Before moving into the process for self- assessment and development it is important to have a clear understanding of the potential moderators or contextual factors that can have a signifi cant impact on the success or failure of these types of eff orts. While these factors are also important to consider when planning any sort of leadership program, they are critically important to the success of self- directed development.
Organizational Cultural Orientation
The fi rst factor to consider is the organizational cultural orientation, particularly as it relates to the perceived value of leadership development eff orts. By cultural orientation we are referring to a number of facets. One of these is the belief structure of senior leadership (which is one of the most powerful ways that a culture is created and therefore a refl ection of what is valued in that organization). Individual learners are unlikely to want to engage in development activities if their senior leadership does not support their eff orts via funding for assessment measures, time away from work for their own development, or simply lacks an expressed interest in development. Sponsorship for development from the top of the organiza-tion is critical in ensuring a learning and supportive culture, as is the case with most OD and culture change interventions (Burke, 1994). Similarly, the extent to which senior leaders model behaviors that support their own personal continued development will impact the motivation levels of lower- level leaders to embrace development themselves.
Supporting Tools and Processes
The second moderating factor, which is somewhat related to the leader-ship and culture/environment they create, is the availability and number of supporting tools and processes for development. While there are many types of self- assessment tools and learning and development programs (as will be discussed later), the extent to which the organization provides access to these (either internally through formal programs or externally through various vendor relationships) can make a signifi cant diff erence in how much development an individual learner can engage in success-fully. For example, if an organization only off ers two 40- person attendee leadership programs in a given year, even the most ambitious leader will have diffi culty advancing their case for attendance if the target population for that program is all 400 middle managers. It could take as long as fi ve
years before an individual will be able to attend. In a situation such as this, self-directed development behavior will require other means.
As noted above, organizations vary considerably in how much emphasis they place on leadership development, and as a result, the philosophi-cal stance they take regarding providing access to tools and resources.
In our experience there is a continuum here between companies that emphasize individual accountability for development (for example, we will provide the tools but you must be the initiator and drive your own development), and those that are quite prescriptive in nature (for example, you must progress through these programs, experiences and assessments before being allowed to move to a new role or level in the hierarchy).
Some researchers have suggested that the trend swung towards more management of careers as much as a decade ago given the downsizing eff orts and other changes that occurred in the employment contract during the 1980s and 1990s (Kossek et al., 1998). This is probably a positive shift in direction (although providing no formal development programs at all would be a serious concern to us) given that it allows those individuals with a clear desire and motivation to develop the opportunities and tools to do so themselves. Clearly, it can be more diffi cult for individuals to engage in developmental experiences if the only ones off ered are through formal prescriptive channels. Regardless of where an organization is on the continuum, the tools and resources available to a leader clearly have an impact on his or her ability to develop. This is why companies selected for inclusion in the ‘Top companies for leaders’ lists (e.g., Fortune, 2007) usually have a multi- platform approach to development (for example, classroom, distance learning, web- based, coaching and mentoring pro-grams). At PepsiCo the philosophy is a shared one between the employee, the manager, and the organization, that is, somewhere in the middle of the continuum (see Figure 1.1).
Individual Characteristics
The fi nal and perhaps most important moderating variable in self-assessment and development are the individual characteristics of the leader in question. These characteristics essentially break down into three separate areas: (a) the personality disposition and motivation to develop;
(b) the level of learning ability and cognitive capacity to develop; and (c) the degree of career aspirations to develop and advance. For development to occur in a leadership context the individual needs to be moderate to high on all three of these areas. In short, the psychological make- up of the individual will directly impact on his or her ability to learn from assessment tools, motivation to seek assessment and development
eff orts, and level of personal engagement in the process. This can aff ect all phases of assessment- development.
Let us take some simple examples using concepts from various person-ality theories and measures (e.g., Burke and Noumair, 2002; Costa and McCrae, 1991; Hogan Assessment Systems, 2009; Hogan and Shelton, 1998). Individuals with a low learning ability or orientation will be far less likely to want to seek development opportunities on their own, let alone attend off erings provided by an organization. Leaders with lower than average levels of ambition or motivation to enhance their standing or develop in their career would also be less likely to exhibit interest in initi-ating a self- assessment and development process. Introverts or individuals with low affi liation needs may be less willing to share their feedback with others or work with a coach on a development plan. From a social motive perspective (McClelland, 1961), individuals may engage in self- assessment and development for diff erent reasons. Those high in a need for achieve-ment, for example, may seek opportunities to improve their performance or achieve their career goals. On the other hand, those high in need for power may see the exercise as critical to moving up the corporate ladder.
Lastly, those high in a need for affi liation may engage in these activities simply because they are opportunities to meet new people or better under-stand their colleagues. Even if an individual does have the motivation to complete an assessment tool, the initial feedback they receive may be com-pletely denied or overly anxiety provoking to the point of paralysis if they are low in adjustment. Individuals low in conscientiousness are less likely to follow through with their action plan.
Employees
Organization Managers
• Driving for business results
• Demonstrating perseverance
• Continually developing skills
• Identifying career aspirations
• Providing developmental coaching
• Providing performance feedback
• Following-up from people planning
• Discussing potential future roles
• Providing world-class experiences
• Offering formal training
• Developing strategies to drive growth
• Enabling with core processes and tools
Figure 1.1 PepsiCo career development partnership model
As noted above, however, personality is not the only factor as other types of skill sets and capabilities can also impact self- assessment- related behavior. The degree to which an individual has the cognitive capacity and learning ability to recognize new information from developmental activities and integrate and synthesize those learnings is also a critical component. Someone with a lower than average IQ is much less likely to be able to process new information from a leadership styles assessment tool and make eff ective use of the insights identifi ed than someone with a higher cognitive ability. Constructs such as learning agility (Lombardo and Eichinger, 2000) and feedback- seeking behavior (e.g., Ashford, 1986;
Janssen and Prins, 2007) are also relevant here. Even existing levels of self- awareness can also play an important moderating role in whether the individual initiates or gains any further insights from their developmental actions at all (e.g., Bracken et al., 2001).
Finally, the third area of individual characteristics, the level of career aspirations that someone may have, is also important to consider from a self- development perspective, and is particularly important when consid-ering development from an organizational context. Although related to motivation and ambition, these concepts are not synonymous. An individ-ual may be very motivated to succeed in his or her career, for example, but not at all interested in attaining any of the existing roles that are higher in his or her specifi c organization (for example, perhaps because of the managers of those roles, their geographical location, or simply because of the elements of the jobs themselves). Conversely, we have seen many individuals who have very high career aspirations but who are unwilling or unmotivated to engage in the assessment and development eff orts that would be required to attain them (for example, perhaps they are unwilling to move to Asia for several years to obtain the critical experience of leading in an emerging market). From an individual perspective, then, it is critical to truly under-stand your own motivational levels, but also your own career aspiration levels, and what you would be willing to put up with to attain those roles (for example, level of geographic mobility, learning a new set of language skills, changing to a new function and having to step back on the career ladder temporarily in order to learn new capabilities). Of course organizations desire an accurate assessment of this information as well for development and succession planning purposes (Silzer and Church, forthcoming).