Effective leadership requires talent. Consider these research findings

It doesn’t take a genius to know that effective leadership requires talent. The question is: What specific talents make the biggest difference?

Barry Conchie and Sarah Dalton make a thoughtful contribution to the discussion in their book The Five Talents That Really Matter.

Conchie is an expert in leadership research and development and succession planning. A former senior scientist at Gallup, he is now president of Conchie Associates, a consulting firm specializing in psychometric talent assessments and executive coaching. Dalton, a partner at Conchie Associates, works with leaders and managers to better understand the attitudes and behaviors that drive performance.

Their book presents the results of extensive research, assessments, and testing of more than 58,000 business leaders across a wide range of industries. According to their research, the five evidence-based talent dimensions of top-performing leaders are:

• Definition of direction – guide the organization through complex situations in ways that promote motivation and engagement
• Harnessing energy – driven by a strong work ethic, providing employees with appropriate attention and support
• To exert pressure – assert a clear point of view and convincingly drive change and improvement
• Increasing connectivity – put people first, establish effective follow-up
• Traffic control – improve performance by establishing protocols and safeguards while demonstrating agility and flexibility

You may be wondering, after evaluating tens of thousands of executives, when did the indicators of success start to emerge?

“The predictions happen in two phases,” Conchie explains. “First, the initial validation of the research established that the Five Talents predicted successful leadership 8 out of 10 times and poor leadership 9 out of 10 times, based on our synthetic tests of about 5,000 leaders. Then, as our database grew, we ran multiple validations that reinforced these results.”

Dalton describes some of the most interesting findings from his research on leadership.

• “Not everyone can be a top leader in a company or organization. Everyone has their limits and companies need to be more objective about this and stop putting people in positions that set them up for failure.
• “The strengths of male and female leaders who take the assessment are virtually identical. However, for female candidates to be appointed to leadership positions, they must perform significantly better than their male counterparts. The standards for female leaders appear to be much higher than for male leaders.
• Leaders’ views of their hiring practices are out of sync with reality. When asked whether they select team members who have similar traits, characteristics, and dispositions to their own, they say “no.” When we rate their team members, we find that this is clearly not the case. Similarly, when asked whether they select team members who have stronger leadership abilities than they do, they say “yes.” Again, this is clearly not the case. It is rare to find a single team member who is rated as stronger than their leader, and extremely rare to find two.

Some say leaders are made, while others argue that leaders are born. What does Conchie and Dalton’s research reveal about this false dichotomy?

“Talent is more innate and less susceptible to change or development,” Conchie explains. “Broader observations support the innate nature of talent. Billions of dollars have been spent over the last 30 years on management and leadership development, but employee engagement data (arguably one of the most reliable indicators of management and leadership effectiveness) has barely budged. If leaders are trained, it should be very easy to have a positive impact on engagement data.”

It is not uncommon for senior executives to fail in their leadership role. What are the early warning signs of failure?

“The single biggest indicator of executive failure is our assessment work,” says Dalton. “Appointing candidates (external or internal) to leadership positions who have received low assessment scores almost always ends badly.

More broadly, despite the use of 360 tools and other assessment processes, too many leaders lack clarity about their talents and gaps. This has complex causes, including a lack of feedback and even lower accountability for performance. Without a high level of self-awareness, it is difficult for leaders to lead effectively.

According to Dalton, in the direct hierarchy, relationships (especially likability) trump performance accountability. “A leader who is popular and has good relationships will almost always receive more positive reviews and be considered a better candidate for promotion. Leaders who get fired up and fail are usually very likable people.”

How can organizations confidently identify high potential individuals and develop their leadership skills?

According to Conchie, performance and experience should be viewed as baselines rather than reliable indicators. “Without them, you probably won’t get noticed, but a good track record doesn’t add value to a prediction of future success,” he says. “Every so-called ‘high-potential’ population we’ve assessed has had results that are normally distributed. They shouldn’t be. We recommend an assessment protocol that extends three to four levels below the CEO to accomplish two goals. 1. To confirm or challenge current views of ‘high potentials,’ and 2. To uncover potentially exceptional leaders who may be held back by a weaker manager or leader above them. Without this data, CEOs and executive leaders are relying on subjective and inaccurate feelings about lower-level leaders.”

Conchie says the assessment results highlight areas of strength where development investments have greater growth potential, as well as weaker areas that require careful management and partnership.

There’s no doubt that some women and minority leaders are being held back and/or mismanaged. At the same time, many business leaders are concluding that the DEI movement is just bias with a new name. What seem to be the keys to managing a DEI program in a way that is widely seen as equitable?

“If we continue at our current pace, we won’t achieve gender parity at the leadership level until around 2140,” Dalton says. “Furthermore, the tendency to focus DEI initiatives on two areas (appointing DEI leaders and investing in DEI and bias training) has proven ineffective and, in the case of bias training, appears to be hardening people’s attitudes and making the situation worse.”

Dalton says companies are as diverse as their hiring managers allow. “The biggest efforts to improve minority representation should be focused more on selection. Given that we see no difference in leadership ability between men and women, or between ethnic minority groups, the people appointed should at least be proportional to those interviewed. If not (and they clearly aren’t), credible assessments like ours should be used to challenge hiring managers’ preferences.”

What seem to be the best ways for people to honestly and confidently assess their own potential for leadership roles?

“Individuals should be encouraged to ask themselves a completely different question,” Conchie says. “‘What kind of role are my talents and flaws best suited for?’ Too many people want to become leaders in order to make more money or achieve greater prestige. There’s little point in trying to determine a person’s ideal future if they’re not open to a negative answer.”

What can organizations do to improve the effectiveness of their recruitment?

Conchie and Dalton say there are three related things that all organizations can implement quickly:

1. Set minimum requirements for education, essential work experience, and level of functional or technical expertise. These are not useful in predicting future success and may result in screening out highly qualified candidates.

2. Be careful not to narrow down your list of candidates too quickly. You’ll be more likely to justify a candidate’s serious shortcomings if you’re under pressure and have only one option.

3. Interview candidates in a single panel of three people. These people should determine the selection criteria and questions in advance, and one person should ask these questions while the other two listen and score the candidates’ answers. The candidates’ overall scores should be compared to determine which one should be followed in your process.