Você está na página 1de 27

A Guide for Conducting

a TILL Audit


Kim Sydow Campbell, PhD
Professor of Management Communication &
Derrell Thomas Faculty Fellow
Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business
Administration
University of Alabama




This guide, updated for 2012, teaches you to assess a leaders
communication skill based on a TILL
1
analysis of actual
interactions and questionnaire responses from a leader and his
or her followers.


1
Dr. Campbell published Thinking and Interacting Like a Leader: The TILL System for Effective
Interpersonal Communication with Parlay Press in 2006 to help managers become better leaders.
T
H
I
N
K
I
N
G

&

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I
N
G

L
I
K
E

A

L
E
A
D
E
R

Ch. 1 - 1 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
Chapter 1
Planning the TILL audit for leadership development

In this chapter, you will learn how to
plan an audit of a leaders
communication skills.

Preview of the TILL Audit Materials
This document guides you in performing an audit of a leaders communication skill based
on TILL (Thinking and Interacting Like a Leader), using a four-step method:

Planning the TILL audit for leadership development (Chapter 1)
Collecting communication samples for the TILL audit (Chapter 2)
Analyzing communication samples for the TILL audit (Chapter 3)
Reporting the results of your TILL leadership audit (Chapter 4)

In Chapter 1, you will learn how to plan a successful audit by involving the leader and
relevant members. In Chapter 2, you will study how to collect samples of the leaders
communication behavior through observation (including video/audio recording) and
written documents (or other artifacts). In Chapter 3, you will learn how to analyze the
communication samples you collect to assess the leaders communication skills. Finally,
in Chapter 4, you will learn how to report the results of a TILL audit in order to help the
leader develop his or her leadership communication skills.
Procedures for Planning the Audit
Meet with the leader to explain the scope and steps of the TILL audit and to identify his
or her leadership development goals. A TILL audit provides a powerful leadership
development tool because of its ability to increase a leaders self-awareness through
concrete examples of his or her own communication behaviors. You should plan the
audit to reflect the leaders development goals: Is the leader interested in his or her
overall development? Or does the leader have a more specific development goal related
to improving his or her effectiveness with a specific organizational process like
performance reviews or a specific project like customer service reform? Or is the leader
Ch. 1 - 2 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
most interested in improving interactions with a specific member in his or her
organization?

To help you understand how these procedures work, lets consider an example involving
a leader well call Amy. After talking with Amy about her challenges as a leader, you
learn she is especially interested in improving her leadership skills when conducting
performance reviews. You briefly outline the steps involved in a TILL audit and collect a
list of names and contact information from Amy so you can talk with the members in her
organization. You should inform Amy that the quality of the audit can be guaranteed only
if members know their participation is critical and voluntary. In other words, members
must believe their participation is desirable and that they will not incur any kind of
negative consequences due to their participation (or lack of participation). Thus, you ask
Amy to tell the members about her goal of improving her leadership skills through the
TILL audit and to ask for their help.
Introduce yourself and the audit to relevant members. Any assessment involves ethical
and legal decisions on your part. Certainly one of the most important of these concerns in
the TILL audit is the participation of members working with the leader. Because you
must collect information that may be sensitive to the individuals who are involved, you
might think of the TILL audit as research.
The most influential document covering the use of humans in research is The Belmont
report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research 1976). There are three basic principles outlined in that document:
1. Respect for personsallowing the participant to choose what will or will not
happen
2. Beneficenceavoiding unnecessary physical, psychological, or social harm and
protecting the participant's privacy, dignity, and feelings of personal worth
3. J usticenot discriminating against the sick, poor, institutionalized, and so forth
The primary means for protecting human participants is through the careful planning of
the research and the use of an informed consent form. Thoughtful planning and informed
consent will go a long way toward ensuring you protect the rights of those members who
participate in a TILL audit as well.
To see how this might work in a TILL audit, lets go back to our example scenario. You
use email to contact all eighteen members listed by Amy (after Amy invites their
participation). You briefly outline the steps involved in a TILL audit, highlighting the
importance of their participation and clearly stating what the member will be required to
do and how you will (and will not) use the information from the member. Finally, you
ask the members to contact you. A sample email appears in Figure 1.1.
From: Ki mSydow Campbel l
Sent: Wednesday, Sept ember 23, 2011 9: 46 AM
To: St af f Member s
Subject: Ms. Amy Johnsons Leadership Development
Ch. 1 - 3 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.

I know Amy has al r eady cont act ed you t o l et you know about her
commi t ment t o devel opi ng her l eader shi p ski l l s t hr ough a TI LL audi t .
Thi s emai l br i ef l y descr i bes your r ol e i n t he act i vi t i es i nvol ved i n
audi t i ng Amy s communi cat i on behavi or .

Amy and I need your hel p because t he audi t wi l l f ocus on her ski l l s
i n communi cat i ng wi t h you. We want you t o know you have t he r i ght t o
r ef use t o par t i ci pat e. I n addi t i on, you wi l l not i ncur any penal t y
of any ki nd f or r ef usi ng t o par t i ci pat e now or af t er choosi ng t o
par t i ci pat e.

I f you choose t o par t i ci pat e, I wi l l do ever yt hi ng I can t o mi ni mi ze
t he t i me t hi s audi t t akes away f r omyour r egul ar dut i es. And I wi l l
do ever yt hi ng i n my power t o ensur e t hat t her e ar e no negat i ve
consequences as a r esul t of your par t i ci pat i on.

The audi t wi l l t ake pl ace i n t hr ee phases:

THE PLANNI NG PHASE
We ar e cur r ent l y pl anni ng t he audi t i n or der t o maxi mi ze t he
pot ent i al f or Amy s gr owt h as a l eader . We need f or sever al member s
of Amy s st af f t o vol unt eer bef or e we can move on t o t he next phase.
Vol unt eer s wi l l be asked t o compl et e a quest i onnai r e about Amy s
cur r ent l eader shi p communi cat i on behavi or .

THE I NFORMATI ON GATHERI NG & ANALYSI S PHASE
Based on what we l ear n f r omt he compl et ed quest i onnai r es and
di scussi ons wi t h Amy, we wi l l gat her act ual sampl es of Amy s
communi cat i on behavi or . Thi s i s l i kel y t o i nvol ve bot h t ape-
r ecor di ng conver sat i ons and col l ect i ng wr i t t en messages. Onl y Amy
and I wi l l have access t o t he i nf or mat i on col l ect ed. I want t o
st r ess t hat Amy s behavi or not your si s t he f ocus of t hi s audi t .

THE REPORTI NG PHASE
I n t hi s f i nal phase, we wi l l pr epar e a r epor t based on our anal ysi s
of Amy s communi cat i on behavi or s and make r ecommendat i ons. Thi s
r epor t i s f or Amy s devel opment as a l eader , and onl y she can
det er mi ne what , i f any, r esul t s shoul d be shar ed wi t h ot her s.

I need t o know i f you ar e wi l l i ng t o par t i ci pat e i n t hi s audi t by
Monday, Sept ember 28. I f you have any quest i ons about t he pl anned
audi t t hat have not been answer ed i n t hi s emai l , pl ease f eel f r ee t o
cont act me at any t i me.

Thank you i n advance f or your hel p,

Ki mSydow Campbel l
HR Depar t ment
Yahoo Li mi t ed, LLC
Yahoo, AL 55555
Phone: 205- 555- 1212
FAX: 205- 555- 2222

Figure 1.1. Sample email to members of the leaders organization.
Ch. 1 - 4 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Help identify a development goal with a log (optional). Often, the leader will be unable to
voice a specific, meaningful leadership goal related to communication. Lets consider an
example of such a situation involving a leader well call Domingo. Although he was
interested in improving as a leader and encouraged all of the members of his workgroup
to participate in the audit, he didnt share any communication-specific goals with you.
One method for helping a leader like Domingo identity an appropriate goal is to ask him
to complete a daily communication log or diary like the one shown in Figure 1.2 below.
In this example log, source identifies the individual and occupational group of that
individual involved in all communications received and initiated throughout the day.
Purpose identifies the reason for the communication. Channel describes the medium
used (i.e., face-to-face, telephone, fax, email, memo, etc.). Length/Duration describes
page length of written communications or time length of oral communications.
Feedback identifies whether the communication was one-way or two-way, depending
on whether the leader was expected to respond. Finally, evaluation provides a means
for the leader to assess the communication effectiveness from his or her perspective using
a numbered scale (e.g., 1 =totally ineffective through 5 =totally effective).
Daily Communication Log

Your Name __________________________________ Date ___________________

Received by You
Source Purpose Channel Length/Duration Feedback Evaluation
1
2
3
4
Initiated by You
Source Purpose Channel Length/Duration Feedback Evaluation
1
2
3
Figure 1.2. Log for leader use in identifying communication patterns with members.

Domingo kept a daily log for one day. You met with him to discuss the log and found
that a single member of his workgroup was involved in two interactions that Domingo
rated as minimally effective. However, Domingo seemed to minimize the importance of
this result, claiming that he has a good relationship with this member and didnt believe
their interactions should be the single target of the audit. In this situation, the log alone
did not lead to more specific leadership development goals.

Help identify a development goal with a questionnaire (optional). The most
comprehensive method for helping the leader identify meaningful leadership
Ch. 1 - 5 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
development goals related to communication is to present him or her with the results
from a questionnaire designed to collect members perceptions in three areas: (a) the
quality of their relationship with their leader, (b) their leaders values, and (c) their
leaders rapport management behavior. We will consider the potential value of these
questionnaire results for the TILL audit of Domingo.
Perceptions of Relationship Quality. You ask the participating members to
complete the survey instrument shown in Figure 1.3, reminding them that you need for
them to be as honest as possible and that you will not share the results with the leader
unless they give you permission.
1. How well do you feel that your leader understands your problems and needs?
(1) Not at all (2) somewhat (3) average (4) quite well (5) perfectly

2. How well do you feel that your leader recognizes your potential?
(1) Not at all (2) somewhat (3) average (4) quite well (5) perfectly

3. Regardless of how much formal organizational authority your leader has built into
his/her position, what are the chances that he/she would be personally inclined to use
power to help you solve problems in your work?
(1) Not inclined (2) somewhat inclined (3) fairly inclined (4) very inclined (5) highly inclined

4. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, to what extent can
you count on him/her to bail you out at his/her expense when you really need it?
(1) Rarely (2) not often (3) sometimes (4) often (5) almost always

5. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?
(1) Very poor (2) poor (3) average (4) good (5) very good

6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her
decisions if he/she were not present to do so.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) neutral (4) agree (5) strongly agree

7. Do you usually feel that you know where you stand. . .do you really know how
satisfied your leader is with what you do?
(1) Rarely (2) seldom (3) sometimes (4) often (5) almost always
Figure 1.3. Member survey for measuring leader-member relationship quality (LMX).
In general, the higher the average score on these seven questions in the LMX
questionnaire, the higher the quality of the leader-member relationship. An average score
above 4.0 indicates that the member who completed the questionnaire is one of the
leaders in-group.

It can also be highly informative to ask the leader to complete the items in Figure 1.4,
reminding him or her to be brutally honest if the results are to be useful in your audit.

1. List the members you consider excellent employees.

2. Which of the members in your list require little supervision?
Ch. 1 - 6 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.

3. Which of the members in your list do you like very much as a person?

4. Which of the members in your list would you bail outeven at our own expense if
he or she really needed it?

Figure 1.4. Leader self-test for measuring leader-member relationship quality.
The members listed at least three times in this self-test are considered in-group members.
All others are not (although they may be mid-group rather than out-group members).
Once you have identified relationship quality with the participating members, you will be
able to compare the leaders communication behavior with in-group versus other
members. You will also be able to report how closely the leaders perception of
relationship quality matches the individual members perceptions.

Domingo listed all eight of the members of his workgroup for all four items in Fig. 1.4.
However, when workgroup members completed the items in Fig. 1.3, you learn that two
individuals scored below 4.0: one of those individuals, with an average LMX score of
2.75, is the person who was involved in the ineffective interactions identified by
Domingo in his daily log. At this point, you feel it may be helpful to focus one of
Domingos development goals on communication with mid- or out-group members. But
you want more information before you present that goal to the leader.
Perceptions of Leader Values. To learn about the leaders communication behavior,
you ask members to answer the questions shown in Figure 1.5, which were designed to
measure perceptions of a leaders competing values behavior (i.e., the perceived
effectiveness and frequency with which a leader communicates messages for different
purposes).
1. Rank order the following terms for describing your leader.
___ Coordinator ___ Producer ___ Innovator ___ Mentor

2. Rank order the following terms for describing your leaders style.
___ Predictable ___ Competitive ___ Flexible ___ Loyal


3. How effective is your leader at informing you? (This means delivering messages that do not
require any specific response from you.)
(1) Highly ineffective (2) Somewhat ineffective (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat effective (5) Highly effective

4. In the past few weeks, how often did your leader keep you informed?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always

5. In the past few weeks, how often do you wish your leader had kept you informed?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always


6. How effective is your leader at directing you? (This means delivering messages that require a
specific response from you that is determined by your leader.)
(1) Highly ineffective (2) Somewhat ineffective (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat effective (5) Highly effective

7. In the past few weeks, how often did your leader give you directions?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always

Ch. 1 - 7 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
8. In the past few weeks, how often do you wish your leader had given you directions?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always


9. How effective is your leader at consulting with you? (This means delivering messages that
require a response determined by you.)
(1) Highly ineffective (2) Somewhat ineffective (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat effective (5) Highly effective

10. In the past few weeks, how often did your leader consult with you?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always

11. In the past few weeks, how often do you wish your leader had consulted with you?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always


12. How effective is your leader at showing he/she values you? (This means delivering messages
that make you feel personally good about being a part of your organization.)
(1) Highly ineffective (2) Somewhat ineffective (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat effective (5) Highly effective

13. In the past few weeks, how often did your leader show he/she valued you?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always

14. In the past few weeks, how often do you wish your leader had shown he/she valued
you?
(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always
Figure 1.5. Member test for measuring leader competing values behavior (LCV).
The results of the LCV questionnaire can be used alone as an indication of an
individuals strengths and weaknesses as a manager/leader or as a way of identifying the
focus of additional data collection during the audit.
Questions 1 and 2 suggest which values the leader communicates to members:
coordinator & predictable =consolidating internal processes (transactional &
static); producer & competitive =maximizing output (transactional & dynamic);
innovator & flexible =adapting to change (transformational & dynamic); mentor
& loyal =building commitment (transformational & static)
Questions 3, 4, and 5 indicate how effectively and frequently the leader informs
the member.
Questions 6, 7, and 8 indicate how effectively and frequently the leader directs
the member.
Questions 9, 10, and 11 indicate how effectively and frequently the leader
consults the member.
Questions 12, 13, and 14 indicate how effectively and frequently the leader
values the member.

In our example audit of Domingo, the results of the LCV for all members of his
workgroup suggest that four members perceive a meaningful difference between the
frequency with which Domingo consults and values them and the frequency with which
they wish he did so. That group of four includes both his mid-group and out-group
members. You now feel more certain one of Domingos development goals should focus
on communication with mid- or out-group members. But you now suspect another
Ch. 1 - 8 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
development goal might focus on the frequency with which Domingo communicates
transformational messages.
Perceptions of Leader Rapport Management. To learn more about the leaders
communication behavior, you ask members to answer the questions shown in Figure 1.6,
which were designed to measure the members perception of a leaders rapport
management behavior (i.e., the perceived frequency with which a leader tends or
threatens that members ego and autonomy needs).
1. In our interactions, my supervisor criticizes me.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always

2. My supervisor criticizes me in front of others.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always

3. My supervisor makes members of my workgroup look bad in front of others.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always


4. My supervisor takes the time necessary to interact with me when I need him/her to.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always

5. In our interactions, my supervisor gives me the attention I need.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always

6. My supervisor has time for my questions and concerns.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always


7. My supervisor gives me a lot of autonomy.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always

8. In general, my supervisor lets me do things the way I think is best.
(1) Not at all (2) once in a while (3) sometimes (4) fairly often (5) frequently, if not always

Figure 1.6. Member test for measuring leader rapport management behavior (LRM).
The results of the LRM questionnaire are highly likely to dovetail with your measures of
leader-member relationship quality. In other words, in-group members are much more
likely than out-group members to perceive their leaders communication behavior as
effective. Most important, the results of this questionnaire can be used to identify the
specific areas of rapport management that should be the focus of additional data
collection during the audit.
Questions 1, 2, and 3 are indicators of how effectively the leader tends the ego
needs of the member.
Questions 4, 5, and 6 are indicators of how effectively the leader tends
specifically to ego needs dependent upon being accessible and available to the
member.
Questions 7 and 8 are indicators of how effectively the leader tends to the
autonomy needs of the member.

Ch. 1 - 9 Kim Sydow Campbell, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
Note that a low score indicates good rapport management behaviors for the questions
related to ego, while it indicates poor rapport management behaviors for the questions
related to autonomy.

Although you may want to compute a mean rapport management score (after reverse-
scoring questions 7 and 8), the LRM items are most useful as indicators of specific
communication strengths and weaknesses with specific members. Consider how this
might work in our example situation with Domingo. The results for the items in Fig. 1.6
show that the mean scores on autonomy needs are relatively low for all members, but the
mean scores on ego needs related to availability are low only for the two mid-/out-group
members. Now you are comfortable suggesting that you focus the TILL audit of
Domingo on communication differences between in-group and mid-/out-group members,
especially related to ego needs, and on communication behaviors where members
autonomy might be better supported.
At the end of the planning phase of the audit, you have helped the leader and
participating members of his or her workgroup understand what to expect during the
TILL audit and you have identified a development goal related to leadership
communication that will determine what information you need to collect in the next
phase of the audit.
Discussion Exercise
Come to class ready to discuss your progress in identifying a specific, meaningful goal
for the leaders development as a communicator. What obstacles have you faced? How
would these obstacles differ if you were planning an audit of someone who worked for
you? How would they differ if you were the HR person arguing with management for
this kind of audit for leaders in your organization?
Ch. 2 - 1 Kim Sydow Campbell
Chapter 2
Collecting communication samples for the TILL audit

In this chapter, you will learn how
to collect samples of the leaders
communication behavior.

Guidance for Collecting Samples
After completing the planning phase of the audit outlined in Chapter 1, you have
determined the leaders development goal and the identity of members who have agreed
to participate in the audit. In this chapter, I will first explain how to determine what
events will be most useful for collecting communication samples and then present
methods for observing oral behavior and searching for artifacts. Finally, I will discuss
how to choose sample communication behaviors for further analysis.

Determine what events can be targeted to collect communication samples. Obviously,
you need samples of communication that are clearly related to the leaders development
goal. In our simple example scenario from Chapter 1, it means you will target Amys
behavior when communicating performance review information to members. Your task
at this point is to ask Amy to list all of the events in which she communicates with
members about their performance. You learn that her organization uses a standard form
on which both the supervisor and the member rate and write comments on member
performance annually. The completed forms are then used as the basis for a face-to-face
meeting. In addition to communicating her evaluation of performance in this formal
process, Amy noted that she informally communicates her evaluation of member
performance constantly, most often during weekly staff meetings. She also discusses
performance with members in private as needed.

For Amys TILL audit, you now have a list of four communication events in which Amy
displays the behavior of interest:
1. Written comments on the standard annual review form
2. Oral contributions during annual review meetings
3. Oral contributions during weekly staff meetings
4. Oral contributions during private meetings
Ch. 2 - 2 Kim Sydow Campbell

In the case of Domingo, who voiced a general development goal, you have relied on a
daily log and questionnaire results to develop specific development goals: (a)
communication differences between in-group and mid-/out-group members, especially
related to ego needs and (b) communication behaviors where members autonomy might
be better supported. To identify target behaviors to audit in such as case, you need to
meet with Domingo to present the goals you have developed and ask him when and how
he communicates with members. He tells you that, because he manages different
projects, his entire workgroup meets once per week and smaller project groups meet for
at least a few minutes several times per week, usually at the beginning of the work day.
He also sends several emails to the groups and individuals every day, but he reports that
he rarely talks to individuals privately because it interrupts their project work.

For Domingos TILL audit, you now have a list of four communication events you can
target for investigation:
1. Oral contributions during weekly workgroup meetings
2. Oral contributions during project group meetings
3. Emails to groups
4. Emails to individuals

At this point, you are ready to collect evidence of the leaders communication behavior.
Why and how do you observe a leaders oral communication behavior? We know
from past research that what people say they do (or what they say other people
do) on a questionnaire doesnt always match what actually happens. Thus, the
TILL audit requires that you observe actual leader-member interaction. Although
the leaders knowledge that he or she is being observed (called reactivity) may
affect the validity of his or her behavior, the effects are generally restricted to the
beginning of the observation period. Clandestine observation would overcome
this problem, but is unethical. Despite reactivity, observation still provides
powerful evidence of the leaders behavior.
Collecting information through observation requires the use of a video- or audio-
recording. The simplest way to proceed is to leave a tape-recorder with the leader and
instruct him or her to turn it on during the events you have targeted for investigation. Of
course, if you have access to a facility that is wired with a video camera, you can simply
ask the leader to use that facility.
If we return to our example scenario, you might ask Amy to use your tape-
recorder during her performance review meeting with three of her subordinates.
You make sure the tape-recorder has batteries and empty tapes, as well as insuring
that Amy knows how to operate the recorder before you leave. (Its also a good
idea to test the volume level on the recorder before you leave.)
Although it is possible to take notes while observing an interaction between leader
and member, it is impossible to capture the same level of detail that a recording
Ch. 2 - 3 Kim Sydow Campbell
will offermainly because you will be able to listen or view the recording as
many times as you need to complete your analysis. In addition, your presence
during the interaction is likely to cause greater reactivity than a recording device.
While it might be necessary to be present during the interaction in order to record
it, I do not recommend note-taking as a method for collecting observational
information.
Why and how do you search for artifacts created by the leader? Because a TILL audit
focuses on communication, existing artifacts created by the leader are often an excellent
source of data. Common artifacts that might have been created by the leader with his or
her members as the intended audience include:
Texts (for example, memos/letters, e-mail, policies and procedures manuals,
performance appraisals, vacation request forms, and so forth)
Visuals (for example, organizational charts, logos, photographs, and so forth)
Audio- or video-tapes (for example, training films, voice mail messages, help line
conversations, and so forth)
To recognize the value of existing artifacts like these, it may be helpful to think of the
way artifacts like pottery are used by archeologists to study civilizations that no longer
exist. In addition, the use of artifacts created during normal organizational processes
gives you information that provides a counterbalance to the observational information
you collect during the audit itself. This triangulation improves the credibility of your
assessment.
If we return once more to our example scenario, you would ask Amy for copies of
the written performance reviews for each member who has agreed to participate in
the audit. You also ask Amy for copies of the five most recent emails sent to each
member as a way of comparing her behavior with members when writing other
types of documents with different goals.
Determine the sample of communication behaviors for further analysis. While you will
need to listen to all recordings and view all artifacts collected from the leader, it is neither
useful nor realistic to submit all of this to detailed analysis. There are three sampling
strategies for choosing communication examples for your TILL audit.

The first strategy. MAXIMUM VARIATION SAMPLING, ensures that your audit results
represent the full range of the leaders communication behaviors. The success of this
strategy lies in your ability to identify the relevant variations based on the leaders
development goals. For instance, choosing to assess Amys behavior only with male
members of the organization might provide different results than assessing her behaviors
with both men and women. Table 1.1 shows some common variations within three
common sampling categories.
Figure 1.1. Possible variations within three categories for leader communication behavior.

Ch. 2 - 4 Kim Sydow Campbell
Variations Possible within Three Sampling Categories
Members Gender Age LMX quality
Organizational
Tenure
Goals/Actions
Informing to
Consolidate
Internal
Processes
Instructing to
Maximize
Productivity
Consulting to
Adapt to Change
Valuing to Build
Organizational
Commitment
Media
Individual Face-
to-Face Meetings
Group Face-to-
Face Meetings
Individual Email Group Email
For Domingos TILL audit, imagine you have now collected the following:
21-minute audio recording of a weekly workgroup meeting
17-minute audio recording of a weekly workgroup meeting
6-minute audio recording of a project group meeting
11-minute audio recording of a weekly workgroup meeting
5 emails addressed to the entire workgroup
16 emails addressed to the 8 individual members (2 for each)
Because one of Domingos development goals relates to differences between in-group
and mid-/out-group members, you want to choose samples from the recordings and
emails addressed to individuals representing the full range of LMX quality within his
workgroup.
The second strategy, TYPICAL CASE SAMPLING, for choosing specific samples for your
detailed analysis ensures that you assess the leaders behavior using a typical member or
goal or medium. If you asked the leader to complete a daily communication log, it will
be helpful for determining what is typical for the leader.
For our example scenario involving Amy, this strategy will be useful for choosing which
written performance reviews to include in your detailed analysis. For instance, if you
know that workers in a single job description make up the vast majority of Amys
subordinates, then you improve the quality of the audit by analyzing her performance
reviews of workers with that job description.
For the scenario involving Domingo, this strategy will be especially helpful for choosing
communication samples where members autonomy might be better supported. To
provide meaningful audit results, you must think carefully about the typical situations in
which the members autonomy is affected. After listening to recordings and reading
emails, you may learn that Domingo uses email almost exclusively for directing members
of his workgroup. Thus, analyzing communication behavior in emails in detail may be
more useful than analyzing behavior in meetings.
The third strategy, CRITICAL CASE SAMPLING, ensures that your samples represent the
most critical cases for the leaders goal. Because Amys assessment goal is to develop her
leadership communication skills in performance reviews, part of your work in choosing
Ch. 2 - 5 Kim Sydow Campbell
behaviors to analyze is already determined. However, in other situations, you might want
to choose behaviors involving a specific member with whom the leader has the greatest
challenge or behaviors involving instructing or directing members actions because the
leader feels these present the greatest challenge in meeting their leadership development
goal. In your audit of Domingo, for example, this strategy means that you want to search
for samples of his communication behavior in which mid-/out-group members ego needs
might be affected. Again, the results of a leaders communication log or questionnaire
results may help you define critical cases for collecting data.
All three of the strategies constitute an attempt to make systematic and rational choices
about the behavior examples analyzed in order to enhance the value of your audit for
development of the leaders communication skills. No matter how specific the leaders
goals, the audit will provide the highest quality results only if you think carefully about
maximum variation, typical case, and critical case sampling while selecting samples for
detailed TILL analysis.
At the end of the collection phase, you have the information you need to assess the
leaders communication behavior and help the leader work toward his or her leadership
development goal. For video- or audio-recordings, you should create written transcripts
for all samples you have chosen. You are now ready to move on to the analysis phase of
the audit.
Discussion Exercise
Come to our class meeting ready to share your current progress in developing a data
collection and sampling plan for your TILL audit project.
Ch. 3 - 1 Kim Sydow Campbell
Chapter 3
Analyzing communication samples for the TILL audit

In this chapter, you will learn how to use
TILL to analyze the samples you have
collected of a leaders communication
behavior in order to assess his/her
strengths and weaknesses.

Analysis Procedures
Once you have collected evidence and chosen samples of the leaders behavior with
members, you are ready to begin assessing that leaders communication effectiveness,
using what you learning in the book, Thinking and Interacting Like a Leader. The first
phase results in your description of the context within which those sample behaviors
occurred. The second phase results in a detailed analysis of the leaders communication
strategies in those samples. The final phase results in your evaluation of the effectiveness
of the leaders strategies.

How do you describe the context of those sample communication behaviors you
collected? You begin your analysis by identifying the leaders primary organizational
goal(s) and action(s). You may note more than one primary goal/action within a single
conversation or document. This determination is critical as it determines the validity of
the rest of your analysis. If you are uncertain about the leaders goal/action, you may
need to seek his or her input.

Next, you must note whether the member(s) involved in each sample is one of the
leaders in-group by reviewing the questionnaires completed by the leader and members
measuring the quality of their relationship.

Finally, you must note specific behaviors in the samples where you can predict that the
members ego or autonomy are either threatened or tended. If you are uncertain, you may
need to seek the members input.

To demonstrate, well describe the context of one written performance review in our
example scenario involving a TILL audit of Amy.

Ch. 3 - 2 Kim Sydow Campbell
1. Amys primary or overall purpose in the review is to inform the member. However,
we see several places in the review where Amy directs the member and one place in
which Amy values the member.

2. Georges (the member Amy evaluated in this review) average score on the leader-
member relationship quality questionnaire was under 4.0 (around 3.1); thus he should
not be considered an in-group member.

3. Amy mentioned George in only two of the questions on her evaluation of the quality
of her relationships with members so we have evidence that Amy does not see George
as part of her in-group.

4. Amy threatens Georges ego needs in several places by criticizing his performance.
She tends his ego in only one place in the review by complimenting him on a project
he completed. Amy threatens Georges autonomy in several places by telling him
how certain tasks should be done in the future.

How do you identify the leaders communication strategies in those sample interactions
you collected? You should identify the leaders strategies (e.g., On Record Plainly) for
each place in the interaction where you identified either (a) the leaders primary
organizational goals/actions or (b) probable consequences to the members face
wants/sociality rights. For each, you should note specific tactics used by the leader (e.g.,
On Record Plainly: Be First) as described in TILL.

You now have a marked up copy of the written documents produced by the leader or the
transcripts of oral interactions between the leader and members. Figure 3.1 shows what a
marked up copy of a sample performance review might look like at this stage of analysis.
Notes are entered in specific places on a copy of the sample document in order to keep
the analysis clearly tied to the actual communication behavior of the leader. This will also
make your job of consolidating analyses of all samples easier.
Figure 3.1. Example of Marked Up Copy of Communication Sample in TILL audit for Amy.
PART II - BEHAVIORAL TRAITS
Review of George (mid/out-group member)
Amys Overall goal/action = informing

Dependability Consider the amount of time spent directing this employee. Does the employee monitor projects and
exercise follow-through; adhere to time frames; is on time for meetings and appointments; and responds appropriately to
instructions and procedures?
Unacceptable .......................................................................................... Superior
1 X 2 3 4 5
Comments: The status of the verification of Form 3s and employment eligibility do not adhere to regulations. We (On
Polite: Inclusi ve) have continued to lag in the updating of Form 3s, possibl y (On Polite: hedge) allowing employment of
ineligible individuals. We (On Polite: inclusi ve) consistently keep a backlog of file room projects and incomplete Form
3s. You often (On Polite: hedge) do not communicate with me the status of these matters until I inquire. Although I do
not spend a great deal of time providing supervision to you, the work (On Polite: impersonalize) is not getting
accomplished satisfactorily. I do not feel (On Polite: hedge) your May 11 response to my instruction was handled in an
appropriate manner.
Ch. 3 - 3 Kim Sydow Campbell
Amy acts by informing George
Amy threatens Georges ego needs by criticizing him
On Record Politely tactics: being inclusive, hedging, impersonalizing
Conclusion = being inclusive is ineffective choice since George is not in-group member
Conclusion = hedging and impersonalising criticism are effective strategies for managing rapport by
balancing organizational goal and relationship with member

Cooperation How well does the employee work with co-workers and supervisors as a contributing team member? Does
the employee demonstrate consideration of others; maintain rapport with others; help others willingly?
Unacceptable .......................................................................................... Superior
1 2 X 3 4 5
Comments: You seem to (On Polite: hedge) work well with co-workers and those who complete the Form 3s in the field.
You willingly assist when asked.
Amy acts by informing George.
Amy tends Georges ego needs by complimenting him
On Record Politely (Tending Autonomy Needs): hedging tactic
Conclusion = hedging is ineffective tactic for complimenting George and is likely to lower rapport

Initiative Consider how well the employee seeks and assumes greater responsibility, monitors projects independently,
and follows through appropriately.
Unacceptable .......................................................................................... Superior
1 X 2 3 4 5
Comments: Youve indicated a desire to more and different functions but the inability to organize and accomplish your
current duties do not enable you to do this. You must improve (On Plain: direct) in organizing, scheduling, and
completing duties in a timely manner.
Amy acts by informing and then directing George.
Amy threatens Georges ego needs by stating his failings and also threatens his autonomy by
directing him to improve in specific task areas
On Record Plainly: being direct tactic
Conclusion = being direct makes organizational goal absolutely clear; this is effective only if threat to
George is less important than organizational goal because it is likely to lower rapport
In the audit of Domingo, you selected several samples of his comments to the out-group
member of his workgroup during a project meeting for further analysis. Figure 3.2 shows
how the marked up transcript might appear after detailed analysis.
Figure 3.2. Example of Marked Up Copy of Communication Sample in TILL audit for Domingo.
Domingo acts by informing member
Domingo tends members ego needs by praising him
On Record Politely tactics: hedging, impersonalizing
Off Record tactic: be irrelevant
Conclusion = using Polite or Off Record strategies are ineffective since purpose values member
Conclusion = only On Plain is effective with praiseespecially with out-group member
Domingo(toMemberF):Idontrememberseeing(OnPolite:hedge)anydetailsoranythingthat
needstochange(OnPolite:impersonalize)fromtheteamsfeedback...

Domingo(toMemberF):Youexplainthingsverywell.Ithinkthefactyouhavethatexperiencewiththis
clientsoyouknowexactlywhattheyarelookingforandthenintermsoftheproductwhichishardforus
totalkaboutlikelasttimebecausewejuststartedandhowtocompleteit(OffRecord:irrelevant)...

Domingo(toMemberF):...Itlookslike(OnPolite:hedge)allofyourresearchandinsightintonot
choosingAdobeFlex(orObjectiveC)willpayoffforthisproject'sfutureandtheclient...
Ch. 3 - 4 Kim Sydow Campbell
How do you determine the leaders effectiveness? At this point, you should spend some
time reading through and thinking about your data (i.e., the marked up samples like
Fig. 3.1 or Fig. 3.2). Unfortunately, there is no simple prescription for how to proceed.
You might begin by looking for effective uses of communication strategies and then
searching for patterns. In the example in Figure 3.1, you could note that Amy
appropriately softens her criticism of George via her use of On Record Politely
strategies. However, you should also note that Amys use of a similar strategy when
complimenting George is ineffective. In the example in Figure 3.2, you could note that
Domingo does not clearly communicate praise to the out-group member.
The essence of your task at this point is to develop some recommendations to improve
the leaders effectiveness based on the patterns you see in the samples youve analyzed.
For instance, you might conclude that Amy overuses the On Record Politely strategies
and suggest she continue using those strategies only when she is criticizing a member in
performance review but that she adopt one of the On Record Plainly tactics when
complimenting members. For Domingo, you might suggest he also adopt one of the On
Record Plainly tactics when praising Member F.
How do you establish the quality of your conclusions about the leaders effectiveness in
those sample interactions you collected? Now that youve developed conclusions about
the leaders communication effectiveness, you need to test those conclusions before
finalizing your assessment and sharing the results with the leader. Well consider several
validity techniques below. First, however, well consider the meaning of validity in
qualitative research:
I use validity in a fairly straightforward, commonsense way to refer to the
correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation,
interpretation, or other sort of account . . . the idea of objective truth isn't
essential to a theory of validity that does what most researchers want it to
do, which is to give them some grounds for distinguishing accounts that
are credible from those that are not. Nor are you required to attain some
ultimate truth in order for your study to be useful and believable.
(Maxwell, 1996, p. 87)
In short, I will describe several ways in which you can maximize the credibility of
the conclusions of your TILL assessment.
The first technique, QUASI-STATISTICS, requires that you support your conclusions with
descriptive statistics. For instance, your conclusion that Amy overuses the On Record
Politely strategies could be strengthened if you noted that you identified ineffective uses
of these strategies when praising members in 13 of the 15 interaction samples collected
for the TILL audit.
The second technique, MEMBER CHECKS, requires that you solicit feedback from
members on your analysis and conclusions. You can present the marked up copy of your
samples (or specific parts of those samples) to members if you would like their comments
Ch. 3 - 5 Kim Sydow Campbell
on your analysis. You might also present a list of your conclusions to members in order
to gain their reactions. However, you must carefully consider the leaders rights and
preferences when sharing this information.
While information from member checks is obviously valuable, that information must be
carefully interpreted because members opinions about what is going on may or may not
be more credible than your own. In other words, member checks provide an additional
but not infallible, source of information. A similar technique, EXPERT CHECKS, requires
that you solicit feedback on your analysis and conclusions from another analyst who is
familiar with TILL.
The third technique, ANALYTIC INDUCTION, requires that you discuss any evidence you
have that does not support your conclusion. For example, you might note that Amy uses
the On Record Plainly strategy when praising two other members of her organization.
Although this data appears to contradict your conclusion that Amy overuses the On
Record Politely strategies, you also note that the members whom Amy complimented
with the On Record Plainly strategy might be considered in-group members. Thus, your
willingness to deal with apparently negative evidence adds to the credibility of your
conclusion.
The fourth technique, TRIANGULATION, requires that you present multiple and diverse
types of evidence to support a single conclusion. For instance, you might note that you
have several types of evidence that he does not clearly communicate praise to the out-
group member: the samples from project meetings chosen for analysis, and the results
from both the LRM items and LCV items in the questionnaire completed by members.
At this point, you have analyzed the samples of communication behavior you collected
by describing the context within which the leaders behavior occurred and identifying the
leaders communication strategies in those samples. Based on this analysis, youve
developed conclusions about the effectiveness of the leader and tested those conclusions
with several validity techniques. All that remains is for you to convey the results of your
TILL audit to the leader.
Discussion Exercise
Come to our class meeting ready to share challenges in analyzing the data youve
collected for your audit project. Make every effort to help your classmates overcome the
obstacles they mention. How would these obstacles differ if you were planning an
assessment of someone who worked for you? How would they differ if you were the HR
person arguing with management for this kind of assessment for leaders in your
organization?

Ch. 4 - 1 Kim Sydow Campbell
Chapter 4
Reporting the results of the TILL audit

In this chapter, you will learn how to
report the results of your audit in a
way that promotes the growth of
leadership communication skills.

Reports for Leadership Communication Growth
In the final step, you should document your assessment of the leaders effectiveness and
list specific suggestions for altering his or her communication behavior to increase
leadership effectiveness in future situations. Your goal is to give the leader a clear
understanding of his or her strengths and weaknesses in communicating with members.

Figure 4.2 (appended to the end of this chapter) provides a short sample reporting the
results of a TILL audit for our example scenario involving Amy. In the remainder of this
chapter, well outline the goals and content of the four major sections of that report:
introduction, strengths demonstrated, suggested areas of development, and conclusions.

What kind of information should you provide in the Introduction to your TILL audit
report? This section of your report should accomplish three goals. First, you want to
give the leader enough information about TILL to help him or her interpret your analysis
of his or her communication behavior in the rest of the report. Notice in the sample
report (Fig. 4.2) that the first page summarizes the main ideas in TILL, including a
definition of the three categories of communication strategies. Although information
about TILL is important in order for a leader to get the most from your audit, you dont
want to provide too much detail. If the leader wants to know more, you can always
provide additional materials.

Second, you want the introduction to clearly state the goal of the audit. The sample report
in Figure 4.2 shows that your report should explain how the leaders goal determined
your methods for sampling Amys communication behaviors for analysis. This section of
the report would be considerably longer for Domingo because you would need to explain
the questionnaire results upon which you based your development goal because these, in
turn, determined your methods for sampling his communication behaviors. In such a
Ch. 4 - 2 Kim Sydow Campbell
case, you might present results graphically as in Figure 4.1 and explain how they aided
you in identifying areas for potential development.


Figure 4.1. Member survey for measuring leader-member relationship quality (LMX).
Finally, you want the introduction to describe the data (i.e., samples) upon which your
evaluation is based. (See Figure 4.2 again.) Note that this section of the report provides a
kind of disclaimer by clearly noting that conclusions from the audit have limitations
based on the actual samples collected.

What kind of information should you provide in the Strengths Demonstrated section of
your TILL audit report? This section of the report should list your conclusions about the
leaders effective communication behavior. Note that the sample report in Figure 4.2
includes three kinds of information for each conclusion:
1. The conclusion itself (e.g., you display effective use of communication strategies
when providing negative feedback on performance)
2. Specific interaction samples demonstrating that conclusion (e.g., the work is not
getting accomplished satisfactorily)
3. A validity statement (e.g., Of the 25 instances we noted where you provided
negative feedback, you used an appropriate On Record Politely tactic in all but
oneand Your effectiveness when directing members is corroborated by the
results of the questionnaire . . .)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Ego Autonomy EgoAttention Overall
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

R
a
p
p
o
r
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
RapportManagementBehaviorAnalysis
MemberA MemberB MemberC MemberD
MemberE MemberF MemberG MemberH
Ch. 4 - 3 Kim Sydow Campbell
To ensure that the leader both understands and is persuaded to accept your conclusions,
all three types of information should appear.

What kind of information should you provide in the Suggested Areas of Development
section of your TILL audit report? This section of the report should list your
recommendations about the leaders ineffective communication behavior. As in the
previous section, note that the sample report in Figure 4.2 includes four kinds of
information for each recommendation:
1. The recommendation itself (e.g., we suggest you work on eliminating hedges
when praising a member about his or her performance)
2. Specific interaction samples demonstrating the basis of that recommendation
(e.g., You seem to work well with co-workers)
3. An explanation of how/why the samples demonstrate ineffective behavior (e.g.,
Your use of seem in this case [an On Record Politely tactic] undermines the
positive spirit of your comment. Other hedges might include any of the following:
might, could, . . . Based on our sample of interactions, you appear to be most
likely to hedge when providing positive feedback to female members or members
not in your in-group. . .)
4. A validity statement (e.g., The only instance we noted where you didnt hedge
when providing positive feedback to a female subordinate involved an in-group
member and The potential need to improve your effectiveness when praising
members is corroborated by the results of the member questionnaire . . .)

To ensure that the leader both understands and is persuaded to accept your
recommendations, all four types of information should appear. In addition, note that the
sample avoids discussing members by name. Although the leader may be able to identify
the member by the specific interaction sample given, you should keep the focus on the
leader as much as possible in your report. If you have promised members anonymity, you
will have to be especially careful in reporting the results of your assessment.

What kind of information should you provide in the Conclusion to your TILL audit
report? This section should briefly summarize the strengths demonstrated and suggested
areas of development, as well as praising the leader for their willingness to participate in
the TILL audit.

What kind of information should you provide in the Appendix to your TILL audit
report? This optional section should provide the leader with any questionnaire results or
communication sample analysis that you have not included within the body of the report.
It is critical that any appendix is mentioned at some point in the body of the report. This
section may, in fact, be much longer than the body of the report. Most leaders will
appreciate seeing the details behind your TILL findings. However, if they are not
interested, they can easily skip this detail by focusing on the body of the report.


Ch. 4
_____
Introd
TILL
model
You m
from t
unders
on you
quality
as wel

To int
with th

1.
2.

1
TILL
Leade
4 - 4
____________F
duction
is a system for
l shows what it
must understand
those goals (lik
stand what is in
u for implemen
y of your curre
ll as the likely
eract like a lea
he member in t
. On Record
is of primar
on your rap
. Off Record
purpose is o

L is explained in
r: The TILL Sy

Figure 4.2 Sam
r describing ho
t takes to think
d your organiz
ke informing so
nfluencing you
nting the action
ent relationship
effect of your p
ader, you must
this situation:
Plainly Strateg
ry importance,
pport with the m
Strategy. You
of little importa

n detail in Dr.
ystem for Effec

mple TILL Le
w to think and
k like a leader.
Figure 2.
ational goals (l
omeone their p
ur planned strat
n). Most impor
p with the mem
planned action
use this inform
gy. You should
whether becau
member or beca
should use the
ance. This sho

Kim Sydow C
ctive Interperso

eadership Aud
d interact like a
. The TILL M
like maximizin
osition is goin
tegy for comm
rtantly for our p
mber involved (
n on that relatio
mation to choos
d use this strate
use your intend
ause your actio
e off record stra
ould be a fairly
ampbells 200
onal Communic

dit Report____
a leader.
1
Starti
Model
ng output) and
ng to be elimina
municating that
purposes, you m
(categorized as
onship (called
se one of three
egy only when
ded action has o
ons are more im
ategy only whe
y rare occurrenc
6 book, Thinki
cation (availab
Kim Syd
____________
ing at the top o
the specific ac
ated). You mus
action (like the
must accuratel
s in-group or
rapport).
e strategies for
your organiza
only positive o
mportant than t
en your organi
ce.
ing and Interac
ble from Parlay
dow Campbe
_______
of Figure 1, the
ctions derived
st also
e date imposed
ly assess the
r out-group)
communicatin
ational purpose
or neutral effec
that rapport.
izational
cting Like a
y Press):
ell
e

d
g

cts
Ch. 4 - 5 Kim Sydow Campbell
3. On Record Politely Strategies. You should use these strategies when both your organizational
purpose and your relationship with a member are important. This should describe many of the
situations in which you interact with members.

In this report, you will learn a little more about these three strategies as we offer you the results of our
TILL audit of your leadership communication behaviors. An assessment of leader-member interaction
using the TILL model provides a powerful leadership development tool because of its ability to increase
your self-awareness through concrete examples of your own behaviors with members.
Your Leadership Communication Goal
We have conducted this assessment specifically to help you reach your stated goal of improving your
leadership skills when conducting performance reviews.

Because of your goal, interactions with members about their performance were of primary importance to us
in conducting our audit. To provide results that represent the maximum variation among the members for
whom you provide reviews, we collected both written and oral interactions involving performance reviews,
as well as reviews of both male and female subordinates and workers representing a range in terms of
tenure in your organization. In addition, we collected information from several members involved in
training because these workers made up the vast majority of your subordinates at the time of this audit.
Communication Samples Collected
We obtained tape-recorded performance review meetings with three of your subordinates, as well as written
performance review documents for these three as well as five other subordinates. Although we believe we
have enough information to provide you with an evaluation that will help you work toward your goal, you
should keep in mind that the results discussed below represent a snapshot of your leadership
communication behavior with particular members in specific circumstances.
Strengths Demonstrated
Overall, you display effective use of communication strategies when providing negative feedback on
performance. You demonstrate a balanced focus on both organizational goals and relationships by
impersonalising and hedging. This means you actively manage rapport with members. For instance, in a
performance review, you wrote:
the work is not getting accomplished satisfactorily
I do not feel your response to my instructions was handled in an appropriate manner
Of the 25 instances we noted where you provided negative feedback, all but one used an appropriate On
Record Politely tactic. The one exception xxxxxxxxx x xxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx
xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx.

You communicate unambiguously when directing members future behavior in both written and oral
situations, which emphasizes your organizational goals, as demonstrated in the following:
You must improve in organizing, scheduling, and completing duties in timely manner
(Written review)
You need to go over the goals and update where we are and completion dates. (Review
meeting)
We want to note that this level of directness (use of the On Record Plainly strategy) is appropriate only if
you know that the member will not react negatively or if you mean to emphasize organizational goals
despite the potential reaction of the member. In other words, if xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
xxx xxxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxx x xxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx
xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx.

Your effectiveness when directing members is corroborated by the results of the questionnaire we
administered to your members. In particular, members of your workgroup were satisfied with the frequency
with which you direct them and the effectiveness of your direction. In addition, they perceived that you
support their need for both autonomy and attention.
Ch. 4 - 6 Kim Sydow Campbell
Suggested Areas of Development
According to our TILL audit, there are two primary areas in which you might improve your leadership
skills when interacting with members about their performance. Our goal is to demonstrate how you might
manage rapport with members more effectively in the future.

First, we suggest you work on eliminating hedges when praising a member about his or her performance. In
one written review, you wrote:
You seem to work well with co-workers.
Your use of seem in this case (an On Record Politely tactic), undermines the positive spirit of your
comment. Other hedges might include any of the following: might, could, xxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx
xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx. Based on our sample of interactions, you
appear to be most likely to hedge when providing positive feedback to female members or members not in
your in-group (those members with whom you have a close relationship). xxxxxxxxx x xxxx xx xxxxxxx
xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx. The only instance we noted where
you didnt hedge when providing positive feedback to a female subordinate involved an in-group member.

The potential need to improve your effectiveness when praising members is corroborated by the results of
the member questionnaire: members were satisfied with the frequency with which you praised them but
several were less satisfied with your effectiveness in such situations. Several members also rated your
support of their ego needs as mediocre.

Our second recommendation is related to your communication behavior with members who are not in your
in-group: we urge you to reflect carefully on the quality of your relationship with a member (hence, the
likely effects on your rapport) before interacting with him or her. (See the Appendix for the relationship
quality results.) In our audit, we found two ways in which your leadership effectiveness may be hampered
by overestimating the quality of your relationships. In one of the cases above when you were very direct in
telling a member what to do, we have some evidence that the member does not feel a part of your in-group.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxx x xxxx xx
xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx.

In another case, we noted your use of an inclusive tactic with a member who did not perceive himself as
part of your in-group. During a performance review meeting you said:
We consistently have a backlog of Form 3s.
Your use of we (an On Record Politely tactic) could be perceived as insincere by a member who doesnt
feel like one of your in-group. Xxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xx
xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx.

The member questionnaire also supports the potential need to improve your communication with out-group
members: out-group members noted a greater difference between how frequently you praised and
consulted with them and how often they wished you did so. Out-group members also rated your support of
their ego needs slightly lower than in-group members.
Conclusion
Overall, you were effective in balancing organizational needs and member needs to manage rapport in the
samples we collected of leader-member interaction during performance reviews. When you provide
negative feedback, you effectively use the On Record Politely strategy by impersonalising and hedging. In
addition, you are able to direct members future performance unambiguously (using the On Record Plainly
strategy).

We recommended two areas for growth based on our audit: eliminating hedges when praising a member
about his or her performance and accurately assessing the quality of your relationships with members in
order to restrict your use of the inclusive tactic to communication with members who feel a part of your in-
group.

Ch. 4 - 7 Kim Sydow Campbell
Before we close, we want to make sure you know that you demonstrated the most important aspect of
effective leadership by inviting us to perform this TILL audit. Changing your behavior will be difficult. But
your willingness to accept constructive criticism and expand your awareness of your communication
behaviors is the crucial first step.

APPENDIX



________________Figure 4.2 Sample TILL Leadership Audit Report_____________________

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
MemberA MemberB MemberC MemberD MemberE MemberF
L
o
w

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

H
i
g
h

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
RelationshipQualityAnalysis
MemberScore
YourScore