In summary, scapegoating and hero-worshipping are superficial. How do we get beyond that, and what is the benefit?
Most companies have adopted a list of behaviours (competencies) that describe the range of leadership behaviours needed in order to succeed. Usually they include: communication, business acumen, manages change, customer service, developing the skills of others, global mindset, decision-making, teamwork, and so on. This is what we look for.
How we conduct the assessment then is a much bigger question. How do we conduct a fair and well-balanced assessment of a leader?
Well, so far we know that scape-goating and hero-worshipping are poorly conducted assessments. This is obvious I suppose, but still very common.
In politics and at executive level, results are the only things that matter. If someone has reached that level of influence / seniority, then they should be expert leaders, right?
The problem is that even at the heady heights of the boardroom, succession planning and talent management discussions are frequently conducted poorly. The quality of the discussion is light, visible evidence is limited, time is pressured, and under these conditions, we end up with these dreadful sterotypes, labels and of course - politics!
How do you conduct a good assessment discussion.
