The Missing Link
Let’s assume for a moment that we are inspired by Moneyball and other successful efforts to distill apparently subjective observations down to objective, predictive analytics. For that to work, we need to find a way to drive the analysis of an individual’s leadership abilities down to a single number that correlates to leadership success, beyond the shadow of a doubt – an authoritative Leadership Quotient (LQ). No metric, no Moneyball.
The LQ would need to be one score, a common lingua franca, that could be used to rank any leader against any and all other leaders. It would successfully predict that leader’s impact in their organization and, by a process of statistically validated association, the likelihood of success or failure of that organization in achieving their stated mission. It would be a lone metric, a statistically grounded comparison to all other leaders, used to quantify an individual leader’s progress and impact over time.
How does one arrive at that kind of score? It’s a reductive process, some of which you’re familiar with by this point.
First, start with hundreds of inputs, generated by a carefully selected group of people who complete a survey consisting of 160 cross-correlated questions.
Second, analyze those inputs and summarize the results into percentile rankings across the dimensions of leadership, both Creative and Reactive.
Third, independently calculate the average percentile for both the Creative (top of the circle) and Reactive (bottom of the circle) Dimensions.
Finally, divide the average Creative Dimension percentile by the average Reactive Dimension percentile, and you have calculated the Leadership Quotient for this particular leader.
Bob Anderson’s research shows that the LQ is the most important summary indicator of an individual’s overall capacity to envision, lead and execute transformative change. LQ allows direct comparisons between leaders and predicts the likely success or failure of any leader. In short, in our race for a single, correlated, predictive number, it’s a winner.
The possible combinations are literally infinite, but three specific examples are in order, as a way to illustrate the power of the profile.
1 A Leader in the 40th percentile for Creative Dimensions and the 60th percentile for Reactive Dimensions has a Leadership Quotient equal to .4/.6 = .67. This is the average score for Reactive leaders, who are proven to be a statistical and strategic detriment to their organization. Reactive leaders smother the culture of their organizations with defensive reasoning and powerful, self-reinforcing, destructive habits of thought. In the entrenched, Reactive mindset, the impact of leadership is strongly negative, meaning that the more management gets involved, the more the organization and its competitiveness suffers, relative both to its peers and its potential. The word most frequently used to describe the experience of working in this environment is “painful.” A good example of Reactive leadership is the technical manager – the expert who has moved up, never has the time to invest in long-term planning or open discussions, but still wants to dictate how others do their jobs.Reactive Leaders are driven by fear and insecurity, and it probably goes without saying that they strongly resist the feedback presented in a Leadership Circle Profile™. From an organizational perspective, it is important to raise Reactive leaders to a minimum LQ of 1.0, which represents a balance between the Reactive and Creative Dimensions. This is where the leader’s impact on the organization is a wash, neither a competitive advantage nor a disadvantage. The organization still experiences powerful leadership inertia, but without the coercive, dictatorial style that makes fully Reactive organizations such a soul-sucking experience. In this case, the impact of leadership is null…more leadership exposure doesn’t hurt, but it doesn’t help, either. The most common complaint here? “We just can’t seem to get out of our own way.”
1 A Leader in the 60th percentile for Creative Dimensions and the 30th percentile for Reactive Dimensions has a Leadership Quotient equal to .6/.3 or 2.00. This is just above the average LQ score of 1.9 for Creative leaders…note that it is triple the average LQ of our prior example of a Reactive Leader who is saddled with an LQ=.67. Creative organizations experience leadership as a powerful differentiator and a strong competitive advantage. Leaders in LQ=2.00 organizations are twice as effective as LQ=1.0 organizations, and you can feel and hear the difference. Leadership is engaged in regular, meaningful dialogue about important, material issues. Decisions are explained, but more importantly, employees are often (but not always) engaged early in key decisions and project leadership, including defining their participation in developing a shared perspective of the future. A good example of Creative leadership is the senior leader who has been successful in a series of roles and inspires others to introspection and dynamic action in pursuit of a compelling future vision.Creative leaders are able to employ the expertise and management skills they’ve learned earlier in their careers, in service to a broader, compelling vision. Many people refer to their experience with a Creative leader as “the best boss I ever had – I can’t believe how much I learned and how much we got done.” When it comes to leadership development, Creative leaders are a joy to work with, because they are typically eager to embrace feedback presented in a Leadership Circle Profile™ and in ad hoc work groups or personal relationships.
1 A Leader in the 90th percentile for Creative Dimensions and the 10th percentile for Reactive Dimensions has a Leadership Quotient equal to .90/.10, or 9.0. This is the average score for Integral leaders. Note that it is 4.5 times the average LQ of Creative leaders and 13.5 times the average of Reactive leaders. Integral organizations operate at a completely different level, in a completely different way. Overall, they have a broader perspective on the world and their place in it. At all levels of the organization, employees are fully engaged in pursuit of a shared, specific vision, and routinely work together to spontaneously resolve real issues in real time. Assumptions are quickly tested and built upon or discarded. New possibilities are explored, quantified and prioritized.Integral leaders are skilled managers, gifted visionaries, and magical motivators. At their best they are the Abraham Lincolns and Nelson Mandelas of our world, able to integrate seemingly contradictory principles to inspire breakthrough thought and action. Integral leaders change lives, outcomes, and ultimately, the view of what is possible. The bottom line quote from people exposed to Integral leaders? “That experience changed my life and the way I look at my job and my coworkers. Years later, I am still talking about it.” Integral leaders tend to treasure and integrate feedback presented in a Leadership Circle Profile™ or through any other means. They will tease out the contradictions, find humor in the contrasts, learn from the experience, and deftly put their newly acquired knowledge to work in unanticipated ways. As part of their thinking, Integral leaders will dare you to change with them, and you will feel compelled to rise to that challenge.
The Return on Leadership (ROL)
If you’ve noticed an overarching trend in LQ, you are well on your way to understanding the impact of these critical measures of leadership ability. Just like the commonly used Return on Investment (ROI), Return on Leadership (ROL) measures the impact on the organization’s long-term results from a marginal change in individual performance. As an individual’s Creative Dimensions grow and the Reactive Dimensions shrink arithmetically, often (but not always) in lockstep, the positive, measurable impact of that leader on the organization grows exponentially. This turbocharged shift in impact constitutes an escalating return on marginal growth in leadership ability.
When it’s all said and done, what does this mean?
It means that leadership done right is the gift that keeps on giving. Even small increases in leadership
