Tag Archives: leadership measurement

Leadership

Measuring Leadership Effectiveness

It’s easy to get caught up in leadership skills and development. Plus, when things are going well, it’s even easier to ignore any measurements that tell you how effective the leadership really is in your organization. There are numerous ways to measure effectiveness, but all of these analytics occur in four broad categories. Let’s examine each category of leadership measurement.

The first category of leadership measurement is in the subjective realm. When subjective measurements are mentioned, people have the tendency to dismiss them. But can the subjective measurements of your organization tell you how effective the leadership is? Absolutely. First, and in general, you must take an honest look at the overall morale of the organization. Is it deflating or non-existent? Or is morale high, even in the face of new challenges and obstacles? Low morale is a good indicator that leadership is not effective. What about participation and attendance? For example, if you begin to offer “town hall” style meetings or “brown bag” lunch sessions, are you hard pressed to find anyone who is interested? If you have to beg people to communicate or improve, that’s another subjective measurement of leadership. Is innovation a part of every day life at your organization? What about continuous process improvement? Do people feel comfortable speaking out when they see inefficiency better ways to do things? If not, this is a definite sign that leadership needs to step up.

From the subjective, you can move into numbers-based metrics. Often, the numbers of the organization can tell you if leadership is effective. For example, what does productivity look like now as opposed to last year? Is a temporary “dip” occurring, or is the trend headed down? Other areas of measurement for leaders can be efficiency and mistakes. Are employees making fewer or more mistakes now? Are the errors being corrected in a timely manner, or are they being left to languish? How are sales? Are numbers up or steady, even when times are bad? Take a close look at your customer service, both internally and externally. Are there numerous complaints making it to your level, or are they being resolved at lower levels? You can look at the metrics that are used to determine the health of the organization and make a link back to leadership, especially on those metrics that are not linked to pay or bonuses. Remember that poor organizational performance can be related to many issues, such as market forces, poor positioning, or just bad economics. But also keep in mind that by taking a serious look at these metrics, you can adjust leadership accordingly.

Another method of measuring leadership effectiveness is the implementation of a leadership index. An index is a targeted measurement tool that associates complete regarding their managers or leaders. Essentially, it’s an evaluation of the leader using the skills, behaviors, and attitudes that are found to be appropriate for the organization. In simple terms, you may see questions such as, the person “treats me with respect” and “helps me work on continuous improvement”. The evaluator is asked to give anonymous, confidential answers about the leader. The leader gets to see his or her results and can work on a development plan from those results. There are numerous systems that can create the leadership index for the organization, or you can do it on your own. The main thing to remember is that using generic leadership behaviors, skills, and attitudes will not give you the best picture of effectiveness. The organization must determine what skills and behaviors are most appropriate to its leaders.

One of the final methods of measuring leadership effectiveness is related to the leadership index. You can also measure leadership potential. Using a similar index, the organization can measure how leaders are being groomed and encouraged at lower levels. A large number of potential leaders tells you that leadership is effective at the organization – and that it is catching on at all levels. The fact that a leadership pool is developing on its own tells you that your leaders are indeed leading effectively.

These are broad-based areas of measuring leadership effectiveness. Take the time to look at your organization, its size, and its leadership requirements in order to determine what measurements are appropriate.

Copyright 2009 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved.

Bryant Nielson – Learning & Development Expert – assists executives, business owners, and top performing sales executives in taking the leap from the ordinary to extraordinary. Bryant is a trainer, business & leadership coach, and strategic planner for many sales organizations. Bryant’s 27 year business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering.

Subscribe to his blog at: [http://www.BryantNielson.com]

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Bryant_Nielson/142446

 

Leadership

Can Leadership be Measured?

Leadership matters. Any one person may have an effect on the behavior of others at any time. The nature and intent of that effect determines the influence, direction and outcome of leadership. Organizations depend on leadership for direction, momentum and a plan for sustainable success. How do we recognize leadership exists? How do we develop leadership? How can leadership be measured? These are questions this article seeks to explore.

How do we recognize leadership or know that it exists? Generally, leadership is defined by characteristics and results. Yet formal leadership development nearly always focuses exclusively on characteristics, relying on hope that results will ensue. Unfortunately, leadership is seldom really measured beyond an intuitive or anecdotal approach.

For example, a person in a leadership role is deemed “successful.” We want to replicate the leader’s success, so we try to replicate the characteristics, skills, values, competencies, actions and behaviors of the leader. We edify and attempt to emulate these qualities in others, but we seldom get the same results. Corporate America is full of “competency-based” leadership development programs, what one might call the “injection-mold” approach. Competency-based leadership development has an effect on organizational culture, no doubt, but not always the desired effect. Leaders who somehow “measure up” to the desired competencies do not always produce desired results.

Ultimately, producing results is the reason we study leadership, the reason we seek to develop leaders, the very reason we need leaders. So it stands to reason that leadership also has been measured based on the results produced, regardless of how those results were achieved. We need look no further than Richard Nixon or Kenneth Lay to recognize the down side of such one-dimensional measures.

The leader’s role is to establish the conditions (the culture, the environment) under which others can take right action to achieve desired results. “Desired results” are best defined by the vision, mission, values and goals of the team or organization. Therefore, leadership is best measured by the how well followers execute the vision, mission and goals while “living out” the desired values. This leads us to a new premise: that leadership should be measured by the results produced and how they are produced, as so often stated. However, there is a critical third element, that is, by whom are the results produced. If it is the leader that produces the desired results, then this should rightfully be attributed to individual action without any contributing effect from the behavior of others.

There is an obvious link between communication and leadership — the basic reason for communication and for leadership is to prompt some form of behavioral response or action. Leaders must communicate by speaking, listening, reading, writing and action. Leaders produce results and as other authors have stated, “Leaders get results through people.” Follower behavior, not leader behavior, defines leadership. This might lead one to argue, wrongly, that there is little difference between leadership and coercion. Coercion, or creating an environment using fear or incentives as motivational tools, may work temporarily yet is seldom sustainable. Performance declines, conflict ensues or people leave.

Ultimately, the brand of leadership we seek in contemporary life is best defined, developed and measured based on whether intended results are achieved, how they are achieved, the value of these results to others, and whether followers take discretionary action to achieve the leader’s vision, mission and goals. Leadership depends on the achievements of followers. Leadership development must be tied to intended results of those who are lead more than competency sets of those who lead. Evidence of effective leadership can be found in the daily attitudes and habits of followers. Ultimately, leadership can be measured by the achievement of discretionary goals by followers.

Mark A. Sturgell, CBC, is a Certified Business Coach and president of Performance Development Network. Mark helps build the capacity of individuals, teams and organizations ranging from small non-profits to global 100 corporations by helping them achieve the measurable results they really want. Mark helps individuals discover their own potential and achieve more. He helps organizations develop cultures where continuous learning and improvement, higher levels of achievement, standards of excellence and exceeding customer expectations prevail…because organizations don’t fail, people do.

Visit http://www.pdncoach.com to learn more about how Mark can help you. Typical clients include growth-oriented individuals, domestic and global businesses (or business units), non-profits and government agencies. Services vary depend on customer needs, but generally involve customized solutions, goal achievement and problem-solving strategies that improve management, team, individual or organizational performance.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Mark_Sturgell/97023