International Leadership Exchange

I have copied this dialogue on leadership assessment tools from the International Leadership Exchange Discussion thread. These tools look like good leads to follow-up on re leadership assessment

1. One of the books I’ve enjoyed is Peter Northouse’s LEADERSHIP, which has numerous instruments for a variety of leadership approaches and styles. I worked a lot with servant-leadership, so I do know that there are some instruments out there for that as well.

2. Perhaps she could try http://www.findaphd.com/

3. I suggest you consider the Leadership Practices Inventory..details re the instrument (accompanying book) etc. are at:http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-131089.html
4. Because of its superior psychometric properties I'm partial to the Big Five. [Timothy Judge has done a lot of work in this area, see, e.g., Judge, et.al. Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review, JAP, Aug. 2002.] The commercial firm that did a nice job of operationalizing the Big Five dimensions in a work context is CentACS based in Charlotte, NC. see http://www.centacs.com/.

5. Part of my Leading Change and Capacity Building course is having them take a leadership agility questionnaire from http://leadershipagility.com/assess_style.php. This is free access and a report occurs that can be downloaded. It is from the book Leadership Agility and is, for my use for in a leadership development class, results in an awakening by those who use the process honestly and genuinely.

6. There are three 360-degree feedback instruments that your colleague might want to consider when working with non-profit board members (however, your colleague might need to hire someone certified in the use of those instruments to administer & facilitate, at least for the first two).a. The Denison Leadership Development Survey at http://www.denisonconsulting.com/ is excellent for linking leadership to the mission, culture, and bottom line . . . grounded solidly in quantitative research from thousands of organizations, great comparative database, practical and easy to use, without oversimplifying . . . will help paint a picture of strengths and opportunities for growth and raise good questions.b. The Leadership Circle Profile at http://www.theleadershipcircle.com/ is best for in-depth coaching and leadership transformation . . . very rich in cross-disciplinary theories and models (including human development, psychology, organizational behavior, leadership) and newer than Denison . . . allows you to get into deeper conversations very quickly, not as superficial as some others.c. Kouzes & Posner's Leadership Challenge at http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/ is available by Wiley. I've never used it or taken it, but I have used their books and am familiar with the model. It seems like a practical, workshop-based tool for leadership assessment & training. . . also been used for a while and based on research, including in-depth interviews.

7. I have not found one great instrument for leadership skills/attributes. For skills, some assess charisma as energy, rather than storytelling, listening and connecting; attributes should tap in to determination, humility, constant curiosity, dependability, etc.. We just put a fair amount of money into the Campbell Leadership Index which has great reliability and the discrepancy ratings between the board members and their raters (it is a 360) can be helpful for reality testing and targeting broad goals. However, it does not assess conflict styles, which is imperative in my estimation. On a positive note, the people at Vangent were great to work with throughout the entire process. They might have other instruments that you would like.

With another group of professionals, we use a combination of 5 assessments to paint a picture-- MBTI/ FIRO-B (quick, cheap and informative) combination from CPP publishing and we get the combined leadership report. Then we use Skillscope (out of Center for Creative Leadership); EQ-i emotional quotient inventory from MHS; and the CDP (conflict dynamics profile) from Eckerd College. The Skillscope and CDP are both 360s. Taken together, these paint a clear picture of areas of strength and places for development. For under 250.00, you can do the CDP and MBTI/FIRO-B combo on each participant. We know from research that it is the interpersonal piece and conflict management that trips aspiring leaders up the most. Besides, self-report only instruments only provide a snapshot of self-perception, not necessarily what you want to tap, as we are all faulty historians. If money is not an issue, do them all and watch the patterns emerge over and over in a most undeniable way, so that it is crystal clear to anyone to interprets the results, where the problems are hiding. I would also make sure that you do a 360 of some kind with a space for raters to include narrative. Anonymous responses provide critical information that people are usually too hesitant to discuss face to face. Once your people have had their individual coaching sessions about the results and set their goals, they might do the Five Dysfunctions of a team workshop (there is a good video with the kit) together to identify what they are working on so that it is all on the table as they proceed to form a cohesive unit that benefits the organization.
8. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) is the instrument I administer in both organizational (specifically, nonprofit leaders) and academic contexts. It’s an evidence-based multi-rater system that evaluates the frequency of a leader’s behaviors in 30 statements. The website below includes a detailed description and sample reports:

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-131089.html

9. This instrument is not based on statistical, but I think the Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Index 360 provides good feedback to leaders. You can check it out and see if it would be appropriate for your needs. In my view it asks questions in good categories of leadership. It can be taken online.

10. I like Susann Cook-Greuter's Sentence Completion Test, based on Jane Loevenger's work and its modification by Bill Torbert and his associates as the Leadership Development Profile. I am less familiar with it, but I understand that Ron Caciopee in Perth, Australia (Integral Development) also has developed an instrument.

11. You might want to consider the LB-L Achieving Styles Inventory, which actually measures an individual’s Connective Leadership profile. It has 9 related scales that measure the degree to which an individual uses the 9 behavioral categories (i.e., achieving styles) through which connective leaders accomplish their goals. Each of the 9 behavioral categories (e.g., intrinsic, competitive, power, etc.) subsumes many behaviors of that specific type.

There are four related instruments that use the same 9 behavioral dimensions: 1) the individual profile [ASI]; 2) the leadership behaviors an organization rewards [OASI] (used with the individual instrument, you can assess the fit between the indiv. & the org); 3) a situational evaluation instrument, which allows you to assess any situation or project in terms of the leadership behaviors (i.e., achieving styles) required for success [ASSET]; and 4) a 360 degree evaluation instrument that allows an individual/focal person, his/her peers, direct reports, and supervisor or any other set of people who interact with the focal person to assess a focal person’s leadership behavior.

The instruments have been tested rigorously, beginning with the original instrument (ASI) developed in 1973. They have high reliability and validity. We have a data base on the individual instrument of more than 25,000 cases from numerous countries. Many dissertations in the US and abroad have used these instruments.

For a MUCH BETTER description, see http://www.connectiveleadership.com/.