Concepts and Models - Amazon Web Servicesh24-files.s3.amazonaws.com/151812/435110-LEgvh.pdf3 Concepts and Models version 1.0 1.2 Type theories versus Trait theories Many theories of

Concepts and Models version 1.0

Concepts and Models

1 Measurement of personality traits 1.1 Theoretical approaches of personality 1.2 Type theories versus Trait theories 1.3 The Occupational Personality Questionnaire

2 Competences

2.1 Competences as building blocks in the development of the LDT 2.2 The concept of ‘competence’ 2.3 The chosen competency model for the LDT

3 Stressors

4 Leadership models

4.1 Management and Leadership Style Theories 4.2 The Managerial Grid 4.3 Reddin’s 3-D Managerial Effectiveness model 4.4 The Situational Leadership Model 4.5 Criticism about the situational leadership model 4.6 Leadership Styles in the LD-Toolbox 4.7 Style portfolio and situational sensitivity

5 Worker Styles

6 Teamroles

6.1 Belbin’s Teamroles 6.2 Belbin Teamroles in the LD-Toolbox 6.3 Winning Teams 8.4 Application of the Belbin model in the LD-Toolbox

7 Professional Roles

7.1 Objectives for design of professional roles models 7.2 Concepts and models for Business Development and Acquisition 7.3 Roles in leading the change process 7.4 The Change Management Competency model

Note: Where this manual (solely for the purposes of ease of reading) refers to individuals in the male gender both genders (male and female) are meant explicitly. © 2011, Copyright Leadership Development processes and enablers B.V. www.ldpe.nl www.ld-toolbox.com Attachment 3 to the LDT User Manual

2


1 Measurement of personality traits

1.1 Theoretical Approaches to Personality

There are different ways to study personality: The implicit approach: Most people probably feel they understand a little about human nature, and some may believe they understand other people very well indeed. Some people who feel this way needn’t necessarily have any specific theory about why we behave the way we do. They simply feel they ‘know how people behave,’ and they may or may not be right in this assumption. Certainly some leaders, human resource specialists, coaches and others can have a better instinctive ‘feel’ for what makes people tick than the average psychologist! Implicit models of personality are never defined, stated or written down, but people act on them all the time, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. The explicit approach: Explicit models of personality are defined, and are likely to be based either on empirical research or on some psychological (perhaps clinical) theory of personality. The research may be flawed, or the theory a peculiar one, so an explicit model isn’t necessarily a correct one. An valid explicit model is clearly defined and can be investigated by others to see if it stands up or if it should be modified or dropped altogether. There have been many explicit models of personality over the years:

1. the psychoanalytical approach1: Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung 2. the psychometric approach2: Hans Eysenck and Raymond Cattell 3. the social learning approach3: Albert Bandura and Robert Walters 4. the humanistic approach4: Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers.

The four approaches are of course related. The psychometric approach, that is concerned with personality measurements has, during the past decades, developed strongly and spread outside the sphere of action of psychologists.

1 Emphasises the power of the subconscious, with 3 main components to personality: The ID is the oldest and most obscure part of personality. It is the primary source of psychic energy and motivation and works on the pleasure principle, seeking immediate gratification of instinctive need. The EGO is the executive branch of personality and operates on the reality principle, attempting to control the ID by postponing action until desired object can be achieved. The SUPEREGO is the most recent part of personality and developed by socialization in childhood. It is the moral/judicial branch of personality, enforcing control over the EGO by rewards and punishments such as anxiety and depression. 2 Both Eysenck and Cattell’s models are based on statistical analysis. Eysenck proposed three dimensions of personality – Extroversion-Introversion/Neuroticism-Stability/Tough – Tender Mindedness. Cattell utilized a technique known as Factor Analysis to identify 16 traits that he considered best described personality. 3 The Social learning approach centres on the role of observation and imitation in the development of personality. It proposes that people mimic behaviours observed in others, referred to as ‘models’. It suggests, for example, that children will act more aggressively if they see others acting this way and that boys and girls may display different behaviour because they have different role models. 4 The Humanistic view is concerned with self-development, higher human motives, the acquisition of knowledge, understanding and aesthetics. This approach is particularly popular amongst psychotherapists.

3


1.2 Type theories versus Trait theories

Many theories of personality can be divided very simply into those identifying distinct types and those which see personality as a combination of traits.

TYPE TRAIT Type theories divide people into distinct groups, generally consisting of a combination of behaviours. The MBTI – Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, based on Jung’s typology, is a type theory. As are Belbin’s team types. Essentially, all type theories classify an individual as one of several types of person, showing particular combinations of characteristics.

Where type theories stress similarities, trait theories stress differences between individuals. Trait theories potentially give more flexibility of description, as far fewer people will have a similar combination of traits than fall into a particular type. The OPQ is a concept based on trait theories

It is possible to go from one to the other; a combination of traits can lead to classification under a certain type, while how strongly inclined someone is towards a particular trait can lead to splitting up those with stronger and weaker preferences into two different types. For example, a combination of OPQ scales (Traits) can be used to predict a team type from the Belbin Model. 1.3 The Occupational Personality Questionnaire For the measurement of personality traits, LDpe uses the SHL Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ), which is one of the most widely used measures of behavioural style in the world, and is designed solely for use in a business environment. The OPQ model uses 32 personality dimensions and provides a clear, simple framework for understanding the role of personality in the workplace and the impact it has on job performance. Personality dimension Relationships with people

Influence

Persuasive, Controlling, Outspoken, Independent Minded

Sociability

Outgoing, Affiliative, Socially Confident

Empathy

Modest, Democratic, Caring

Thinking Style

Analysis

Data Rational, Evaluative, Behavioural

Creativity & Change

Conventional, Conceptual, Innovative, Variety Seeking, Adaptable

Structure

Forward Thinking, Detail Conscious, Conscientious, Rule Following

Feelings & Emotions

Emotions Relaxed, Worrying, Tough Minded, Optimistic, Trusting, Emotionally Controlled

Dynamism

Vigorous, Competitive, Achieving, Decisive

OPQ scores are normally represented on a profile in the form of sten scores. The participant’s answers to the questionnaire create the ‘raw’ scores of the OPQ. The raw scores are converted to Stens (standard 10 intervals) and are then profiled on to a pre-normed profile chart. The sten scale runs from 1 – 10 where the mean is 5.5 and the standard deviation is 2. The sten scale is normally distributed, thus sten scores of 5 or 6 are typical of most people, whereas sten scores of 1 or 10 are representative of much fewer people.

4


2 Competences 2.1 Competences as building blocks in the development of the LDT The historic role of psychologists in occupational choice and selection of candidates was in the past decades, also because of the automation of personality questionnaires, taken over by professional selection and recruitment organisations and by well trained corporate recruiters. Also coaches5 regularly use the type of ‘assessment instruments’ (personality questionnaires), in order to better understand the personality of the coachee and by that to improve their coaching effort. Also personal- and leadership development programs more and more tend to use personality questionnaires. LDpe’s guiding principle: the leader himself as the engine in his personal development process The quest that in 2001 caused us to start the development of the LDT was: ‘Why is the information from personality assessments most often meant for others (the psychologist, recruiter, HR professional, coach) than the assessee hemself? Of course, this other person will be able to improve his judgment and by that deliver a better advice, but wouldn’t the leader himself (the assessee) be able to translate his profile into the necessary improvement actions? The LDT’s purpose is to provide the leader with a systematic means for self reflection and self development within a coherent conceptual framework. The LDT guides leaders in developing more effective leadership behaviour and towards the extension of their personal style and role portfolio. A prime demand therefore was to build a bridge between the domains of psychotechnics and leadership. The leadership domain in the LDT was defined from the most well-known leadership models.6 The leadership styles and the later developed workers styles had to be connected with the result scores of the personality assessment. LDpe decided that the connection was to be made via competences (a capability to achieve something, to do a job properly). Competences thus were used as building blocks in the LD Toolbox. 2.2 The concept of ‘competence’ The term ‘competence’ in relation to personality measurement first appeared in the 1970’s.7 In the 90’s activities like competence analysis, competence management and concepts like competence profile, competence model lifted off as a real hype. However, without having been clearly and unambiguously defined. Compentences can both have to do with specific qualities of a person as well as qualities of an organisation. An important cause of the strong hype about competences were the publications of Hamel and Prahalad, like in their bestseller ‘Competing for the Future’, in which they speak about the ‘Core Competences of the Organisation’, a unique set of core qualities that make an organisation unparallelled and makes it survive.8 Defining competence models and managing competences became a popular activity for consultants and HR-experts. Every self-respecting organisation developed its own competence model with the intention to develop its staff in the direction of the defined vision and mission. 5 The concept of ‘coaching’ has, as well as the concept of ‘competence’ (which we will discuss here below) also developed to a ‘container’-concept. There are several types of coaching: Performance Coaching, Skills Coaching, Career Coaching, Personal Life Coaching, Business Coaching, Executive Coaching, Team Facilitation, Shadow Management, etc. 6 Blake & Mouton, Fischer & Fleischmann, Reddin, Hersey & Blanchard. 7 For instance in an article authored by Craig C. Lundberg in 1970 titled "Planning the Executive Development Program". The term gained traction when in 1973, David McClelland, Ph.D. wrote a seminal paper entitled, "Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence". 8 ‘With Competing for the Future’ managers have seen how they reshape their industries’.

5


Unfortunately it showed to be difficult to develop an interorganisational common ‘language’, despite some efforts to do so. Many of the developed Corporate competence models are ‘contaminated’ with the slogan-mongering of ‘mission statements’ and ‘organisational values’. Or they are the product of compromises in mergers and integration processes. Of course there were people that critisized the confusion and came with good contributions. We saw for instance the effort of Tom Horn and Thijs Weerts, ‘Be clear about competences’.9 They ordered the different concepts with the help of the Bateson Model: For the organisation: Mission, Culture, Core compentences, Products and services; For the individual: Identity, Norms and Values, Talents, Behaviour. An important scientific contribution was made by Robert Roe in Competences, a key concept for integration of theory and practice in Organisational Psychology.10 Roe defines ‘Competence’ as ‘an obtained capability to adequately perform a task, role or mission’. But today, there is still an unpleasant proliferation in the field of competence models, which is not surprising, because most of the competence models are developed from the desire to bring the development of employees in alignment with the vision and strategy of the organisation. 2.3 The chosen competency model for the LDT The requirements in the development of the toolbox were to use a ‘clean’ and common applicable set of competences that could be connected with measured personality dimensions. The model developed by the Dutch organisation Psychoteckniek11 (now part of SHL) did not only respond to LDpe’s demand, but there was a large effort of research behind its composition and content (in the relation competence – personality dimension). LDpe has chosen to relate the styles of the LDT (leadership styles, worker styles, professional roles) to these competence definitions, thereby creating a clear relationship of its models to the basic measurements of the leader’s behavioural preferences. In attachment 4 Definitions you will find the detailed competence definitions and the connections with the measures personality preferences.

9 ‘Wees helder over competenties’, Gids voor Personeelsmanagement, Jaargang 82, Nummer 9, 2003 10 ‘Competenties – Een sleutelbegrip tot integratie in theorie en praktijk van de A&O psychologie’. Gedrag en organisatie 2002-15: ‘In this article the conceptual disorder on Competence is critisized…’ 11 Involved in this development werd a.o. professor Roe and Wiby Altink (se the article, referred to in note 10).

6


3 Stressors Stress is a condition that arises when someone sees himself unable to fulfil the requirements he is confronted with. This concept implies that personality is an important intermediary variable, determining the degree of stress an individual presumably will experience in a certain situation. Personality influences both the way that a person interprets the events encountered, as well as his judgment about his capacity to cope with it. This is why differences in personality will make people more or less sensitive to stress in general and for specific sources of stress in particular. Such differences will probably influence the way in which people try to cope with stressful situations. The OPQ scores allow the production of indications on the participant’s possible stressors. These indications are meant to be used in individual counselling conversations and in management or career development discussions. They may support participants in recognizing and reflecting about their own stress pattern. The LD-toolbox may, by specifying the participant’s probable and possible stressors, in particular inidicating the kind of stress that may arise in the working situation, help him reflect about his strategy to cope with stress. We must emphasize that a certain degree of stress in life probably is not bad and may even be essential for optimal functioning. The purpose of successful stress–management is therefore not to completely eliminate stress, but to bring stress at an optimal level. Please note that from a lower score on the stressor scale one should not conclude that the person is indifferent towards the activities or circumstances; they just do not have a stressing influence. Because there was a large amount of research done by Psychotechniek, LDpe decided to use their stressors model in the LD Toolbox. The stressors describe in general terms a person’s sensitivity for work–related stress. It affects a number of concepts that are considered to be relevant in this domain, like the degree of sensitivity, tendency to worry, attitude towards change, experienced control and goal orientation and career drive. The definition of the stressors and how they relate to personality dimensions (behavioural preferences) is shown in the attachment Definitions.

7


4 Leadership models 4.1 Management and Leadership Style Theories Theories on management origin from the Scientific Management (Taylor) and from the Administrative School (Fayol); up to then organisations were seen as bureaucratic systems and attention was only given to organisational processes. In the 1940’s and 1950’s the Human Resource movement (Lewin) started to develop. It more or less already was initiated with Western Electric’s Hawthorne experiments; this movement brought attention for the relation between leaders and their subordinates. The first typology on leadership styles was defined in the 1960’s (Likert, New patterns of management); three types of leadership styles dominated the dialogue: the democratic leader, the autocratic leader and the ‘laisser-faire’ leader; the thinking of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in leadership still dominated the dialogue. A more systematic approach in management and leadership style theories was the development of the managerial grid (Fisher and Fleischman, Blake and Mouton): concern for people/relation oriented versus concern for results/task oriented. In the early 1970’s Reddin developed the 3-D theory in which he introduced the concept of management effectiveness. Blanchard and Hersey build in the 1980’s further on Reddin’s theory and developed the Situational Leadership Model. In the 1990’s the more dynamic context of organisations led to new theories, focusing on the difference between operational management and change management (transformational management): e.g. Ralph Stacey on ordinary management and extra-ordinary management. 4.2 The managerial grid: Blake and Mouton Dr Robert Blake and Dr Jane Mouton came up with the best-known application of the people/task relationship, the Managerial Grid®: 1964, 1978, 1983, 1991: Gulf Publishing, Houston, Texas, and 1999: Grid International, Inc. publications) and a later version (1991, 1999) called the 'Leadership Grid®'. This later Grid is in the form of a two-dimensional model, the variables being measured on a scale ranging from low (1) to high (9). The horizontal axis represents the level of concern for obtaining results, with the term 'results' meaning such things as immediate or long-term goals, productivity or achieving the task. The vertical axis represents the level of concern for the people involved, including the degree to which a person considers how his or her actions affect others.

8


The Grid allows us to identify seven distinct styles as the concern for people and the concern for results interact:12 1,1 Indifferent - Evade and elude13 9,1 Controlling - Direct and Dominate14 1,9 Accommodating - Yield and Support15 5,5 Status Quo - Balance and Compromise16 9,9 Sound - Contribute and Commit17 Paternalistic - Prescribe and Guide18 Opportunistic - Exploit and Manipulate19

12 Source: The Leadership Grid® from Leadership Dilemmas – Grid solutions, by Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse (Formerly the Management Grid by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton), Houston, Gulf Publishing Company, Copyright 1991 by Scientific Methods, Inc. 13 1,1: The key word is neutral. This person goes through the motions of work, doing enough to get by, but rarely attempting to do more. 14 9,1: The high concern for results present in this style produces determination, focus and a drive for success. This person is usually well organised, highly trained and has both the confidence to demand high standards and the courage to take calculated risks in order to achieve them. However, a low concern for people limits his or her ability to involve others and the result is a rather forceful approach. 151,9: The high concern for people is a valuable aid to building teams and establishing relationships. This individual maintains a heightened awareness of the feelings, goals and ambitions of others and the effect that his or her actions will have on them. He or she is approachable, friendly and always ready to listen with sympathy and encouragement. However, the low concern for results tends to shift the focus away from task achievement. 16The 5,5 person avoids showing particular concern for either people or results and ends up balancing the needs of people and the achievement of results through compromise and trade-offs. The style is characterised by the attitude that 'Good enough or a little better is okay'. 17 The 9,9 style is firmly based on logical reasoning and common sense: 'If you have a problem get it out into the open and work through it'. This person is objective and not afraid to tackle difficult issues in an open and honest way. The 9,9 approach gives strength and focus to a team and has the potential for high achievement; but it can run into powerful resistance. Despite being effective, the style can come across as blunt and forceful in organisations where the culture involves playing politics, smoothing over conflict and deferring to authority. Given time, the 9,9 style is usually accepted and its potential for achievement realised. 18 The Paternalistic style results from two separate Grid styles coming together. The relationship between the 'paternalist' and the people he or she works with is like that between parent and child where reward comes from the 1,9 desire to nurture, and punishment comes from the 9,1 desire to dictate behaviour. The result is a person who commands action and achieves results by guidance, praise, reward and subtle punishment. 19 The 'opportunist' approaches every situation with the underlying attitude 'What's in it for me?' and then takes on whatever style is most likely to provide the advantages they seek. Opportunists shift their concerns about as needed to create a convincing facade. They might appear strong and capable of leading in one situation, vulnerable and in need of guidance in another. Everything depends on the situation, the people involved and the potential for personal gain they perceive.

9


4.3 Reddin’s 3-D Managerial Effectiveness model Professor Bill Reddin makes a similar model of the relationship between the two orientations by dividing the grid into four squares in which he locates what he identifies as the basic styles of management resulting from different levels of concern for people and the task. He calls these styles - Related, Integrated, Dedicated and Separated. At the heart of the 3-D theory there is a very simple idea. It was discovered in a long series of research studies conducted by psychologists in the United States. They discovered that the two main elements in managerial behaviour concerned the task to be done and relationships with other people. They also found that Managers sometimes emphasised one and sometimes emphasised the other, and that these two elements of behaviour could be used in small or large amounts. For instance, a Manager could be very much task orientated or only a small amount. Also, both behaviours could be used together (the 3-D term is integrated style), task could be used alone (dedicated style), relationships could be used alone (related style) or each could be used to only a small degree (separated style). The four basic styles arranged as shown here. Reddin ads a third dimension – a measurement of efficiency – to construct the 3-D model as shown below. At the lowest level of efficiency, that is to say where the four basic styles are being used in the least appropriate way, he described the role of those occupying the squares as: Missionary, Compromiser, Autocrat and Deserter. Moving to the hishest level of effectiveness, where the four styles are being used in the most appropriate way, the occupiers of the squares are described as: Developer, Executive, Benevolent Autocrat, and Bureaucrat. Reddin’s 3-D model, the use of which is described in great detail in his book ‘How to make your management style more effective’ is helpful for two reasons: It illustrates in a

powerful way the fact that there is no ‘right’ management style. Depending on the situation, timing, people involved and many other variables, each of the four basic management styles can be appropriate.

Reddin’s third dimension shows the benefit that comes from using one or other of the styles more effectively.

10


In the two boxes below are Professor Reddin's descriptions of the eight management styles that make up his 3-D model. These consist of four appropriate uses and four inappropriate uses of the original basic styles - Related, Integrated, Dedicated and Separated. Developer - (Related) • Maintains open communication channels • Develops the talent of others • Understands others/supports • Works well with others/co-operates • Trusted by others/listens • When responsible for planning involves many others

Executive - (Integrated) • Uses teamwork in decision making • Uses participation appropriately • Induces commitment to objectives • Encourages higher performance • Co-ordinates others in work

Bureaucrat - (Separated) • Follows orders, rules, procedures • Reliable and dependable • Maintains systems • Watches details/efficient • Rational/logical/self-controlled • Fair/just/equitable • Prefers to write out communications with others

Benevolent Autocrat - (Dedicated) • Decisive/shows initiative • Industrious/energetic • Finisher/committed • Evaluative of quantity, quality and time • Costs, profits and sales conscious • Gets results • Both develops and proposes many new ideas • Shows that efficiency and productivity are valued

Box 1 Four basic styles when used appropriately Missionary - (Related) • Avoids conflict • Pleasant/kind/warm • Seeks acceptance • Makes things easy • Avoids initiating things or giving direction • Unconcerned with outputs or standards • At first sign of conflict, attempts up to smooth

Compromiser - (Integrated) • Too much participation • Avoids decisions • Produces grey, acceptable decisions • Idealist • Ambiguous • Sometimes encourages new ideas but does not

always follow them Deserter - (Separated) • Works to rules/minimum output/gives up easily • Avoids involvement and responsibility • Gives few useful opinions or suggestions • Uncreative and narrow-minded • Hinders others/makes things difficult • Shows little concern about errors and usually does little to correct them

Autocrat - (Dedicated) • Critical • Makes decisions • Demands obedience and suppresses conflict • Wants action and results immediately • Downward communication only • Acts without consultation • Feared and disliked • More interested in day-to-day productivity than long-term

Box 2 Four basic styles when used inappropriately

11


4.4 The Situational Leadership Model Building on the Reddin’s 3-D leadership framework, Hersey & Blanchard (1969) developed a life cycle theory of leadership, which they later renamed the situational leadership theory (1977). Situational Leadership is a term that can be applied generically to a style of leadership, but that also refers to a recognised, and useful, leadership model. In simple terms, a situational leader is one who can adopt different leadership styles depending on the situation. Most of us do this anyway in our dealings with other people: we try not to get angry with a nervous colleague on their first day, we chase up tasks with some people more than others because we know they'll forget otherwise. But Ken Blanchard, the management guru best known for the "One Minute Manager" series, and Paul Hersey created the model for Situational Leadership that allows you to analyse the needs of the situation you're dealing with, and then adopt the most appropriate leadership style. It's proved popular with managers over the years because it passes the two basic tests of such models: it's simple to understand, and it works in most environments for most people. The model doesn't just apply to people in leadership or management positions: we all lead others at work and at home. Blanchard & Hersey characterised leadership style in terms of the amount of direction and of support that the leader gives to his or her followers. They so created a simple grid: Directing: Leaders define the roles and tasks of the 'follower', and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced, so communication is largely one-way. Coaching: Leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower. Decisions remain the leader's prerogative, but communication is much more two-way. Supporting: Leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but control is with the follower. Delegating: Leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower. The follower decides when and how the leader will be involved. Effective leaders are versatile in being able to move around the grid according to the situation, so there is no one right style. However, we tend to have a preferred style, and in applying Situational Leadership you need to know which one that is for you. Clearly the right leadership style will depend very much on the person being led - the follower - and Blanchard & Hersey extended their model to include the Development Level of the follower. They stated that the leader's style should be driven by the Competence and Commitment of the follower, and came up with four levels: D4 High Competence

High Commitment

Experienced at the job, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. May even be more skilled than the leader.

D3 High Competence Variable Commitment

Experienced and capable, but may lack the confidence to go it alone, or the motivation to do it well / quickly

D2 Some Competence Low Commitment

May have some relevant skills, but won't be able to do the job without help. The task or the situation may be new to them.

D1 Low Competence Low Commitment

Generally lacking the specific skills required for the job in hand, and lacks any confidence and / or motivation to tackle it.

12


Blanchard and Hersey said that the Leadership Style (S1 - S4) of the leader must correspond to the Development level (D1 - D4) of the follower - and it is the leader who adapts. By adopting the leader’s style to the maturity of the follower (his competence/motivation), the follower builds up competence and becomes more motivated. Thus the style of the leader in time follows the curve through S1 through S4 when the follower growth from D1 to D4. To get the basics of the Situational Leadership concept you can read Ken Blanchard's ‘Leadership and the One Minute Manager’ but since the model has been very popular since Blanchard & Hersey published it, there are many ways of presenting it by various consultants, who in some cases even made their own interpretations and extensions. 4.5 Criticism about the situational leadership model From the extent of it’s widespread use – even today it is the most used model of leadership styles - it is obvious that Blanchard & Hersey’s situational leadership model has a great deal of face validity. It looks reasonable, easy to understand, well designed, reliable and generizable. Although there are many satisfied followers of the situational leadership model, it suffers from inconsistencies and generalisations that have not stopped scientist critizing it. A representative article about it is ‘The Situational Leadership Theory: A critical View’, by Claude L Graef, Illinois State University, pusblished in Academy of Management Review, 1983, Vol 8, No 2 285-291: ‘Theoretical issues undermining the robustness of the situational leadership theory and the utility of its prescriptive model are discussed. More specifically, conceptual ambiguity associated with the mechanics of applying the concept of job-relevant maturity and other problems with the normative model20 are seen as seriously limiting its pragmatic utility. In addition, problems with the LEAD instrument21 are identified and discussed.’ Even if the scientific basis of a model like the situational leadership model may be less solid, it seems that users do not bother very much. Probably consultants that use them find the models helpful in defining and structuring something they want to express, they use it in creating their more detailed vocabulary in their practice and they even adjust or add to the model when it convenes them. Also LDpe does this, especially when connecting and integrating the different leadership theories, some flexibility was needed. From LDpe’s point of view, different design criteria are required: Where it concerns the formal measurement, strong reliability and validity requirements are

needed; this is covered with the use of the OPQ personality questionnaire; For creating the LDT-vocabulary commonly accepted models and concepts are used with a

high level of face validity; In defining the constructs of the vocabulary LDpe creates a clear connection to the formal

measurement and details the definitions of the ‘words’ of the vocabulary based on the detailed content of the constructs.

20 In the early version Hersey & Blanchard stated that the situational theory is based on a curvelinear relationship between task behaviour and relationship behaviour and maturity (1977, p. 160) In the 1977 version of the situational leadership theory, both motivation and ability were compressed into a global measure of maturity. 21 Hersey & Blanchard (1974) developed the leader adaptability and style inventory (LASI), which they later (1977) renamed the leader effectiveness and adaptability description (LEAD) instrument.

13


4.6 Leadership Styles in the LD-Toolbox When defining the different leadership styles that could appear in a leadership style portfolio, LDpe started off with making an inventory of styles we saw leaders use in different situations. A large number of possible styles were found. Having made this inventory, each of the styles was related to a number of the well defined competences of the LDT competence model. For every style five connections were made. And next, from that content, a detailed definition was formulated (see attachment 4 Definitions). To create an overlaying structure, the styles were ordered into three dimensions.

1. Management Style: from the perspective of a leader’s role as manager; 2. People Interaction: from the perspective of the interaction with others; 3. Organisational Development: from the perspective of the processes in the organisation.

Inspired by the work of Blake & Mouton, Reddin and Blanchard & Hersey, the styles were as well ordered in the managerial grid and the four dimensions of the situational leadership model. The resulting structure is shown below.

In this way the situational leadership model has got 3 dimensions (see picture to the right) and the leader’s style can vary not solely in guiding his subordinates, but also in matters concerning his role (e.g. in taking decisions and take responsibility) or matters concerning the organisation. A number of styles could well be related to one on the three dimensions, mentioned above, but not to one specific quadrant of the S1-S4 series: Entrepreneur, Negotiator, Teamplayer, Teambuider, Strategist and Concept developer. Dynamism styles Besides the 18 styles that were defined in this way, LDpe had found some more behavioural ‘styles’: Sometimes very dynamic leaders, had a type of dominant behaviour which could be labeled as Enterprising, Drive, Decisive, Persuasive, Rational or Goal Oriented. LDpe called this type of dominant behaviour, the ‘dynamism styles’.

14


4.7 Style portfolio and situational sensitivity Why so many styles? Besides the fact that LDpe wished to develop a subtle ‘language’, there are two main reasons why the LDpe leadership model defines a larger number of styles:

1. LDpe wants leaders to be able to address their style portfolio more precise. Every person has a unique combination of styles and has unique abilities to develop his style portfolio, depending on his personality and preferences. The leadership style portfolio can include a number of styles and leaders can grow the number of styles in their portfolio by changing behavioural preferences.

2. LDpe wants to avoid the simplicity of typification. As we have seen when discussing personality theories, the type theories classify an individual as one of several types of person, showing particular combinations of characteristics. The MBTI for instance classifies people into 16 categories.22 Even if MBTI may help others (coaches, managers) to understand how a person works, communicates and learns, to identify a person as a certain type is far too simple.23 The fact that people can be flexible and cope with different situations with different behavioural styles is one of the key assumptions of the LDT.

According to Reddin24, effectiveness of behaviour depends on the situation. The situation can be dependent on different elements: technology, subordinates, colleagues, superiors and the organisation. A leader’s managerial skills (style portfolio) may be large, but when he does not sense the situation in the right way (situational sensitivity) or does not have the flexibility to adapt his style to the situation, ineffectiveness will be the result.

22 MBTI: Myers Briggs Type Indicator. The MBTI provides a method for understanding people by looking at eight personality preferences that everyone uses at different times. These eight preferences are organised into four opposite pairs. In this way 16 different types are identified and every individual can be describes as one of the 16 types with a four letter code. For instance ISTJ stands for Introvert Sensing with Thinking: ISTJ’s are thorough, exacting, systematic, hard-working and careful with detail; they enjoy working within organisations to improve procedures and processes, remaining loyal through both good and bad times. 23 In their book ‘Managing people across cultures’ Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner easily show (in chapter 2: Recruitment, Selection and Assessment) how people, though categorized in the same way, may use a totally different approach to create results. 24 R.W. Reddin, Managerial Effectiveness.

15


5 Workers Styles During the research about leadership styles that potentially could fit into a leadership style portfolio, LDpe had also found dominant styles that were not related to the leader in the context of the leadership role, but that certainly could be related to how a person’s personality shapes the way he develops styles as an employee in the context of the organisation. This raised the question about every employee having a typical ‘workers style portfolio’: every individual in an organisation works in his own specific way. But when trying to search for specific concepts and models for worker styles LDpe found out that such models do not exist. LDpe therefore decided to carry out research on the style portfolio of workers, involving a number of professional project leaders, HR managers and people oriented leaders. A concept was developed, including fifteen worker style definitions.

In analogy with how leadership styles were constructed, each of the worker styles was related to 5 competences of the LDT competence model. A detailed specification of the worker styles definition and content is given in the attachment Definitions.

16


6 Teamroles 6.1 Belbin’s Teamroles How come some teams are great in delivering success and some teams don’t work? When things don’t work, it is obvious to all and it often has a profound effect on the people involved, as well as the project or objective to be achieved. In the 1970s, Dr Meredith Belbin and his research team at Henley Management College set about observing teams, with a view to finding out where and how these differences come about. By studying the dynamics of teams they wanted to discover if – and how – problems could be pre-empted and avoided. As the research progressed, the research revealed that the difference between success and failure for a team was not dependent on factors such as intellect, but more on behaviour. The research team began to identify separate clusters of behaviour, each of which formed distinct team contributions or ‘Team Roles’. A Team Role came to be defined as: ‘A tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way.’ It was found that different individuals displayed different Team Roles to varying degrees. Belbin defined initially 8 teamroles. Many consultants have used Belbin’s teamrole concept. The concept continued to develop and some teamroles added. The nine Team Roles according to the Belbin Institute (see also www.belbin.com) The first Team Role to be identified was the “Plant”. The role was so-called because one such individual was “planted” in each team. They tended to be highly creative and good at solving problems in unconventional ways. One by one, the other Team Roles began to emerge. The Monitor Evaluator was needed to provide a logical eye, make impartial judgements where required and to weigh up the team’s options in a dispassionate way.

The Co-ordinator (named Chairman in Belbin’s original publication) was needed to focus on the team’s objectives, draw out team members and delegate work appropriately. When the team was at risk of becoming isolated and inwardly-focused, Resource Investigators provided inside knowledge on the opposition and made sure that the team’s idea would carry to the world outside the team.

Implementers (named Company Workers in Belbin’s original publication) were needed to plan a practical, workable strategy and carry it out as efficiently as possible. Completer Finishers were most effectively used at the end of a task, to “polish” and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control. Teamworkers helped the team to gel, using their versatility to identify the work required and complete it on behalf of the team. Challenging individuals, known as Shapers, provided the necessary drive to ensure that the team kept moving and did not lose focus or momentum.

It was only after the initial research had been completed that the ninth Team Role, “Specialist” emerged. The simulated management exercises had been deliberately set up to require no previous knowledge. In the real world, however, the value of an individual with in-depth knowledge of a key area came to be recognised as yet another essential team contribution or Team Role. Just like the other Team Roles, the Specialist also had a weakness: a tendency to focus narrowly on their own subject of choice, and to prioritise this over the team’s progress.

17


Balance is key Whilst some Team Roles were more ‘high profile’ and some team members shouted more loudly than others, each of the behaviours was essential in getting the team successfully from start to finish. Belbin found out that the ‘balance’ in the team was key. For example, Meredith Belbin found that a team with no Plant struggled to come up with the initial spark of an idea with which to push forward. However, once too many Plants were in the team, bad ideas concealed good ones and non-starters were given too much airtime. Similarly, with no Shaper, the team ambled along without drive and direction, missing deadlines. With too many Shapers, in-fighting began and morale was lowered. Strengths and allowable weaknesses As well as the strength or contribution they provided, each Team Role was also found to have an “allowable weakness”: a flipside of the behavioural characteristics, which is allowable in the team because of the strength which goes with it. For example, the unorthodox Plant could be forgetful or scatty; or the Resource Investigator might forget to follow up on a lead. Co-ordinators might get over-enthusiastic on the delegation front and Implementers might be slow to relinquish their plans in favour of positive changes. Completer Finishers, often driven by anxiety to get things right, were found to take their perfectionism to extremes. Teamworkers, concerned with the welfare and morale of the team, found it difficult to make decisions where this morale might be compromised or team politics, involved. Shapers risked becoming aggressive and bad-humoured in their attempts to get things done. 6.2 Belbin teamroles in the LD-toolbox The LD-toolbox uses the 8 teamroles from Belbin’s original publication, with different names for the co-ordinator (chairman) and the implementer (company worker) and where the role of the specialist has not been defined.

Type Typical features Positive qualities, Allowable weaknesses Chairman CH Calm,

self–confident, controlled

A capacity for treating and welcoming all potential contributors on their merits and without prejudice. A strong sense of objectives

No more than ordinary in terms of intellect or creative ability

Shaper SH Highly strung, outgoing, dynamic

Drive and a readiness to challenge inertia, ineffectiveness, complacency or selfdeception

Prone to provocation, irritation and impatience

Plant PL Individualistic, serious–minded, unorthodox

Genius, imagination, intellect, knowledge

Up in the clouds, inclined to disregard practical details or protocol

Monitor– Evaluator

ME Sober, unemotional, prudent

Judgment, discretion, hard–headedness

Lacks inspiration or the ability to motivate others

Resource Investigator

RI Extrovert, enthusiastic, curious, communicative

A capacity for contacting people and exploring anything new. Ability to respond to challenge

Liable to lose interest once the initial fascination has passed

Completer– Finisher

CF Painstaking, orderly, conscientious, anxious

A capacity for follow through. Perfectionism

A tendency to worry about small things.

Team Worker

TW Socially orientated, rather mild, sensitive

An ability to respond to people and to situations, and to promote team spirit

A reluctance to ‘let go’ indecisiveness at moments of crisis

Company Worker

CW Conservative, dutiful, predictable

Organizing ability, practical, common sense, hard working, self–discipline

Lack of flexibility, unresponsiveness to unproven ideas

18


6.3 Winning Teams Some of Belbin’s conclusions we can read in the chapter ‘Winning teams’ in Belbin’s original publication: A composite picture of the typical group that figures most prominently at the top of the results table can now be built up. Of the various contributing factors, the most positive indicators were the attributes of the person in the Chair, the existence of a good Plant, a spread in mental abilities, a spread also in personal attributes laying the foundation for different team role capabilities, a distribution in the responsibilities of members to match their different capabilities, and finally, an adjustment to the realization of imbalance. These points now seem worth enlarging upon. 1. The person in the Chair Here it proved important that there should be an affinity between the measured personal attributes of the person in the Chair and the good Chairman profile that our research had identified. This formula portrayed the successful Chairman as a patient but commanding figure who generated trust and who looked for and knew how to use ability. He would not dominate proceedings but he knew when to pull matters together if a critical decision had to be reached or a meeting had to close. In practice he always worked with, rather than against, the most talented contributors to the group. 2. The existence of one strong Plant in the group Winning companies were characterized by the inclusion of a Plant who was a good example of the type. Expressed in everyday language this meant that a successful group needed one very creative and clever member. Creativity could be treated as an entity in itself and distinct from high intelligence and analytical ability (which might be termed cleverness). In this sense creativity in a Plant was more important than cleverness. But if both were combined at a high level in a single person this was a great advantage. Creativity and cleverness, however, both had abrupt lower thresholds. For example a clever and very creative Plant could be a great asset to a group whereas a very creative Plant of only average cleverness was unlikely to make the grade, usually by failing to establish any team role credibility in a group. The failure of a Plant to fulfil himself in a team role was the most distinguishing mark of ‘winning’ groups that were in fact non–winners. Plants that disappointed were sometimes found to be creative in an inappropriate way; for example they were literate rather than numerate or had little interest in the undertaking. 3. A fair spread in mental abilities The spread in measured mental abilities appeared to have material bearing on group fortunes. The best results were associated with groups containing one very clever Plant, another clever member, and a Chairman who had slightly higher than average mental ability while other members of the group were slightly below average in mental ability. This formula is certainly not one at which we might have arrived by chance experience or by common sense. Yet with hindsight some of the advantages of this pattern are easily seen. A brilliantly clever and creative Plant is an asset to a group, but only if ultimate responsibility lies with another (the Chairman). A visionary also needs the stimulus of another lively mind of similar calibre on whom he can sharpen his wits. Every group needs someone able to find the flaw in imaginatively conceived but possibly unsound propositions (the Monitor–Evaluator with his dry and intellectually dispassionate attributes). In the absence of a Monitor–Evaluator, another member of the group of the requisite mental ability could profitable interact with the Plant, except for another Plant who usually introduces specific team role competition. The positive advantage of having other team members of slightly lower mental abilities had puzzled us for a while. A possible explanation was that the gap between them and their fellow members caused them to look for other positive team roles: strong competition on one front had the effect of encouraging them to find ways of fulfilling themselves on other fronts. At any rate teams with a wide spread of scores in mental ability were observed to pull together better than teams that were intellectual homogeneous.

19


4. A spread in personal attributes offering wide team role coverage Winning teams were also characterized by a membership which offered, on the evidence of their scores, a good spread in likely team roles. Winning teams seemed to need in particular one Completer and at least one Company Worker. In one of the exercises, which gave greater scope for negotiation, the Resource Investigator type seemed advantageous in having one good example of an introvert and another of an extrovert. Although there were differences in pay–off behaviour between the different groups, if a general point is to be made it is that a winning group has a wider range of team role types of member increase the result of a team while also minimizing the unconstructive friction that occurs when two or more people compete for the same role. 5. A good match between the attributes of members and their responsibility in the team One mark of winning teams was the way in which members found useful jobs and team roles that fitted their personal characteristics and abilities. It was impossible to forecast how this would work out, but retrospective analysis of records suggested it as a feature of winning teams. In general it does not seem the rule that people get the work they deserve. It is more common to find that individuals take on jobs most in line with their experience irrespective of how well they have performed. In the less successful teams the allocation of work was dominated without any further thought by the claim to have done something like it in the past. Winning teams on the other hand found ways of reducing their reliance and dependence on one individual for a critical function unless he had already shown signs of excelling. The way in which finance was sometimes handled illustrates the point. Many groups placed responsibility for finance in the hands of a Financial Director, usually the person who claimed to have had most financial experience. In a number of winning groups the risk of getting the wrong person in the job was minimized by a more flexible arrangement. For example, pairs of people would look after specific functions, one of which would be finance. A sharp–minded member could therefore work alongside someone used to dealing with figures. The flexible pairing system also provided an opportunity for an able member to transfer his attention to some other critical aspect of the group’s activity, provided he showed the inclination and had a useful line. In other words the best match between people and jobs came about through allowing informal arrangement to modify any mismatches that would otherwise have existed. 6. An adjustment to the realization of imbalance Weaknesses can be compensated for by self–knowledge. While this is an accepted maxim governing individual behaviour its truth can be extended to groups. This sixth feature of winning teams came to the fore in our research project. If it was less evident in earlier experiments the reasons are understandable. During the early stage of the project the participants were either not aware or had only a fleeting acquaintance with the team role theory of groups. It is rather doubtful whether even partial knowledge did much to help their team effectiveness. In some instances it made inter–personal adjustment within a team more difficult. For example, some members who fancied themselves as Plants failed to take account of other team roles of which they had less appreciation and which could be critical at certain stages in group affairs. In fact most of the real learning took place at the end of the exercise with the assistance of the debriefing, too late, of course, to influence personal behaviour. In the second case a very different situation prevailed. The seminar participants had already absorbed a fair amount of team role theory and technique, and had engaged in some practical reinforcing exercises before the game began. This experience did not, however, always result in adaptive behaviour. Once the process had started the excitement of the difficulty in appreciation how a general theory could be applied in practice. But there were some teams in which members consciously took account of their potential team role strengths, while being equally conscious of and compensating for their team role weaknesses. These teams in making the most effective deployment of their resources could become runaway winners surprising themselves as much as others. The value of seeing the important tasks in terms of the underlying team roles was well illustrated by several other teams unbalanced in their composition but with a good deal of self–insight. The prevailing pattern was that at its first meeting the team would identify its area of weakness and then appoint someone to look after the jobs that looked as though they belonged naturally to the missing team role.

20


For example, a team would discover that they lacked a Completer. The implication was that deadlines and schedules would be forgotten. One member of the team would therefore be appointed to cover this aspect of the team’s operation, usually the member regarded as having personal characteristics closest to the missing team role. The effect would be that the likely weakness of the team would not be exposed during the exercise, while the team would still succeed in playing to its strength. In other instances the discovery that a group had no Plant led to a search for the nearest team role. This was usually that of the Resource Investigator, who was likely to be the most enterprising, or the Monitor–Evaluator, who was reckoned to be at least clever. One of these two would then set about creating some new ideas and strategies appropriate to the challenge ahead. This often worked out not too badly. As the team would have other strengths, the overall performance of the group would be a good deal higher than might have been guessed at the outset. To summarize about winning teams, their main feature was their strength in those personal qualities and abilities associated with the key team roles, together with a diversity of talent and personal making of the rest of the team. There was always someone suitable for any job that came up. Even teams with something less than the ideal distribution of talents could compensate for shortcomings by recognizing a latent weakness and deciding to do something about it. 6.4 Application of the Belbin model in team design To use the Belbin theory in practical situations when composing teams, LDpe has developed a Team Design Module (TDM), which enables the analysis of team compositions on the basis of Belbin’s teamrole concept. This tool has been used frequently, when selecting new members for the completion of management teams and in the composition of natural working teams for organisational development. The TDM enables a complete analysis by creating an overview of Belbin teamrole scores and to subsequently analyse the teamscore of any theoretically composed team. For this type of analyses LDpe uses the Belbin scores from the LD Toolbox.

21


7 Professional Roles 7.1 Objectives for design of professional roles models Leadership is not limited to roles in giving direction to and supporting the employees of an organisation. Leadership is also needed for the development of a new market, a large account, the acquisation of a major contract, to deliver this contract or to lead the change of an organisation. Such roles, we will call them ‘Professional roles’, ask for specific combinations of leadership qualities. But even the domains of Business Development, Sales or Change Management are so extensive that a ‘professional leader’ will not be as good in all aspect of the field. This is why most of the professional development programs start to create a dedicated language for the specific field they cover, for instance client development, commercial roles or program management. Unlike the widely accepted leadership theories we referred to above, most of the theories in the fields of Business Development & Sales and Change Management, Program Management and Project Management are based on specific methodologies, and not widely accepted outside the scope of this methodology. LDpe has witnessed the need for a consequent more generalised language, primarely based on the talents and personality of the professional leader. Therefore LDpe has developed a number of concepts enabling leaders to analyse which part of a specific role they are good at and how they (following the simulation scenarios) can improve their qualities to play the different roles. The objectives for design of the models are:

1. The breakdown of the specific field must follow the distinction of practical situational dimensions:

a. For the client development roles model the dimensions are (1) customer intimacy and (2) awareness of customer need;

b. For the commercial roles model the dimensions are (1) involvement in the process and (2) commercial behaviour;

c. For the program management roles model the dimensions are (1) internal management (inside the program or project) versus environmental management (managing acceptance in the user organisation and the expectations of its management) and (2) mobilizing people versus planning and execution.

2. The specific fields must be related to the basic measurement of a person’s behavioural preferences through the LDT competence model, such that the leader’s score for the field relates to the assessment scores and such that the impact of the simulation scenarios can be analysed.

7.2 Concepts and models for Business Development and Acquisition The first model in the field of Business Development and Acquisition refers to the (professional) leader’s client development role. This model is especially created for account managers. Not every situation is the same when developing the relationship with ‘an account’. In a new relationship, customer intimicy is still low and growing the relationship is one of the objectives for the account manager. In ‘sales’ terminology we speak of ‘hunters’ (for new clients) and ‘farmers’ (those who have an enduring relationship with the client organisation). But to be able to score a contract some other skills are needed as well and, important enough, one must know more detailed about the specific need that calls for a proposal. After a contract has been granted, the delivery phase will ask for a new set of skills.

22


The second model in business development & acquisition relates to the distribution of roles when the clients need is identified and the selling organisation prepares for and delivers a proposal, and to roles during the delivery phase. It is called the commercial roles model. Especially during the proposal phase there are more or less two ‘camps’, the camp of the client- and the camp of the supplier-organisation. The organisations have different interests: the client organisation may have to deal with bids from different competitors while the selling organisation is focused on closing the deal. Those concerned in the suppliers organisation will contribute best if they noticeably play different roles towards the client organisation, for instance that one person clearly wears the ‘sales’ hat. Whereas consultants with a trusted relationship with the client’s top management avoid the typical commercial behaviour and keep identifying with the client’s problems. One of the executives in the supplier’s organisation should play the ‘leading parner’ role, etc. Below the definitions of the roles, indicated in both models.

CLIENT DEVELOPMENT ROLESSalesCold canvassingCustomer intimacy still lowCustomer need yet unknown

Commercial OrientationSelf ConfidenceImpactPersuasivenessCustomer Service Orientation

The Sales person is strongly focussed on developing new relationships. He/she is anatural networker and eager to get to know people. With great effort he/she workson turning new contacts in enduring client relationship. He/she thrives on buildinghis/her network and opening doors for the services of the company.

Account DeveloperExploring the Client OrganisationCustomer intimacy growingCustomer need yet unknown

Building and Maintaining RelationshipsManagement controlStrategic PerspectiveCommercial OrientationPersuasiveness

The Account Developer builds en enduring client relation by exploring the clientsorganisation and prospecting for key people in that organisation. He/she (works onand) facilitates a strongly networked relationship between the client organisation andthe service provider organisation.

Bid LeaderProposal / bid phaseCustomer need knownOffering Services to the client

Providing DirectionTenacityJudgementCommercial OrientationConcern for Excellence

The Bid Leader is focused on creating business from the moment the client expressesa certain need until the rewarding of the contract. He/she builds the proposal teamand gives direction in the bid phase, mobilises for client interfacing, creates wherepossible short cuts for quick starts, keeps track of and influences the clients granting process.

Delivery ManagerDelivery PhaseCustomer need knownClient intimacy high

Motivating othersInterpersonal SensitivityCommercial OrientationImpactCustomer Service Orientation

The Delivery Manager is the clients commercial interface during the entire deliveryprocess. He/she is perceived by the client as the commercial representative duringthis phase, sees to that the client pays in time for rendered services, whendiscovering tensions opens discussions on sensitive items and tries to identify newopportunities for additional services all the time.

COMMERCIAL ROLESAccount ExecutiveChasing businessThe suppliers representativeStrong commercial behaviour

Motivating othersTeamworkBuilding and Maintaining RelationshipsObjective SettingCommercial Orientation

The Account Executive is the co-ordinating interface between the clients organisation and the service provider. He/she focuses on identifying the clients needs and takesbusiness creating initiatives by entertaining a dialogue with key people in the clientsorganisation and establishing professional contacts at expertise level in order toexpore business opportunities.

Personal CoachThe clients trusteeEmpathic, supportiveBehaviour not perceived as commercial

Developing othersInterpersonal SensitivityBuilding and Maintaining RelationshipsProblem analysisStrategic Perspective

The Personal Coach is a trusted relation at the clients executive level. He/she isperceived as a valuable personal advisor, understanding this persons position andchallenges, competent enough to serve as a sparring partner and helping to findsolutions. Even if the personal coach may have excellent commercial skills, a tooobvious commercial behaviour may sometimes harm the special trusted position.

Engagement ManagerDelivering solutionsHighly involved in serving clients needsSeen by the client as Mr. Delivery

Objective SettingCommercial OrientationImpactCustomer Service OrientationExecution

The Engagement Manager is focused on delivery excellence and fulfilling the contract.He/she understands the details of the contract and sees to that the contracts isdelivered on time and above customer expectation. The engagement manager ismanaging client expectations. He/she signals and defines the clients additional needs.He/she is on top of change requests.

Leading PartnerExecutive level / the clients partnerEscalation level in conflict situationsDistance to day-to-day delivery process

Building and Maintaining RelationshipsJudgementInformation GatheringStrategic PerspectivePersuasiveness

The Leading Partner is the clients executive reference. He/she is the dedicatedsponsor of the project/program and is involved at important occasions: as the leadingpartner in the formal contracting, during the delivery process at important officialoccasions, when correcting the scope of the agreement or when there are conflictsto be solved. He/she communicates with the highest level in the client organisation.

23


7.3 Roles in leading the change process The most applied way to organize change is in the form of projects and programs. On the difference between projects and programs many discussions can be found on internet. For instance the following article from Robert Pietro: ‘Program management differs from project management in several fundamental ways as illustrated in the table below. In the simplest of terms, program management is the definition and integration of a number of projects to cause a broader, strategic business outcome to be achieved. Program management is not just the sum of all project management activities but also includes management of the risks, opportunities and activities that occur “in the white space” between projects. While an individual project will employ a specific project delivery approach (design-bid-build, design/build, DBOM etc), program management may combine different delivery approaches across multiple projects to best achieve the desired strategic business objectives.’

In short, a project can be defined as to realise a certain functionality within an agreed time frame and within an agreed budget. Project leaders tend to focus on just that, the ‘internal project’. But the program manager has to deliver a strategic business outcome, from an enterprise point of view. The program manager has to realise the internal project in the ‘environment’ and deliver a functioning process in a ‘new’ organisation. The program management roles model, developed by LDpe in dialogue with a natural working team of program- and projectmanagers, adresses the environmental management versus the internal management and focuses on both the activities of mobilising people (in the client’s organisation and the project employees) versus the activities of planning and execution.

24


7.4 The Change Management Competency model Not for every professional role analysis it is necessary to develop a new concept. The LDT change management compentence model shows the scores of 12 selected key competences for change managers. LDpe has designed this management report25 based on the scores of these 12 competences.

In the report, the scores higher than 6 highlights the strengths of the candidate and the score lower than 6 his potential weaknesses. When reviewing the candidate about his experiences, the selection manager can during the discussion decide to zoom in, in a natural way, on the specific competence in order to analyse the nature of potential qualities and weaknesses. 25 The term ‘management report’ is used here to indicate that it is a report about a candidate for someone else to make a decision about the candidature (e.g. a selection manager), whereas most of the reports from the LD Toolbox are to be used mainly by the participant himself. The difference between the needs of the selection manager and the candidate is that the selection manager mainly is interested in compact information (clear, distinct, surveyable, comparable, maybe even ranking of different candidates) whereas the need of the candidate is getting as much information as possible, enabling him to deeper analyse the result. See also the memo ‘Some reflections about choosing and usuing assessment instruments’, H.F. Bremer, 2009

Documents

Concepts and Models - Amazon Web Servicesh24-files.s3.amazonaws.com/151812/435110-LEgvh.pdf3 Concepts and Models version 1.0 1.2 Type theories versus Trait theories Many theories of