Literature Review

 

The literature review consisted of readings on two subjects, the concept and process of competency modeling, and leadership theory and development.  References for the literature reviewed are listed on page 10. The process began with readings describing what competency models are, how they are developed, and how they relate to the more common practice of job analysis (Schippmann, 1999).  Effective interviewing techniques were reviewed to enhance qualitative data collection skills (Stewart & Cash, 1988).  The critical incidence technique of job analysis was also reviewed (Levine, 1983). Once a foundation for understanding competency models was established, theories of leadership and leadership development were reviewed. Sources were academically oriented and included books (e.g.,  Northouse, 2004) and journal articles (e.g., Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003). Topics reviewed included issues such as leadership development, ethics, diversity, self-concept, gender, and leading under pressure.  In addition to these sources, a book on O*NET (Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999) provided guidance in how leadership core competencies could be conceptualized and described. 

 

Back to top 

 

Review of Leadership Competency Models

 

An Internet search for existing leadership competency models yielded a wide variety of results in terms of quality, content, and appearance.  The Websites reviewed are presented on page 12. The majority of the models reviewed came from government and military organizations.  Additional sources were academic institutions and private corporations.  The models were very diverse in quality.  While some had specific definitions for factors, others were vague and abstract.  The content of some of the models was extremely thorough, whereas, others had limited content and a narrow definition of leadership.  Most of the models included competencies related to task management and leading others; however the inclusion of other factors was inconsistent across models.  Many competencies were also tailored to the organization for which the model was established.  These existing models were reviewed and discussed among the practicum class.

 

After reviewing existing leadership competency models, each member of the practicum class developed their own leadership competency model.  The models were broad, ranging from three up to ten or more factors.  These models were again reviewed and discussed within the group.  Aggregating the information learned from the existing and created competency models, the practicum class reached a consensus model (see Appendix A).  This a priori model consisted of five dimensions with numerous potential core competencies listed under each dimension. The a priori model served as a basis for discussion and a reference utilized in defining the leadership dimensions and conducting interviews and content analyses. Initial definitions of each dimension were also developed by small groups and refined by discussion of the whole group (see Appendix B).

 

Back to top 

 

Content Analysis of O*NET and an Existing Competency Model

 

            The content of O*NET and an existing competency taxonomy for management (Schippman, 1999) were also analyzed by the class.  O*NET is an online descriptive reference tool developed and maintained by the United States Department of Labor.  This tool provides an extensive list of jobs and describes the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to successfully perform these jobs.  O*NET breaks down job characteristics into twenty-one categories; several of these categories were relevant to leadership.  These include:  basic and cross-functional skills, knowledges, abilities, work styles, generalized work activities, work context, and organizational context.  Sorting exercises completed for these aspects of O*NET are presented in Appendices C through I. The eight members of the practicum class individually indicated which competencies within each category were relevant to leadership development.  Competencies identified as relevant were sorted into the dimensions of the model.  To determine which competencies to retain, a consensus approach was used.  At least four of members of the practicum class had to agree that the competency was applicable to leadership in order for the competency to be retained.  For those competencies that were rated as important to multiple dimensions, the dimension the competency was categorized under was determined by short discussion.  A similar process was used to sort the work activities in Schippmann’s (1999) management taxonomy.  The practicum class then collectively defined the competencies identified as important, and eliminated any redundant items to arrive at the final competency list for each dimension.

 

Back to top

 

Interviews with Student Leaders

 

The opinions of current CMU students in various leadership positions on campus were   highly relevant because the focus of the leadership competency model was to aid student leadership. Their direct and immediate experience with student leadership roles were explored through the process of interviewing.

 

Two members of the practicum class were assigned the task of interviewing student leaders on campus. The first step of the process was to identify the sample. In this stage the researchers examined the list of Registered Student Organizations on campus on CMU’s Student Life website. From this preliminary list, organizations were eliminated that were not academically or service oriented. Those eliminated included clubs such as social fraternities, sororities, and sports teams. The list reduced to forty organizations. Presidents of these organizations were contacted through e-mail and by phone and were requested to participate in an interview. Overall fifteen of the forty student leaders responded and agreed to be interviewed. The interview process generally lasted from 30-45 minutes. Two separate forms of the interview were used (see Appendix J). In addition to the lead questions in the interview guides, several probing questions were asked depending on the responses provided and the interviewees’ area of expertise. Interviewees were also requested to complete a critical incident survey.  These asked for examples of either excellent or poor leadership in each of the five dimensions identified in the a priori competency model. Four of the fifteen interviewees returned the filled out critical incidents.

 

Back to top 

 

Survey of Alumni

         Graduates of CMU were also thought to have valuable insights about leadership. Their insights on the competencies of leadership were explored through the process of surveying.

        Guidelines for content of the interview questions were developed by the class, and a survey was developed based on these guidelines so that it would contain all of the components of the interview questions in a format that could be administered electronically (see Appendix K).  This was done to reach a greater number of respondents so as to collect more information.  To keep the survey at a reasonable length, the questions were split so that a Form A and Form B existed.  The Leadership Survey Form A contained questions regarding the competencies and work activities that a leader must have or be able to perform and Form B contained questions regarding the environment that a leader must work in and the strategic factors to which they must be able to adapt.  A Critical Incident Leadership Survey was also developed to find anecdotal evidence of either exceptional or poor leadership.  The Critical Incident Leadership Survey Form A asked respondents to give examples of both good and poor leadership for the following competencies: Self-Management, Leading Others, and Social Responsibility, and Form B asked for examples of good and poor leadership for the following competencies: Leading Others, Task Management, and Innovation.  The surveys were checked by the instructor and were given to three outside parties to check for ease of completion and comprehensibility of instructions prior to administration.

 

The Alumni Office of Central Michigan University and the Leadership Office were contacted for lists of alumni to participate in the survey.  The Alumni Office sent a long list of names (over 200), over half of which included usable e-mail addresses.  Additionally, all of the names on the alumni list had been identified as an outstanding leader, and most of them had very prestigious job titles.  A total of 83 e-mails were sent out containing either Leadership Survey Form A or Form B, and 39 e-mails were sent out containing the Critical Incident Survey Form A or Form B.  Complete responses were received from 13 respondents for Leadership Survey Form A, 5 for Leadership Survey Form B, and 3 for Critical Incident Leadership Survey Form A.  In total, 122 e-mails were sent out with 21 respondents completing the surveys, resulting in a response rate of 17.2%.

 

Back to top  

 

Survey of Employers

 

Preparing students to succeed in leadership roles during their careers is an important goal of leadership development at CMU. Employers of CMU graduates were surveyed to identify leadership competency requirements in their organizations. 

 

The process for gathering data from employers began with development of a survey instrument.  It was determined that the survey would be sent out to specific individuals in organizations that hired CMU students, and so the instrument needed to be designed in a way that would be easily accessible.  The interview was a document that could be downloaded and completed and returned via electronic communications (see Appendix L).  This meant that the number of questions needed to be minimized in order to increase the chances that the respondent would fill out the survey.  The survey was divided into two parts.  One list of questions was developed and then divided up into two forms so that all questions would get asked, but not all to the same person.  At the end of both forms was attached a second section seeking information about a positive and a negative critical incident on leadership.  This section was the same for both forms.  These critical incident questions were written about only one of the five competency dimensions; therefore, each survey that was sent out asked about only one of the five dimensions, but all five were rotated to different respondents so they would be distributed equally. 

 

Identifying potential respondents was made easy by the fortunate timing of a career fair that was hosted by CMU.  Included in the career fair materials was a document which listed 97 e-mail addresses of potential employers of CMU graduates.  Rather than just sending the surveys directly to the e-mails listed, it was determined that going to the career fair and providing handouts and discussing the upcoming e-mail survey would maximize the probability of a good response rate.  The surveys were e-mailed within one week of the career fair, and 17 surveys from employees at a diverse group of organizations were returned with partial or complete responses.  The most frequently omitted section was the critical incident questions, however, all respondents provided a wealth of information and perspectives about leadership.

 

Back to top

 

Interviews with Faculty

 

Faculty from a wide range of disciplines at Central Michigan University were selected as potential interviewees in an effort to validate the competency model.  Faculty members were chosen for several reasons.  First, the competency model was designed primarily for use by university students to develop as leaders, and many undergraduate students view faculty as role models for leadership in the academic setting.  Additionally, the faculty of the university provided a convenient opportunity to interview professionals across a wide range of job families in one location.

 

Twenty faculty members representing every college at Central Michigan University (College of Business Administration, College of Communication and Fine Arts, College of Education and Human Services, College of Health Professions, College of Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, and College of Science and Technology) were initially contacted via e-mail and office phone.  Faculty were selected based on representation of the widest possible range of major fields, demographic characteristics, and courses taught (e.g. some faculty teach courses designated as “leadership” courses at the university).  Nine faculty members agreed to participate, resulting in a response rate of 45%.  No faculty from the College of Science and Technology chose to participate; all other colleges were well represented in the final group of interviewees. 

 

Participating faculty were all interviewed in person by one member of the practicum class; the same interviewer used an identical structured interview guide to interview all faculty members (see Appendix M).  Thus, the interviews were standardized with the exception of individualized follow-up probes when appropriate, resulting in a semi-structured interview format.  In general, the nine faculty interviewees were asked to evaluate the initial competency model dimensions in terms of relevance to the applied practice of their discipline and to speculate regarding the future of leadership in their discipline as well as how Central Michigan University students can best prepare themselves to become leaders in these fields outside of the academic setting.  Interviews ranged from thirty minutes to one hour in duration.  Information gathered from faculty interviews was then used to enhance the competency model.  Additions and deletions were made where appropriate, and added material was kept in as close to the original language of the interviewees as possible while protecting the confidentiality of the interviewees.

 

Back to top
 

Interviews with Leadership Council

 

            One member of the practicum class was assigned to conduct one-on-one interviews with CMU’s Leadership Council. This group is one of the many committees reporting to the Academic Senate and is responsible for creating, regulating, and modifying university-wide programs and courses relating to the study of leadership.  This committee is comprised of two student representatives and eight faculty/administration members. Because of their integral role with leadership study at CMU, their opinions and views regarding the definition of leadership and vital aspects to leadership development were essential to incorporate.

           

Over the course of two weeks, eight faculty/administrators from the Leadership Council were interviewed. Each interview was conducted either in the privacy of the council member’s office or another private setting. Length of the interview time ranged from forty minutes to as long as two hours. This varied length of time was based on the degree of detail of interviewee responses and their willingness to continue with the interview process over more than one interview session. Only two council members were unable to complete the entire interview form (see Appendix N).

           

Within twenty-four hours after the interview’s conclusion, a thank-you e-mail was individually sent to each interviewee by the interviewer. This e-mail included survey questions tapping critical incidents of leadership behavior (see Appendix N). Interviewees were asked to respond to the critical incident survey as an e-mail reply.

           

Overall, 100% (eight of the eight council members) agreed to an interview and provided responses in a one-on-one interview format. Responses were collected for three weeks instead of the original two due to requests for additional time from some of the council members. This resulted in a 63% response rate to the critical leadership incident survey (i.e. 5 of the eight council members provided a leadership story).

 

Back to top 

 

Interviews with Administrators

 

Administrators of CMU were also thought to have valuable insights about leadership. Because of their various authority positions on campus and their effect on the current leadership culture at CMU, the opinions of members of this constituency were also considered highly relevant to the development of a student model of leadership development at CMU. 

 

Participants of this interview process included five top administrative leaders, although more were approached, at Central Michigan University. The goal was to identify those competencies that these leaders felt are, or were, most important to leadership.  Scheduling was an issue with this set of participants. Most have busy schedules, therefore interviews ranged from fifteen minutes in length to one hour. All participants seemed willing to help out and displayed an interest in the study. An effort was taken at the beginning of each interview to establish a rapport with each interviewee. This was done both to introduce the interviewer and respective department to the interviewee, as well as to increase the likelihood of an open and frank discussion of the topic. Time was also taken to explain the topic at hand and indicate the goals of the interview.

 

            All participants believed that “honesty” and “integrity” were the foremost qualities needed by a leader. Nearly all participants agreed with the a priori model we had developed. Other recommendations that stood out were the ideas of Giving and Receiving Feedback, Leading by Example, and Accountability. As well, the idea of competencies being compensatory was put forth. Being Compensatory refers to the ability to identify one’s weaknesses and delegate tasks that require those skills to a constituent. Most felt that there is a minimum requirement of overall competency to become a leader. A copy of all interviews can be found in Appendix O.

 

Back to top

 

Integrating Information Collected

 

        The report titled, ‘A Leadership Competency Model: Describing the Capacity to Lead’, was developed by integrating the information collected during the literature review, content analyses, interviews, and surveys. First, core competencies for each dimension of the leadership competency model and important situations for each dimension were identified through the content analyses. The model was then supplemented with information collected during the interviews, surveys, and literature review. The practicum class refined the content of the report individually, in small groups, and in discussions involving the entire class. Core competencies in each dimension of leadership competency were organized into common factors.  Definitions of each dimension were refined. Highlight of interviews with the university community were prepared. In the final report, each dimension of leadership competency was described by: a) displaying a model of the core competencies for that dimension, b) defining the leadership dimension, c) providing examples of excellent and poor leadership behavior for that dimension, d) defining the core competencies for that dimension, and e) identifying situations that require focusing on that dimension.

 

Back to top
 

Academic References

 

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1998). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership. http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html

 

Chemers, M.M., Watson, C.B., May, S.T. (2000).  Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness:  A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 267-277.

 

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.

 

Fulmer, R. M. (2004). The challenge of ethical leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 307-317.

 

Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn, J. R. Jr. (2004). Unleashing individual potential: Performance gains through positive

            organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 270-281.

 

Greenberg, J. (2005). Managing behavior in organizations (4th Ed.). Pearson-Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River,

            New Jersey.

 

Hellenbeck, G. P., & Hall D. T. (2004). Self-confidence and leader performance. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 254-269.

 

Levine, E. L. (1983). Everything you always wanted to know about job analysis and more!-- A job analysis primer. Tampa, FL: Mariner Publishing Co.

 

London, M. (2002).  Introduction:  Dimensions of effective leadership.  In Leadership Development (pp. 1-24). Mahwah,

            NJ:  LEA.

 

London, M., & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Leadership development: A diagnostic model for continuous learning in dynamic organizations. In The Nature of Leadership, Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Lorenzi, P. (2004). Managing for the common good: Prosocial leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 282-291.

 

McCauley, C.D. (2004).  Successful and Unsuccessful Leadership.  In Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T., and Sternberg, R.J. (eds) The Nature of Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications.

 

McKenna, R. B., & Yost, P. R. (2004). The differentiated leader: Specific strategies for handling today’s adverse situations. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 292-306.

 

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

 

Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (1999). An occupational

            information system for the 21^st century: The development of O*NET. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological

            Association.

 

Riggio, R. E., Ciulla, J. B., & Sorenson, G. J. (2003). Leadership education at the undergraduate level: A liberal arts approach to leadership development. In Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 223-236). Mahwah, NJ: USum Associates.

 

Schippmann, J. S. (1999). Strategic job modeling: Working at the core of integrated human resources. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

 

Stewart, C. J., & Cash, W. B. (1988). Interviewing: Principles and practices (5^th Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

 

Van Fleet, D. D. (1974). Toward identifying critical elements in a behavioral description of leadership. Public Personnel Management, 3, 70-82.

 

Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C.D., & Moxley, R.S. (1998). Our view of leadership development. The Center for Creative

            Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Back to top
 

Internet References

 

The Air War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership Studies, http://leadership.au.af.mil/sls-skil.htm

 

The Air Force’s Leadership Development Model, http://leadership.au.af.mil/af/afldm.htm

 

Alberta Public Service:  http://www.pao.gov.ab.ca/learning/competencies/apscomp/

 

Army ROTC leadership minor.  (n.d.)  Retrieved September 4, 2004, from Slippery Rock University website:  http://www.sru.edu/pages/286.asp

 

Business Leadership Center.  (n.d.)  Retrieved September 4, 2004, from Virginia Tech website:  http://www.cob.vt.edu/buslead/BLM%20Home.htm

 

The Center for Naval Leadership’s Handbook for Civilian Leadership Training, https://www.netc.navy.mil/cnet/cld/cld_imphb.pdf

 

The Coast Guard’s Competencies for Leadership Development, http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-w/g-wt/g-wtl/leadci/index.htm

 

Leadership competency definitions.  (2004).   Retrieved September 9, 2004, from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website:  http://www.ferc.gov/careers/curr-open/ses-leader.asp

 

IRS Leadership Competency Model (21 competencies resulting from a 360 assessment study, presented  by Dr Jim Trinka, Director of Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness, IRS Strategic Human Resources), http://leadership.au.af.mil/documents/360_study_wye.ppt

 

The Leadership Center Competency Model from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gov/lanl-ldr-devguide.pdf

 

Maine Management Services. (2004). Leadership competencies for Maine state government. Retrieved September 8, 2004, from http://www.maine.gov/bhr/mms/leadership/index.html

 

NASA’s Leadership Development Model, http://leadership.nasa.gov/nasa/lmd/home.htm

 

The Office of Personnel Management’s Leadership Competencies and Key Characteristics, http://www.opm.gov/ses/competent.asp

 

Tufts University.  (2003).  Tufts university leadership competency model.  Retrieved September, 2004, from http://www.tufts.edu/hr/odt/comp_model.htm

 

U. S. Coast Guard.  (2004, February).  Coast guard leadership competencies.  Retrieved September, 2004, from http://www.uscg.mil/leadership/leadci/encl1.htm

Back to top
 

Appendix A: A Priori Leadership Competency Model

 

Self Management	Influencing Others	Task Management	Innovation	Social Responsibility
Trait Theories of Leadership	Behavioral Leadership Theories	Situational Leadership Theories	Transformational Leadership Theory	Leadership Ethics
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership	Leader-Member Exchange Theory	Decision-Making Theories of Leadership	Charismatic Leadership Theory	Task-specific Ethical Standards
Self-Image Theories	Influence Tactics/ Persuasion	Electronic-Leadership Theories	Systems Thinking, Open-Systems Theories	Cultural Diversity/ Civil Rights/Global Awareness
Knowledge of Personal Values	Group Dynamics (e.g., minority influence)	Task-specific Knowledge & Experience	Diverse, Interdisciplinary Knowledge & Experience	Theories of Moral Development
Seeking Feedback	Oral and Written Communication	Goal-Setting	Strategic Planning	Recognizing Defining Moments
Stress Management	Conflict Management	Delegation	Creativity	Defining Ethical Issues
Independent, Continuous Learning	Team Building	Providing Feedback (Praise & Criticism)	Creating a vision	Identifying Affected Parties/Consequences
Acknowledges Mistakes	Active Listening	Resource Management	Recognizing Opportunities	Moral Reasoning
Introspection	Negotiation	Time Management	Taking Initiative	Empathy
Adaptation	Coalition Building	Problem-Solving	Inferential Thinking	Keeping Promises
Tolerance for Ambiguity	Political Savvy	Empowering Others	Resilience	Honesty
Self-esteem	Non-verbal Communication	Setting Priorities	Entrepreneurial Risk Taking	Sense of Civic Responsibility
Self-efficacy	Extraversion	Conscientiousness	Persistence/Determination	Integrity
Courage	Agreeableness	Work Ethic	Cognitive Ability	Respect for Others
Emotional Stability	Emotional Intelligence	Position Power	Openness to Experience	Compassion
Internal Self-monitoring	Sense of Humor	Need for Achievement	Resourcefulness	Values Fairness
Self-actualizing	Values Relationships	Values Development of Others	Need to Test Status Quo	Values Citizenship