leaders.
• The perspective of leaders about their hiring practices don’t match reality. When leaders are asked whether they select team members who exhibit similar traits, characteristics and dispositions to themselves, they say No. When we assess team members, we find this is demonstrably not the case. similarly, when asked whether leaders select team members who have stronger leadership capability than themselves, they answer Yes. Again, this is demonstrably not the case. It is rare to find a single team member who is rated as stronger than their leader, and extremely rare to find two.”

Some people say leaders are made, while others argue that leaders are born. What does the research by Conchie and Dalton reveal about that false dichotomies?

“Talents are more innate and less capable of being changed or developed,” Conchie says. “There are broader observations that support the innate nature of talents. Billions of dollars have been spent over the last 30 years on management and leadership development, yet employee engagement data (arguably one of the most reliable indicators of management and effectiveness leadership) has barely moved. If leaders are made, it should be trivially easy to positively impact engagement data.”

It’s not uncommon for C-suite executives to flame out in their leadership roles. What are some of the early warning signs of failure?

“The main predictor of C-suite executives flaming out is revealed through our assessment work,” Dalton says. “Appointing candidates (whether external or internal) to executive level positions who have weak assessment scores, nearly always ends badly.

More broadly, despite the use of 360 tools and other evaluative processes, too many leaders lack clarity regarding their talents and deficiencies. This has complex causes such as poor feedback and even poorer performance accountability. Without high levels of self-awareness, it is difficult for leaders to lead effectively.”

Dalton says that in direct line-management, relationships (specifically likeability) trump performance accountability. “A popular and relatively sophisticated executive is nearly always going to receive more positive reviews and be seen as a stronger candidate for promotion. The leaders who flame out and fail are generally very nice people.”

How can organizations confidently identify high-potential people and develop their leadership skills?

Conchie says performance and experience should be regarded as basic qualifiers, rather than strong predictors. “Without them, you will be unlikely to get noticed, but a strong track record doesn’t add any value to a prediction of future success,” he says. “Every so-called ‘high potential’ population we have assessed shows results that conform to a normal distribution. This should not be the case. We recommend an assessment protocol that extends 3-4 levels below the CEO to achieve two things. 1. To confirm or challenge perspectives on current ‘high potentials,’ and 2. to uncover potentially outstanding leaders who might be held back by a weaker manager or leader above them. Without this data, CEO’s and executive leaders are relying on subjective and inaccurate feelings about lower-level leaders.”

Conchie says assessment results point to the areas of strength where development investment shows greater growth potential, as well as weaker areas that require careful management and partnership.

There’s no doubt that some female and minority leaders are held back and/or mismanaged. At the same time, many business people are concluding that the DEI bandwagon is merely prejudiced under a new name. What seem to be the keys to managing a DEI program in a way that is widely viewed as fair?

“If we continue at the current rate, we won’t achieve sex parity at the executive leadership level until about 2140,” Dalton says. “Furthermore, the trend of focusing DEI initiatives in two areas (appointing DEI officers and investing in DEI and bias training) have been shown not to work, and in the case of bias training, seem to harden people’s attitudes and make the situation worse. “

Dalton says organizations are as diverse as their hiring managers allow. “The greatest efforts to improve minority representation should be focused more on selection. Given that we find no difference in leadership capability between men and women, or minority race groups, those appointed should at least be proportionate to those interviewed. If this isn’t the case (and it clearly isn’t), then credible assessments like ours should be used to challenge the preferences of hiring managers.

What seem to be the best ways for people to honestly and confidently assess their own potential for leadership roles?

“Individuals should be encouraged to ask a completely different question,” Conchie says. “’To what kind of roles are my talents and deficiencies the best fit?’ Too many people desire to be leaders to earn more money or achieve higher prestige. There is little value in trying to figure out a person’s ideal future if they aren’t open to a negative answer.”

What can organizations do to improve their hiring effectiveness?

Conchie and Dalton say there are three related things that all organizations can implement in short order:

1. Define minimum requirements for educational attainment, critical career experiences, and level of functional or technical expertise. These aren’t helpful in predicting future success and you could be screening out highly capable candidates.

2. Be careful not to narrow your slate of candidates too quickly. You are more likely to rationalize serious shortcomings in a candidate if there is pressure on the decision and you have only one option.

3. Interview candidates in a single panel consisting of three people. These people should determine selection criteria and questions in advance, and one person should ask those questions while the other two listen and score candidate responses. Aggregate scores for candidates should be compared to determine which to move forward in your process.