Leadership Skills
Leader Evaluations: What Do They Really Tell Us?
By Dr. Theresa Muscarela
Mar 16, 2007 - 11:12:24 PM

In a recent research study of how leaders are evaluated, data of the findings held surprising and unexpected results.

The study
A reliable and valid testing device (Managerial Practices Survey, Yukl, 2001) contained fifteen leader behavioral values, based on sets of task, relations, and transformational behaviors. The survey, created by one of the U.S.’s most recognized leadership scholars, Dr. Gary Yukl, uses information gathered from some 3,000 top leaders as to leader behaviors that should be those demonstrated on the job, everyday, among employees.

The study used a criteria for participants of professionals at mid to upper level management, and of the 192 individuals in the survey evaluating leaders, 159 of that total were from Fortune 100 and 500 companies. In many instances, those evaluators of leaders were rating the same leader, in certain divisions or in certain companies. Both men (127) and women (65) rated leaders, (male leaders=149; female leaders=43). In three age brackets, 25-35 (5.7%), 35-49 (61.5%), and 50+ (32.3%), participants represented all six major regions of the U.S. (NE, NW, S, SW, MW, & W) and came from seven differing professions/industries.

Results
The results of this study supported that there are wide gaps between how men and women evaluated both male and female leaders. Interestingly, there were wide gaps among various regions of the country on leader evaluations, and also among professions. There were no set patterns for any one leader on any particular behavior, out of the fifteen values of the survey. Even in situations, where many participants evaluated the same leader, there was little agreement as to the degree of strength of demonstration of any one behavior. In other words, leader evaluations were subjective, not only to individuals, but seemingly to types of businesses and to areas of the country.

What did all the disparity of the evaluations mean in terms of how well leaders were conducting appropriate behavior that is then observed by others? What could these results possibly suggest to us who are leaders and develop others for leadership positions? Do these results perhaps point to a fact that is often overlooked when grooming a prospective leader, strengthening a leader already at the helm, or in hiring decisions? The fact being that long held ideas about what constitutes a great leader may not have encompassed enough of the essential criteria that may be necessary to support a leader and his/her company to sustain success over time.

Part of what we have known about leadership is that some leaders may be born; others may have to train themselves to implement certain actions, certain types of behaviors, certain demeanors and the like to become a quality leader. Part of what we have known is that leadership then takes many forms, depending upon the time and place and situation one is in at a moment along the way. Sound leadership may, by demand of any particular situation, have defining features congruent with the nature of what is happening (downsizing, mergers, expansion, changing of mission, shifting of production and/or product).

So, it is already clear that leadership has much to do with the person that the leader is. He or she may have strong traits, such as assertiveness, high self-regard, high intelligence, broad-based knowledge of a market, exceptional networking skills or the like. These differing levels of leader characteristics are unique to each and every fine leader, and no two leaders will be the exact same in any fashion; what works with one leader’s abilities may not be duplicated with another leader in another situation or organization.
And, we also know that situational influences do impact the leadership aspects of a company; strong leaders may be able to rally a dying empire and weak leaders have succumbed to mighty falls in lesser situations.

Perceptions are reality
However, the results of this recent study seem to point out that even those who possess leader behaviors in appropriate and sufficient amounts may not be perceived by those evaluating him/her in that manner. We must ask the question why. Why are supposedly quality leaders, who, in the instance of the study’s participants, are Fortune company top choices, not being rated by peers or employees as such? Why would male leaders, as a whole, in this study be rated poorer than female leaders in some regions of our country? Why would female leaders, as a whole, in this study be rated poorer by several types of industries?

Could factors, that we in leadership development areas have not yet integrated into the equation, be at work, possibly undermining leaders when they have their evaluations carried out by others? The implications of the study, without going into elaborate detail of all the many statistically significant data, point toward factors of perceptions of individual evaluators and the overall, upheld perceptions by some industries and areas of the country. These perceptions are not pointing to any particular gender stereotyping effects, or extremely provincial conservative thought about leadership, per se. What the results of the data seem more to imply is that in leadership development we may have forgotten the impact that employees and others rating a leader have on the ultimate outcome of evaluations, inasmuch as we may dismiss the fact that if the evaluator does not actually perceive the leader’s behaviors as sufficient enough, then he/she will not likely rate a leader well.

What this comes down to is that there may be another facet to great leadership, beyond the basic talents, skills, abilities and inherent traits of a leader and the defining situations in which a leader finds him/her self. The other critical facet may be in whether or not the “fit” of leader behaviors and the evaluator are right. What this proposes is that a leader may have what it takes to carry a company through to successful growth and profits, but if his/her employees do not sense (perceive) the behaviors that he/she feels are necessary and in the appropriate amounts, then leader evaluations may continue to be lower than expected.

How can we know if those we place in leader positions can possibly “fit” the hidden and unknown needs of any certain behavioral demonstrations enough to eradicate subjective strikes of disapproval by employees? What do we do to ensure that leaders are “seen” as being, for example, explanatory enough, supportive enough, empowering enough, encourage innovative thinking enough, and so forth? How can we have leaders, in any place, before any group of employees, demonstrate the needed behaviors to satisfy a workforce, a team effort, a band of managers, or whatever?

The crux of the leadership puzzle
Perhaps that is the crux of the puzzle: Research what the employees think leadership needs to look like at the company. Maybe the time has come to canvas employees and management alike to get some sense of what everyone expects of a leader. What does that term “leader” mean to others? What are the expectations that not only the leader has of the employees, but likewise, what are the expectations of the workers? What characteristics, style of leading, behaviors, and actions will be needed to satisfy the underlying assumptions of what a leader should be? This goes against most theories of designing leadership from the top down, with leader strengths being honed in an ongoing enrichment and development regimen.

However, as this study would suggest, even those in upper, Fortune company leader posts did not necessarily receive sterling evaluations, and from one employee to another, did not rate similarly the exact same leader. One would have to ask why and the only sensible answer seems to be that each individual evaluator is a person who comes to a company with a set of beliefs, values, and cognitions already in place. We cannot go about the business of trying to change all our employees in companies in how they basically size up the world around them. We cannot take tremendous time or money to incorporate grand psychological assessments and institute long-running programs to modify all the faulty cognitions, perceptions and groundless assumptions many people may have.

What we can do
What we can do, however, is at least give some thought and create some type of dialogue with employees to understand what they want to see in a leader; what levels of behavior seem to be those most wanted with any certain group at any certain time. In the study’s many discoveries of the analyses of data, were that among the fifteen behaviors, certain behaviors linked positively to others. For example, some task behaviors linked to relationship behaviors, some transformational behaviors linked to task behaviors and so on, by way of statistically significant correlation. What this can say to leadership development is that particular strengths in one type of behavior may necessitate improvement in other types, so that certain “sets” of behaviors would be more suitable for particular employees and/or situations.

What the study shows is that men and women do rate leaders differently; areas of the country rate leaders differently, and professions rate leaders differently. This may scream to us that leadership has to be more versatile and more “user friendly” to employees if we are to bring out the best in not only our leaders and their evaluations, but in various situations and with shifting, changing and differing populations.

This study has opened up a Pandora’s box of questions about viewing leadership and the behaviors that we hope are displayed for maximum benefit for all involved. Leaders march the companies forward that is true, but the followers determine the pace and the distance of that leader’s success ultimately. It’s something to think about.