Leadership Success | a CMPI Research Paper

1

Table of Contents Research Background ............................................................................................................................. 3 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Results..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Results by Gender ............................................................................................................................... 8 Rater Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Results by Demographics .................................................................................................................. 10 Implications for Practice ...................................................................................................................... 12 Caveats.................................................................................................................................................. 13 References ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Appendix............................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A Significant effects of rater-gender, leader-gender and interactions............................. 16 Appendix B Result by Generation .................................................................................................... 18 Appendix C Results by Industry......................................................................................................... 19 Appendix D Results by Job Level ....................................................................................................... 20 Appendix E Results by Education ...................................................................................................... 21

2

Research Background “Of all the things I’ve done, the most vital is coordinating those who work with me and aiming their efforts at a certain goal.�

Walt Disney, founder of Disney What distinguishes good leadership from great leadership? This is a question that has been strongly debated through modern times. Strong leadership in organisations is vital to remain financially competitive, maximise the employee experience, and to achieve organisational goals.

In an increasingly VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) world, the need for leaders who are able to create a shared vision, foster collaborative relationships and demonstrate authentic, individualised consideration for their employees has never been greater.

While bad leadership can be more readily observed and identified, less is known about the specific success factors that employees look for in their very best leaders, such as gender, personal presentation, and acting with integrity. Gaining an understanding of such leadership success factors has implications for organisational development in areas such as recruitment and selection, leadership development, and of notable importance for diversity and inclusion efforts.

The current CMPI research extends the leadership success paradigm by focussing on the specific factors which are attributed to successful leadership, and whether these success factors are genderspecific or gender-neutral.

3

Key Findings Culture & Engagement, Vision & Future Focus and Relationship Building are pivotal to employee perceptions of leadership success.

Our research found that a leader’s willingness and capacity to drive and shape culture is paramount to their perceived success and effectiveness. This was by far the most frequently reported leadership success factor. Vision & Future Focus and Relationship Building were the other two most frequently reported success factors. It is interesting to note that what may have once been described as ‘soft’ or ‘fluffy’ skills have emerged as the most important success factors for leadership success.

Different leadership strokes for different folks.

This research highlights the importance of taking into consideration the differing needs and perspectives of a diverse workforce. Perhaps not surprisingly, when it comes to perceptions of leadership success, our research found one size does not fit all.

For example, the younger the worker, the more important it was for their leader to place importance on their personal presentation to be perceived as successful. The older the worker, the more important it was for their leader to focus on the company’s financial success to be perceived as successful.

Culture and staff engagement was reported as the top success factor amongst all generations. While acting with integrity was reported as the second most important success factor for Baby Boomers and Gen X, it did not even appear in the top three success factors for Gen Y and Gen Z (millennials).

Instead, millennials reported a stronger preference for their leaders to display strong relationship building skills.

Senior leaders reported the highest preference for leaders being financially savvy, while job stability was the most important leadership success factor for participants with no jobs, apprentice jobs, and skilled operator/trade jobs.

4

Key Findings Gender matters, but not in the way you might think.

Our research found that there was essentially no gender difference between how successful participants perceived their leaders to be (in fact, female leaders came out as slightly more effective than male leaders).

This finding is supported by a recent meta-analysis that quantitatively summarised gender differences in perceptions of leadership effectiveness (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker & Woehr, 2014). In this research, scholars found that men and women did not significantly differ in perceived effectiveness.

Similar to our research, when follower-ratings were examined in isolation, women were rated as significantly more effective than men.

While the proportion of women entering the workforce with the intention of having senior professional careers has markedly increased over the past decade most senior leadership positions are still held by men. In fact, 75% of Australian CEO’s and board members are Caucasian, able-bodied men aged between 40-69 (Liddy & Hanrahan, 2017).

Despite the relatively recent gender inclusion and diversity evolution, it is clear that women are still experiencing difficulty climbing the corporate ladder and securing senior leadership positions. While the findings of this research support the concept of a gender-neutral model of leadership effectiveness, more work needs to be done to bridge the gender gap that currently exists in senior leadership roles.

5

Methodology

Participants & Methods The current research was advertised as an optional questionnaire on Assessment Gateway from November 2016 to March 2018 for individuals undergoing psychometric assessment for selection purposes. In total, 6267 individuals participated in the study, including 2637 men, 2009 women, and 1617 participants who did not identify their gender.

Demographic information including gender, age, ethnicity, job level, and education level were gathered at the beginning of testing. The survey consisted of three questions as shown in the table below. SPSS was used for all statistical analyses.

Men

Women

Other/Missing

26% 42%

32%

Survey Questions •

How successful was your most recent leader? o Six-point Likert scale from (1) Strongly disagree to (6) Strongly agree

•

What are the three most important factors for their success? o 9 options: (1) The company’s financial results, (2) Job stability, (3) Culture and staff engagement, (4) Personal presentation, (5) Customer focus, (6) Vision and future focus, (7) Courage, (8) Integrity, (9) Relationship building

•

What gender was your most recent leader? o Male, Female, or other

6

Results

Frequency of factors reported in the top 3 for leadership success Culture and Staff Engagement Vision and Future Focus Relationship Building Integrity Customer Focus Financial Results Job Stability Personal Presentation Courage 0

10

20

30

40

Frequency (%)

Overall, the three most important leadership success factors were • • •

Culture and staff engagement Vision and future focus Relationship building

7

50

60

70

Results by Gender Upon analysing the data by leader-gender, the three most important male success factors mirrored the overall result. However, for female leaders, (1) culture and staff engagement was most important, followed by (2) relationship building, then (3) vision and future focus. The reversal of factors 2 and 3 may reflect the proclivity for women to adopt a transformational style, as opposed to men, who typically adopt a more transactional leadership approach. That is, women may drive teams through motivation rather than rewards and hierarchical leadership.

In relation to success ratings, results suggest that followers perceived female leaders to be significantly more successful than male leaders. The magnitude of this significant difference however, is very small (d = .07).

Frequency of factors reported in the top 3 for leadership success 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Overall

Male Leaders

8

Female Leaders

Rater effects There was no significant effect of rater-gender on success ratings. This suggests that male and female raters were not biased towards attributing greater success to leaders of their own gender. However, gender differences in success factor importance and leader-gender factor preferences do exist.

Significant findings are summarised below.

Regardless of rater-gender, company’s financial success was attributed significantly more to the success of male, rather than female leaders. In contrast, customer focus was attributed significantly more to the success of female, rather than male leaders.

Regardless of leader-gender, significantly more women selected customer focus and vision and future focus as their top success factors in leaders.

With regards to the interaction between ratergender and leader-gender, results indicated that at least for some success factors, male raters are more biased or gendered in their attribution of factors for leadership success than female raters. More specifically, for job stability, culture and staff engagement, and personal presentation, men indicated significantly different frequencies of attributions of these factors for male versus female leaders. In contrast, women attributed these success factors to male and female leaders at the same frequency.

A detailed description of the significant effects of rater-gender, leader-gender and the interaction between the two are provided in Appendix A.

9

Results by demographics Analysing the results by demographic variables sheds light onto the specific leadership factor preferences of different demographic factors. The section below highlights some interesting results based on participant age group. Significant findings based on industry, job level, education level, and ethnicity can also be found in the following page.

Results by age group As seen in the graph below, regardless of age group, culture and staff engagement remains the highest leadership success factor. Personal presentation was more important for younger workers, whereas company’s financial success was more important for older workers.

The results talk to a potential values shift between younger and older workers. Gen Z does not attribute success to leader behaviours focussed on money and doing things ‘by the books’ as much as older workers, and are more inclined to perceive their leaders as being successful if they act with bravery and have a customer focus. The results imply that new-age workers are seeking connection and community within their jobs, rather than viewing work as purely transactional process.

70 60 50

Frequency (%)

40 30 20 10 0 The Job Stability Culture and Personal Customer staff presentation Focus company’s engagement financial success Gen Z

Gen Y

Gen X

10

Vision and future focus

Baby Boomers

Courage

Integrity

Relationship Building

Results by demographics Industry

Education

•

•

•

•

•

Culture and staff engagement was ranked highest for 21 out of 28 industries.

Vision and future focus was ranked highest in (1) Marketing, (2) Manufacturing, Electrical & Mechanical, and (3) Agriculture, Horticulture & Environmental Services.

Relationship building was ranked highest in (1) Building & Construction, (2) Legal, and (3) the Recreation Industry.

Integrity was ranked highest in Armed Services, and Armed Services also had the highest follower-perception that Courage was important for leadership success.

•

•

•

Job Level •

•

•

•

Culture and staff engagement was the highest for all job levels except for senior executives, where Vision and future focus was the highest success factor.

Relationship building was the second most important for participants up to the professional level, which then changes to Vision and future focus for middle managers to senior managers.

Having a leader that makes workers feel stable in their jobs was most important for participants with no jobs, apprentice jobs, and skilled operator/trades jobs.

Senior executives had the highest preference for leaders being financially savvy, which may relate to their KPI’s and bonus schemes dependant on the company’s financial performance.

Culture and staff engagement was the highest success factor for Cert 1-2 to doctoral degree participants, and equal first with Vision and future focus for Year 10 educated participants.

Relationship building was the highest success factor for those having completed up to Year 9.

Year 9 educated and doctoral degree participants rated Customer focus as the least. This may be reflective of Year 9 education participants having jobs that are not client facing, and doctoral degree participants having research-based positions.

Doctoral degree participants also rated the Company’s financial performance the lowest and Courage as the highest out of all education levels.

This may be reflective of acedamia where the purpose of research is not to make money, but to be brave and to take risks to explore and discover the unknown.

Ethnicity •

11

Non-aboriginal Australians ranked Culture and staff engagement first, Relationship building second, and integrity third for their leadership success factors. Aboriginal Australians ranked Culture and staff engagement first, Vision and future focus second, and relationship building third.

Implications for Practice Gender neutral ‘model’ of leadership success Overall, the results suggest a relatively gender-neutral ‘model’ of leadership success. Regardless of demographic characteristics, successful leadership is largely encompassed by leaders instilling a positive culture and engaging their staff, building strong relationships with their workers, and having a communicated and valid strategic direction and vision for their organisations.

Culture and engagement Culture and staff engagement has emerged as the most important leadership success factor. While vision and future focus can be seen as a fundamental for leadership success, it is a leader’s ability to effectively drive and shape culture that can make or break an organisation and align a workforce with the specific vision and strategy. Related to this, a leader’s capacity to demonstrate strong relationship building skills has also emerged as a key factor to leadership success. More and more leaders are called upon to demonstrate strong levels of emotional intelligence in their interactions. What were once perceived as ‘soft’ skills are becoming increasingly critical to organisation and leadership success. Leaders who can demonstrate these skills and who are seen to drive culture and engagement initiatives will likely be perceived as more successful and effective by their workforce.

Recruitment and selection Identifying leaders at the selection and recruitment stage who have a track record of and a demonstrated capability to foster effective relationships, develop and articulate their vision and drive culture and engagement will likely ensure the leader is able to more effectively hit the ground running and engage an existing workforce.

Incorporating specific questions at interview, assessing capability via psychometric testing and asking targeted reference checking questions in these areas are relatively easy and cost-effective ways to ensure organisations are adequately addressing these success factors prior to making any important selection decisions.

12

Coaching leaders for success Coaching should be utilised to help leaders build upon their communication and interpersonal skills.

Specifically, a focus on emotional intelligence skill building will greatly enhance a leader’s capacity to shape a more collaborative organisational culture and to foster more proactive, effective working relationships.

Coaching sessions are most effective when they align to the personal circumstances of the leader, building upon the success factors related to their personal characteristics and situation.

It should be noted though that for leaders to consider and evaluate their approach, they firstly need to have some level of self-awareness and desire for personal and professional development. They need to be receptive to dissecting their leadership approach in an objective and open manner. If these two elements are absent or the leadership coaching is not perceived as valuable, then the overall initiative is likely to fail. One of the most effective and well-established ways to increase self-awareness is to incorporate 360 degree evaluations into leadership coaching programs. This provides direct access into the team perceptions specific to the leader’s context, and provides a positive framework for facilitating the coaching discussion.

Beyond developmental coaching, simply communicating that employees rate females more favourably could have positive effects, as research in this area suggests that females tend to rate themselves as less effective (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker & Woehr, 2014). This may help to shift the frame of reference and internal perceptions of performance to further develop confidence and capability in female leaders.

Merit-based selection practices The current research provides further support for implementing merit-based selection practices to aid diversity and inclusion efforts. In reality men and women were rated relatively equally in leadership success, which suggests that selection practices need to be strictly merit based to avoid implicit and explicit gender biases. One example is to include at least two women in candidate pools. When there is only one female in a candidate pool she is seen to deviate too far from the gender ‘norm’ and may be perceived as a risky choice, but as soon as two women are in a candidate pool the status quo is changed and women have a greater chance for selection (Johnson, Hekman & Chan, 2016).

Caveats While a number of interesting findings have been outlined from our research, it is important to note that a number of caveats need to be considered in the interpretation of the results. These include the following: •

•

•

•

The need to interpret statistically significant differences with caution due to the large sample size. While we have focused on the differences with the largest effect size, a degree of caution nevertheless needs to be applied when reviewing these findings.

The primary purpose of this research was to gain a ‘pulse-check’ of follower perceptions of leadership. The research questions were intentionally simple and did not specify or outline the specific nature of the factors that were presented. As such, the terminology used could have been misinterpreted by participants, e.g. what is encompassed within personal presentation, and is relationship building referring purely to internal relationships? Future research will focus on more clearly outlining the specific nature of each of these factors.

Participants were asked to attribute their leaders’ success to three main factors, however the leader rating may have been influenced by other variables that were not included in the nine options (e.g. leadership style).

The prevalence of factors cannot be interpreted as rankings after the top three. Future research could ask participants to rank order all nine factors for an interpretable leadership factor model, thereby producing more robust results.

References & Resources Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and empowerment. Women in Management Review, 10(2), 3-8. doi:10.1108/09649429510146901 Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2013). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition. West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Bruckmüller, S., Ryan, M. K., Rink, F., & Haslam, S. A. (2014). Beyond the glass ceiling: The glass cliff and its lessons for organizational policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 202-232. doi:10.1111/sipr.12006 Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177-193. doi:10.1108/09534810410530601 Dutton, J. E., Debebe, G., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2014). Being valued and devalued at work: A social valuing perspective. In press Dutton, J.E., Frost, P.J., Worline, M.C., Lilius, J.M., & Kanov, J.M. (2015). Leading in times of trauma. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 54-61.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573 Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 530-546. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.011 Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00324 Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict and women's promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 939-957. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.44633700 Hoyt, C. L., & Burnette, J. L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: Merging implicit theories and role congruity perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1306-1319. doi:10.1177/0146167213493643 Johnson, S. K., Hekman, D. R., & Chan, E. T. (2016). If there’s only one woman in your candidate pool, there’s statistically no chance she’ll be hired. Retrieved on the

14

03/04/18 from www.hbr.org/2016/04/if-theres-only-one-woman-in-your-candidatepool-theres-statistically-no-chance-shell-be-hired Liddy, M., & Hanrahan, C. (2017). Fewer women run top Australian companies than men named John – or Peter, or David. Retrieved on 25/03/18 from www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-08/fewer-women-ceos-than-men-named-john /8327938 Lilius, J.M., Worline, M.C., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Frost, P.J. (2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29(2), 193–218. doi:10.1002/job.508 Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6 Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1129-1145. doi:10.1037/a0036751 Rice, R. W., Instone, D., & Adams, J. (1984). Leader sex, leader success, and leadership process: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 12-31. doi:10.1037/0021 -9010.69.1.12 Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221. doi:10.1037/a0018204 Ryan, M., & Haslam, S. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81-90. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x Stum, D. L. (2001). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid. Strategy & Leadership, 29(4), 4-9. doi:10.1108/10878570110400053 The Guardian. (2008). They don’t live to work…they work to live. Retrieved on 10/04/18 from www.theguardian.com/money/2008/may/25/workandcareers.worklifebalance Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behaviour. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 46(1), 55-123. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12394281-4.00002-7

15

Appendix A Significant effects of rater-gender, leader-gender, and interactions for each success factor.

Success factor

Significant trends

Sig (p)

The company’s

The company’s financial success is attributed significantly more to success of male leaders than

.013

financial success

female leaders regardless of rater-gender.

Job stability

There was a significant interaction such that male raters rated job stability as significantly more

Interaction .048,

important for male leaders than female leaders. There were no significant differences in

simple slope for male

leadership ratings (male vs female) for female raters.

raters = .001

Culture and staff

There was a significant interaction between rater-gender and leader-gender for culture and staff

Interaction = .013,

engagement

engagement, where male raters attributed culture and staff engagement significantly more to the

simple slope for male

success of female leaders than male leaders. There were no significant differences in leadership

raters < .001

ratings for female raters Personal presentation

There was a significant interaction between rater-gender and leader-gender for personal

Interaction = .005,

presentation, where male raters attributed personal presentation significantly more to the success

simple slope for male

of male leaders than female leaders. There were no significant differences for female raters.

raters = .019, or

However, in this instance, it might be more appropriate to interpret it in terms of leader gender.

simple slope for male

That is, there was a significant and clear difference between male and female raters in terms of

leaders < .001

the frequency which they suggested Personal presentation was an important success factor for male leaders, but there was no significant differences in rater judgements for female leaders.

16

Customer focus

Customer focus is attributed significantly more to success of female leaders than male leaders

.005

regardless of rater-gender.

Customer focus is a more important success factor for female raters than male raters regardless of

.003

leader-gender.

Vision and future

Vision and future focus is a more important success factor for female raters than male raters

focus

regardless of leader-gender.

Courage

No significant effects.

N/A

Integrity

No significant effects.

N/A

Relationship building

No significant effects.

N/A

17

< .001

Appendix B Results by Generation Age

n

Gen Z (≤1996) Aged 17-22 Gen Y (1977-95) Aged 23-41 Gen X (1965-76) Aged 42-53 BB’s (146-64) Aged 54-72 (plus one participant aged 76)

300

The company’s financial success 13.67

Job Stability

Culture and Personal Customer staff presentation Focus engagement

Vision and future focus

Courage

Integrity

Relationship Building

19.33

53.67

20.67

45.33

47.33

11.00

36.67

51.33

2,985 15.44

14.57

63.28

12.93

32.43

49.82

9.01

47.40

51.56

1,060 18.30

13.77

60.75

12.55

28.87

50.09

9.25

53.21

48.77

336

16.96

61.01

12.20

35.71

46.73

5.65

50.30

49.70

19.96

Most frequent in top 3 Second most frequent in top 3 Third most frequent in top 3

18

Appendix C Results by Industry Industry

n

The companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s financial success

Job Stability

Culture and staff engagement

Personal presentation

Customer Focus

Vision and future focus

Courage

Integrity

Relationship Building

Marketing Mining Hospitality & Food Healthcare & Medical Building & Construction Education Banking & Finance Legal Sales Administration Information Technology Accounting Sales & Distribution Manufacturing, Electrical, & Mechanical Engineers Recreation Government & Policy Auxiliary Services Personnel & Human Resource Services Agriculture, Horticulture, & Environmental Services Welfare & Social Work Scientific Transport Law Enforcement Entertainment & Arts Media Tourism Armed Services

90 513 237 834 185 108 105 72 360 280 98 132 117 193

22.22 16.18 18.14 7.19 18.92 5.56 23.81 12.50 25.83 19.64 17.35 21.97 19.66 23.83

5.5 23 14.35 12.35 22.70 16.67 3.81 1.39 13.89 16.79 9.18 15.91 10.26 14.51

68.89 58.87 56.96 67.87 52.43 62.96 60.95 58.33 63.33 62.50 59.18 62.88 62.39 51.81

6.67 15.59 16.03 13.31 16.22 15.74 15.24 11.11 13.33 10.71 13.27 6.06 17.95 14.51

27.78 17.15 52.74 34.53 28.11 28.70 38.10 26.39 46.39 36.79 42.86 15.15 33.33 34.20

70.00 48.73 50.63 44.00 47.03 52.78 60.00 56.94 45.83 53.21 51.02 53.79 51.28 52.85

8.89 9.75 6.75 8.39 7.03 6.48 6.67 16.67 5.00 8.57 10.20 15.15 11.97 6.74

47.78 51.85 37.13 55.76 47.57 50.00 46.67 47.22 39.72 37.50 47.96 52.27 39.32 50.78

42.22 54.97 45.99 53.36 54.05 55.56 44.76 68.06 46.39 50.36 48.98 56.06 49.57 47.15

180 39 136 8 108

18.33 17.95 9.56 25.00 13.89

12.78 17.95 9.56 37.50 11.11

62.78 53.85 63.24 62.5 62.04

14.44 20.51 8.82 25.00 14.81

15.56 43.59 33.09 37.50 27.78

55.56 43.59 47.06 37.50 54.63

13.33 2.56 12.50 12.50 8.33

55.00 41.03 57.35 37.50 45.37

48.89 58.97 55.88 25.00 56.48

53

30.19

22.64

54.72

7.55

26.42

62.26

7.55

39.62

33.96

64 31 187 35 22 14 23 21

6.25 9.68 23.53 0 4.55 28.57 21.74 9.52

7.81 22.58 17.65 17.14 0 7.14 17.39 9.52

75.00 77.42 67.91 65.71 77.27 85.71 60.87 76.19

7.81 9.68 14.97 11.43 4.55 7.14 8.70 19.05

35.94 9.68 36.90 34.29 45.45 7.14 39.13 4.76

50.00 58.06 43.32 42.86 63.64 42.86 47.83 23.81

9.38 9.68 7.49 11.43 4.55 21.43 4.35 28.57

48.44 54.84 47.06 60.00 45.45 35.71 34.78 80.95

57.81 45.16 39.57 57.14 54.55 64.29 52.17 47.62

Most frequent in top 3 Second most frequent in top 3 Third most frequent in top 3

19

Appendix D Results by Job Level Job Level

n

No job Entry Level/Apprentice Skilled Operator/Trade Graduate/Junior Professional Professional Middle Manager Front Line Leader/Supervisor/Team Leader Senior Manager/Business Unit Leader Senior Professional/Specialist Senior Executive

34 567 964 372

The companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s financial success 2.94 12.17 15.15 12.10

Job Stability

Culture and Personal Customer staff presentation Focus engagement

Courage

Integrity

Relationship Building

47.06 43.74 29.67 31.72

Vision and future focus 41.18 46.21 46.47 51.88

20.59 16.75 21.68 13.44

55.88 61.90 58.71 60.75

17.65 16.05 14.94 13.71

17.65 7.76 7.88 8.87

47.06 38.80 48.96 48.39

50.00 55.03 52.90 52.42

1079 13.35 349 26.64 589 16.30

12.88 11.17 13.24

65.34 60.17 64.35

11.58 13.75 13.75

29.84 30.66 36.84

49.86 51.86 50.08

9.73 9.17 7.30

53.75 49.00 46.52

51.62 46.99 49.92

248

25.40

9.68

64.11

8.06

29.84

62.10

13.71

42.74

41.53

310

19.68

11.61

65.81

10.97

27.74

48.39

9.68

54.19

50.65

95

34.74

7.37

50.53

16.84

34.74

57.89

10.53

45.26

35.79

Most frequent in top 3 Second most frequent in top 3 Third most frequent in top 3

20

Appendix E Results by Education Education

n

Job Stability

Culture and staff engagement

Personal presentation

Customer Focus

Vision and future focus

Courage

Integrity

Relationship Building

34 357 127 775 728 593

The companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s financial success 11.76 17.93 18.1 19.74 15.66 15.85

Year 9 or prior Year 10 Cert 1-2 Cert 3-4 Year 12 Diploma/Advanced Diploma/Associate Degree Bachelor Degree Honours/Graduate Certificate/Graduate Diploma Masters Degree Doctoral Degree

50.00 23.81 17.32 17.55 17.45 13.83

50.00 51.26 65.35 62.97 58.24 62.73

32.35 16.25 7.09 14.58 17.31 12.14

14.71 35.57 40.94 34.32 37.36 34.91

50.00 51.26 52.76 46.58 48.08 50.42

2.94 8.68 6.30 6.84 9.07 8.60

26.47 42.86 48.03 45.81 43.41 49.75

52.94 46.50 43.31 50.45 51.10 50.42

1,327 299

13.64 15.38

11.08 9.03

65.49 66.56

11.30 10.03

30.60 24.08

52.22 47.16

9.34 10.37

51.70 59.53

52.07 50.84

386 16

18.39 6.25

11.14 12.50

62.18 62.50

12.44 6.25

28.50 12.50

48.45 56.25

12.69 31.25

47.15 56.25

54.92 56.25

Most frequent in top 3 Second most frequent in top 3 Third most frequent in top 3

21

How can we help?

Psychometric Assessment for Leadership Selection and Development Leadership Development Centres and Workshops Organisational Culture and Engagement Surveys and Development Emotionally Intelligent Leadership Workshops Leadership 360 Surveys and Coaching Executive Alignment Workshops

If you would like to discuss how we can support your organisation, please call us on:

1300 664 305