Leadership Assessments

To create a truly effective coaching or training intervention, it helps to have a clear starting point, an objective measurement of the existing benchmark and an instrument that can then also measure impact and results of the intervention upon completion.

Ask about our Leadership Assessment Instruments designed specifically for this purpose

Our coaches are fully accredited in a range of evidence-based internationally benchmarked profiling and performance assessments instruments

These include:

  • 360 performance appraisals such as Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360, Human Synergistics LSI
  • Team effectiveness appraisals such as MLQ Team
  • Organisational Culture appraisals such as Organisational Description Questionnaire (ODQ)
  • Personal style appraisals such as MBTI, HBDI

The MLQ, ODQ and MLQ Team are based on the validated Full Range Leadership Model and can be facilitated through internet, email or paper delivery methods, these are our recommended instruments.

MLQ and ‘Bottom Line’ Performance

Whilst accredited in other assessments, wee recommend the MLQ Assessment Instrument because of the link to bottom line performance:

  • MLQ validly and reliably measures managerial behaviours that are related to performance.
  • Many instrument marketers make this claim. When asked they can’t show impartial objective evidence to back their claims.
  • No other instrument has been independently shown to measure behavioural factors (the 4 I’s) that correlate with both follower and organisational measures of performance.
  • Below lists a very small number of the 200 pieces of independent research reviewed in international gold standard journals linking higher ratings in the MLQ to better bottom line performance.

Independent Research:

  • Agle (1993) studied 250 US major company CEOs. Follower ratings of transformational leadership behaviour factors correlated with organisational sales increases, market share, earnings and ROI.
  • Carless, Mann and Wearing (1995) showed that scores on transformational leadership factors predicted both individual and group performance in a large study of middle level managers in a large Australian bank.
  • Garcia (1995) found that supervisor rated transformational leadership scores of sales people accounted for 37% of the covariance in their sales performance. The higher their transformational behaviour ratings the better their sales performance.
  • Coleman, Patterson, Fuller, Hester and Stringer (1995) conducted a meta analysis of 27 studies. They found that transformational leadership ratings explained between 45% and 60% of organisational performance across the studies.
  • Barling, Weber and Kelloway (1996) showed that transformational leadership training and coaching of bank branch managers over time improved follower ratings of transformational leadership. Bank branches run by the trainees improved performance significantly in comparison with a control group.
  • Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam (1996) conducted a meta analysis of 47 studies in which a relationship between transformational leadership ratings and organisational performance had been assessed. For both public and private organisations transformational leadership ratings were strongly related to organisational performance measures.
  • Geyer and Steyrer (1998) found that units of a German bank where managers were rated by followers as more transformational ran units that had higher bottom line performance.

Visit www.mlq.com.au for more details