|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Building Relevant Leadership
The executive team of a large US-based software company was confused and concerned about the next-level-down department leaders and their performance in the organization. The performance of each department varied significantly, with some leaders realizing exceptional financial results, and other leaders performing poorly in the same financial categories. The executive team believed that the key to greater financial performance was to develop the “right” kind of leadership. However, in looking at the behaviors and approach of the leaders who were performing well, and those who were not performing well, there appeared to be no connection between a specific set of leader attributes, style or capabilities, and bottom-line performance.
This left the executive team with the question – if there is not one “right” leadership style in our organization, how can we support and build leadership, and by connection, our financial results?
With the realization that there is not one “right” style of leadership in all roles, and for all occasions, in their organization, the executive team needed a tool that could provide relevant feedback for each leader given his/her specific role and unique challenges in that role. Fortunately the CEO learned about the Context-Based 360 assessment (c360). Like all 360 assessments, the c360 is a tool that gathers perceptive feedback from a leader’s manager, peers, direct reports and other selection groups. However, the c360 also gauges how effective, or appropriate, a leader’s style and behaviors are given the situation in which he/she is leading. The c360 is based upon the understanding that there is no one “right” way to lead, but there is a “right” way to lead given the issues or challenges of a role and department. The c360 measures how effective a leader’s style and behaviors are given the situation they are leading in.
The c360 was administered amongst all department heads. And as expected, the type of leadership amongst this group varied widely within the high performing and lower performing department heads. However, there was a clear correlation between the match of a leader’s style and their financial performance. In other words, when there was little gap between the leader’s style and behaviors, and what the person’s respondents (direct reports, peers and boss) needed from the leader, there was higher financial performance. When there was a significant gap between the leader’s style and behaviors and what the person’s respondents needed from the leader, it correlated with lower financial performance. With the c360 results, each leader received targeted and relevant feedback based upon the leadership challenges unique to their current environment. The 360 provided a mechanism for the executive team to assess and build the “right” leaders for every leadership challenge and situation.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
