0:08

Hey everyone, and welcome to another episode of the Leadership Growth Podcast. I'm your host, Daniel Stewart, along with my brother, Peter Stewart, and we are here to talk about tips and tools, practical ideas to help you grow yourself as a leader. So welcome.

And the topic today, Peter: 0:26

executive assessment. That's the topic. In other words, how to assess yourself, but assess key leaders in one's organization to be able to help them improve and do their current performance really well, but more so how to help develop them for a future role. What does that mean? What does that look like? A lot of conversation these days around executive assessment so that we can make more informed choices. for development and for succession and forward movement. A lot of this is driven by boards or senior executives or heads of HR to understand who do we really have as leaders? What are their strengths, challenges, derailleurs? And how can we use that additional information to make good decisions? So that's kind of the topic. So as you're hearing this, Peter, what first goes through your mind mind when I say executive assessment?-Oh, you set the table so well, framing it up. I mean...-Oh, gosh.-Thank you. You know, at the foundation, the function of all assessments is to provide data. But that's what it is. And so for executive assessments, you're trying to get some sort of data, whether it be quantitative or qualitative or some combination of both. to help provide better information for decisions to be made. And specifically, when we're talking about executive assessment, it's decisions on how well somebody might fit a certain role, how well they might be performing in that role, or what gaps might be identified for development so that they could be prepared for a potential role. And I think those are all scenarios in which assessment can be tremendously helpful. And I think as we describe the process, it's recognizing there is never, and we don't use that term never very often, there is never going to be a one-size-fits-all approach. And I think there are some key questions we need to think about before you begin the assessment process so that you are selecting the right method, you're selecting the right resources or formal assessments or whatever you're doing, to help get the results you want. So, what are those key questions we should be thinking about in the beginning as we launch into the assessment process? Or I should say before we launch into any data gathering?-Yeah, and you're also reminding me to emphasize sometimes we'll hear the term executive assessment, and there's maybe certain people who then say, oh, that's not for me, or that's not for my organization. We don't view it like that. And so if it's helpful, toss the word executive. It's a leader assessment. It's a leadership assessment process to be able to understand for the individual as well as for others to help decide who should be the next leader in whatever way, and how to help somebody prepare to become that, there needs to be some level of assessment, some identification. And it's often helpful to have an outside party and/or a consistent process that's done. And usually the deliverable, the end result, is some sort of report. It could be in a variety of different assessment reports or consolidated that's then shared with the decision makers. And hopefully, it's also shared with the leader themself so that they can have a sense of what they want to do and develop. And so you ask the question as to what are those questions that we want to keep in mind, and they often then need to be nuanced and shifted toward the purpose. And the purpose is severalfold. So let's talk about a few case examples. And then we can insert what questions make sense for each of these case examples. So, one case example is the board is needing to identify a successor for the CEO. I'm working with one just this week, a board working through the CEO succession, helping advise the board to be able to then think through the timing. and the criteria for the CEO role, what's the context, that whole process. So that's one use case that we can talk through. Let me just run through a couple of others, then we can take these and dive a little deeper. Another one is the CEO is wanting to identify successors for key members of the CEO's team. Maybe a successor for the CFO or the COO, the chief head of HR, CIO, whatever it is. They want to be able to understand where the current state is for those possible successors. Let's do an assessment for that situation. Two other ones. One is an external hire situation. Maybe there is a need for maybe the CFO to backfill the CFO work need to go outside the organization. So we need to do a assessment of the candidate to be able to then make sure that that candidate has the comport— why am I thinking of the French word, comportement? The demeanor.(laughing) I learned French years ago, anyway. For those speaking French, yes, the demeanor, the countenance, the disposition, as well as the skills. And then the fourth use case scenario is really as we think about a level across the organization, say all directors or all managers or all VPs. How do we help them become aware of who they are, their strengths, their derailleurs, their challenges, and inform their manager, to be able to help support and the organization as well, so that they can then help develop them and know how to best prepare future leaders. So, a multitude of different use cases. So Peter, okay, now that we've established this, to your question around what questions? How to frame up each of these? Which one should we tackle here?-Well, I think you look at them and what there are some commonalities among several of these as you're trying to identify what is the present state of functioning, what is the desired state of functioning, what is the gap that may be between, so that then things can be done to assess for that fit. Whether you're this, you know, trying to the board identifying the next CEO, you're the CEO trying to identify successors for the, you know, senior leadership or executive leadership team or so forth as you go through those. Each have their own unique situations. But I think fundamentally we're asking is, is this a performance-based assessment? Is this a development-based assessment? Or is this more of an informative-based assessment? And I think that's really where you break down any of these decisions. It's looking at it, I think, from a CEO readiness. From a board, it's more of an informative. There's a decision that is going to need to be made on a hire. And so you're trying to gather as much information on potential candidates so that the likelihood of success increases. That's what they're hoping, the probability. There's no guarantees. We're talking about humans But that so that's really a fit from the development side. It's the succession. You know, it's like, okay, what needs to be done to help get people ready for a role? And then if they're already in a role, it's more the performance evaluation. How well are they executing? Are there challenges? We need somebody to step up, whatever it might be.-I love it. That's very clear. And so what are some of the basic steps? Let's talk through what are the basic steps, the building blocks that are often included in any one of these, and then we can kind of identify the the nuance. And one of the first basic steps is to, once we've clarified the purpose,-Mm hmm.-Let's clarify what are the skills that need to be there for somebody to be successful in the role?-Yeah.-And that skill conversation, the expectation skill conversation, is so critical, but too often that's kind of like just assumed. And that's usually one of the first questions I have for any board that I work with that either of us or any of our consultants work with, to then say, okay, what are you really after? And you know, they'll often say, “Well, here's the job description,” and you say, okay, that's a good starting point. Yes, and we want to confirm. The functional skills, the technical skills. What are the leadership skills? And then there's the other question to inform that. What's the direction of the company? What's the situation? Are we in a high growth, rapid growth situation? Are we expending some, expecting some need to integrate an M&A situation? Or is it a turnaround that we need to be in? Or are we in a rather mature market and expecting very steady sort of growth efforts? All of those will have a dramatic impact on the kinds of skills that we're going to be looking for in that role. And so that's for the board. Now, if you're the CEO or a senior executive asking similar questions, absolutely, and saying what, what's the profile, the success profile of the leader that we're looking for? Is it the exact same profile as the person currently in it, the incumbent? Is it different? Do we need them to be more innovative and being able to be more creative and willing to break more rules? Or do we need them to be able to actually create rules and follow and abide by it and to maintain it? Very different perspectives, very different sets of strengths. So that's where it's first clarifying what's the purpose? And what's the context to be able to then help determine what that profile success profile really looks like?-Yeah, and that term of success profile, I think, really helps just expand that concept of skills. Because we're not just taking a look at what does this individual possesses, or what can they do, or what are the attributes they bring, but it's looking at that fit. Because what is needed? How do we help not only them be successful in this role, but what does the organization require? So there's all of this thought because one of the biggest mistakes we observe and have seen with assessments is when there is not that level of intentionality that has gone into really making sure we know what we want out of this process. So we have to begin with the end in mind and setting that context. I remember working with an executive that was new to an organization. They had been hired on, this organization fairly large, but it had been many, many years since they had had a COO in that role. And so they were hiring for this role with very little experience of what really it could do. So they described it. They'd set out, they'd interviewed for multiple people, they brought somebody finally in to fulfill it. But what they had failed to do is really communicate how this role fit in with the rest of the executive team. What were their respective roles and responsibilities? What were other people going to stop doing that this person was now ready for? So a key part in why this individual turned out to be very successful is they possessed the skill set of being able to work in situations with a high level of ambiguity.-Mm.-They did not come in with a very rigid picture. They had that experience, so they were able to then help work and craft and identify the relationships, and because it can be quite sensitive when you're dealing with job jars and who's doing what and how this might be shifting, particularly at an executive level. So that's just an example of how that context really mattered, and getting a person in who is comfortable doing some trailblazing, doing some pioneering, and being comfortable with that ambiguity.-I love that example. You're reminding me of another recent example. A client I'm working with, a billion dollar global manufacturing organization. And they have been trying to replace their controller for years. It's actually been about over a year. And they have interviewed so many people. And they are still struggling to figure out what is that profile that they're looking for because they can think that a controller might inherently want to be analytical, straightforward, yes, be consistent. However, for the controller to be successful in that company, they need to be a big thinker. They need to be incredibly creative and collaborative. And we're not talking about creative math. We're talking about being able to then listen and work and create different reports. And different business units need various different things. That is stakeholder management. And that is not always a skill set that comes with more of a senior level controller position.-Mm hmm.-It can, but it's really key to be able to be clear about what is needed for this candidate, either for an internal or external hire, and also to help folks get clear that what the words that they're saying actually matches what they really want.(laughing) I mean...-You can say that again. Like, just say that again, because we could double-click on that all night.(laughing) It is... it is so hard to do, and it's one of the main traps that we see clients fall in all the time. So, for example, a client might say, we need somebody who's really innovative and can bring best practices and really elevate us to the next level. That's what we need.-Yeah.-So they hire somebody who's really innovative and has experience, maybe even out of the industry. And then they come, and within the first day or two, they're like, thank you for mentioning all these crazy ideas. Can you shut up, please? Can you not say anything for a while? Just listen to us for like 60 days or 90 days, which is generally a good piece of advice. Okay.-Yeah.-And then after 90 days, yeah, you know how we were saying being innovative? Can you cut that in half? And then cut that in half. Don't be too much. Please don't rock the boat. And so this is, yes, hiring and bringing on the right person. It's also checking to make sure that you're creating an environment that you're willing to actually follow through with what you've wanted. Now, this is the onboarding conversation, and we'll talk about that in the future at some point here. But it's key to then get that success criteria, that success profile, clear and understood from the get-go and really do that gut check with oneself, with the team, whoever is hiring, is this really the person we want and need? And to be humble about it and to be transparent and candid as well.-Yeah. All those examples, they I think we could talk for a long time on all the examples of the potential. successes and failures that have happened because of these. And every one, as you do those reflections back, you identify, oh, well, this is one. Like, I'm thinking of one organization that they were really at that kind of adolescence of an organization. They so wanted to grow, they so wanted to scale, but they didn't know how. And for a key growth position for their executive vice president of growth, they did not bring in somebody from the outside who had been in a larger organization that had seen this process at scale. They promoted somebody internally who had been there for 20 plus years, and then they were frustrated that they were not able to bring about the scale they need. I mean, it just happened. So we could keep going, but as we get back on this focus of executive assessment or just leadership assessment, we've talked about creating that clear purpose, the objective of what you're wanting to accomplish through the process. We've identified that you got to have the skill conversation, the success profile to know what it is you want to look for,-Yeah.-let's dig into a little bit more of the methodology, the options that we have to conduct the assessments. And for many individuals, when we hear assessment, we can immediately think of a formal test. You know, here's a Hogan, you know, here's a Myers-Briggs, here's a disc, or whatever it might be. And those are not bad. But that is just one portion of the assessment part. So you can incorporate standardized assessments, which I encourage you to incorporate. They're there for a reason. They often have a normative a sample base by which you're comparing results and other things, and it helps give some objective opinions. But in addition to that, you have opportunities you could run simulations. You can have work portfolios and work artifacts that they've produced. There's also interviews with prior people they've worked with. You can have... bring them in and they can do presentations as well to be able to share that. So you're getting them in different settings and different circumstances. What would you add to the different types of methodology for assessment?-There are so many that can be considered, and it's also the degree of formality. Some organizations will send folks into a complete day or two of a battery of assessments, and then a report is generated. Others, it could be done a little bit more of a shorter time frame, a few hours. But the key is a couple of things. One is to get feedback from others about the person as much as possible. Some sort of 360-degree viewpoint, either with an online 360 or at least through a series of interviews, as much as possible. This is more easily done with internal candidates, for sure, to be able to assess how others see them. So that's one key ingredient to gather as much as information from how they're perceived by others about how they lead, how they show up. Another key part is to be able to identify their work styles. Their personality, their tendencies toward how they approach communication, problem solving, collaboration, how they view a long-term and/or short-term perspective. And these can be accomplished well from assessments like Hogan or Watson Glaser or so many other types of how do they critically think? How do they interact with others as well? And then there's also another category of specific competency types of assessments that are out there. And those can be very helpful to be able to indicate and check the specific competencies, the technical side of those competencies. We don't use those as much because typically the higher up you get in an organization, it's less about the technical side of things. It's more about those... those emotional intelligence elements and those kind of personality styles, working styles, what's the go-to? And have you developed the ability to switch and moderate your style to others? And those are the factors that are so key to keep in mind. And so through the interviews, through assessments, and then to be able to culminate and bring this together into then comparing it not just against a generic profile description, but against the actual profile description for that role within what the strategy is needed. That's really, really a helpful combination. And then inevitably, it's sharing it with the candidates so they're aware. But then sharing it internally as well. So the candidate's aware, and then the hiring manager, the board, the CEO, the head of HR, whoever it is, they're also aware. And they have a consistent report to then compare against multiple candidates as well. So that then can inform the decision-making. It can also then inform future developments. So I just covered a lot of ground, Peter. Dive on in.-Hey, we thought about these a few times. You know, we've done, there's so many... so many layers and so much nuance to the process. But ultimately, as you keep coming back as we're talking, it's if we haven't established that standard and the baseline of the need, and the purpose of it, then what are we comparing the results to? Because the data and the results from whatever the myriad of assessments that we've just went through or the interview process or however we're gathering that data, in isolation, the data is really not helpful. It's when we compare that with what is required or needed that we have established as the goal for the situation. That's really where the determination comes. And I think as the other part of this, it's recognizing that however complex or simple your organization wants to or has the resources to make this process, it very much also can be done in stages and phases. You know, it's not that every single person applying for a role is going through... going to go through the exact same process. Obviously, you're going to filter out and weed out because just the it's more intense and the focus and the resources that are leveraged are going to be higher. So you can use some of it to help filter out and weed out some of those earlier subjects applicants. But then as you advance in that process, then as you get to those last few, this is really where they all can look very similar on paper. But you're getting at what are the attributes, what is the fit that might not be popping out on the resume or didn't come through on some of these other factors. And that's really where you're trying to get into with this data the data gathering.-Let's touch upon something you said, and I want to make sure we can clarify it for our listeners. You were saying that the process may not be the same for each person. So let's be clear because what we want to say is that there needs to be a consistent and fair process. that everybody experiences.-Correct.-Although that process itself may shift based upon what is the success criteria for that role that you are then considering people for. That needs to be very clear. And the candidates, internal and external, need to be very clear on the consistency of the process, so that is what we want to be very clear about as well.-Yeah, no, thanks for highlighting that because yes, every candidate needs to be treated the same as they advance in kind of stages of the process. Then there may be different or additive assessments or layers that come on that everybody at that next layer is taking together. So yeah, good clarification, because obviously you want to have a fair and equitable process. That should be a given. Unfortunately, we do have to emphasize that.-Correct. It's not always the case. So let's talk about the report itself. After there's some assessment work and a consistent way of being done, and the person's had interviews, they've taken several assessments, both from a leadership behavior, from a work style, from a skill, a cognitive workload, a variety of different attributes, we can compile this together and start identifying recommendations, next steps, all related to the success profile. We can also identify the strengths. And the possible deraillers. It's very clear, it's outlined there. We can debrief with that And so then as a client has this report,(laughing) this is what's so fascinating. And a couple of things, and Peter, I want your observation, you know, your thoughts on this. What I see too often is that even with these reports, the decision maker, head of HR, CEO, can still look at the candidates and say,“Yeah, but that... he's a good guy.”(laughing) I've known about him. He's... he's the guy we want. And you're like, hold on. That good guy that you're identifying actually showed really, really low in collaboration, really high in authoritative, and that's actually contrary to your culture. But the challenge is to be able to then break through one's own bias,-Mm hmm.-and actually believe the report, or utilize the information as that devil's advocate or to challenge one's thinking, because too often we we still see a leader saying,“Yeah, but in my gut, I just like that person more.” Okay, that's another important data point. But let's please compare and contrast it with the actual data itself. Peter, have you seen any of this?(laughing) You mean, you're talking about human nature and bias that comes into it? And I'm glad you brought it up because we cannot have a conversation about assessment without the acknowledgment of bias and what can be done to be aware of it. And to then help buffer so that against it, so that we're actually able to make better decisions and more informed decisions, because we can form our conclusions early on based on just intuition or gut or whatever it might be. Unfortunately, many times because somebody is very similar or like us. And so having that awareness of what that natural bias might be, and then how do we actually then take those steps to say okay, how am I looking at this? How am I providing my, you know, what's the rubric of decision-making that's actually being gone through? And sometimes, even you can go through the assessment process and the reports in which you can sanitize those in terms of looking at candidates in which names are not attached. It's like, here's the profiles A, B, or C. And even as a means to help get through some of those. But it is, it's, it's... There's some education, again, getting back to purpose. Getting back to objective of this is what you were telling us in the beginning you wanted. These are the profiles or the individual that best fits this based on that clear criteria. So what other counsel would you give, Daniel, as you've observed these scenarios?-So the biggest thing I would say is to build in a leader assessment process for any leader who might be considered for a future leadership opportunity. Make it an established process. You can decide how extensive, how involved it might be. I mean, it might be $1,500 a person for a Hogan and a 360, and to be able to create a report. Or it might be a $30,000 one-to-two day off-site at an assessment center with a battery of IO psychologists. Whichever or somewhere in between. The point is to identify what is your leader executive assessment process for your organization. That is going to be key. And the first step with that is to be clear on what's the success profile for that role. Thus, it can then inform whatever assessments you choose, it'll be compared against that. And that success profile is not just for the job in a vacuum. It is dependent upon where what the strategy is in the organization and where the organization needs to go.-Yeah. You're really highlighting so clearly the benefit that a process and a clearly defined process brings, not just in helping to increase the likelihood that you will get the best result from the process, but it helps also increase the likelihood you're doing it in a fair and equitable manner.-Correct.-And both objectives need to be kept at a high level.-Yeah.-You can't bias one toward the one or the other. Like, you need both.-Yeah.

And I'll also add: 31:48

Having an established assessment process is a best practice for sure for some of the finest organizations out there. It is evidence of a very mature organization. And again, if you're not even doing any of this, fine. You can start small. But identify what those couple of steps are for internal leaders as well as external candidates as you then want to make informed choices to pick and select the best leader, and then it enables you to have a very clear idea of what's needed to help further develop them once they come on board. Not because they may have gaps, but to help optimize the strengths they bring, help integrate those strengths, as best as possible so that the organization can get the greatest value out of the new human leader you're bringing in. They're going to bring so much. How do we optimize and help that person feel like they can truly contribute and that others will accept them and contribute with them?-Yeah, and it helps not only the organization be confident they've made the right decision bringing this person in, the person who was hired knows they went through this process. And they were selected, they're coming in with optimism, they're coming in with this. There aren't many people who take a new job pessimistically.(laughing) You know, it's like, yeah, I took this role. I'm not sure it's going to be much better than the last one I had, which is why I chose to leave the one I liked better for this one.(laughing) You want people to come in excited about it. You know, you want them successful. So, this is a process that helps to bring the right people in. But I guess this is where we could stop and pause. And maybe there's another part. How do we help them be successful once they get there? And I know we've done episodes on onboarding and other things there. But you can't look at the conclusion of the assessment process like our work is done. No, it's just beginning. It's just beginning. But it sure is critical to do that beginning well.-Yeah, I love it. I love it. So, Peter, final thoughts? What's the one thought you want to leave everybody with as they think of the topic of executive leadership assessment? What's your one thought?-I think the most important part is really assessing the success profile. What is it that you need out of this whole process? What does that look like? And being very honest with yourself. What is it that this organization needs? What are we ready for? What can we handle? Because you might get somebody who may be beyond what you actually can support and do, as we've shared some certain stories and things like that. But getting that clear and oftentimes not doing that in a vacuum. This isn't something that somebody just generates one night as they're sitting in their chair at home of, oh, here's the profile. Vet that, allow others to contribute, get I mean, pick that thing apart because the better that's established, that's the standard by which you will compare all the data and the results from the whole assessment process against.-I love it. Well said. Well, Peter, always fun. And listeners, thanks for joining us. Hopefully, you're able to pick up some great tools and ideas to help you as a leader improve, as well as the other leaders with whom you work, helping them to further develop, all with the hope of making great decisions and helping our teams and organizations be better. Thanks for joining us, listeners, and we look forward to having you in the future. All the best, everyone. Take care. If you like this episode, please share it with a friend or colleague, or better yet, leave a review to help other listeners find our show. And remember to subscribe so you never miss an episode. For more great content or to learn more about how Stewart Leadership can help you grow your ability to lead effectively, please visit stewartleadership.com.