Leadership Skills across Organizational Levels: A Closer Examination

The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14: 120 139, 2011 Copyright The Society of Psychologists in Management ISSN: 1088-7156 print / 1550-3461 online DOI: 10.1080/10887156.2011.570143 Leadership Skills across Organizational Levels: A Closer Examination Kenneth P. De Meuse, Guangrong Dai, and Joshua Wu Korn/Ferry International There are two contrasting theoretical perspectives regarding how leadership skill requirements change across organizational levels. The Continuity Perspective posits that jobs at successively higher levels require all those skills of the lower levels. In contrast, the Discontinuity Perspective contends that managers need to relinquish some skills as they get promoted from one organizational level to another. Analyses of a 360-degree competency rating data set found that the two perspectives occur simultaneously. The continuity perspective portrays what is expected for managers, whereas the discontinuity perspective reveals what managers actually do to be effective. The authors discuss the implications on talent management. It has been recognized by scholars for decades that leadership skill requirements change across organizational levels (Jaques, 1978; Tornow & Pinto, 1976). The reason for it is straightforward: The nature of work differs substantially across management positions. Managerial jobs at different organizational levels differ in terms of time horizon (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987), complexity (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997; Zaccaro, 2001), functional activity (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and scope of responsibility (Hill, 1992). Correspondingly, managers need to have different skill sets to perform their jobs efficiently as they ascend the organizational hierarchy. However, there are different views regarding how the change manifests itself. Among many theories of management transition are two perspectives in the literature that appear in direct conflict the continuous versus discontinuous leadership skill transition. The Continuity Perspective suggests that all levels of effective leaders need to possess about the same behavioral repertoire. Promotion requires leaders to perform more of those behaviors that become more important for high Correspondence should be sent to Kenneth P. De Meuse, Korn/Ferry International, 5051 Highway 7, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55416. E-mail: ken.demeuse@kornferry.com

LEADERSHIP SKILLS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 121 levels and gain skill efficiency on those behaviors. The Discontinuity Perspective posits that the changing skill requirement is discontinuous. Leadership behavior that is positively related to effectiveness at a lower level may become negatively related to effectiveness at higher levels. Consequently, managers need to stop performing those behaviors that are not contributing to effectiveness as they get promoted. The primary objective of this paper is to investigate this issue by using a large data set of 360-degree competency ratings. This study differs from previous research by using both importance and skill ratings. The importance rating reveals what competencies people perceive to be necessary for job performance. In contrast, the skill rating communicates the perceived level of efficiency that individuals have on different competencies. We believe that the manner in which leadership skills are rated may contribute to the contradictory views in the literature. In a later section of this article, we discuss how the contrasting perspectives can be simultaneously reflected on the 360-degree competency rating. This study also provides details regarding the transition of specific leadership competencies across organizational levels. Organizations and practitioners should find this information helpful in their efforts on leadership assessment, selection, placement, and development. Therefore, this study has theoretical and practical contributions. REVIEW OF THE LEADERSHIP LITERATURE Continuity Perspective of Management Transition Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll s (1965) work represents one of the early examples of the continuity perspective of the changing leadership skill requirements across management levels. These authors identified eight categories of work typical managers perform: Planning, investigating, coordinating, evaluating, supervising, staffing, negotiating, and representing. Their research found that although the amount of time allocated to each category of work was different between different management levels, each category was represented at all management levels. Mahoney et al. (1965) reported that no noticeable differences were found; the job of top management and those of supervisory management within a given job type appear similar in terms of performance profiles (p. 109). Henry Mintzberg s (1973) observed a similar finding using a different research method. Mintzberg identified 10 managerial roles that managers enact on a regular basis. Each of the roles requires a somewhat distinct set of behaviors and skills. Managers perform all 10 of the managerial roles, but the amount of time devoted to each role varies by management level and job function. His recent statement reflected the continuity view of management transition:

122 DE MEUSE ET AL. Instead of distinguishing leaders from managers, we should encourage all managers to be leaders. And we should define leadership as management practiced well (Mintzberg, 2009, p. 68). Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson (2007) proposed the Leadership Skills Strataplex of leadership development. According to this model, jobs at the successively higher strata (i.e., levels in an organized system) require all those skills of the lower strata. However, some skills gain more importance as individuals move up from one position level to another. Mumford et al. (2007) categorized leadership skills broadly into the following four types: Cognitive, interpersonal, business, and strategic. They subsequently asked 1,023 employed adults to rate the level of efficiency needed for these four types of leadership skills to perform the jobs for different management positions. Their research revealed that jobs at higher levels of the organization require higher levels of all leadership skills. They also found that skills important for lower levels, such as cognitive and interpersonal leadership skills, do not diminish at higher levels in the organization. This pattern of changing skill requirements reflects the continuity perspective of management transition. On the basis of this finding, Mumford et al. (2007) recommended that organizations should focus part of their management development programs on the continual refinement of existing leadership skills as well as the development of new skills. Discontinuity Perspective of Management Transition The discontinuity perspective depicts a different pattern of changing skill requirements across organizational levels. Freedman (1998) contented that in complex, multitiered organizations, each level is unique. When moving up the organizational hierarchy, managers must relinquish something, preserve something, and add on something. Freedman (1998) articulated five pathways from individual contributor to first-line supervisor, to manager of a business, to manager of several businesses, and to institutional leadership and discussed the critical responsibilities and behaviors of which upwardly mobile managers must let go, add on, and preserve at each of the crossroads. The discontinuity perspective of changing leadership skill requirements also has received some empirical support. For example, Kaiser and Craig (2011, this issue) investigated the moderating role of organizational level on the relationship between seven dimensions of managerial behavior and overall leadership effectiveness. On the basis of data from a sample of 2,175 supervisors, middle managers, and executives, they found that behaviors associated with effectiveness differed across levels. Many of these differences were discontinuous. They observed that some positive predictors of effectiveness at one level became negative predictors at another level. For example, supportive leadership was a

LEADERSHIP SKILLS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 123 negative predictor of leadership effectiveness for supervisors, a positive predictor for middle managers, and nonsignificant for executives. To the contrary, empowering leadership was not a statistically significant predictor for supervisors, whereas it was a negative predictor for middle managers and positive predictor for executives. Brousseau and his colleagues also found support for the discontinuous changing pattern of leadership behavior (Brousseau, Driver, Hourihan, & Larsson, 2006). These authors investigated how managers decision-making styles evolve during their managerial careers. On the basis of their analysis of the decision profiles of more than 120,000 managers and executives, these authors observed that as individuals advance from low to high management levels, the decision-making profiles do a complete flip. The predominant style for low-level managers is decisive. In contrast, a flexible decision style becomes predominant for high level of management. Brousseau et al. (2006) compared the profiles of performers in the top 20% with others and found that the most successful managers reached and passed the transition point earlier in their careers, whereas the least successful managers (the bottom 20% of performers) started their careers pretty much like the others had but did not make the transition successfully. Reconciling the Continuity and Discontinuity Perspectives The continuity and discontinuity perspectives share some similarities. Both approaches acknowledge the changing nature of work along the organizational hierarchy. To be successful, upwardly mobile managers must gain skill efficiency on some new performance domains. Nevertheless, there is a noticeable difference between the two perspectives. The continuity perspective posits that skills associated with leadership effectiveness at a lower management level also are important for a higher management level. In contrast, the discontinuity perspective theorizes that some positive leadership behaviors for a management level can become negative for another management level. Consequently, it is necessary for managers to abandon these former leadership behaviors that do not work anymore after a management transition. Both perspectives have received empirical support. It appears that the contrasting views depict a picture of leadership skill transition from different aspects. We believe a possibility exists to reconcile the two perspectives. Mumford at al. (2007) asked participants to rate the required level of efficiency of different leadership skills for effectiveness. It was an assessment of people s implicit leadership theories. A key element of implicit leadership theories is that leadership is in the eye of the beholders. That is, observers identify leadership attributes on the basis of their implicit belief set. There are good reasons to expect that the managers actual skill efficiencies that are associated with leadership effectiveness may not correspond perfectly to observers implicit beliefs. From low to high management

124 DE MEUSE ET AL. levels, leadership increases with social and cognitive complexity (Day & Lance, 2004). Individuals have limited social and cognitive resources. When the level of complexity increases to a point beyond individuals capabilities, they have to compromise their leadership activities. An adaptive solution is for managers to focus their efforts on areas most important for their jobs, while relinquishing those behaviors that become relatively less important. Otherwise, overall effectiveness may suffer. For example, when a manager spends too much time on performance domains that are less important for the job, it can adversely affect his or her performance on other more important performance domains. The net effect is the negative correlations between some leadership behaviors and overall leadership effectiveness (Kaiser & Craig, 2011, this issue). In this study, we investigated the same issue of leadership skill transition using 360-degree competency ratings. The instrument employed two rating scales importance ratings and skill ratings. The importance rating scale assesses the degree of importance of various competencies for a focal manager s job. The skill rating scale evaluates a manager s perceived level of efficiency on different competencies. The importance rating is in line with the traditional assessment of people s implicit leadership theories. We expected the pattern of importance ratings of competencies across management levels to reflect the continuity perspective of leadership skill transition: Hypothesis 1: The importance of competencies will increase as one ascends the organizational hierarchy. However, the rate of change will be different for different competencies. Some competencies will increase more in importance than other competencies. Although managers are expected by observers to possess a wide range of behavior repertoire, it often is unrealistic for them to demonstrate increased skill efficiencies on all of the competencies as they move up the organizational hierarchy. In 360-degree feedback, the skill ratings of competencies provided by subordinates, peers, and superiors are indicative of the extent to which members of each rating group have observed each type of behavior exhibited by the focal manager (London & Beatty, 1993). Skill ratings reflect each rater s personal experience with the behaviors of the manager (London & Smither, 1995; Lord & Emrich, 2001). When managers allocate less personal resources on specific performance domains or, as a result of a lack of dedication, managers perform these areas to substandard efficiencies raters are unlikely to provide high skill ratings on relevant competencies. For this reason, we did not expect the continuous increase in skill ratings across the organizational levels for all competencies: Hypothesis 2: The changing pattern of skill ratings will be different for different competencies. Some competencies will gain in level of efficiency from

LEADERSHIP SKILLS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 125 low to high management levels. Other competencies will not demonstrate continuous increases in skill ratings. In this study, we did not specify a priori which competencies will increase in skill ratings and which competencies will not. However, if managers allocate their personal resources to what is critical to their job, one would expect a correspondence between the importance ratings and skill ratings. For this reason, we also posed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: Changes in skill ratings will correspond to changes in importance ratings. Competencies that have large increases in importance ratings from low to high management levels will demonstrate correspondingly large increases in skill ratings. In contrast, competencies that have small increases in importance ratings will not increase continuously in skill ratings. METHOD 360-Degree Competency Rating Instrument The 360-degree feedback instrument used in this study assessed 67 leadership competencies. The theoretical foundation and research on the development of this instrument are summarized in Lombardo and Eichinger (2003, 2004). Both skill and importance ratings use 5-point Likert-type scales. The skill rating scale is: (1) a serious issue, (2) a weakness, (3) skilled/ok, (4) talented, and (5) a towering strength. The importance rating scale is: (1) least important, (2) less important, (3) nice to have, (4) very important, and (5) mission critical. Lombardo and Eichinger s (2003, 2004) competency model and assessment have been used in several previous studies (e.g., Dai, De Meuse, & Peterson, 2010; Lievens, Sanchez, & de Corte, 2004; Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000). Sample This sample used an archival data set with a total of 1,021 participants. In a typical 360-degree feedback assessment, a manager is rated by him- or herself and by several others (i.e., the direct boss, peers, and direct reports). We used only the average of all others ratings for this study, because research has found that selfratings are less accurate than the ratings from others (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Eichinger & Lombardo, 2004). The majority of the participants were male (69%). The distribution of age was as follows: (a) 3% younger than 30 years of age, (b) 18% between age 31 and 35 years, (c) 24% between age 36 and 40 years, (d) 38% between age 41 and 50 years, and (e) 17% older than 51 years of age. In the present study, a decision had to be made pertaining to the number of position levels to examine. Some leadership pipeline models have identified more

126 DE MEUSE ET AL. than five levels (e.g., Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2000; Freedman, 1998). However, in reality, organizations vary with regard to the number of levels contained in their hierarchies. Further, throughout the world, corporate hierarchies are flattening, making it unnecessary to define positions too narrowly. For most organizations, at least three distinct levels of management can be identified: Bottom (supervisory), middle (middle management), and top (executive). Hunt and Ropo (1995) asserted that these three management position levels are sufficient for theoretical research. Consistent with previous research, the present study focused on three management levels: Supervisor, middle manager, and executive (Kaiser & Craig, 2011, this issue; Mumford et al., 2007). The distribution of participants in this study was as follows: (a) 34% supervisors (n = 349), (b) 42% middle managers (n = 431), and (c) 24% executives (n = 241). RESULTS To test Hypothesis 1, we compared the means of importance ratings for each of the 67 competencies across the three management levels (see Table 1). One-way analyses of variance revealed that 53 of the 67 competencies (about 79%) were statistically different across management levels ( ps <.05). The remaining competences (21%) were stable ( ps >.05). Overall, the results tended to support the continuity perspective of leadership skill transition. That is, most competencies gained importance across organizational hierarchy. Only one competency, Technical Learning, demonstrated a significant decrease in importance from the low to top management level, F(2, 867) = 12.76, p < 0.01. Under the overall continuity pattern, there were subtle differences for different management transitions. Post-hoc analyses found that some competencies increased in importance from supervisors to middle managers but then remained stable. Some competencies did not increase from supervisors to middle managers, but increased significantly from middle managers to executives. Yet, other competencies continued to increase from supervisors to middle managers and to executives. These results supported Hypothesis 1 in that the rate of change was different for different competencies. We then sorted the competencies by the amount of increase in importance ratings and identified competencies that increased most for each of the management transition. Competencies that gained significant importance from supervisors to middle managers were related primarily to people management skills. These competencies included Managing Vision and Purpose, Hiring and Staffing, Sizing Up People, Command Skills, Building Effective Teams, Developing Direct Reports and Others, Confronting Direct Reports, and Motivating Others. In contrast, competencies that increased the most in importance from middle managers to executives reflected what Mumford et al. (2007) called business and strategic leadership skills. These competencies were Strategic Agility, Business Acumen,

TABLE 1 Competency Importance Ratings across Management Levels Supervisor (n = 293) Manager (n = 369) Executive (n = 208) Analysis of variance Competency M SD M SD M SD F (2, 867) p Action oriented 3.94 0.25 3.96 0.22 4.04 0.23 11.73 0.00 Dealing with ambiguity 3.80 0.29 3.90 0.27 3.92 0.23 15.02 0.00 Approachability 3.80 0.32 3.80 0.26 3.81 0.26 0.06 0.94 Boss relationships 3.71 0.29 3.70 0.26 3.79 0.27 8.64 0.00 Business acumen 3.86 0.39 3.97 0.32 4.13 0.33 36.39 0.00 Career ambition 3.33 0.39 3.27 0.33 3.38 0.36 6.52 0.00 Caring about direct reports 3.57 0.35 3.60 0.32 3.62 0.26 1.72 0.18 Comfort around higher management 3.86 0.32 3.92 0.28 4.02 0.26 19.28 0.00 Command skills 3.78 0.32 3.92 0.26 4.02 0.26 44.97 0.00 Compassion 3.45 0.35 3.48 0.31 3.50 0.33 1.28 0.28 Composure 3.93 0.26 3.95 0.22 4.00 0.22 5.17 0.01 Conflict management 3.81 0.29 3.91 0.23 3.94 0.23 18.43 0.00 Confronting direct reports 3.78 0.37 3.91 0.28 3.92 0.24 17.11 0.00 Creativity 3.58 0.34 3.56 0.32 3.70 0.35 12.73 0.00 Customer focus 4.14 0.37 4.20 0.34 4.24 0.33 5.86 0.00 Timely decision making 3.96 0.27 4.00 0.21 4.05 0.22 9.96 0.00 Decision quality 4.08 0.26 4.13 0.20 4.22 0.21 22.21 0.00 Delegation 3.87 0.29 3.92 0.23 4.00 0.22 15.00 0.00 Developing direct reports and others 3.80 0.39 3.92 0.35 3.97 0.30 17.26 0.00 Directing others 3.98 0.29 4.04 0.22 4.10 0.23 15.57 0.00 Managing diversity 3.77 0.37 3.84 0.32 3.83 0.30 4.38 0.01 Ethics and values 4.06 0.35 4.14 0.32 4.28 0.28 27.08 0.00 Fairness to direct reports 3.85 0.33 3.91 0.28 3.94 0.24 6.74 0.00 Functional/technical skills 4.12 0.31 4.01 0.33 4.11 0.32 10.22 0.00 Hiring and staffing 3.82 0.56 4.01 0.41 4.07 0.36 22.81 0.00 (Continued) 127

TABLE 1 (Continued) Supervisor (n = 293) Manager (n = 369) Executive (n = 208) Analysis of variance Competency M SD M SD M SD F (2, 867) p Humor 3.18 0.35 3.17 0.31 3.18 0.32 0.09 0.91 Informing 3.94 0.27 3.95 0.22 3.98 0.23 1.69 0.19 Innovation management 3.60 0.39 3.66 0.35 3.76 0.37 11.73 0.00 Integrity and trust 4.15 0.31 4.22 0.23 4.33 0.25 26.36 0.00 Intellectual horsepower 3.93 0.28 3.95 0.24 4.04 0.25 11.06 0.00 Interpersonal savvy 3.83 0.28 3.88 0.23 3.93 0.26 8.90 0.00 Learning on the fly 3.80 0.28 3.80 0.24 3.84 0.24 1.75 0.17 Listening 3.91 0.26 3.93 0.22 3.94 0.23 1.00 0.37 Managerial courage 3.86 0.28 3.97 0.24 4.06 0.23 39.59 0.00 Managing and measuring work 3.91 0.29 3.95 0.20 4.00 0.24 9.11 0.00 Motivating others 3.93 0.30 4.06 0.23 4.09 0.26 27.06 0.00 Negotiating 3.84 0.36 3.92 0.28 3.99 0.28 14.32 0.00 Organizational agility 3.83 0.27 3.91 0.24 3.98 0.25 21.28 0.00 Organizing 3.94 0.30 3.97 0.23 4.01 0.22 4.82 0.01 Dealing with paradox 3.58 0.31 3.65 0.26 3.74 0.24 21.23 0.00 Patience 3.68 0.29 3.66 0.25 3.67 0.27 0.32 0.73 Peer relationships 3.89 0.27 3.90 0.22 3.96 0.25 5.87 0.00 Perseverance 3.94 0.27 3.96 0.22 4.02 0.24 7.94 0.00 Personal disclosure 3.21 0.31 3.18 0.29 3.32 0.30 14.59 0.00 Personal learning 3.61 0.28 3.61 0.23 3.66 0.23 3.33 0.04 Perspective 3.69 0.31 3.78 0.26 3.93 0.28 46.17 0.00 Planning 3.99 0.28 3.97 0.23 4.00 0.25 0.51 0.60 Political savvy 3.66 0.37 3.73 0.31 3.86 0.29 22.57 0.00 Presentation skills 3.78 0.34 3.82 0.28 3.92 0.26 13.04 0.00 128

Priority setting 4.02 0.24 4.06 0.19 4.10 0.20 8.26 0.00 Problem solving 4.01 0.27 3.99 0.23 4.06 0.23 4.74 0.01 Process management 3.89 0.29 3.91 0.24 3.93 0.26 1.63 0.20 Drive for results 4.09 0.32 4.16 0.23 4.27 0.26 28.62 0.00 Self-development 3.69 0.29 3.68 0.24 3.75 0.28 4.50 0.01 Self knowledge 3.64 0.27 3.66 0.23 3.72 0.24 6.53 0.00 Sizing up people 3.61 0.36 3.75 0.30 3.82 0.26 30.43 0.00 Standing alone 3.78 0.32 3.81 0.25 3.91 0.23 14.63 0.00 Strategic agility 3.84 0.33 3.96 0.30 4.13 0.28 51.32 0.00 Managing through systems 3.64 0.33 3.78 0.26 3.76 0.27 21.28 0.00 Building effective teams 3.91 0.32 4.05 0.26 4.11 0.26 31.78 0.00 Technical learning 3.66 0.40 3.52 0.35 3.56 0.37 12.76 0.00 Time management 3.96 0.27 3.94 0.22 3.94 0.25 0.72 0.49 Total work systems 3.55 0.49 3.61 0.41 3.63 0.45 2.00 0.14 Understanding others 3.60 0.30 3.66 0.25 3.71 0.26 11.62 0.00 Managing vision and purpose 3.70 0.37 3.91 0.33 4.04 0.34 61.60 0.00 Work life balance 3.56 0.32 3.53 0.29 3.56 0.30 0.87 0.42 Written communications 3.85 0.30 3.84 0.27 3.85 0.29 0.23 0.80 Note. This list of competencies is copyrighted by Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company. 1995. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate, copy, or create derivatives in any form without express written permission. The importance rating scale ranged from 1 (not important) to5(mission critical). 129

130 DE MEUSE ET AL. Perspective, Creativity, Managing Vision and Purpose, and Political Savvy. Managing Vision and Purpose appears to be a unique competency. It is not only related to strategy, but it pertains to inspiring others through visioning. Consequently, it was among competencies that increased in importance for both management transitions (from supervisors to middle managers and from middle managers to executives). To test Hypothesis 2, the means of skill ratings for the 67 competencies across the three management levels were compared (see Table 2). Only 23 competencies (34%) showed significant differences across management levels. The remaining 44 competencies (66%) were stable in skill ratings. Further, of the 23 competencies with statistically significant differences, 10 competencies actually decreased in skill rating from low to top management levels. Overall, 13 competencies increased, 10 competencies decreased, and 44 competencies remained stable in skill ratings across management levels. This pattern of change was very different from the one observed for importance ratings and tended to support the discontinuity perspective of leadership skill transition across organizational hierarchies. Subsequently, we sorted the competencies by the amount of increase in skill ratings and identified competencies that increased the most for each of the management transitions. Again, competencies that increased most dramatically in skill ratings from supervisors to middle managers were related to people management, including Command Skills, Managerial Courage, Delegation, Comfort around Higher Management, Motivating Others, and Confronting Direct Reports. From managers to executives, competencies that increased the most in skill ratings were related to business and strategic skills. These competencies included Strategic Agility, Perspective, Managing Vision and Purpose, Creativity, Intellectual Horsepower, Business Acumen, Political Savvy, and Innovation Management. The aforementioned content analyses provided initial support to Hypothesis 3. Specifically, it was observed that from supervisors to middle managers, people management skills significantly increased in importance and skill ratings. Similarly, many business and strategic skills significantly increased in both importance and skill ratings from middle managers to executives. We further tested Hypothesis 3 by correlating mean differences in importance ratings between management positions with mean differences in skill ratings. If the change in skill ratings corresponds to the change in importance ratings, one would expect competencies to increase substantially in importance from one management level to another and also would demonstrate a substantial increase in skill ratings for the same type of management transition. From supervisors to middle managers, the correlation between change in importance ratings and change in skill ratings across 67 competencies was 0.61 ( p <.01). The same correlation for middle managers to executives transition was 0.62 ( p <.01), and for supervisors to executives transition was 0.63 ( p <.01). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was strongly supported.

TABLE 2 Competency Skill Ratings across Management Levels Supervisor (n = 349) Manager(n = 431) Executive(n = 241) Analysis of variance Competency M SD M SD M SD F (2,1018) p Action oriented 3.87 0.41 3.91 0.42 3.95 0.46 2.29 0.10 Dealing with ambiguity 3.45 0.39 3.53 0.37 3.55 0.43 5.76 0.00 Approachability 3.85 0.54 3.80 0.52 3.72 0.58 4.39 0.01 Boss relationships 3.78 0.41 3.80 0.37 3.78 0.41 0.25 0.78 Business acumen 3.68 0.43 3.77 0.41 3.84 0.45 10.96 0.00 Career ambition 3.62 0.46 3.65 0.43 3.77 0.47 8.64 0.00 Caring about direct reports 3.65 0.50 3.65 0.49 3.52 0.52 5.76 0.00 Comfort around higher management 3.73 0.42 3.82 0.40 3.91 0.44 14.82 0.00 Command skills 3.45 0.47 3.58 0.44 3.63 0.48 12.01 0.00 Compassion 3.68 0.49 3.66 0.48 3.58 0.56 2.81 0.06 Composure 3.60 0.52 3.57 0.47 3.59 0.56 0.41 0.66 Conflict management 3.34 0.41 3.40 0.40 3.40 0.46 2.50 0.08 Confronting direct reports 3.39 0.48 3.45 0.46 3.42 0.48 1.71 0.18 Creativity 3.46 0.42 3.43 0.41 3.52 0.47 3.48 0.03 Customer focus 3.83 0.45 3.87 0.43 3.84 0.48 0.82 0.44 Timely decision making 3.53 0.42 3.56 0.40 3.60 0.43 1.83 0.16 Decision quality 3.66 0.42 3.65 0.38 3.70 0.44 1.29 0.27 Delegation 3.47 0.42 3.57 0.39 3.58 0.42 6.94 0.00 Developing direct reports and others 3.33 0.49 3.34 0.45 3.30 0.50 0.68 0.51 Directing others 3.43 0.43 3.49 0.41 3.45 0.47 1.61 0.20 Managing diversity 3.82 0.42 3.82 0.36 3.79 0.41 0.73 0.48 Ethics and values 4.00 0.40 4.01 0.37 4.05 0.45 1.31 0.27 Fairness to direct reports 3.71 0.48 3.70 0.43 3.60 0.51 5.09 0.01 Functional/technical skills 4.00 0.45 3.89 0.40 3.93 0.46 5.65 0.00 Hiring and staffing 3.50 0.48 3.50 0.42 3.49 0.45 0.12 0.88 (Continued) 131

TABLE 2 (Continued) Supervisor (n = 349) Manager(n = 431) Executive(n = 241) Analysis of variance Competency M SD M SD M SD F (2,1018) p Humor 3.68 0.49 3.70 0.45 3.60 0.49 3.12 0.04 Informing 3.53 0.43 3.50 0.39 3.47 0.47 1.51 0.22 Innovation management 3.46 0.41 3.43 0.38 3.50 0.41 2.30 0.10 Integrity and trust 4.04 0.46 3.97 0.47 3.95 0.58 2.80 0.06 Intellectual horsepower 3.95 0.45 3.93 0.41 4.01 0.43 2.72 0.07 Interpersonal savvy 3.57 0.50 3.60 0.50 3.55 0.60 0.72 0.49 Learning on the fly 3.69 0.40 3.67 0.35 3.71 0.38 0.61 0.54 Listening 3.61 0.46 3.53 0.43 3.48 0.50 5.85 0.00 Managerial courage 3.52 0.45 3.61 0.43 3.63 0.48 6.19 0.00 Managing and measuring work 3.49 0.42 3.48 0.35 3.50 0.44 0.18 0.83 Motivating others 3.36 0.49 3.42 0.49 3.40 0.58 1.71 0.18 Negotiating 3.48 0.44 3.54 0.40 3.56 0.47 2.80 0.06 Organizational agility 3.65 0.38 3.72 0.37 3.75 0.44 5.28 0.01 Organizing 3.63 0.42 3.66 0.37 3.65 0.44 0.79 0.45 Dealing with paradox 3.34 0.36 3.36 0.35 3.39 0.40 1.59 0.20 Patience 3.52 0.47 3.40 0.47 3.35 0.55 9.75 0.00 Peer relationships 3.62 0.44 3.60 0.44 3.54 0.53 2.34 0.10 Perseverance 3.84 0.40 3.85 0.38 3.90 0.44 1.66 0.19 Personal disclosure 3.41 0.42 3.41 0.41 3.33 0.47 3.69 0.03 Personal learning 3.37 0.41 3.39 0.35 3.32 0.42 2.18 0.11 Perspective 3.49 0.40 3.52 0.35 3.63 0.41 10.26 0.00 Planning 3.56 0.43 3.55 0.38 3.53 0.43 0.20 0.82 Political savvy 3.41 0.43 3.50 0.42 3.58 0.46 11.82 0.00 Presentation skills 3.58 0.47 3.61 0.44 3.70 0.47 4.57 0.01 132

Priority setting 3.55 0.42 3.59 0.37 3.63 0.44 2.54 0.08 Problem solving 3.70 0.41 3.67 0.38 3.72 0.41 1.59 0.20 Process management 3.61 0.40 3.62 0.36 3.60 0.46 0.26 0.77 Drive for results 3.79 0.45 3.81 0.43 3.87 0.51 2.50 0.08 Self-development 3.63 0.38 3.58 0.35 3.57 0.43 2.08 0.13 Self knowledge 3.51 0.42 3.49 0.36 3.43 0.44 2.73 0.07 Sizing up people 3.50 0.40 3.50 0.36 3.52 0.40 0.16 0.86 Standing alone 3.78 0.45 3.79 0.42 3.80 0.51 0.15 0.86 Strategic agility 3.45 0.41 3.48 0.40 3.59 0.45 9.15 0.00 Managing through systems 3.43 0.39 3.47 0.39 3.45 0.43 0.98 0.38 Building effective teams 3.44 0.49 3.50 0.46 3.45 0.55 1.53 0.22 Technical learning 3.85 0.47 3.72 0.43 3.74 0.48 8.71 0.00 Time management 3.55 0.48 3.54 0.41 3.59 0.44 0.99 0.37 Total work systems 3.50 0.43 3.45 0.41 3.43 0.47 1.89 0.15 Understanding others 3.40 0.37 3.40 0.36 3.36 0.40 0.96 0.38 Managing vision and purpose 3.35 0.45 3.40 0.46 3.49 0.47 7.05 0.00 Work life balance 3.47 0.53 3.46 0.49 3.46 0.51 0.01 0.99 Written communications 3.65 0.40 3.64 0.40 3.66 0.42 0.35 0.71 Note. This list of competencies is copyrighted by Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company. 1995. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate, copy, or create derivatives in any form without express written permission. The skill rating scale ranged from 1 (a serious issue) to5(a towering strength). 133

134 DE MEUSE ET AL. DISCUSSION In the present study, we used 360-degree competency rating data to examine the changing patterns of importance and skill ratings across management levels. It was found that most competencies gained importance from low to top management level. In contrast, the changing pattern of skill ratings was not as straightforward. From low to top management, some competencies gained, some competencies lost, and other competencies remained the same level of efficiency. Further content and correlational analyses demonstrated a correspondence between changing importance and skill ratings. These findings suggest that the continuity and discontinuity views of leadership skill transition can occur simultaneously. They appear to describe the same issue from different angles. The continuity perspective portrays what is expected of managers. The discontinuity perspective, however, reveals what managers actually do to be effective. Expanding to the mainstream leadership literature, one also can test whether the continuity/discontinuity logic holds for some leadership styles such as transactional leadership, transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, or authentic leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997; George, 2004). For example, Bass (1985) suggested that transformational leadership is applicable at all levels. Applying the continuity logic and testing this theory using the data could provide empirical support for this theoretical claim. This study found that when transitioning from supervisor to middle manager, competencies related to people management gained the most in both importance and skill ratings. For the transition from middle manager to executive, business and strategy related competencies gained the most in importance and skill ratings. These results are consistent with theories on leadership and other empirical findings (cf. Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; R. L. Katz, 1955; Mann, 1965; Mumford et al., 2007). The changing patterns on Technical Learning and Functional/Technical Skills also were consistent with the literature. Supervisors primarily deal with technical problems and the supervision of employees responsible for carrying out the day-to-day work of the organization. As individuals move up to middle and top management, they perform less and less functional activities (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Hill, 1992; Tornow & Pinto, 1976). The data also showed that some competencies decreased in skill ratings across organizational levels. These competencies include Patience, Approachability, Listening, Caring about Direct Reports, Fairness to Direct Reports, Personal Disclosure, and Humor. These competencies primarily reflect managers interactive behaviors. It appears that as managers get promoted, they may become less sensitive to others. We further explored why these competencies decreased in skill ratings from low to high organizational levels. It was observed that all of these competencies remained stable in importance ratings from low to top management positions. A likely explanation is that when other competencies become more

LEADERSHIP SKILLS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 135 important, executives exercise these skills less as a result of their limited social and cognitive resources. Hence, it may represent an adaptive response to deal with the increasingly complex job requirements. This finding supports the theoretical hypothesis that managers selectively focus their attentions on performance domains that gain importance across organizational levels. One particular competency is noteworthy. Integrity and Trust continually increased in importance from the supervisor to executive level ( p <.01). However, skill levels on this competency actually decreased when moving up the corporate ladder ( p <.06). Nevertheless, Integrity and Trust remained one of the top rated skills for executives. Integrity means that a person s behavior is consistent with espoused values, so that the person is honest and trustworthy. Leadership integrity and trust is supposed to be good for organizations. It is believed to be associated with important outcomes, especially in the social aspects of a leader s job performance such as dealing with clients and managing team relationships (Kaiser & Hogan, 2010; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009). The present study reveals that managers and executives at higher levels do not possess more integrity and trustworthiness than managers at lower levels. This result may reflect the fact that people found managers and executives at higher levels are less approachable than managers at lower levels. In addition, higher level managers listen and disclose to others less than do lower level managers. The decreased skill rating on this competency also may reveal a balance leaders need to maintain a balance between demonstrating integrity and trust, and the willingness to change behavior when necessary to achieve results (Hooijberg, Lane, & Diverse, 2010). Managers and executives at higher levels appear more likely than those individuals at lower levels to feel an obligation to meet performance expectations from different stakeholders. Therefore, it seems that managers generally would benefit by becoming more flexible as they move up the corporate hierarchy. In this study, we examined the transitions of competencies across organizational levels without considering specific organizational contexts such as culture and business strategy. The objective was to identify general trends of such transitions. Exactly how leadership requirements evolve along the organizational hierarchy certainly will be influenced by specific organizational situations. In countries with high-level power distance and paternalistic leadership styles, some competencies (e.g., Directing Others, Caring about Direct Reports) might be emphasized throughout all levels, while other competencies (e.g., Approachability) might be deemphasized at higher levels. By the same token, organizational culture likely will have a similar effect on competency development. For example, organizations building on flat structure and democratic values might focus on developing certain competencies (e.g., Listening, Managing Diversity). Other companies with core values on innovation and creativity (such as in the design industry) likely will have some competencies (e.g., Creativity, Innovation Management) follow the continuity route.

136 DE MEUSE ET AL. Implications for Talent Management Managers are embedded in social contexts in which various stakeholders have performance expectations on focal managers. These performance expectations represent legitimate job requirements that are in line with the nature of the workplace interactions between the stakeholders and the focal managers (Tsui, 1994; Zaccaro, 2001). As managers ascend the corporate ladder, the job demands become more and more sophisticated and complex. Yet, the research indicates that majority of managers cannot increase all the competencies simultaneously that are required by the job. If this is the case, these findings have several implications for organizations and individuals. Managers likely compromise their leadership activities, because of their limited social and cognitive resources. Individuals are different in terms of social and cognitive complexity (Hooijberg et al., 1997). Consequently, it would be prudent for organizations to select individuals with a high level of complexity for key positions. In fact, social and cognitive complexity is a critical component when defining high potential leadership (De Meuse, Dai, & Hallenbeck, 2010; Silzer & Church, 2009). When individuals have high levels of social and cognitive complexity, they are more able to learn from experience and grow and develop for long-term success. It has been estimated that high potentials exist in about 5 10% of the management population (Silzer & Church, 2009). The majority of managers have limited resources to deal with the increasing job complexity required for senior leadership roles. An adaptive approach for the majority of managers would be to relinquish some behaviors and add some new behaviors required by new and higher level jobs. This pattern is what we observed in the present study. However, this approach may have some downsides. For example, our findings suggest that executives may become insensitive to others. If this is the case, it may lead to executive derailment. Previous research has found that arrogance, defensiveness, and insensitivity are some of the key reasons that executives derail (Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2011). Consequently, it is necessary for managers to find a more effective approach to adapt to the changing job requirements while simultaneously avoiding performance failure and derailment. Managers do not have to perform all the tasks themselves. There are alternative approaches to deal with the increasing job complexity. Lombardo and Eichinger (2010) recommended that managers use a variety of methods to address their performance weaknesses. For example, managers may wish to find internal or external persons to stand in for them when a weakness emerges. Similarly, they can delegate tasks that bring a weakness into play. Regardless of the approach managers may take, they should recognize that they simply cannot avoid dealing with the performance issue because stakeholders in their organizations will expect it to be addressed.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 137 Talent management professionals can contribute to this process by clarifying the importance of specific competencies at each managerial level and articulating competency changes as leaders move upwards. In this way, leaders can obtain clear performance expectations and prepare for behavioral adjustment during each stage of their career development. When building competency models, researchers also should consider the continuity/discontinuity approaches and integrate organizational contexts into the modeling. Limitations and Future Research There are a few limitations of the present study that should be acknowledged. An obvious limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the study. Longitudinal data tracking participants career and developmental histories can shed more light on the continuity/discontinuity processes. Specifically, which process (i.e., continuity or discontinuity) holds at the intrapersonal level? At which developmental stages in one s career (i.e., from supervisor to middle manager or from middle manager to executive)? A second limitation concerns individual differences. As discussed above, managers differ in their level of social and cognitive complexity. Future research should incorporate this variable and test whether it influences people s leadership behaviors in response to the increasing job complexity. Further, organizational culture, industry dynamics, and functional areas might affect the competency development process. Last, this study did not assess leadership effectiveness. We assume that managers adapt their leadership behaviors to achieve leadership effectiveness. Several research questions remain unanswered. Does skill improvement translate into leadership effectiveness? Are leaders who can develop skills on a wide range of performance domains more successful than managers who focus selectively on a few important areas? From a follower s perspective, alternative leadership effectiveness variables also might include follower satisfaction and team satisfaction. Will followers be more satisfied when leaders adopt a continuity process (meaning that leaders behaviors do not change dramatically after promotion)? If leaders adopt the discontinuity approach after promotion, how do followers adapt to the change and what is the effect on the team? Future research with carefully designed outcome variables will provide answers to these important questions. In summary, the present study investigated the changing patterns of importance and skill ratings on a large set of competencies across three management levels. The finding suggests a coexistence and integration between the continuity and discontinuity perspectives of leadership skill transition. Moreover, we provide some details regarding which competencies change most significantly for specific management transitions. We hope that the findings of this study have broadened the understanding of the changing skill requirements across the organizational hierarchy.

138 DE MEUSE ET AL. REFERENCES Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Hourihan, G., & Larsson, R. (2006). The seasoned executive s decision-making style. Harvard Business Review, 84, 111 121. Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2000). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership powered company. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., & Peterson, C. (2010). Impact of multi-source feedback on leadership competency development: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22, 197 219. Day, D. V., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Understanding the development of leadership complexity through latent growth modeling. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leadership development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 41 70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. S. (2010). Learning agility: A construct whose time has come. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 119 130. Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69 106. Eichinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (2004). Patterns of rater accuracy in 360-degree feedback. Human Resource Planning, 27, 23 25. Freedman, A. M. (1998). Pathways and crossroads to institutional leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50, 131 151. George, B. (2004). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (2001). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 79, 131 141. Hill, L. (1992). Becoming a manager. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2011). Management derailment: Personality assessment and mitigation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 555 575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the Leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23, 375 408. Hooijberg, R., Lane, N., & Diverse, A. (2005). Leader effectiveness and integrity: Wishful thinking? International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18(1), 59 75. Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1995). Multilevel leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 379 412. Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement (Vol. 2, pp. 7 65). New York, NY: Praeger. Jaques, E. (1978). General theory of bureaucracy. Exter, NH: Heinemann Books. Kaiser, R. B., & Hogan, R. (2010). How to (and how not to) assess the integrity of managers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 216 234. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33 42. Lievens, F., Sanchez, J. I., & de Corte, W. (2004). Easing the inferential leap in competency modeling: The effects of task-related information and subject matter expertise. Personnel Psychology, 57, 881 904. Lombardo, M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2003). Leadership architect norms and validity report. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited. Lombardo, M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2004). The leadership machine. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 139 Lombardo, M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2010). Career architect development planner (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited. Lombardo, M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business & Psychology, 2, 199 216. London, M., & Beatty, R. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 32, 353 372. London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803 835. Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 551 579. Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, Jr., S. J. (1965). The jobs of management. Industrial Relations, 4, 97 110. Mann, F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of the leadership role in formal organizations. In R. Dubin, G. C. Homans, F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller (Eds.), Leadership and productivity (pp. 68 103). San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Mintzberg, H. (2009, August 17). The best leadership is good management. Bloomberg Businessweek, p. 68. Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 18,154 166. Palanski, M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 405 420. Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 377 412. Tett, R., P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Development and content validation of a hyperdimensional taxonomy of managerial competency. Human Performance, 13, 205 251. Tornow, W. W., & Pinto, P. R. (1976). The development of managerial job taxonomy: A system of describing, classifying, and evaluating executive positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 410 418. Tsui, A. S. (1994). Reputational effectiveness: Toward a mutual responsiveness framework. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, 257 307. Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.