The SHL Corporate Leadership Model v2: September 2011

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/315386724
The SHL Corporate Leadership Model v2
Article · September 2011
CITATIONS READS
4 1,161
2 authors:
Dave Bartram Inceoglu Ilke

University of Pretoria University of Exeter
113 PUBLICATIONS 2,950 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 728 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Validity of 360-degree feedback View project
Technology-based testing View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dave Bartram on 20 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

White Paper | Talent Potential in Graduates
The SHL
Corporate Leadership Model
Professor Dave Bartram

Dr Ilke Inceoglu
SHL White Paper 2011 Version 2.0

shl.com White Paper | The SHL Corporate Leadership Model
Contents
Acknowledgements 3
Summary 3
Why leadership? 4
Introduction 5
1.
Key goals and Outcomes 6
1. Goal Focus 6
2. Organizational Level 7
3. Stakeholder Impact 8
2. Key Competencies 8
3. Individual Antecedents 9
1. Dispositions 9
2. Attainments 10
4. Context: Situational Variables and Culture 11
1. Contextual Uncertainty and Pressure for change 12
2. The role of culture 13
The SHL Model of Corporate Leadership 14
Outline description of the SHL Model of Corporate Leadership 14
1. Developing the Vision – the Strategy Domain 16
2. Sharing the Goals – The Communication Domain 16
3. Gaining Support – The People Domain 16
4. Delivering Success – The Operational Domain 16
Understanding Combinations of Behaviours 17
Risk factors 18
1. Individual risk factors 18
2. Contingent risk factors 19
3. What can go wrong? 19
Assessment strategy 20
Conclusion 21
References 22
© 2011 SHL Page 2

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Professor Peter Warr, University of Sheffield, for his valuable contributions to the Leadership
project and to the production of this White Paper. Professor Warr carried out much of the literature review on which this
was based and contributed to many of the ideas put forward in this paper.
Summary
The SHL Corporate Leadership model derives from the generic model of the world of work described in Bartram,
Robertson and Callinan (2002) and Kurz and Bartram (2002). It provides a significant advance by taking account of:
• Both leadership behaviours (as rated by oneself and others) and leadership impacts
• Both individual and aggregated (i.e. team, group and organizational) measurements
• Both people-measures and contextual or situational measures
It proposes a framework that takes into account organizational culture, values and other contextual factors as the
environment within which to assess and develop leadership.
Leadership is about influencing people such that they come to share common goals, values and attitudes, and work more
effectively towards the achievement of the organization’s vision.
Management is about keeping an existing system running, whereas leadership is about creating it, developing it or
changing its direction. Confusion is sometimes generated by the fact that it is difficult to conceive of a person who has
leadership skills without that same person also having management skills. While they may be conceptually distinct, they are
in practice found side by side. For that reason, individual assessments need to consider both.
The SHL Corporate Leadership Model combines the widely accepted ‘transformational’ and ‘transactional’ themes into four
main functions that describe the leadership process. Each function has its characteristic types of behaviour.
1. Developing the Vision: The strategy domain
2. Sharing the Goals: The communication domain
3. Gaining Support: The people domain
4. Delivering Success: The operational domain
This White Paper elaborates on these four leadership functions and shows how the Great Eight competency factors of
the SHL Competency Framework (Bartram, 2005; Kurz & Bartram, 2002) combine in pairs to provide coverage of these
four functions. For each function, one competency factor provides a transactional or management focus and the other a
transformational or leadership focus.
The issue of risk factors (impeding behaviours, derailers) is considered and an approach is presented that distinguishes
between individual and contingent risks. It is proposed that these need to be considered separately for each of the above
four leadership functions. In addition, we need to consider both misbehaviour and incompetence when looking at individual
risk factors.
© 2011 SHL Page 3

The model covers four sets of variables:

1. Key outcomes and impacts. What are the consequences of leadership? What impacts do leaders have? What are the
focus, level and breadth of these impacts?
2. Key competencies. What are the desirable ‘leadership behaviours’?
3. Individual antecedents of these competencies. What are the stable individual characteristics that lead to
such behaviours?
4. Context: What is the situational and cultural context? A four-fold situational classification is proposed based on
two main variables: Environmental Uncertainly and Pressure for Change. For each context, impacts can be assessed
in terms of the four organizational effectiveness criteria defined in Bartram et al (2002), using a balanced
scorecard approach.
The criteria are:
a. Economic
b. Technological
c. Commercial
d. Social and personal.
The assessment strategy for Leadership requires us to consider separately three parallel sets of variables. One set
relates to the individual leader, another to the groups and teams within which the leader operates, and the third to the
organizational setting within which this all takes place.
Why leadership?
Why is leadership so important? It is perhaps a self-evident truth that leaders are critical to the success or failure of
ventures, for without leaders, there is no one to give direction, to motivate, to imbue a sense of commitment and passion,
and without these there can be no success. We view much of history in terms of the leaders of important ventures
and organizations, a practice that has given rise to one view of leaders as ‘great’ people. Within the commercial world,
leadership has always been important. However, the importance of individual leaders or teams has probably become
increasingly apparent, as the commercial and economic environment has changed. As will be discussed later, pressure for
change and uncertainty are two of the major factors that organizations have to respond to.
Bain and Mabey (1999) give four reasons why the importance of people within organizations in ensuring competitive
advantage has increased over recent years:
1. “Regulated and protected markets have declined significantly, and on a world-wide basis.
2. Product life cycles are shorter and new technology is being made redundant at a faster rate each year.
3. Access to the required financial resources is not an inhibitor today given the mobility and flexibility of the
financial markets.
4. Economies of scale are much less important today than even a few years ago… increasingly the consumer is
demanding greater variety without any cost penalty”
This White Paper is based on a project carried out by SHL in 2001-2. It involved an extensive and exhaustive review of
the research literature on leadership and examination of current and past approaches to leadership measurement. The
leadership model was updated in 2011 based on additional reviews of the recent literature and research conducted at SHL.
In this paper we present some of the conclusions we drew from that work and an approach to leadership that we believe
builds on the best current research and thinking in this area.
© 2011 SHL Page 4

Introduction
In the SHL approach to leadership, we explicitly make a separation between the notions of management and leadership.
It is generally accepted that management includes planning, organizing, monitoring, maintaining routines, handling
deviations from desired progress, and so on. These activities are typically viewed as relatively routine, whereas leadership
is seen as more proactive. Some writers in this area describe management in rather negative terms, seeking instead to
communicate the importance of leadership. That is not our view; good management and effective leadership are both vital
to organizational success: but they are different.
Management is about keeping an existing system running, whereas leadership is about creating it, developing it or
changing its direction. Within any organization the proposed approach to leadership should be part of an equally important
approach to developing management.
Confusion is sometimes generated by the fact that it is difficult to conceive of a person who has leadership skills without
that same person also having management skills. While they may be conceptually distinct, they are in practice found side
by side. For that reason, individual assessments need to consider both. Management is similar to leadership in embodying
a power differential and an expectation that a manager will have impact on others.
We might think in terms of three kinds of behaviours:
• those only found in leaders;
• those found in both leaders and managers;
• and those only found in managers.
Given that we must include the middle category in an account of leadership, some aspects of management will inevitably
be covered in our approach to leadership. There have been many attempts at defining leadership. The following is provided
as a working definition: Leadership is about influencing people such that they come to share common goals, values and
attitudes, and work more effectively towards the achievement of the organization’s vision.
To get to grips with the concept of leadership we need to clarify what sort of ‘influences’ we are talking about, and who is
‘influenced’.
The SHL Approach to Leadership covers four main types of variable:
1. Key goals and outcomes. What are the consequences of leadership? What impacts do leaders have? What are the
focus, level and breadth of these impacts?
2. Key competencies. What are the desirable leadership behaviours, what are the key competencies?
3. Individual antecedents of those competencies. What are the individual dispositional factors that lead to
such behaviours?
4. Context: Situational and cultural variables. These include the various ‘drivers of’ and ‘barriers to’ success.
The approach also considers the role of risk factors, both in terms of individual characteristics and contextual contingencies.
Dispositional measures Self/other ratings Impact assessments
3 2 1
Leadership Outcomes
Leadership Behaviours Impact of
Potential Competencies behaviours
4
Context
Drivers & Barriers
Culture & Values
Situational Factors
© 2011 SHL Page 5

1. Key Goals and Outcomes

For organizations, primary goals reflect the Organization’s raison d’être, and generally will be described in commercial
terms (market share, profit levels etc). Secondary goals are about how to achieve the primary goal, and often focus on
internal Organizational criteria (levels of job satisfaction, developing the ‘right’ culture, effective internal communication
and so on).
For leadership we should consider the primary outcome to be improvements in the effectiveness of performance of the
whole organization (for high-level corporate leadership) or for small subgroups within the organization. These improvements
are ones that help the organization achieve its primary goals.
Secondary outcomes of effective leadership will include subordinate satisfaction, increased motivation, positive attitudes,
sharing of values etc. These in turn may act as intervening outcomes that influence organizational success. It is worth
noting that most current approaches to leadership assessment focus on secondary measures and not on impacts or
assessments of primary outcomes.
There is a distinction to be made between outcomes and impacts. Outcomes are measurable changes in the organization.
These may be financial (e.g. changes in earning per share), commercial (e.g. increase in percentage market share),
technological, social, or more commonly some mix of all four (see below). The outcome is generally the result of the actions
of the leader together with a lot of other people.
Impacts are the measurable effects a leader has on people. In a sense they are the personal outcomes of leadership
performance. An effective leader, by definition, needs to define the direction for change, demonstrate that they have made
an impact, and that the impact has either directly or indirectly moved the organization in the direction it needed to go to
achieve the desired outcomes.
The extent to which a leader can have impact is defined in terms of three parameters:
1. Goal Focus: Is the key outcome area economic, technological, social or commercial?
2. Organizational Level: Does the leader operate at Board level or is the role at some other level
(e.g. project team leader)?
3. Stakeholder Impact: Who is going to be impacted by the leader’s actions? How broad or far-reaching is the leader’s
impact going to be? This relates to issues of extent within the organization and outside.
1. Goal Focus
Impacts can be achieved in a range of areas – not just the financial ones. A taxonomy for this has been set out in Bartram et
al (2002) and represents an approach comparable to the balanced scorecard approach (Kaplan and Norton, 1992).
The four criteria defined by Bartram et al, and expanded into a model of eight Goal Factors by Kurz & Bartram (2002), are:
1. Economic. This is fundamental, as commercial Organizations that are economically ineffective will not survive. As with
all other criteria, the effectiveness or otherwise of an Organization in economic terms is inextricably linked with the external
economic environment. Effective Organizations must be able to adapt to changes in the economic climate.
2. Technological. Organizational effectiveness requires use of technology for service and product development, their
delivery and for internal communication. The nature of the business will impact on the roles technology can play, but
effective use of technological resources can be as critical in Organizational success as effective use of people.
3. Commercial. The nature of the commercial environment within which an Organization operates is critical to its success.
Effectiveness can be defined in terms of finding or developing a specific market niche, or confronting the competition head-
on and taking market share.
© 2011 SHL Page 6

4. Social and personal. This is intended as a broad notion of social, to include socio-political, ethical and cultural measures
of effectiveness. Organizations are not only collections of people, but also have impacts on people (customers, suppliers,
shareholders and the public at large) outside. The effects of economic success or failure are social effects (employment,
standard of living and quality of life). Organizational goals may have ethical, social and political dimensions. As such, they
may conflict with purely economic goals.
An effective leader is one who makes a demonstrable impact on one or more of these criteria in a positive way by
influencing the behaviour and performance of others.
Once the goal focus has been identified, it is then necessary to specify in qualitative terms what the critical success factors
are and from this to identify measurable key performance indicators.
2. Organizational Level
Organizations need leadership at all levels. While the corporate leader and top team may have the greatest impact on the
setting the direction for the organization, leaders at other levels also have their roles and need to make impacts that will
aggregate together in building towards the organizations desired goals. Leadership is needed from supervisors of work
teams, from creative groups, from project teams and so on.
In the SHL Leadership model, we differentiate five organizational levels as shown in the table below. Each Level is
associated with different degrees of job complexity, types of jobs, qualifications and richness in terms of the demands
made upon an individual’s
competencies. The definitions provided for these are consistent with those used in defining job levels within the UK
national occupational standards framework.
The main focus of the present white paper is on levels four and five. However, we must not forget that leadership attributes
and leadership functions are important at all levels.
Level Job Type Definition

5 Directors, Senior Management/ Competence that involves the application of a significant range of
Professionals, Consultants, Leaders, fundamental principles and complex techniques across a wide and
Innovators often unpredictable variety of contexts. Very substantial personal
autonomy and often significant responsibility for the work of others
and for the allocation of substantial resources feature strongly, as do
accountabilities for analysis, diagnosis, strategic design, planning,
execution and evaluation.
4 Middle Management/ Professionals Competence in a broad range of complex work activities performed in
a wide variety of contexts and with a substantial degree of personal
responsibility and autonomy. Responsibility for the work of others and
the allocation of resources is often present.
3 Junior Management/ Professionals, Competence in a broad range of varied work activities performed in a
Supervisors variety of contexts, most of which are complex and non-routine. There
is considerable responsibility and autonomy, and control and guidance
of others is often required.
2 Skilled Workers, Administrative & Competence in a significant range of varied work activities, performed
Clerical Staff in a variety of contexts. Some of the activities are complex and non-
routine, and there is some individual responsibility and autonomy.
Collaboration with others, perhaps through membership of a work
group or team, may often be a requirement.
1 Un- & Semi-Skilled Workers Competence in the performance of a range of varied work activities,
most of which may be routine and predictable.
© 2011 SHL Page 7

3. Stakeholder Impact
In considering impacts, we also need to consider who is impacted and the scope of the impact. There are, broadly, five
categories of people who are affected by the impact a leader will have.
1. Investors and shareholders. Effective leadership engenders trust and is important in ensuring that the Organization
provides a good return on investment, long-term stability and growth.
2. Employees look for job satisfaction, stability of employment, career prospects, personal development, good pay and
rewards. Leadership is important both through the primary and secondary routes described above in creating a positive
work environment, giving clear direction and providing inspiration and motivation.
3. Customers are indirectly affected as good leadership, especially in relations to customer service areas, helps ensure
they perceive the organizations as providing value for money, quality of product or service, good support and
after-sales care.
4. Suppliers want to work with an Organization that is dependable and provides them with long-term stability as a market;
reliability in payment, and is aware of the constraints on the suppliers’ ability to supply. As with customer service,
effective leadership impacts on this.
5. Others look for the impact of the Organization’s activities on their environment and way of life (economic, social,
political, and cultural) to be positive and beneficial. Leaders, whose roles involve impacts with the outside world, are
crucial in managing this effectively. Leaders of major organization in the public service sector and senior managers in
large multinationals are all perceived as providing leadership that is broader than that required for their organization on
its own. Such leadership may be in areas of standards setting, professionalism, good governance and probity,
strategy, and innovation.
Finally, a leader’s impact may be broad or narrow. A leader may have impact within their local work group, the local
organization, the immediate local environment, nationally or internationally.
2. Key Competencies
Desirable leadership behaviours or competencies have been classified and labelled in many different ways. Some
approaches from the literature are summarised below.
• ‘Initiating structure’ and ‘consideration’ behaviours (from the 1940s) are sometimes termed ‘task-centred’
and ‘person-centred’, covering planning, organizing, target-setting etc., and fairness, sympathy, concern etc.
respectively. They emerge in some form in most models, and need to be covered in ours. It is possible to view and
measure each one in overall terms or through several sub-components. In addition, ‘laissez faire’ leadership (taking
little action) was identified in early writings, and is still examined in the literature. It seems to represent the
‘low’ end of the above behaviours. A meta-analysis by Judge, Piccolo and Ilies (2004) shows that consideration
and initiating structure are both positively related to leadership outcomes, with consideration structure being more
highly related to follower satisfaction, motivation, and leader effectiveness, and initiation structure having slightly
higher relationships with leader job performance and group-organization performance.
• More recent emphasis has been on ‘transformational’, ‘innovative’ or ‘charismatic’ leadership versus ‘transactional’
or ‘maintenance’ leadership, usually assessed through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Bass
and Avolio).
© 2011 SHL Page 8

• The large-scale analysis by Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) of the most recent MLQ version (MLQ5X) supported a
six-factor solution for 36 items and also a three-factor higher-order account. The six factors were labelled
Charismatic/Inspirational (CI) leadership, Intellectual Stimulation (IS), Individualised Consideration (IC), Contingent
Reward (CR), Active Management by Exception (MA), and Passive-Avoidant (PA) leadership. It has been
conventional to view ‘transformational’ leadership as including CI, IS and IC; and ‘transactional’ leadership as
including CR, MA and the Management-by Exception (Passive) part of PA.
• The three-factor account suggested by Avolio et al (1999) adds to that dichotomy: Transformational leadership (CI
and IS), Developmental-Transactional leadership (IC and CR) and Corrective Avoidant leadership (MA, PA and
laissez faire).
• Similar components are covered in the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (Alimo-Metcalfe and
Alban-Metcalfe, 2001).
• Judge and Piccolo (2004) evaluated the relative validity of transactional and transformational leadership styles
through a meta-analysis. They concluded that each leadership style has a unique contribution in predicting specific
leadership outcomes. Another finding was that transformational leadership was strongly correlated with contingent
reward (transactional) leadership, which supports our viewpoint that in practice both are needed depending on the
context. Bass (1985) argued that although transformational and transactional leadership are separate concepts, the
best leaders are both transformational and transactional, and Howell and Avolio (1993) expressed similar views.
• Several authors have set out lists of leaders’ (or at least managers’) behaviour. For example, Yukl and Van Fleet
(1992, p.156) propose 16 key practices.
• The perception of positive leadership behaviours can vary across cultures (GLOBE study: House, Javidan, Hanges
and Dorfman, 2002). When leadership behaviours match the stereotypical perception of a leader we are more likely
to attribute leadership qualities to a person (referred to as prototypicality). Prototypical leader behaviours can vary by
culture (Brodbeck et al., 2000).
Much of the confusion in the approaches to leadership competencies arise from the failure to differentiate on the one hand
between leadership and management and on the other between individual and contingent factors. The model outlined later
makes these distinctions a core part of the model. We believe that provides a degree of much needed clarity that sets our
approach apart from others.
3. Individual Antecedents
These are the ‘disposition and attainment characteristics’ (Kurz and Bartram, 2002): that underlie or are prerequisites for
leadership behaviours. They include aspects of cognitive ability, relevant knowledge, certain personality dispositions and
forms of motivation. It is useful to view the antecedents of all behaviours (not necessarily those of leadership) in two broad
categories: dispositions and attainments. Leadership behaviours can be viewed as specific instances that manifest these
underlying characteristics in a particular situation.
1. Dispositions
Aptitudes and abilities. A general need in organizations is for fluid cognitive ability, as well as for specific psychomotor
abilities or processes of creative thinking or complex thinking. Such variables are important in studies of managers.
Style or personality. Self-reports of personal styles are in effect a person’s descriptions of his or her typical behaviours,
so necessarily link to the key competencies (see 2, above). Recent research has confirmed not only the importance of
links between personality traits and leadership, but also shown how the pattern of relationships depends on context. A
meta-analysis of many studies carried out by Judge et al (2002) showed, for example, that while Extraversion, Openness
to new experiences and Emotional Stability are predictive of leadership in business settings, for more bureaucratic
settings (government and military) the predictors are Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness and Extraversion. Overall, the
correlation (multiple regression) of the ‘Big Five’ personality factors and leadership effectiveness was 0.39.
© 2011 SHL Page 9

Motives and Values. Less common is the examination of leaders’ and managers’ motives, values or attitudes. For
example, what motives underlie certain behaviours in a particular setting: a desire for power, for money, or to achieve
ethical goals? Motives, values and personality overlap, and relate to corporate culture when aggregated across individuals.
In general motives may be viewed as more localised in time and space while values are deeply internalised and set the rank
ordering of importance and the prioritisation given to potentially competing demands: making money or treating people
well; creating a stable working environment or ensuring innovation and change can flourish. Examination of motives and
values may be particularly important in assessing risk factors in leadership, and get to the bottom of so-called ‘personality
clashes’.
It is also worth noting that when Judge et al (2002) examined a broader range of traits than just the Big Five they found
some even stronger relationships with leadership. In particular, traits with a strong motivational component (dominance,
achievement, locus of control) all had substantial correlations with leadership.
Managers who are successful tend to have energy, stamina, hardiness and continuing good health. These attributes
underpin the persistence of motivation and effective behaviour across years, but they rarely appear in the literature.
Recent studies have also looked at the motivation to lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Kark & van Dijk, 2007), showing that it
predicts ratings of leadership potential over and above personality variables.
Interests. The sphere of an individual’s interests will influence their choices of work setting and the extent to which they
will get satisfaction from working in one function or context rather than another. Interest categories are useful for capturing
expertise that is profession, function or industry specific, and are likely to be good predictors of ‘overall performance’ in
closely related jobs, or closely related competencies.
2. Attainments
Knowledge and skills. Despite theoretical suggestions and empirical evidence about the crucial role of knowledge in the
determination of effective behaviour (e.g., Schmidt and Hunter, 1992), this is under-emphasised in the leadership literature.
We need to consider knowledge both about job tasks and about organizational functioning. The former (labelled as ‘task
expertise’) covers both declarative and procedural knowledge (and thus ‘skills’), and the latter (‘organizational wisdom’ ‘tacit
knowledge’) includes wider practical understanding.
Experiences and qualifications. McCall (1998) emphasises the need to put high potential talent into developmental
situations where they can gain the experiences necessary to perform successfully at later career stages.
Qualifications (for example, MBA or DBAs, qualifications gained on leadership training programmes etc) formally attest
to knowledge, skill and experience. The value of different types of qualifications on leadership performance has received
little attention in the literature. However, if it is possible to ‘develop’ or train leaders, it should be possible to break down
some aspects of leadership expertise into relatively discrete sets of knowledge and skills that can be taught at practical and
theoretical levels.
© 2011 SHL Page 10

4. Context: Situational Variables and Culture

Although it is clearly established that desired leader behaviours can differ between situations, there is little agreement
about the nature of the contingencies and almost no research evidence about effectiveness in different situations.
Published suggestions include the following.
• Fiedler (1967) argued that the most effective leadership style was a function of three variables: his or her power
relative to subordinates, the degree of task structure, and the quality of leader-member relations. In situations
favourable to a leader (e.g., high power, high task structure and good relations) and in situations unfavourable to
him or her (e.g., low power, low structure and poor relations), a task-oriented style was advocated, but otherwise
a person-centred approach was recommended. Evidence has not been very supportive, and the model has faded
away (rather than being explicitly rejected). One problem is that even with only three dichotomised situational
factors, analyses have to cover eight settings, and comprehensive tests of predictions in all those settings are
difficult to carry out and interpret.
• House’s (1971) path-goal theory drew attention to the importance of a leader identifying goals valued by
individual subordinates and setting up paths to those goals. Aspects of the situation such as the nature of the task
and subordinate attributes were said to determine the optimal approach. The number of variations in goals and
paths between settings and individuals is clearly considerable, and, despite plausibility and general acceptance
as a partial account (emphasizing employee motivation), empirical evidence is slim. Hersey and Blanchard (1982)
extended the idea in their model of situational leadership to suggest that leaders’ emphasis on setting up paths to
goals should depend on two aspects of subordinate maturity (job maturity and psychological maturity). While again
plausible, this has rarely been examined or demonstrated.
• The multiple linkage model (Yukl, 1981) assumed that situational influences arise from variables such as subordinate
effort, subordinate ability, type of work organization and other task-related features.
• Vroom and Yetton (1973) presented a prescriptive decision-making theory to identify the appropriate leadership
behaviours in different situations. The effectiveness of a given procedure was said to depend on a large number of
variables, such as the amount of information possessed by a leader or by subordinates, the likelihood of subordinate
acceptance of a particular decision, and the complexity or importance of the decision. The model was presented as
a set of flow charts, of such complexity that the measurement and observation of all combinations has never
been achieved.
• Building on the work by Vroom and Yetton (1973), Vroom and Jago (2007) suggested a taxonomy of situation effects
that describes how situational variables affect the leadership process: (1) organizational effectiveness is affected
by situational factors not under the leader’s control, (2) situations shape how leaders behave, and (3) situations
influence the consequences of leader behaviour.
• Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin and Veiga (2008) examined whether organizational context influences the extent
to which CEO’s have an impact on performance of small to medium sized firms. Focusing on transformational
leadership style, they found that CEO’s had a more direct effect on firm performance in smaller firms. Their impact
on firm performance was also higher when they had longer tenure as CEO’s and were the founders of the firm.
• Hackman (2003) gives some examples of how structural factors can limit the influence of leadership or
management. ‘For example, in cockpits structural factors such as cockpit technology, the culture of flying and
the regulatory environment are the dominant influences on the work of cockpit crews, rather than behaviour of the
crew captain.
• Leaders shape the work environment of their followers. Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) observed that the more
transformational a leader’s style, such as engaging in inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation, the more
autonomy and task variety followers had, and the more highly they identified with their tasks. This made the
followers feel more intrinsically motivated and committed to their goals, which resulted in higher task performance
and organizational citizenship behaviour.
© 2011 SHL Page 11

In the present approach, we try to balance complexity and the need to maximise potential validity against practical
considerations. To achieve this we need to limit the number of situational variables we consider to those that are most
likely to have an effect on a leader’s performance and impact. The current literature is not very helpful in identifying what
these variables should be; almost all writers merely point out that situational differences are important and then pass on to
other topics.
1. Contextual Uncertainty and Pressure for Change

One feature that appears in many discussions is the degree of uncertainty in a particular setting. Waldman, Ramirez,
House and Puranam (2001) cite Milliken’s (1987) definition of perceived uncertainty as an individual’s perceived inability
to understand the direction in which an environment might be changing, the potential impact of those changes on that
individual’s organization, and whether or not particular responses to the environment might be successful. Uncertainty is
stressful, and may make people more receptive to active leadership.
Uncertainty can arise from several contextual features: the number and complexity of the factors that might affect
outcomes, lack of needed information, a very large number of options, inability to predict developments, doubt about one’s
ability to succeed or about the consequences of one’s actions, etc. So contextual uncertainty could be used as a rather
general construct to represent current ambiguity and lack of clarity about the best way forward.
Uncertainty is also a function of the degree of interdependency in an organization’s structures. For a small organization
or one with a simple structure, the potential impacts of change processes are easier to predict than for more complex
organizations. This issue of ‘predictability’ is directly related to the issue of risk. The less predictable the outcome
of an intervention, the higher the risk associated with it. For intervention in complex organizations with high levels of
interdependence between their parts, leadership is never a ‘ballistic’ process. That is, having set the vision and strategy
one cannot initiate a process and hope it will run through to success without further interventions and ‘course corrections’.
A second general feature that varies between situations is the degree of external pressure to act. Only a few writers draw
attention to the need to look outside an organization (whereas most restrict themselves to inward-looking psychological
themes), but a macroscopic concern for economic or technological conditions might appeal to managers (and also be
theoretically useful). So a second possible contingency might be viewed in terms of the degree of market or other
pressure for change.
Restricting ourselves for presentational purposes to a two-by-two table, we might think in the following terms. The
framework now shifts from descriptive to prescriptive, advocating an emphasis on different ‘types’ of leadership in four
different contexts.
High contextual Low contextual uncertainty

uncertainty
High external pressure for change High risk, rapid change Medium risk, rapid change
Transformations Change by revolution Change by innovation and paradigm shift
Low external pressure for change Medium risk, slow change Low risk, maintain status quo
Improvements Change by evolution and Process change and maintenance
continuous improvement
In relation to the above classification, it may be that contextual uncertainty increases the value of transformational
behaviours, whereas those are of more limited importance (or may even be disruptive) in situations of stability and clarity
(Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam, 2001).
Degree of contextual uncertainty and the speed with which change is required are both key factors in making any
assessment of leadership risk (see below).
© 2011 SHL Page 12

2. The role of culture

Edgar Schein (1992) argued that leaders play an important role in shaping the culture of an organization, especially if they
are the founders. Culture can therefore be viewed as one outcome of leadership behaviour. Conversely, relevant aspects of
organizational values and culture are important factors in either facilitating or hindering a leader’s impact.
Some of these have been examined through the GLOBE project, which focused on the question of whether and to what
extent leadership is culturally contingent (Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness Research Program;
House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta, 2004). Data was collected in 62 cultures. Six global leader behaviours
were identified: charismatic/value-based leadership, team-oriented, participative, human-oriented, autonomous and self-
protective. In addition 35 specific leader attributes or behaviours were found that are perceived to be positive in some
cultures but impediments in others. The authors state that a leaders’ behaviour is influenced by societal cultural norms, but
also by prevailing organizational practices in their industries, by culture and practices in their organization as well as strategic
organizational factors (organizational environment, size, and technology).
Hence, we need to consider the fit between a leader’s personal values and the prevailing or desired culture of the organization
(or that part of it in which the leader needs to have an impact). Studies have looked at the similarity of CEO and employee
profiles in organizations (Giberson, Resick and Dickson, 2005), supporting the hypothesis that organizations attract, select and
keep employees with similar personality profiles (Schneider, Goldstein and Smith, 1998). We have been unable to find any
research that has examined how the fit of a leader with the organizational values can affect specific outcomes such as team
effectiveness, follower performance and satisfaction. To what extent does fit with the organizational values contribute or
hinder leadership effectiveness?
We also need to consider how culture changes as a consequence of the impact of leadership as suggested by Schein (1992)
and House et al. (2004). For our current model we distinguish two aspects of culture:
• Norms regarding behaviour - how we do things and how we treat people in this organization.
• Values - what we care about and what we regard as important.
Sitting around these are the visible outward signs of culture, such organizational ‘artefacts’ as house styles, logos and so on,
and the often-unconscious basic beliefs on which the values depend (Schein, 1992).
It is well known that norms and values are hard to change, probably because they are built on beliefs. It is easy to change
the outward signs of a culture, the artefacts, and there is a danger that people may think that by changing the overt
manifestations of a culture, the norms, values and beliefs will follow. While it is vital in assessing any leadership situation to
know what the current culture is and how it needs to change to be consistent with the new vision, the approach we take is
that culture change follows organizational change rather than driving it. Culture changes as new behaviours become ‘bedded’
in and accepted as more effective than the old one. Value change probably follows even more slowly on the back of changes
in norms, as new priorities become internalised as values and shifts occur in people’s beliefs.
Bringing in new talent whose values are congruent with the new vision, and losing staff whose values are out of touch or
incompatible with the desired culture will speed up the culture change process.
© 2011 SHL Page 13

The SHL Model of Corporate Leadership

In the introduction it was stated that leadership was “about influencing people such that they come to share common goals,
values, attitudes and work more effectively towards the achievement of the organizations vision”. An initial problem is to
establish the boundary between those behaviours that are narrowly ‘leadership’ and those that are broadly desirable in
managers but are not explicitly ‘leader like’. If we are over-inclusive in our definition of leadership we run the risk of devaluing
the concept of leadership and confusing it with effective management (which arguably is what has happened in the debate
around transactional and transformational leadership concepts).
The definition we have provided, in terms of influencing other people, forms the focus for the proposed framework. It needs
also to consider the competencies required for effective management, as leaders need to be complete people: we cannot
consider disembodied qualities in isolation anymore than we can consider the impact of people in isolation from the situation
they operate in.
A framework of specifically leadership behaviours thus needs to sit above a broader framework of other competencies, with
the latter applicable to both leaders and non-leaders.
We distinguish between general employee (or managerial) effectiveness (levels 1, 2, and 3 in the model) and more specific
leadership effectiveness (levels 4 and 5 in the model).
We also distinguish between competencies that define leadership and those that are supportive of or necessary for effective
leadership.
• Leadership competencies. The model considers leadership from the viewpoint of process. What do leaders do? In
general terms, they provide the vision and set the strategy, they share that vision with others, define goals and gain
buy-in and support, and they either deliver the vision themselves or set in place the mechanisms to ensure that it
is delivered.
• Supporting competencies. These are behaviours that are desirable in general, and may be necessary in practice,
but do not directly involve influencing people (e.g., Written Communication, Specialist Knowledge).
The competencies are considered within a context specified in terms of the situational variables, culture and intended impact.
Outline description of the SHL Model of Corporate Leadership

The SHL Corporate Leadership model combines the widely accepted currently fashionable ‘transformational’ and
‘transactional’ themes into four main functions, each with its own characteristic types of behaviour. They are listed here
in terms of their relationship to the SHL Great Eight competency factors (Kurz & Bartram, 2002). These factors form the
most general level of a hierarchical competency framework, which has 112 components, above which sit 20 dimensions of
competency, which in turn map on to eight broad factors describing the domain of desirable behaviours at work. Research
has shown that these eight factors not only provide a parsimonious but complete account of work behaviours, but they also
provide a structure that relates well to the ‘predictor domain’. The latter includes all those instruments (personality, ability,
motivation etc) that we use to predict people’s potential for success at work. The SHL Corporate Leadership model was
updated in 2011 to incorporate results of ongoing research at SHL that involved reviews of the recent literature and analysis of
data collected with managers from a wide range of industry sectors and diverse countries. These results are documented in
the technical documentation of the updated leadership report. Improvements in the mapping of personality attributes to the
Great Eight factors and some re-alignment of the definitions of those factors resulted in some adjustments to
the model.
© 2011 SHL Page 14

For each pair of the eight factors, one emphasises the transformational aspects of leadership and the other the more
transactional (or management-focused) functions. As each of the Great Eight are very broad collections of competencies,
it is important to note that they are not purely transactional or purely transformational. For example, the factor ‘Analysing
and Interpreting’ is relevant for most managerial or leadership roles, but in our model the emphasis is stronger in the
Transactional focus. In terms of changes between the original and updated 2011 model, in the updated model ‘Interacting
& Presenting’ is a competency with transformational focus as persuasiveness is a key component of this leadership style
(e.g. Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
Leading and Deciding is still transformational but has moved from the leadership function ‘Sharing the Goals’ to ‘Gaining
Support’. Gaining support involves motivating and empowering others to become part of the guiding team and to deliver
strategic objectives. It also involves removing barriers to change which requires taking control, exercising leadership by
giving direction and initiating action. As discussed earlier, leaders shape the environment of their followers (Piccolo &
Colquitt, 2006).
Adapting and Coping now sits with the Transactional competencies (rather than Transformational) as within a management
focus (transactional leadership) a leader (or manager rather) is more likely to have to adapt to change, operate within a set
structure and deliver given targets. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, shape people’s views and share the goals.
The focus of Adapting and Coping is on accepting new ideas and goals and responding positively to change.
Functions Competencies
Transactional focus Transformational focus
1 Developing the Vision: The strategy Analysing & Interpreting Creating & Conceptualising
domain
2 Sharing the Goals: The Adapting & Coping Interacting & Presenting
communication domain
3 Gaining Support: The people domain Supporting & Cooperating Leading & Deciding
4 Delivering Success: The operational Organizing & Executing Enterprising & Performing
domain
The model considers the context in terms of (1) the impact area, (2) the situation, and (3) the culture within which
leadership occurs. These have been discussed above. In summary:
1. The impact area is defined in terms of goal focus, organization level and extent of impact.
2. The two key situational variables are Contextual uncertainty and Pressure for change (as defined above). These define a
two-by-two matrix of situations, each cell of which is likely to favour different patterns of leadership behaviour.
3. The assessment of culture provides the means of exploring the fit between the leader as an individual and both the
prevailing organizational culture and any intended culture change.
For any given project, a leadership risk assessment needs to be made. This assessment would seek an answer to the
question: What would be the consequences for each of the key impact areas in this situation of a failure in leadership?
Following on from that, each leadership attribute needs to be considered to assess its criticality in ensuring that failure
does not occur.
© 2011 SHL Page 15

1. Developing the Vision - the Strategy Domain

Developing a vision and strategy is a core function of leadership. The vision defines where the organization or group is
going and the strategy sets out how it will get there. As a precursor to defining the vision and setting the strategy, the
leader has to engender a shared sense of need. There needs to be a good reason for the vision and a case made for
it defining a more desirable state of affairs than the current one. For this reason, effective leaders need to be able to
understand the market and competitor realities and engender in others a sense of the urgency with which change
is needed.
Developing the vision is not just about a lone leader having an idea, it is about that person bringing together the necessary
‘forces’ within the organization, to lead the change implied by the vision. Getting the buy in of that team, or subgroup, is a
critical part of getting the strategy to the point at which it becomes a realistic vehicle for organizational change.
This function is closely related to the competencies in Creating & Conceptualising and in Analysing & Interpreting in the
SHL Competency Framework’s Great Eight Factors.
2. Sharing the Goals - The Communication Domain

Once the vision and strategy have been developed and the leader has built the core support team needed to drive the
change process, the next step is to communicate the new goals persuasively to the rest of the organization or group
affected by the change. Ensuring that everyone has a shared understanding of the new goals and is committed to
achieving them is a critical part of the change process, as is personally adapting and responding positively to the changes
brought by the new strategy.
This not only requires the effective use of all modes of intra-organizational communication (small and large meetings,
emails, workshops, notices etc), but also ensuring that the change leaders themselves model the new behaviours - i.e.
they ‘walk the walk’ as well as ‘talking the talk’. Leaders also have to adapt to the challenges associated with the new
vision and goals and cope effectively with the increased pressure resulting from change.
Effectively serving the group’s needs in interaction with others and creating a positive impression of the group are essential
aspects of leadership that are not well covered in published models.
This function is closely related to the competencies in Interacting & Presenting and Adapting & Coping in the SHL
Competency Framework’s Great Eight Factors.
3. Gaining Support - The People Domain

Gaining support for any change process involves motivating and empowering others to implement the actions needed
to deliver the strategy. It also involves the identification and removal of barriers to change, whether these are physical,
organizational, social or personal, and exercising leadership by initiating action and giving direction. The tactics of gaining
support will need to include a plan for ensuring sufficient ‘quick wins’ to demonstrate the benefits of change. It will also
be necessary to provide support through listening, consulting and communicating, and handling problems arising from the
downside of change such as increased stress and uncertainty, feelings of isolation or lack of involvement etc.
This function is related to the competencies in Supporting & Co-operating and in Leading & Deciding in the SHL
4. Delivering Success - The Operational Domain

The delivery of success is about consolidating gains and keeping the change process going until the goals have been
achieved. It also entails the management of culture change. This means clarifying for people what the relationships are
between their behaviours, the organization’s ‘reward structures’ and organizational success. Arguably, shifts in culture are
not something imposed on organizations by leaders from above, rather they are a consequence of the behavioural changes
and changes in priorities required to effect change. In other words, leaders do not change behaviour by issuing a ‘dictat’
that the organization’s culture has changed, they do so by changing the structures within the organization that impact on
people’s behaviour (the drivers and the barriers).
© 2011 SHL Page 16

Delivering success is the function most clearly requiring a fine balance between leadership and management skills. It is
also the function within which barriers to success can act to hinder progress. Such barrier can include:
• Formal structures that are no longer appropriate
• A lack of the necessary knowledge and skills in the workforce
• Managers or others failing to support individual’s behaviours aimed at realising the new vision.
• Inappropriate or ineffective communication systems.
This function is related to the competencies in Enterprising & Performing and Organizing & Executing in the SHL
Understanding Combinations of Behaviours

The Great Eight Factors provide a good basis for defining pairs of dimensions, as outlined above. For each leadership
functions, we can classify people in terms of whether they score high or low on each of the two competency factors that
define the function, or whether there is a more balanced mix of both. Some illustrative names are given below to indicate
how this could be used as a typology for classifying people in terms of (a) the leadership potential and (b) their actual
leadership behaviours. The mixed types (e.g. ‘Creator/Visionary’) are not included here to keep the presentation of the
types simple. The SHL leadership report also provides feedback involving the mixed types (nine types altogether).
Function 1. Developing the Vision
Analysing & Interpreting

Scores
Low High
Creating & High Creator Visionary
Conceptualising Low Conservator Analyst
Function 2. Sharing the Goals
Adapting & Coping

Scores
Low High
Interacting & High Communicator Change Ambassador
Presenting Low Stability Seeker Adjuster
Function 3. Gaining support
Supporting & Co-operating

Scores
Low High
Leading & High Decision Maker People Leader
Deciding Low Individualist Team Player

© 2011 SHL Page 17

Function 4. Delivering Success
Organizing & Executing

Scores
Low High
Enterprising & High Entrepreneur Business Driver
Performing Low Idealist Implementer

Aggregating measures across all four functions provides a summary grid in which we find the four main transformational/
transactional types.
Across all four functions
Transactional focus
Scores
Low High
Transformation High Leader Corporate Leader
focus Low Contributor Manager
Risk factors
Unlike management, leadership is a high-risk activity. If a manager fails to manage well there will be some downside,
but in many cases, those they are managing will continue to work and contribute positively to the organization. If a leader
provides the wrong direction, or fails to have the impact necessary for achieving a change in direction, the results can be
disastrous for the whole organization.
In assessing leadership impact and risk factors it is important to consider the position the leader occupies in the
organisation and the discretion (autonomy, decision-making power) that comes with the role. The more senior the position,
and the more formal power the leader has, the more impact leadership behaviour is likely to have. Time is also another key
factor to take into account: over what course of time is the leader expected to show an impact?
Each of the four main functions described above has risks associated with it. These risks can be differentiated into
individual and contingent risks.
1. Individual risk factors

Individual risk factors are the personal attributes likely to create problems in any leadership situation (e.g. over-
impulsiveness, inconsistency, ego-centrism, dishonesty etc). A major consideration in the approach adopted by others to
leadership competencies is the notion of risk factors. Individual risk factors are behaviours that increase the likelihood of
failure. Within the literature these are often referred to as ‘derailers’ (Hogan and Hogan, 1995).
Individual risk factors are attributes or behaviours that increase the likelihood of failure. Individual behaviour can be divided
into maladaptive behaviours and actions that arise from incompetence. Maladaptive behaviours can be either extreme
forms of competency or polar opposite and their emergence is likely to be related to contingent risk factors. For example,
such behaviours may become more dominant under stress. Incompetence arises from lack of relevant knowledge or skill.
Misbehaviours are a form of maladaptive behaviours and reflect personal weaknesses that result in counterproductive work
place behaviours, such as aggression, abusive behaviour, theft or fraud, and so on.
© 2011 SHL Page 18

Judge, Piccolo and Kosalka (2009) describe how traits can result in positive or negative leadership behaviours. For
example, of the Big Five Factors, Extraversion is most strongly and consistently related to leadership emergence and
effectiveness (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge et al., 2002): extrovert behaviours make leaders more likely to come across as
transformational, positive and naturally exerting influence over others. Excessively extroverted leaders can, however, have
a tendency to display behaviours that are overly bold and aggressive, thereby making it more difficult for subordinates and
other people in the organization to work with them.
Similar to the Big Five, the Great Eight competencies can be used as a framework for adaptive and potentially maladaptive
work behaviours.
2. Contingent risk factors

Contingent risks are problems not directly associated with the qualities of the leader as a person, but which are likely
to arise in a situation and affect the leader’s ability to have the required impact. As noted earlier, certain situations are
intrinsically more risky than other (e.g. where there is high contextual uncertainty, where the focus of the change is broad
rather than narrow). For each of the situational types defined above, there are likely to be different patterns of contingent
risk. For example, someone who is good at pushing for change may be a risk factor as a leader in a stable commercial
environment, which needs leadership with the ‘If it isn’t broke don’t fix it’ mentality. Management by exception may be fine
in a well-structured stable environment, but could be a disaster in other situations.
3. What can go wrong?

One approach to risk assessment in leadership is to consider it from the viewpoint of things that can go wrong, which
would critically impact on the chances of successful outcomes being achieved. Problems can arise in relation to each
function and through failures of either the transactional or transformational aspects of the function. The following list is
intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
1. Developing the Vision: The strategy domain

a. The vision is based on an incorrect analysis of the situation
b. The vision represents an ineffective solution for the problem, though the analysis was correct.
c. The need for change is not recognised in the organization.
d. Change is initiated when none is needed.
e. The urgency with which change is needed is either over or underestimated.
f. The leader fails to pull together the right team to lead the change
2. Sharing the Goals: The communication domain

a. The vision is not communicated effectively
b. The vision is not communicated widely enough
c. The relevance of the new goals for individuals and their work is not communicated
d. The change process is not communicated
e. Changes are only partial and targeted at specific areas, in order to avoid major adjustments.
© 2011 SHL Page 19

3. Gaining Support: The people domain

a. People are not provided with sufficient support and assistance during the change process.
b. Methods for dealing with individuals who resist the change are ineffective.
c. Decisions are made without considering the impact on others and getting buy-in from important people in the
change process
d. There are no quick wins in the change process and prolonged collaboration with others is required, but
collaboration proves ineffective as people are not sufficiently consulted and listened
e. Line management are not adequately involved in implementation
f. Old structures and obstacles which block change are left in place. These would pose a challenge for any
leadership but a reluctance to make decisions would make it even more difficult to deal with old structures
and obstacles
g. Decisions required to drive the change process and implement the strategy are not taken
4. Delivering Success: The operational domain

a. The change process is terminated before the change has become consolidated as operations are not followed
through to completion.
b. Changes do not become embedded within new organizational norms and values.
c. The need for ‘course corrections’ is not appreciated and the change process gets pushed off course.
d. The timing and nature of course corrections are inappropriate or ineffective.
e. In the implementation of the strategy potential commercial opportunities are overlooked.
f. Stretching goals that increase organizational revenue, project success or developing internal talent are avoided.
Assessment strategy
The assessment strategy for the SHL Corporate Leadership model has four strands to it:
1. Situational assessment to identify the leadership qualities required, the culture, and the impact parameters.
2. Risk assessment, to evaluate the chances of success or failure, the consequences of each, and the risk
mitigation options.
3. Individual assessment of the leader or potential leaders.
4. Assessment of the outcomes achieved and the specific impacts the leader has had.
This involves the assessment of three parallel sets of variables. One set relates to the individual leader, the second to the
groups and teams within which the leader operates, and the third to the setting.
1. The leader: Individual measures:
a. Assessment of the individual’s potential (using, for example, SHL’s OPQ32, Motivation Questionnaire, FastTrack
and other ability test measures, Scenarios and other instruments).
b. Assessment of the individual’s behaviours (using self-and other assessment of competencies), including the
identification of individual risk factors.
c. Assessment of their impacts through performance appraisal.
© 2011 SHL Page 20

2. Groups and teams:

a. Leaders work within teams (such as the ‘Top Team’ for Corporate Leaders). Any assessment of a leader within a
corporate setting needs to take account of the team and groups with whom they need to work. This can be done
using 360 degree measures, surveys and engagement questionnaires focusing on the team.
b. A full assessment of leadership within an organization needs to look at more than just one person. In our new
approach we advocate looking closely at the mix of people who are supporting the leader in their role.
3. The setting: organizational and corporate measures:
a. Assessment of the culture (norms and values) of the relevant setting (e.g. use of SHL’s Corporate Culture
Questionnaire) and employee engagement. Comparison of current culture and envisaged culture.
b. Definition of a strategy that can be implemented in the culture. If the strategy does not fit with the culture, a culture
change is required, which can be challenging and will take time.
c. Identification of potential drivers and barriers (risk factors).
d. Definition of the expected outcomes: the critical success factors and associated key performance indicators.
Gap analysis of differences between these provides the basis for leadership reports:
• leadership potential (based on attribute measures like OPQ, MQ and ability tests) ;
• leadership fit (e.g. fit against current or future Competency Requirements, fit with culture and values);
• leadership behaviour (e.g. 360 Competency Assessment);
• leadership development (e.g. Development Plans on basis of the above).
Rather than assessing ‘only a person’ or ‘only a situation’, it is desirable to take a ‘person-in-context’ approach to leadership
development. Through multi-source ratings, it is possible to identify development needs for each set of key behaviours.
The format for reporting follows the four main functions defined above: Developing the Vision, Sharing the Goals, Gaining
Support and Delivering Success.
Conclusion
The leadership approach outlined here represents a functional view of leadership. It focuses on what leaders do and what
impacts they can have on the effectiveness of organizations. SHL’s assessment instruments provide the tools needed to
measure relevant attributes at the individual, group and organizational levels. The model of corporate leadership provides
the framework for making sense of these measures and for developing intervention and consultancy programmes for
supporting succession planning, organizational change management and other such processes.
© 2011 SHL Page 21

References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, R. J (2001). The development of a new Transformational Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 1-27.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2002). Leadership. In P. B. Warr (ed.), Psychology at Work, fifth edition.
London: Penguin.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional
leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
441-462.
Bain, N. & Mabey, B. (1999). The People Advantage. London: Macmillan Business.
Bartram D., Robertson, I.T., & Callinan, M. (2002). A framework for examining organizational effectiveness. In Robertson,
Callinan & Bartram: Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Psychology. London: Wiley
Bass, B. M. (1981). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York: Academic Press.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 901−910.
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., Bodega, D., et al. (2000). Cultural variation of
leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), 1-29.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: Sage.
Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation
to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481-498.
Den Hartog, D. N. and Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil and
C. Viswesvaran (eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, volume 2. London: Sage.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: an examination of homogeneity
of personality and values in organizations. The Journal of applied psychology, 90(5), 1002-10.
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 905-922.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of Organizational Behavior, fourth edition. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J. and Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual, second edition. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment
Systems.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.
House, R. J. and Shamir, B. (1993). Toward an integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories
of leadership. In M. Chemers and R. Ayman (eds.), Leadership: Perspectives and Research Directions. New York:
Academic Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Howell, J. M, & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for
innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
Judge, T. A. and Bono, J. E. (2001). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 751-765.
© 2011 SHL Page 22

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership : A meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical
extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855-875.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The Forgotten Ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in
leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36 -51.
Kaplan R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business
Review, 73(1), 75-85.
Kark, R., & Dijk, D. V. A. N. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: the role of the self- regulatory focus in
leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, second edition. New York: Wiley.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kurz, R. & Bartram, D. (2002) Competency and Individual Performance: Modelling the world of work. In Robertson,
Callinan & Bartram: Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Psychology. London: Wiley.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of transformational CEOs on the performance of
small- to medium-sized firms: does organizational context matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 923-34.
McCall, M. W, (1998). High Flyers. Boston: Harward Business School Press.
Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 133-143.
Paglis, L. L. and Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership, self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 215-235.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors : the mediating role of core job
characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-340.
Project Globe (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations. Advances in Global Leadership, 1, 171-233.
Rauch, C. F. and Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the study of leadership. In J. G.
Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim and R. Stewart (eds.), Leaders and Managers. Elmsford NY; Pergamon Press.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (Second Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, F. L. and Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a causal model of processes determining job performance.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89-92.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.
Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18,
257-273.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. The American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.
Vroom, V. H. and Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. H., and Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes
and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.
Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs NJ; Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations, fourth edition. Englewood Cliffs NJ; Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. and Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M
Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, volume 3. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
6256
© 2011 SHL Page 23

View publication stats

The SHL Corporate Leadership Model v2: September 2011

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The SHL Corporate Leadership Model v2: September 2011

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The SHL Corporate Leadership Model v2

Article · September 2011

Dave Bartram Inceoglu Ilke

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Validity of 360-degree feedback View project

Technology-based testing View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Professor Dave Bartram

SHL White Paper 2011 Version 2.0

© 2011 SHL Page 2

© 2011 SHL Page 3

The model covers four sets of variables:

© 2011 SHL Page 4

Dispositional measures Self/other ratings Impact assessments

© 2011 SHL Page 5

1. Key Goals and Outcomes

© 2011 SHL Page 6

Level Job Type Definition

© 2011 SHL Page 7

© 2011 SHL Page 8

© 2011 SHL Page 9

© 2011 SHL Page 10

4. Context: Situational Variables and Culture

© 2011 SHL Page 11

1. Contextual Uncertainty and Pressure for Change

High contextual Low contextual uncertainty

© 2011 SHL Page 12

2. The role of culture

© 2011 SHL Page 13

The SHL Model of Corporate Leadership

Outline description of the SHL Model of Corporate Leadership

© 2011 SHL Page 14

© 2011 SHL Page 15

1. Developing the Vision - the Strategy Domain

2. Sharing the Goals - The Communication Domain

3. Gaining Support - The People Domain

4. Delivering Success - The Operational Domain

© 2011 SHL Page 16

Understanding Combinations of Behaviours

Function 1. Developing the Vision

Analysing & Interpreting

Function 2. Sharing the Goals

Adapting & Coping

Function 3. Gaining support

Supporting & Co-operating

© 2011 SHL Page 17

Function 4. Delivering Success

Organizing & Executing

Across all four functions

1. Individual risk factors

© 2011 SHL Page 18

2. Contingent risk factors

3. What can go wrong?

1. Developing the Vision: The strategy domain

2. Sharing the Goals: The communication domain

© 2011 SHL Page 19

3. Gaining Support: The people domain

4. Delivering Success: The operational domain

© 2011 SHL Page 20

2. Groups and teams:

© 2011 SHL Page 21

© 2011 SHL Page 22