A Case from Bob Koenigs for Your Consideration:

A Profile of Some Best and Worst Leaders

When we began the SYMLOG Consulting Group (SCG) in 1983, we needed to construct norms against which to provide feedback to participants in leadership development programs at the Center for Creative Leadership. There was a popular book by Peters and Waterman in print about that time titled: In Search of Excellence.

I recall setting up a session to gather data for our norms from a meeting of the American Society of Training and Development and talking with Margaret Cowen about the particular survey questions we might ask. One of the obvious choices was to ask about leadership "excellence". I also recall saying that I didn’t think we were in search of excellence, but instead, that we were in search of effectiveness. That search has continued for twenty-five years.

We are now able to draw on over a million sets of SYMLOG ratings based on effectiveness. Our original choice to focus on "effectiveness" turns out to have been a fortunate and sound decision since we now provide robust feedback to participants worldwide in twelve languages. The SYMLOG "most effective profile" has become a global standard for individual, team, and organizational development.

Recently Dr. Herb Baker, of Alliant International University, conducted a study. The study was designed to compare the perceptions of 102 adults relative to the values shown by the "Best" and "Worst" leader they have actually know. The findings were compared to each other and the SCG "most effective profile" (mep). Not surprisingly, the "Best" leaders closely approximated the "mep" and the worst were dramatically different. The case is summarized below:

To the right is a Group Average Field Diagram showing only the location of the SCG "most effective profile" (mep) and the corresponding effectiveness domain (Sheepdog Lake) highlighted in green. Notice the mep effectiveness domain is fairly well symmetrically distributed around the space.

To the left is the Group Average Field Diagram showing the location of the overall image for Best (BST) and Worst (WST) Leaders actually known. Note the image for BST overlaps the mep while the image for WST is almost the polar opposite.

Below (to the right) is the Group Average Field Diagram for Best Leader (BST). The empirical Effective Domain for BST is also shown (in blue) and almost perfectly circumscribes the (green) empirical effective domain for the most effective profile (mep).

Also shown just below (to the left) is the Single Image Bargraph for Best Leader (BST) accompanied by the E-line (most effective profile) with the effective ranges shown in green. The correspondence is striking at every level.

The Group Average Field Diagram for Worst Leader (WST) is below (to the right). The empirical Image Effective Domain for WST is also shown (in blue) and is dramatically out of synch with the green empirical effective domain for the most effective profile (mep).

Also shown just below (to the left) is the Single Image Bargraph for Worst Leader (WST) accompanied by the E-line (most effective profile) with the effective ranges shown in green.

A Scatterplot of all the Images for Best Leader is shown to the right. The images tend to cluster in the upper right quadrant, otherwise known in SYMLOG parlance as the "Reference Circle".

A Scatterplot of all the Images for Worst Leader is shown to the left. The images tend to cluster in the lower left quadrant, otherwise known in SYMLOG parlance as the "Opposition Circle". However, a significant number of the images are in areas associated with individualistic and authoritarian behavior.

Below is a Double Bargraph displaying the results for Best Leader in Blue and Worst Leader in Red. Note that the longest (most endorsed) item for Best Leader is #3 UPF. This indicates the Best Leader was observed placing the most emphasis on "Active teamwork toward common goals, organizational unity." Note also the shortest bar (least emphasis by Best Leader) is on Item 14.

Note also the longest (most emphasis) bar for the Worst Leader was Item 14, which indicates the Worst Leader was observed placing the most emphasis on "Self-protection, self-interest first, self sufficiency". Note again that, strikingly, Item 14 is the shortest bar (least emphasis) for the Best Leader.

Here is the discussion section from Dr. Baker's paper:

What is intuitively known to almost everyone with even minimal tenure in the world of work has been empirically corroborated: Those individuals who stand out in our memory as best and worst leaders differ radically on a number of values, as those values were made manifest in their behaviors.

When the best and worst leader values profiles are compared to an empirical norm for most effective profile, there are again quite marked differences. Best Leader emerges very close to the most effective profile. These leaders enact the behaviors that contribute to teamwork, and show a healthy balance between organizational loyalty and care for their people.

In contrast, the Worst Leader profile was greatly distant from the most effective profile. Their location on the field diagram shows them to be self-centered, and in reality, in opposition to organizational goals. Values shown through research to contribute to effective teamwork are little evidenced in the work behaviors of Worst Leader. Thus, best and worst leaders differ markedly from one another in value orientations, and they differ as well in their proximity to an established empirical norm for most effective.

Replication of the present study should include larger samples, single-institution applications, and inter-organizational comparative research. In addition, use of the results of the present research may contribute to organizational effectiveness and individual job satisfaction through their use in leader and manager training program development.

© 2009 SYMLOG Consulting Group