LEADERSHIP & THE INTEGRATED LEADERSHIP (Styles) MEASURE

A description from AQR, the developers and test house.

Background

The Stimulus – why we did it.

The impetus for the development of the Integrated Leadership Measure (ILM) lies in a discussion with the Institute of Leadership & Management. They had observed that there appeared to be many models of Leadership in popular use in the occupational world and that each appeared to have its merits.

However there was little work around which related these models to each other and there seemed to be a gap in that there was no reliable occupational psychometric measure for Leadership in general. Several inventories existed but these were often narrow in focus – albeit they could be very useful in many situations.

The Challenge – what did we seek to do

The challenge therefore was to develop a model or concept which maps to all of the current models of leadership which are commonly used by HR and Training professionals -most models do seem to overlap one another.

Then to create a psychometric measure which enables people in leadership positions to be assessed (or to self assess) to help to identify how they perform and behave as leaders in the work pace – and how their development might be guided to improve their effectiveness .

The Response – what did we do

AQR Ltd formed a team to, firstly, carry out a review and, then, implement a programme to respond to these twin objectives. The team included Dr Nollaig Heffernan who would carry out much of the analytical work under the expert guidance of Dr Peter Clough, Head of Psychology at Hull University. The 3 rd member was Doug Strycharczyk, MD for AQR Ltd .

The Programme – how did we set about doing it

The outline programme included:

• Examining all the popular leadership models to identify how they related and what was the nature of the linkages, and if a working hypothesis or model emerged to:
• Develop a questionnaire which would seek to validate the hypothesis or model and would form the basis of a commercial psychometric measure.
• Finally to complete the development of a product which is accessible to managers and HR professionals and valuable to them in their work.

Other Issues – what did we also have to take into account

Two major issues emerged:

• There is a plethora of Leadership Models in the Academic world and in the Occupational world. They very rarely cross from one domain to the other. The project was widened to embrace all models.
• There was a massive level of interest from employers and organisations – and a great deal of support in providing data for the study.

A Leadership Styles MODEL

An examination of every leading model in the academic and occupational spheres showed that here were linkages between all models to a greater or lesser extent. Moreover all the models seemed to have their roots in one or more (sometimes all) of 6 leadership styles.

A Reliable LEADERSHIP MEASURE – ILM72

An important and valuable by-product of the research is the development of a reliable psychometric instrument which measures Leadership style (through six elements) and Leadership effectiveness (through 3 global scales).

THE SPECIFIC SCALES – Describing Leadership Style

This suggests that all leaders adopt a preferred way of working – an adopted style which is based on a position on 6 bi-polar scales. There is no implication here that there is right or wrong style or profile. The position simply indicates what the adopted style might look like.

These are specific scales. Later, further analysis showed that a second order set of characteristics emerge which consist of 3 global scales.

Each person will have a position somewhere along a continuum on each scale which reflects their adopted style. Some will adopt positions towards the extremes and in those cases the preferred style is likely to be quite marked and fairly clear to those around them.

So, for instance, with the first scale some people will be very task orientated and others will be people orientated. Some will be at some point in between and will balance the two to one extent or another. That extent will contribute to determining their leadership style.

Fig. 1: Integrated Leadership Styles Measure – SPECIFIC Scales

A fuller description for each scale is show below.

Each individual brings their adopted style to the workplace. As each situation arises and changes, the challenge is to be effective -in each situation we may need to apply different combinations of skills & behaviours (competencies) to achieve this.

As situations change then it becomes a management development activity to work with managers to mediate their preferred style through training, coaching and development. Developing and understanding different approaches gives the manager more options.

This introduces another important consideration. It is often difficult to develop leadership style in isolation from the prevailing style adopted in the organisation.

THE SPECIFIC SCALES IN MORE DETAIL:

1. Task v. Person

This reflects and measures the extent which the individual is orientated towards meeting the needs of the task or is concerned with the needs of individuals. A well understood scale in examining leadership and features directly in many models.

2. Flexible v. Dogmatic (Rigid)

Someone at the Dogmatic or Rigid end of the scale would have a strong belief that they know how things should be done around here. At the extreme one might see “there is only one way to achieve something …. and its my way!”. At the other end of the scale a Flexible style is one where the individual is open to ideas and suggestions, and will be happy to take time to make the best decision.

3. De-Centralised v. Centralised

Someone who adopts a Centralised style is someone who prefers that everything goes through them They may have a strong need to control or they may have a less mature group to work with and there is greater need for strong guidance. Someone with a De-centralised style is happy to delegate to others and to work through others. Their ethos is one of empowerment.

4. Reward v. Punishment

Reward indicates that the leader is prepared to reward and recognise acceptable and high performance. This can be monetary or in the form of a tangible benefit or it could take the form of “warm strokes”.

Punishment means that the prevailing style is to accept good or high performance as the norm (“that’s what I pay the person for already”) and to punish in some way any shortcoming in performance.

5. The Means v. The End

A Leader whose style is focused on the End is someone for whom the result matters and little else does. Everything can be sacrificed for that goal. This does not necessarily mean that they are immoral or amoral – they are simply very focused.

Someone who is focused on the Means is someone who is concerned about how the goal is achieved and will adopt standards & values to ensure that it is done properly. They will also take into account the implications of what they do – and will typically tend to be visionary, concerned about environment and development capability in people and process.

6. Structured (Architect) v. Organic

The Organic style is one where leadership seems to come naturally in some way – these individual do not seem to force it and they are often described as natural leaders. In some instances this might be related to “charismatic” or having “style” but not always.

The Structured style is one where leadership is drawn from a text book, models or training. This is not a natural style, the leader following detailed plans & processes to achieve things through others.

THE GLOBAL SCALES

The analysis shows that the six specific scales are subsumed under three global scales. These Global factors have been derived from statistical analyses of the data gathered for the core study.

Examining items and concepts behind each factor suggest the following:

A . DETERMINATION TO DELIVER

This describes a single minded determination to achieve – in the short term and in the long term. Most satisfaction – yours and others – is derived from this.

• Commitment to deliver on target
• A willingness to discomfort people when necessary in order to hit the target
• A sense of own importance in the scheme of things
• Recognition that business is a competitive world with winners and losers.
• A preference for “telling and selling” to get things going quickly
• A believe in strong leadership – you are strong so everyone else has to be strong too.
• Predisposition for the view that people need to be cajoled into action
• Awareness of how far you can push people
• Unconcerned with own popularity – and not offended by a lack of popularity
• A concern with the long term as well as the short term – particularly in terms of succession planning

B. ENGAGEMENT WITH INDIVIDUALS -Individual Cohesion

This describes enhancing the capability, confidence and commitment of individuals to enable them to contribute to the organisation and to fulfil themselves

• The welfare of employees is important
• Concern with capability of employees
• A happy worker is a productive worker
• Formation of meaningful the view that attending to people releases that feeling that they will more readily work for the organisation and buy into its goals and values, etc
• An interest in the feelings of others –we want happy and satisfied employees
• A role of the leader is to create harmony and team spirit.
• Can be emotional intelligent but wont be driven by it – will be aware of the significance of feeling but will probably be logical and calculating about dealing with that.

C. ENGAGEMENT WITH TEAMS – Team Cohesion

This describes harnessing all the potential in an organisation so that problem solving and decision making can occur more efficiently and more effectively.

• Identify the different teams across the organisation
• Be fully aware of the range of cross functional teams at all levels in the organisation
• Respecting the abilities of others There is value in getting others points of view
• Encouraging others to use own initiative – decentralised approach
• There is value in sharing ideas & getting others points of view
• Being consultative
• Avoiding being dogmatic – prepared to be flexible and to delegate
• Maximising the use of the skills and capabilities within the work force
• This is not about being soft– nor is it concern for feelings. You don’t have to like each other, but you do have to listen to one another and work together.

*****************

Aeona is qualified with AQR to perform the ILM72 psychometric tool.

Contact Aeona for more information and case studies on how you can benefit from measuring mental toughness and leadership styles in your organisation or for yourself as an individual. You can choose the personal support of 1:1 coaching in person or by telephone, or spread the costs and share the inspiration with a group of between 6-10 people.

"People rarely succeed unless they have fun in what they are doing." Dale Carnegie

Release your potential, achieve more and make changes.
Contact Aeona today for a no obligation, confidential discussion.

Tel: 0845 6436 084
Mobile: 07738 290384
Email: info@aeona.co.uk

Evolution: (noun) A gradual development. An exercise carried out in accordance with a procedure or plan.
Evolution through Coaching: Improved performance and desired changes achieved using a strategy to adapt people's attitudes, behaviours and actions.

back to top

back to Coaching