Recent discussions have focused on the special circumstances surrounding assessment and development for senior leadership (Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants, Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018). The fundamental assertion is that different challenges are inherent in working with senior leadership, as compared to lower levels of leadership. We suggest that, although the focal article presents a useful synthesis of research and practice, many of the points made are applicable to leaders at all levels. In other words, by looking at senior leaders, we gain an increased appreciation for issues that are in fact relevant to all leaders.
The argument that senior leaders differ from front-line leadership in many meaningful ways is alluring, resulting in unique recommendations for assessment and development with these special cases. It is a logical argument if one assumes a traditional command-and-control view of leadership such as: “the art, science, or gift by which a person is enabled and privileged to direct the thoughts, plans, and actions of others in such a manner as to command their obedience, their confidence, their respect, and their loyal cooperation” (US Navy, Reference Navy1959).
However, this traditional view of leadership, which served well enough through the industrial age, is no longer befitting the needs of today's organizations. “In today's organizations . . . the pace of technological change, increased complexity, competitive demands, challenging economics, and risks involved in decision-making have made it difficult for one individual acting alone . . . to exert and display effective leadership” (Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, Reference Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs and Shuffler2012, p. 384). Consequently, conceptualizations of leadership are shifting away from the traditional boss–worker separatist definitions and moving toward models of collective or shared leadership (e.g., Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, Reference Carson, Tesluk and Marrone2007; Pearce, Reference Pearce2004; and as noted by Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018).
Our emphasis on shared leadership (Carson et al., Reference Carson, Tesluk and Marrone2007; Pearce, Reference Pearce2004) or “leader–leader” (Marquet, Reference Marquet2013) views all levels of hierarchy as having valued leadership roles, implying that the difference between senior leaders and front-line leaders is more a matter of degrees as opposed to categorical differences. Here are a few examples to illustrate our point. For one, senior leadership may ipso facto have larger spans of control. However, organizations are flattening to reduce reliance on hierarchy, and a “larger span of control” is inherently a difference in quantity, not quality. As another example, senior leadership might be removed from the daily operations, but we argue they are then not in the best position for operational decision making anyway. It is more effective to move authority to information than to move information to authority (Marquet, Reference Marquet2013). Finally, senior leaders might well require a different blend of skills and competencies to guide strategy, etc. Indeed, Smith and Foti (Reference Smith and Foti1998) showed that different patterns—not just absolute levels—of variables were indicative of leader emergence. However, it is important for all employees to understand the vision, mission, strategy, and goals of the organization for authentic alignment and execution. In fact, it is all the more important to start cultivating the necessary skill sets early on in order to address concerns about the leadership pipeline and succession planning.
Altogether, senior leaders serve to highlight the criticality of (1) using sound assessment practices, (2) thoughtfully integrating assessment and development, and (3) advancing assessment and development through the use of sound scientific principles and evaluation research. At the same time, each of these issues is still relevant at lower levels of leadership. Accordingly, we provide brief reactions to some of the responses to these three organizing topics from Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018).
Regarding the assessment of senior leaders, we agree with the recommendations made by Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018). However, the recommendations also generally apply to front-line leaders. For example, reliable and valid measurement of clearly defined attributes is necessary for all types of employees. Similarly, the competencies (and “beyond”) for senior leaders are also helpful for leaders at any level and in any case would be useful for development of future leaders. Organizational support—and the communication of this support!—is indeed critical to assessment programs, at all levels of the organization. Clear objectives need to be specified ahead of time, at all levels. Specific, actionable feedback is a necessary result of assessment, at all levels. And explaining the value of using practices that have strong scientific backing is important, at all levels (because people are not always able to distinguish good from bad scientific foundations, at all levels).
We also agree with the recommendations made regarding the integration of assessment and development, which are also generally applicable across all levels of leadership. For example, good practice for assessment and development treats these activities as ongoing, not an end state. It identifies areas for development and provides accountability. Reporting is clear and straightforward. It is focused on behavior, which is changeable, in a carefully integrated assessment and development system (e.g., Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Sliter, Colatat, Nolan and Guion2017). It is conducted using the most time-efficient methods and is transparent. These are desirable qualities for assessment and development at any level, including for leaders at any level. Similarly, a feedback-seeking culture—across all levels of employees—facilitates organizational effectiveness and innovation (van Dyck, Frese, Baer, & Sonnentag, Reference Van Dyck, Frese, Baer and Sonnentag2005).
Regarding advancing assessment and development practices for senior leaders, yet again, we assert that the fundamental principles for effective leadership assessment and development practices for senior leaders also tend to apply to leaders at any (or every!) level. The fundamental criteria for validating such tools are their reliability and validity (and of course, legality)—at any level. Granted, sample sizes are indeed smaller at the top; but again, this is a matter of degrees, not a sudden categorical difference. And we appreciate Reynold et al.’s (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018) suggestion to focus on content validity evidence and arguments for validity generalization when sample size is insufficient for other forms of validity evidence. Sure, there might be some contexts where existing assessments do not address the critical needs of the leadership role (e.g., data breaches). But for the most part, these are less a function of the level of leadership and more a function of the nuances that need to be considered any time a critical context is not addressed by available assessment tools.
At the same time, we suggest that the seemingly dominant view of senior leadership being qualitatively different from lower levels of leadership is more descriptive of a less-than-ideal current state, as opposed to an aspiration for what is in the best interest of employees, organizations, and society as a whole. Although it might be uncomfortable at first, we encourage researchers and practitioners to stop treating senior leaders as categorically different from lower-level leaders—scientific principles and best practices apply to both. If we protect senior leaders too much from these things, we disconnect them from the reality necessary to lead their organizations effectively. And if we treat lower-level leaders as inherently less valuable or qualitatively different from senior leaders, we miss important opportunities for employee engagement, leadership development, and succession-planning.
Assessment and development of senior leadership is a challenging and critically important topic with major implications for long-term organizational effectiveness. We generally agree with the accepted wisdom and recommendations provided by Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018). However, our clarification is that the functions of senior leadership in today's organizations are not categorically distinct from the rest of the organization, and the recommendations made in the focal article are useful for all leaders (and often, all employees). Senior leaders serve as extreme examples, not special cases, therefore highlighting some important lessons for how to treat leaders at all levels.
You have
Access
Recent discussions have focused on the special circumstances surrounding assessment and development for senior leadership (Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants, Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018). The fundamental assertion is that different challenges are inherent in working with senior leadership, as compared to lower levels of leadership. We suggest that, although the focal article presents a useful synthesis of research and practice, many of the points made are applicable to leaders at all levels. In other words, by looking at senior leaders, we gain an increased appreciation for issues that are in fact relevant to all leaders.
The argument that senior leaders differ from front-line leadership in many meaningful ways is alluring, resulting in unique recommendations for assessment and development with these special cases. It is a logical argument if one assumes a traditional command-and-control view of leadership such as: “the art, science, or gift by which a person is enabled and privileged to direct the thoughts, plans, and actions of others in such a manner as to command their obedience, their confidence, their respect, and their loyal cooperation” (US Navy, Reference Navy1959).
However, this traditional view of leadership, which served well enough through the industrial age, is no longer befitting the needs of today's organizations. “In today's organizations . . . the pace of technological change, increased complexity, competitive demands, challenging economics, and risks involved in decision-making have made it difficult for one individual acting alone . . . to exert and display effective leadership” (Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, Reference Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs and Shuffler2012, p. 384). Consequently, conceptualizations of leadership are shifting away from the traditional boss–worker separatist definitions and moving toward models of collective or shared leadership (e.g., Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, Reference Carson, Tesluk and Marrone2007; Pearce, Reference Pearce2004; and as noted by Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018).
Our emphasis on shared leadership (Carson et al., Reference Carson, Tesluk and Marrone2007; Pearce, Reference Pearce2004) or “leader–leader” (Marquet, Reference Marquet2013) views all levels of hierarchy as having valued leadership roles, implying that the difference between senior leaders and front-line leaders is more a matter of degrees as opposed to categorical differences. Here are a few examples to illustrate our point. For one, senior leadership may ipso facto have larger spans of control. However, organizations are flattening to reduce reliance on hierarchy, and a “larger span of control” is inherently a difference in quantity, not quality. As another example, senior leadership might be removed from the daily operations, but we argue they are then not in the best position for operational decision making anyway. It is more effective to move authority to information than to move information to authority (Marquet, Reference Marquet2013). Finally, senior leaders might well require a different blend of skills and competencies to guide strategy, etc. Indeed, Smith and Foti (Reference Smith and Foti1998) showed that different patterns—not just absolute levels—of variables were indicative of leader emergence. However, it is important for all employees to understand the vision, mission, strategy, and goals of the organization for authentic alignment and execution. In fact, it is all the more important to start cultivating the necessary skill sets early on in order to address concerns about the leadership pipeline and succession planning.
Altogether, senior leaders serve to highlight the criticality of (1) using sound assessment practices, (2) thoughtfully integrating assessment and development, and (3) advancing assessment and development through the use of sound scientific principles and evaluation research. At the same time, each of these issues is still relevant at lower levels of leadership. Accordingly, we provide brief reactions to some of the responses to these three organizing topics from Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018).
Regarding the assessment of senior leaders, we agree with the recommendations made by Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018). However, the recommendations also generally apply to front-line leaders. For example, reliable and valid measurement of clearly defined attributes is necessary for all types of employees. Similarly, the competencies (and “beyond”) for senior leaders are also helpful for leaders at any level and in any case would be useful for development of future leaders. Organizational support—and the communication of this support!—is indeed critical to assessment programs, at all levels of the organization. Clear objectives need to be specified ahead of time, at all levels. Specific, actionable feedback is a necessary result of assessment, at all levels. And explaining the value of using practices that have strong scientific backing is important, at all levels (because people are not always able to distinguish good from bad scientific foundations, at all levels).
We also agree with the recommendations made regarding the integration of assessment and development, which are also generally applicable across all levels of leadership. For example, good practice for assessment and development treats these activities as ongoing, not an end state. It identifies areas for development and provides accountability. Reporting is clear and straightforward. It is focused on behavior, which is changeable, in a carefully integrated assessment and development system (e.g., Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Sliter, Colatat, Nolan and Guion2017). It is conducted using the most time-efficient methods and is transparent. These are desirable qualities for assessment and development at any level, including for leaders at any level. Similarly, a feedback-seeking culture—across all levels of employees—facilitates organizational effectiveness and innovation (van Dyck, Frese, Baer, & Sonnentag, Reference Van Dyck, Frese, Baer and Sonnentag2005).
Regarding advancing assessment and development practices for senior leaders, yet again, we assert that the fundamental principles for effective leadership assessment and development practices for senior leaders also tend to apply to leaders at any (or every!) level. The fundamental criteria for validating such tools are their reliability and validity (and of course, legality)—at any level. Granted, sample sizes are indeed smaller at the top; but again, this is a matter of degrees, not a sudden categorical difference. And we appreciate Reynold et al.’s (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018) suggestion to focus on content validity evidence and arguments for validity generalization when sample size is insufficient for other forms of validity evidence. Sure, there might be some contexts where existing assessments do not address the critical needs of the leadership role (e.g., data breaches). But for the most part, these are less a function of the level of leadership and more a function of the nuances that need to be considered any time a critical context is not addressed by available assessment tools.
At the same time, we suggest that the seemingly dominant view of senior leadership being qualitatively different from lower levels of leadership is more descriptive of a less-than-ideal current state, as opposed to an aspiration for what is in the best interest of employees, organizations, and society as a whole. Although it might be uncomfortable at first, we encourage researchers and practitioners to stop treating senior leaders as categorically different from lower-level leaders—scientific principles and best practices apply to both. If we protect senior leaders too much from these things, we disconnect them from the reality necessary to lead their organizations effectively. And if we treat lower-level leaders as inherently less valuable or qualitatively different from senior leaders, we miss important opportunities for employee engagement, leadership development, and succession-planning.
Assessment and development of senior leadership is a challenging and critically important topic with major implications for long-term organizational effectiveness. We generally agree with the accepted wisdom and recommendations provided by Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis and Participants2018). However, our clarification is that the functions of senior leadership in today's organizations are not categorically distinct from the rest of the organization, and the recommendations made in the focal article are useful for all leaders (and often, all employees). Senior leaders serve as extreme examples, not special cases, therefore highlighting some important lessons for how to treat leaders at all levels.