Running head: Understanding Executive Jobs
EXECUTIVE JOBS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL: HOW JOBS SHAPE THE
COMPETENCIES DISPLAYED BY OUTSTANDING EXECUTIVES
Guorong Zhu
Hay Group
116 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: 617-425-4519
E-mail: Guorong_Zhu@Haygroup.com
Steven B. Wolff
Hay Group
116 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: 617-425-4525
E-mail: Steven_Wolff@Haygroup.com
Signe Spencer
Hay Group
116 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: 617-425-4508
E-mail: Signe_Spencer@Haygroup.com
Understanding Executive Jobs
2
ABSTRACT
This study sheds light on one cause of executive failures by looking at executive jobs
through the lens of Person-Job fit theory. We examine two dimensions of executive jobs – degree
of accountability for organizational results and complexity of problem solving. We show, with an
international sample of 360 individuals that effective executives display different competencies
depending on the degree of accountability and the complexity of problem solving that are
characteristic of the job. We explore implications of this research for creating a better match
between an executive and the job – increasing the likelihood that executives will be successful in
their roles.
Understanding Executive Jobs
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Vanessa Druskat, Elizabeth Craig, Tim Hall, and Ruth Wageman
for their insightful and helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. We also thank the expert
coders who helped us characterize executive jobs and code interview transcripts.
Understanding Executive Jobs
4
EXECUTIVE JOBS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL: HOW JOBS SHAPE THE
COMPETENCIES DISPLAYED BY OUTSTANDING EXECUTIVES
One of the top challenges faced by leaders at the top of organizations is finding the right
executives to fill vacancies in the organization’s leadership (e.g., Barrington & Silvert, 2004).
Increasingly high turnover rates among corporate executives are making headline news (e.g.,
Gerdes, 2007; Mogel, 2006). This challenge seems to be growing as the current generation of
leaders begins to retire, and organizations frequently fail to find executives who excel in
leadership jobs (Economist, 2003a, 2003b). Increasing numbers of organizations are reporting
serious issues with leadership succession, as their current selection practices result in
unsuccessful placements either because the manager fails to deliver results (Ulrich, Zenger &
Smallwood, 1999) or he or she is unhappy in the job and leaves (Pomeroy, 2005). Because
executive failures can be very costly for a company (Fernandez-Araoz, 2005), the need to find
the right executives is imperative.
In this study we use Person-Job fit theory as a lens through which to examine the problem
of matching executives to the job. The Person-Job fit perspective states that successful job
performance requires a person’s abilities to be matched to the demands of the job (Kristof,
1996). Doing so, however, presumes that we adequately understand the demands of the job and
the matching characteristics of the person that lead to successful performance. Research on
matching people to jobs is extensive (see Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005; Kristof),
however, the understanding of executive jobs as compared with frontline task-performing roles
or lower supervisory jobs is seriously under-nuanced and often ineffective (Economist, 2003a,
2003b; Fernandez-Araoz, 1999). As Finkelstein & Hambrick (1996) state in their book on
strategic leadership, research on executive leadership often assumes that the difficulty of the job
Understanding Executive Jobs
is relatively constant across a variety of roles. The early derailments of several previously
successful leaders at high-profile companies, e.g., Xerox, P&G, Lucent (Conger & Nadler,
2004), illustrates the potentially costly consequences of not understanding differences in
executive jobs.
To avoid failures related to a mismatch of job demands with the executive’s capabilities,
we must first gain a more nuanced perspective of how executive jobs vary. The field study
presented here examines two dimensions of executive jobs that create varying demands on
executives but have typically not been considered when trying to match an executive to the job:
(1) the degree of accountability of the job for the organization’s financial results, i.e., the extent
to which an executive has direct control over the factors affecting profitability, such as type and
price of products, efficiency of production, sales strategies, etc.; and (2) the degree of overall
complexity in problem solving associated with the job. We will argue that differences in these
dimensions create different job demands on persons, and thus require different abilities for
success.
This study proceeds from the assumption that the success of outstanding performers in
different jobs occurs because those executives have and demonstrate specific abilities that fulfill
the demands of their jobs. We study 360 outstanding performers in a range of executive jobs
from 7 regions of the world, including 42 organizations in 12 industries. We test whether
abilities displayed by outstanding performers, defined as those nominated in the top 10% of
executives in the company, vary with the characteristics of their specific jobs.
Person-Job Fit
Person-Job fit theory offers one lens through which we can understand the relation of
competencies displayed by outstanding performers and job characteristics. According to the
5
Understanding Executive Jobs
6
theory, job performance is related to how well a person is matched to the job (Kristof, 1996).
Thus, if we assume outstanding performers are matched to their jobs, then Person-Job fit theory
leads to the conclusion that executives in jobs with different demands will display different
competencies. When executives are moved to new jobs, new demands are placed on the
executive. Thus, failure when making a transition from one role to another can be ascribed, in
part, to a mismatch between the demands of the new job and the characteristics of the executive.
When examining fit between a person and their job it is important to keep in mind that
there are many kinds of fit. Person-Job fit is a subset of the broader Person-Organization fit; and
within Person-Job fit one can look at matches between the demands of the job and the abilities of
the person (demands-abilities fit) as discussed above. However, other perspectives on fit are also
possible, e.g., matching what the person needs from the job with what the job supplies (needssupplies fit) (Kristof, 1996). At the executive level, various types of fit have been examined;
however none of the research looks at specific characteristics of the executive’s job and the
abilities required by those jobs. In fact, the only study we found that uses a framework that
includes specific characteristics of the job to classify an executive’s role was done by Drazin and
Rao (1999) but they study succession rather than fit with capabilities. They classify executive
roles based on two characteristics of the job: distance from the top of the organization and
degree of job specialization.
The lack of Person-Job fit research examining specific characteristics of executive jobs is
somewhat surprising given the importance of the job and the potential of such a fit to explain
differences in performance. For example, a comprehensive meta-analysis of Person-Job fit
research by Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005) found that matching the demands
of a job to a person’s abilities explains 30.6% of the variance in job performance and 40.9% of
Understanding Executive Jobs
7
the variance in job satisfaction. Very little of the research identified in the meta-analysis,
however, was focused on executives.
At the executive level, research has examined various types of fit but little of it focuses
specifically on the demands-abilities form of Person-Job fit. For example, studies have
examined the fit between an executive’s industry, business, and functional experience/expertise
and the organization’s context such as stage in the life-cycle (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984),
characteristics of the business cycle (Bassett, 1969; Dess & Picken, 2000), and organizational
strategy (Beal & Yasai-Ardekani, 2000; Guthrie & Datta, 1997; Thomas & Ramaswamy, 1996).
These are important forms of Person-Job matching but they do not identify abilities required to
meet the unique demands of a particular job.
Other studies examine required abilities that are common to all leadership positions
without analyzing the specific job. Common leadership skills identified include:
communication, managing change, networking (Raelin, 1997), conflict management, team
building, integrity (Jordan & Schraeder, 2003), self-awareness, adaptability, and learning (Hall &
Moss, 1998). Similarly, the fact that executives need specialized skills related to their area of
technical expertise is widely acknowledged (Castanias & Helfat, 1991; Fernandez-Araoz, 2005;
Jordan & Schraeder, 2003), but there is little recognition that all jobs requiring the application of
these specialized skills are not the same (Hayes, Rose-Quirie & Allinson, 2000). There are also
studies that examine specific positions but do not examine the job in a way that can be
generalized beyond the role being studied, e.g., project managers (Dainty & Cheng, 2005), sports
managers (Horch, 2003), or safety managers (Blair, 1999).
When the specific job is considered at the executive level, a match is often made by
placing the job into a general category, e.g., level in the organization (O'Roark, 2002), functional
Understanding Executive Jobs
8
area (Pavett & Lau, 1983), or execution of similar strategies (Beal & Yasai-Ardekani, 2000) and
then looking for abilities that are commonly displayed by people with jobs in those categories.
This approach can lead to mismatches between the job and an executive because all jobs in the
same general category are not, in fact, the same. The CEO of a small company faces very
different challenges than a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. An IT manager in a bank has a very
different job than an IT manager in a consulting firm. Although there is value to matching an
executive’s abilities to a job based on factors common across jobs, this approach needs to be
supplemented by matching the executive’s abilities to the specific characteristics of the particular
job.
Characteristics of Executive Jobs
Although there are potentially many characteristics that could be considered when
defining executive jobs, the purpose of our research is not to define all important characteristics
of the executive job but to demonstrate that there are indeed job characteristics that lead to
differences in the competencies displayed by outstanding performers. Because of the limited
research on demands-abilities Person-Job fit for executives and specific characteristics that can
be used to classify executive jobs, we see this study as a first step toward demonstrating the need
to better understand specific characteristics of executive roles and thus spark additional research
that can help us more fully characterize important aspects of the executive’s job and ultimately
reduce executive failures.
In choosing job characteristics to examine for this study we sought a set of characteristics
that were neither so specific that they could not be generalized across executive positions nor so
general that they would not adequately differentiate among executive roles. We also were
interested in aspects of the executive job that have been treated in the research literature, albeit
Understanding Executive Jobs
9
not necessarily as a means of matching an executive’s abilities with the demands of the job. To
define the dimensions of the executive job we took advantage of the existing methodology called
the “Guide Chart Profile,” which is one of the most commonly used job evaluation method in
practice (Armstrong, 2006; Gomez-Mejia, Balkin & Cardy, 2007). It includes two
characteristics that can be used to define any executive job: the degree of complexity of problem
solving required by the job and the degree of accountability for bottom-line organizational
results (Hay, 1958). Problem-solving is the “use of the know-how required by the job, to
identify, define, and resolve problems” (Bellak, 1984, p. 15/2). Accountability represents the
“measured effect of the job on the end results of the organization,” usually the financial or
bottom-line results (Bellak, p. 15/4). Because problem-solving complexity and degree of
accountability are aspects of work common to all jobs, but which also vary systematically across
jobs, they can be used to analyze any executive job independent of the job title or organization
(Skenes & Kleiner, 2003). In the next sections, we discuss these dimensions in more detail.
Both dimensions are theoretically continuous and are discussed as such in the following sections;
however, as we explain in the methods section, in practice the dimensions are divided into
discrete categories.
Problem solving complexity. Complexity in the use of data is a characteristic commonly
used to distinguish one job from another. For example, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
(U.S. Department of Labor, 1991) classifies jobs into seven levels of complexity based on the
use of data. Executives use data and knowledge to identify and solve organizational problems
and make strategic decisions (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs & Fleishman, 2000).
Executive jobs, therefore, can be arrayed along a dimension that characterizes the degree of
complexity in problem solving required by the job. Some executive jobs are routine with clearly
Understanding Executive Jobs
10
defined problems. For example, an executive running a large manufacturing operation where the
company is in a relatively stable environment, not engaged in a turnaround, and has already
adopted efficiency measures such as six sigma needs to make relatively routine and non-complex
decisions. Other executives operate in an environment that is new and uncharted with few
guidelines for solving problems and making decisions (Bellak, 1984). For example, the head of
human resources in a company that is expanding into three new countries on different continents
must make some complex and difficult decisions as policy is formulated for the organization. A
number of factors affect the degree of complexity in problem solving, e.g., the size and scope of
the job as well as the length of time that the executive must look ahead in making strategic
decisions. The degree of complexity in problem solving is a characteristic of the job itself and
can be estimated independent of job title, organization, industry, or the person holding the job.
Accountability for organizational results. The degree to which a person in a given job
is accountable for organizational results is a second characteristic that can be used to distinguish
one job from another. It identifies the relevant and important differences between jobs in terms
of how each job impacts the end results of business performance (Church & Waclawski, 2001).
A 2003 survey of job evaluation practices found that accountability is one of the most frequently
used factors to analyze and evaluate jobs across companies (Armstrong, 2006).
The conceptualization of jobs as having varying degrees of accountability for
organizational results has a long history dating back to classic organization theory. The line-staff
form of organization structure was developed to reconcile the need for specialized expertise in
the managerial decision making process with the need to maintain clarity, responsibility, and
accountability for organizational results (Galbraith, 1977). At one end of the accountability
dimension are jobs with direct responsibility for organizational results, e.g., typical operations
Understanding Executive Jobs
11
roles such as a manufacturing executive in a company whose business is the production of goods.
Such jobs are typically referred to as “line” jobs (Browne & Golembiewski, 1974; Pfeffer, 1977).
At the other end of the accountability dimension are those jobs that provide expertise to the line
manager, e.g., support or advisory roles such as Human Resources director or Legal Counsel in a
manufacturing organization. These jobs are often referred to as “staff” jobs (Browne &
Golembiewski; Pfeffer) and are only indirectly accountable for organizational results by
increasing the effectiveness of line managers and by providing services the business needs to
operate but which line managers do not have the expertise to provide.
Executive Abilities
We now turn to identifying a set of executive abilities that we hypothesize will be elicited
differentially depending on the combination of job characteristics described above. We focus on
abilities that have been shown to be related to outstanding executive performance in general. At
the same time, we sought characteristics fine-grained enough in their definitions and
measurements that they would be likely to show differences in outstanding performers in
different executive roles. Although there are numerous abilities that could fit these criteria, we
chose to use the leadership competencies identified by Boyatzis (1982) and further refined by
Spencer and Spencer (1993). We draw on an archival database of this set of competencies. A
large number of individual executive assessments against these competencies were available,
along with associated data on the executives’ jobs and the adequacy of their performance.
Competencies represent abilities and personal characteristics that are relatively enduring,
“an underlying characteristic of an individual which is causally related to effective or superior
performance in a job (Briscoe & Hall, 1999, p. 37).” Spencer and Spencer (1993) identified
levels of sophistication or intensity for each competency they identified and McClelland (1998)
Understanding Executive Jobs
12
showed that these competency levels are indeed associated with performance of executives in
general. Throughout this paper, when competencies from Spencer and Spencer are used, they
will be indicated by italics and capitalization to indicate that the Spencer and Spencer definitions
of these characteristics and their levels of sophistication are being used.
Study Hypotheses
To this point we have identified a set of job characteristics and competencies that allow
for a demands-abilities assessment when matching executives to their jobs. In this section we
identify specific hypotheses that link the job characteristics and competencies.
Competencies expected to vary with accountability for organizational results.
Accountability for organizational results increases with the degree of direct control the executive
has on organizational outcomes (Bellak, 1984). Thus, although an executive in a support role
affects the ability of others to achieve results, his or her job is not rated as high in accountability
for organizational results as an executive directly responsible for bottom-line results. When
executives are more directly accountable for organizational results they must be constantly
looking for new ways to improve performance, set standards, and measure them (Boyatzis, 1982;
Ulrich et al., 1999). Thus, one competency that we expect to be associated with the increased
accountability for organizational results is Achievement Orientation, which is defined as the
sophistication and completeness with which one thinks about meeting and/or surpassing
performance standards. This includes a concern for surpassing a standard of excellence. The
standard may be one’s own past performance (striving for improvement); an objective measure
(results orientation); outperforming others (competitiveness); challenging goals one has set, or
even what anyone has ever done (innovation) (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Although all
executives need a baseline level of achievement orientation, as evidenced by its relation to
Understanding Executive Jobs
13
management performance in general (Boyatzis; McClelland, 1998), we expect that as
accountability for the organization’s financial results increases, outstanding performance will
require greater levels of Achievement Orientation. Thus we hypothesize:
H1: The level of Achievement Orientation demonstrated by outstanding executives will
increase with jobs that are characterized by greater degrees of accountability for the
organization’s financial results.
As accountability increases, executives generally have larger groups of people reporting
to them, (Bellak, 1984), and therefore must be more adept at achieving those results through
other people. This means an executive must be able to clearly set a vision and goals, motivate
the team, and generally provide high levels of “Team Leadership” (Spencer & Spencer, 1993;
Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1991). The competency Team Leadership is defined as the “strength and
completeness with which the person assumes the role of leader.” This involves the intention to
take a role as leader of a unit, and a desire to lead others. The “team” in the definition of this
competency is understood broadly as any group in which the person takes on a leadership role,
including the enterprise as a whole (Spencer & Spencer). Thus we hypothesize:
H2: The level of Team Leadership demonstrated by outstanding executives will increase
with jobs that are characterized by greater degrees of accountability for the organization’s
financial results.
Competencies expected to vary with complexity of problem solving. As an
executive’s job becomes more complex, i.e., larger in size and with a greater focus on solving
complex problems, we would expect the role demands to change. Complex problems require the
application of knowledge in new and creative ways and the use of metaphor and analogy to apply
knowledge to new situations (Mumford et al., 2000). Additionally, the complexity of the
Understanding Executive Jobs
14
problem solving aspect of an executive’s job increases as executives move from implementing
strategy to developing it. As an executive becomes more responsible for developing strategy, he
or she must have an increasing ability to scan the business environment, understand the patterns
unfolding (Porter, 1980, 1991) and attach meaning to them (Smircich & Stubbart, 1985). The
ability to quickly see patterns in a rapidly unfolding situation and apply knowledge in new and
creative ways requires the Conceptual Thinking competency. Conceptual Thinking is defined as
insightfulness or innovation in pattern recognition. This competency involves the ability to
identify patterns or connections between situations that are not obviously related, and to identify
key or underlying issues in complex situations. It includes using creative, conceptual, or
inductive reasoning (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Thus we hypothesize:
H3: The level of Conceptual Thinking demonstrated by outstanding executives will
increase with jobs that are characterized by greater degrees of complexity in problem solving.
As the complexity of problems to be solved increases, executives must also shift from
short-term tactical thinking to long-term strategic thinking (Kovach, 1986). Whereas
implementing organizational strategy requires a moderate ability to look into the future and plan
ahead, formulating organizational strategy requires a much longer time horizon. The ability to
look further into the future is captured in the competency Initiative (Spencer & Spencer, 1993).
The competency labeled “Initiative” refers to the distance into the future that one identifies
problems and opportunities on which to take action. This competency involves identification of
a problem, obstacle, or opportunity and taking action to address current or future problems or
opportunities. Initiative involves proactively doing things and not simply thinking about future
actions. The time frame of the Initiative scale moves from addressing current situations to acting
on future opportunities or problems as the level of this competency increases (Spencer &
Understanding Executive Jobs
15
Spencer). At the highest level of this competency the executive is looking over a year into the
future. Thus, we hypothesize:
H4: The level of Initiative demonstrated by outstanding executives will increase with
jobs that are characterized by greater degrees of complexity in problem solving.
Increasing complexity of problems not only requires an executive to think farther into the
future, it also requires the executive to more fully understand the organization and its
relationship to the business environment (Mumford et al., 2000). An executive must be able to
envision the effect of his or her solution on the various constituencies in the organization as well
as on the future market position of the company (Mumford et al.). The competency
“Organizational Awareness” is an ability to understand the organization and its relation to the
environment. It is defined as thoroughness of understanding the power relationships in one’s
own organization or in other organizations (customers, suppliers, etc.). This includes the ability
to identify who the real decision makers are; the individuals who can influence them; and to
predict how new events or situations will affect individuals and groups within the organization,
and the organization’s relation to the business environment. Thus, we hypothesize:
H5: The level of Organizational Awareness demonstrated by outstanding executives will
increase with jobs that are characterized by greater degrees of complexity in problem solving.
METHODS
Sample
Our sample includes 360 executives, i.e., those who manage middle managers, (257
males, 74 females, 29 not recorded) who participated in executive assessments for their
organization. Participants were from 42 organizations in 12 industries representing a relatively
balanced sample of companies and industries (see Table 1). The sample includes executives from
Understanding Executive Jobs
16
7 geographical regions. Most were located in North America (47%), 8% were from Europe, 6%
from Asia, and smaller percentages from the Mid-East, Africa, Australia and South America (see
Table 2).
----------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 and Table 2 about here
----------------------------------------------Identifying Outstanding Performers
“Outstanding performers” were those nominated by at least two people, typically 4 to 5,
as being in the top 10% of executives in their company. Raters included executives more senior
to the participant and Human Resources professionals who used criteria that are valued and
commonly used in the organization to determine pay and promotions. Information from
performance appraisals and objective measures appropriate to the position and organization, e.g.,
profitability, organizational climate, turnover, etc. were included in the nomination process.
Researchers acted as sounding boards to ensure that the organization’s raters used the most
appropriate criteria and nominated executives who truly were fully accomplishing the
requirements of their roles. This was a conservative measure of executive effectiveness in that
we could be quite confident that the executives in this group were ‘outstanding’ in the role in
which they were assessed, even though this method of controlling for less than satisfactory
performance may have excluded some other executives who were also outstanding.
Measures
Executive roles. Executive roles were measured using the Guide Chart-Profile
framework (Hay, 1958; Hay & Purves, 1954) presented in Figure 1. The Guide Chart-Profile
framework is a method of job evaluation that has been used by more than 6000 organizations in
Understanding Executive Jobs
17
45 countries. It is noted as one of the most popular job evaluation methods in HR textbooks and
handbooks (e.g., Armstrong, 2006; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2007).
This system uses the dimensions of accountability for organizational results and
complexity of problem solving to categorize executive jobs into specific roles, (see Figure 1 for a
depiction of this framework and the associated roles). Discrete roles are defined using the
concept of just noticeable differences (Gengerelli, 1977; Globerson, 1977). In other words, a
person evaluating the job cannot, in practice, discern differences in jobs on a continuous basis.
Rather, there is an increment in each dimension that a person trained in the system can discern.
Jobs scoring between increments are all placed in the same role. For the executive jobs we
considered in this study the framework includes three discrete categories of jobs along the
accountability for results dimension and five categories of jobs along the complexity in problem
solving dimension. The categories for each dimension are defined in more detail below.
---------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
---------------------------------Accountability dimension. For executive jobs, the dimension of accountability leads to
one of three broad role profiles depending on the degree of accountability for business results.
At one end of the spectrum are those executive roles that are held directly accountable for
bottom-line results with control of the resources and decisions that directly impact financial
results. A role in which one can reduce or increase production, invest in more efficient means of
production, raise or lower prices, etc. allows for, and is held ‘accountable’ for a direct impact on
profit and loss. These roles, commonly called “operational” or “line” roles, are considered to be
high in accountability for profit and loss. At the other end of the spectrum are those executive
Understanding Executive Jobs
18
roles that have only an indirect impact on financial measures, and where the desired outcomes
are advice, counsel, and execution of support functions, e.g., HR, legal, and in some cases IT.
These are “advisory” or “staff” roles, in which the executive rarely, if ever, has the opportunity
to have a direct impact on profitability. In-between are increasingly popular “matrix” or
“collaborative” roles (e.g., Ford & Randolph, 1992), where the executive is held partially
accountable for financial results, but does not directly control many (or in some cases, any) of
the necessary resources. These roles require coordination with other executives and some form
of shared accountability.
Complexity dimension. The second dimension, the complexity of an executive’s job, is
associated with how much input the role has to the development of strategy, which is related to
the degree and complexity of problem-solving and ultimately to the overall size of the job. For
example, in entry-level positions the focus is mainly on technical expertise rather than problemsolving. As jobs become more strategic, the focus shifts to problem-solving, more than the
simple utilization of technical expertise to achieve results. In entry-level jobs technical expertise
may account for 70% of job content while at the CEO level it may be as little as 30%. It is not
that the actual technical expertise decreases, but rather that the proportional need for problemsolving increases.
The framework divides jobs into five discrete roles based on just noticeable differences in
this dimension. At the lowest level of complexity are jobs that involve implementation of
organizational or departmental strategies. At the higher levels are roles that involve aligning and
formulating strategy.
Identifying executive roles. The jobs of the executives interviewed in this study
included all three role types along the accountability for results dimension and four role types
Understanding Executive Jobs
19
along the complexity for problem solving dimension. (Note: the enterprise leadership level of
complexity was not represented in this study due to lack of sufficient data for this level.) The
classification was done in multiple phases by three researchers trained in the Guide Chart-Profile
job classification methodology. These researchers were rigorously trained and accredited by
experts in the methodology to maintain at least 75% inter-rater reliability. The distribution of
jobs in this sample is presented in Table 3.
-------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
-------------------------------Executive competencies. Each subject in the database participated in a Behavioral
Event Interview (BEI) (McClelland, 1998), which is a form of the critical incident interview
technique (Flanagan, 1954). Interviewees are asked to alternately describe situations where they
felt particularly effective and where they felt they could have performed better. Events are
required to have occurred within approximately the past year and a very high level of detail is
sought in the interview, both of these requirements contribute to the reliability and validity of the
interview for obtaining accurate descriptions of work behavior (Motowidlo et al., 1992; Ronan &
Latham, 1974). The executive BEIs lasted an average of 3-4 hours and typically cover three
events.
Interviewers completed a three-day training program and are only accredited to conduct
BEIs if they maintain a minimum 75% inter-rater reliability. The interviewers, who are blind to
the performance rating of the interviewee, insure that descriptions provide codeable data by
asking non-leading questions such as, "What led up to the event?" "Who did and said what to
Understanding Executive Jobs
20
whom?" "What happened next?" "What were you thinking or feeling at that moment?" and
"What was the outcome?"
The interviews were transcribed and coded according to a detailed codebook that includes
behavioral descriptions and examples of each level of each competency and coding rules
required to maintain reliability. Each competency is defined using specific behaviors and
thoughts that are ordered by levels of complexity or scope as defined by Spencer and Spencer
(1993) (see Table 4 for definitions of the competencies used in this study).
-------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here
-------------------------------To code a behavior it must be clearly described as (1) having been explicitly done (said,
thought or felt) by the interviewee (i.e., not statements that use the term “we” did something or
where the action is unclear); (2) as having taken place in the course of this specific recent event
(i.e., nothing that the person plans to do, or “usually does” or thinks they should or might do);
and (3) with convincing detail as to how it was accomplished (i.e., “I presented a business case to
Joe. I showed him the costs and benefits of purchasing the new machine;” rather than “I
convinced Joe to buy the machine.”).
Because of the strict rules for coding competencies, the BEI provides a conservative
measure of competencies demonstrated by the interviewee. Behaviors not described fully and
explicitly are not coded (McClelland, 1998), thus only competencies for which there is very clear
evidence are coded. For each executive in this study, individual competencies were measured by
the highest level demonstrated in the interview. When coding the competencies we assume that
all executives had a fair opportunity to display any and all of the competencies used in this study
Understanding Executive Jobs
21
during their three to four hour interview. Thus, if a competency was not evident in the transcript
of an executive’s interview, it was assigned a level zero.
RESULTS
Table 5 shows descriptive statistics and correlations among the competencies coded. All
hypotheses were tested using a two-way ANOVA that included both the accountability for
organizational results and complexity of problem solving characteristics of the job as factors.
This analytic choice provides a conservative estimate of the effects of a given factor on the
competency levels displayed by outstanding executives because the effect is only significant if it
contributes uniquely to the variance explained. Because we want to test whether or not the
competency level displayed by outstanding executives increases with increasing accountability
for organizational results or increasing complexity in problem solving we also performed
planned polynomial contrasts on each factor. The linear component of the contrast analyses
examines the trends in the effects. Since we hypothesize that the level of a competency
displayed by outstanding executives will increase as accountability for organizational results or
complexity of problem solving increases, we expect the linear component of the polynomial
contrast to be significant. To determine whether or not the slope is positive or negative we need
to examine the mean levels of a competency for each level of the factor. Table 6 shows the
results of the ANOVA analysis and Table 7 shows the estimated marginal means for each level
of each factor.
--------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 about here
---------------------------------------------------------
Understanding Executive Jobs
22
Hypotheses 1 and 2 state, respectively, that the level of Achievement Orientation and
Team Leadership demonstrated by outstanding performing executives will increase with jobs
that are characterized by greater degrees of accountability for organizational results. Hypotheses
1 (Achievement Orientation) and 2 (Team Leadership) are both supported. For both of these
competencies the effect of the accountability for organizational results factor is significant as is
the linear component of the polynomial contrast. An examination of the means shows that they
increase as accountability for organizational results increases, i.e., as we move from advisory to
operational roles.
Hypotheses 3 through 5 state, respectively, that the level of Conceptual Thinking,
Initiative, and Organizational Awareness demonstrated by outstanding executives will increase
with jobs that are characterized by greater degrees of complexity in problem solving. These
hypotheses are also supported. The effect of the complexity of problem solving factor is
significant as is the linear component of the polynomial contrast. An examination of the means
shows that the mean levels of the competencies generally increase with increasing levels of
complexity in problem solving. However, at the strategy formation level the means for
Conceptual Thinking and Organizational Awareness dip slightly below the strategic alignment
level of complexity in problem solving. Nevertheless, the overall trend is positive.
DISCUSSION
Finding the right executive for a job is more difficult and more critical today than ever.
Organizations spend millions on assessments, talent planning, and leadership development, yet
executives often fail in new roles. The research presented here examines this issue from the
perspective of Person-Job fit. At the executive level, matching an executive to the job has often
been done without examining the specific characteristics of the job. For example, organizations
Understanding Executive Jobs
23
look for good leaders because an executive position is one of leadership. They look for
executives who have experience with strategies similar to that which they will be asked to
implement. And sometimes, people trying to match an executive to a job fall into the trap of
assuming that jobs with similar titles make similar demands on an executive. The findings of our
study show that examining specific characteristics of the executive job can improve our ability to
understand the competencies that the role demands. Specifically, we find that outstanding
executives across a variety of industries and geographic regions demonstrate increasing levels of
Achievement Orientation and Team Leadership as the degree of accountability for organizational
results characteristic of their jobs increases. We also found that outstanding executives
demonstrate increasing levels of Conceptual Thinking, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness
as degrees of complexity in problem solving characteristic of their jobs increases.
Understanding Executive Roles
The ability to analyze an executive’s job in a way that is independent of job titles and the
organization is important for executive placement given that organizational models are moving
away from traditional hierarchy (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993). Globalization, technology
development, and the ever changing business environment are challenging the authority-based
hierarchy in traditional organizations (Kickul & Gundry, 2001). Executive roles are less defined
by titles and behaviors, and more by a set of responsibilities and by contribution to business
strategy (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1997; Hambrick, Finkelstein & Mooney, 2005). Using the job
characteristics of accountability for organizational results and complexity of problem solving
fills a gap in our understanding of the demands that different executive jobs place on individuals
to perform them effectively. Analyzing an executive job this way allows us to more accurately
compare roles across organizations. This means of understanding the executive job is not so
Understanding Executive Jobs
24
specific that it applies only to one job, nor is it so broad that it treats all leaders similarly. Using
job characteristics applicable to all jobs avoids the limitation of using sometimes misleading job
titles to compare executive jobs. It allows us to more accurately predict changes in job demands
when an executive changes roles or organizations.
Although this study does not intend to provide a complete list of competencies specific to
each role, it finds evidence that different executive roles call upon different competencies.
Although the competencies used in this study have been shown to be related to executive
performance in general (Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland, 1998; Spencer & Spencer, 1993), this
study shows that outstanding executives are not homogenous in their competencies. Executive
job differences require that individuals use different competencies depending on their specific
role.
The findings of this study also provide some insight into the scope of executive jobs for
which the competencies are applicable. The competencies of Achievement Orientation and Team
Leadership are found to be associated with accountability for results as hypothesized but they
were also associated with complexity of problem solving (based on the linear contrast). This
makes sense because as jobs become more complex we would expect that executives who set
and meet high standards, bring in diverse perspectives, and help create meaning, would perform
better. An important implication is that as executives move from one role to another in the
framework presented in Figure 1, it is critically important to understand the changes in
competencies required to perform the job. If one increases accountability for results at the same
time as increasing complexity, then the change in job demands for Team Leadership, and to a
lesser extent Achievement Orientation, will be potentially large. Thus, one might consider these
to be more fundamental competencies.
Understanding Executive Jobs
25
Similarly, the competency of Initiative was found to be related to complexity of problem
solving as hypothesized but it is also related to the degree of accountability. The linear contrast,
however, is not significant. An examination of the means shows that the average level of this
competency increases by .15 going from advisory to collaborative roles but increases by more
than three times that (.49) going from collaborative to operational roles, indicating that a shift to
operational roles may be much more demanding with respect to this competency than a shift
from an advisory role to a collaborative role. This makes sense as the more accountable you are
for results the further you need to look ahead and anticipate opportunities and threats. This
information, once again, can be very useful when planning changes in executive roles. An
executive with a medium level of Initiative may be fine when going from an advisory role to a
collaborative role but be stretched if moved into an operational role. If at the same time the
executive is given a promotion to a job higher in complexity, the latter change might result in
failure whereas the former may not.
Implications for Practice
Although this study was not intended to provide a prescriptive guideline for executive
placement practices, it sheds light on several aspects of executive placement. This study
highlights the importance of understanding role requirements when selecting executives. Aside
from matching an executive’s abilities to the contextual and technical demands of the job, role
demands are found to have a direct effect on the competencies demonstrated by high-performing
executives. This finding has implications for executive selection, development, performance
management, and succession planning. With an understanding of the difference between
executive roles and the competencies associated with different role profiles, organizations can
assess, select, and develop managers with greater precision.
Understanding Executive Jobs
26
The most obvious implication is for executive selection. Understanding the job in terms
of its characteristics can add to an organization’s ability to match an executive to a job. Not only
can a better match be made but understanding the competencies required for success in a specific
job provides a more practical means of selecting executives for the job as compared to the
alternative of selecting for all competencies and ignoring the characteristics of the job.
Findings from this study also have implications for succession planning, especially the
ways in which the nature of a job changes as the executive is transferred or promoted. Executive
roles can be understood by defining them on the dimensions of complexity of problem solving
and accountability for organizational results. Moving along either dimension creates a change in
the nature of the role. When an executive moves from one position to another, it behooves an
organization to evaluate how much “stretch” the move creates for the person. Does it require a
different set of competencies? A move along both dimensions at once is likely to be extremely
difficult given the degree of shift in competency requirements. When conducting succession
planning, any organization must consider how many moves are realistic to prepare high
potentials for senior level positions. Clarity on the role differences and associated competencies
helps companies systematically develop organizational bench strength while reducing the
likelihood of failure because a move requires too many new competencies.
This study also has implications for performance management of executives. The
problem of increasing ‘managerial effectiveness’ would be informed by further consideration of
the executive competencies that are appropriate for achieving specific outcomes. The framework
presented and tested in this study is a first step to understanding how to differentiate among
executive jobs and identify competencies associated with specific roles. Linking roles with
Understanding Executive Jobs
27
necessary competencies provides the foundation for agreeing on individual objectives and
formulating personal developmental plans.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
While this study improves our understanding of executive roles, it has limitations. The
study cannot directly address the question of the degree of association between various
competencies and executive performance, even though we studied people who were rated as
high-performing. The focus of our study was to test the empirical relationship between specific
characteristics of executive roles and the competencies demonstrated by people fulfilling those
roles. It establishes accountability for organizational results and complexity of problem solving
as factors that explain some of the variance in executive competencies, but it does not generate a
complete list of competencies that are associated with performance differences in the role.
To differentiate executive performance, further research can expand on this study by
studying a group of executives across the accountability and problem solving dimensions who
vary widely in performance. Comparisons among the executives in each role profile would then
be able to identify a set of executive competencies that differentiate performance for each role.
Further, previous research on competencies has pointed out that a worker’s way of
framing and experiencing the work may be a competency in and of itself (Sandberg, 2000).
Although our study took a rationalistic approach to define and examine executive jobs separately
from people in the role, we acknowledge the interaction between individual executives and how
their roles are actually carried out. It is understood that jobs are subject to the interpretation of
the job holders, and it should not be assumed that executives understand the nature of their jobs
the same way we define roles in this study.
Understanding Executive Jobs
28
Nevertheless, executive jobs do vary in objective characteristics. After all, organizations
hold executives accountable for producing the results their roles exist to deliver. Defining the
role based on the specific job characteristics provides an objective framework for executives to
align their behaviors accordingly. That being said, future research can help create such alignment
by using the job dimensions of accountability for organizational results and complexity of
problem solving to look into the relationship between the objective nature of roles and
executives’ interpretation of the roles.
Empirical findings regarding the specific competencies associated with different
managerial roles not only contribute to our understanding of these roles, but also open new
questions on the emerging executive roles. More and more organizations have matrix structures
(Atkinson, 2003; Burns & Wholey, 1993). Collaborative executive roles as defined by midrange degrees of accountability for organizational results are found to be increasing in numbers.
Given the renaissance in matrix organizations (Atkinson; Numerof & Abrams, 2002) and the
increasing demand for executives to take on collaborative roles, more research is needed to
identify competencies associated with such roles. It is possible that the set of competencies we
used were not sufficient to understand the unique requirements of the executive role in a matrix
organizational structure.
Conclusion
This paper fills a gap in our understanding of how to match an executive to his or her job
by using the lens of a demands-abilities, Person-Job fit. We provide a conceptual framework to
define executive roles using the dimensions of accountability for results and complexity of
problem solving and empirically show that outstanding executives display different
competencies as the characteristics of their jobs change along these dimensions. The
Understanding Executive Jobs
29
accountability for organizational results and complexity of problem solving characteristic of
executive roles have each been found to have a main effect on the competencies demonstrated by
outstanding managers. Results from the findings have implications for organizational role
requirement clarification, selection, assessment, and development of managers. It also opens
directions for future research to advance our understanding of executive roles and how those
roles affect the fit between the demands of the role and the competencies of the executive.
Understanding Executive Jobs
30
REFERENCES
Armstrong, M. 2006. A handbook of human resource management practice (10th ed.). Landon
and Philadelphia: Cogan Page.
Atkinson, P. 2003. Managing chaos in a matrix world. Management Services, 47(11): 8-11.
Barrington, L., & Silvert, H. 2004. CEO challenge 2004: Top 10 challenges. New York: The
Conference Board Inc.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. 1993. Beyond the m-form: Toward a managerial theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 14(Winter): 23-46.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1997. The myth of the generic manager: New personal
competencies for new management roles. California Management Review, 40(1): 92-116.
Bassett, G. A. 1969. The qualifications of a manager. Harvard Business Review, 12(2): 35-44.
Beal, R. M., & Yasai-Ardekani, M. 2000. Performance implications of aligning CEO functional
experiences with competitive strategies. Journal of Management, 26(4): 733-762.
Bellak, A. O. 1984. Specific job evaluation systems: The Hay Guide Chart-Profile method. In
M. L. Rock (Ed.), Handbook of wage and salary administration: 15/11 to 15/16:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Blair, E. H. 1999. Which competencies are most important for safety managers. Professional
Safety, 44(1): 28-32.
Boyatzis, R. 1982. The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: John
Wiley.
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. 1999. Grooming and picking leaders using competency frameworks:
Do they work? Organizational Dynamics, Autumn: 37-51.
Browne, P. J., & Golembiewski, R. T. 1974. The line-staff concept revisited: An empirical study
of organizational images. The Academy of Management Journal, 17(3): 406-417.
Burns, L. R., & Wholey, D. R. 1993. Adoption and abandonment of matrix management
programs: Effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(1): 106-138.
Castanias, R. P., & Helfat, C. E. 1991. Managerial resources and rents. Journal of Management,
17(1): 155-171.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. 2001. Hold the line: An examination of line vs. Staff
differences. Human Resource Management, 40(1): 21-34.
Understanding Executive Jobs
31
Conger, J. A., & Nadler, D. A. 2004. When CEOs step up to fail. MIT Sloan Management
Review, Spring: 50-56.
Dainty, A. R. J., & Cheng, M. I. 2005. Competency-based model for predicting construction
project managers’ performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(1): 2-9.
Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. 2000. Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century.
Organizational Dynamics(Winter): 18-33.
Drazin, R., & Rao, H. 1999. Managerial power and succession: SBU managers of mutual funds.
Organization Studies, 20(2): 167-196.
Economist. 2003a. Coming and going. Economist: 12, 13p.
Economist. 2003b. Making companies work. Economist: 14, 12p.
Fernandez-Araoz, C. 1999. Hiring without firing. Harvard Business Review, 77(4): 109-120.
Fernandez-Araoz, C. 2005. Getting the right people at the top. MIT Sloan Management Review,
46(4): 67-72.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1996. Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects
on organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychology Bulletin, 51: 327-358.
Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. 1992. Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of
matrix organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18(2): 267-294.
Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Organization design: Addison-Wesley Reading, Mass.
Gengerelli, J. A. 1977. A quantum treatment of the psychophysical law. Journal of Psychology,
97: 231-236.
Gerdes, L. 2007. Hello, goodbye. Businessweek, 1/22: 16.
Globerson, S. 1977. The just noticeable difference in complexity of jobs. Management Science,
23(6): 606-611.
Gomez-Mejia, L., Balkin, D., & Cardy, R. 2007. Managing human resources (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 1984. Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and
business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal,
27(1): 25-41.
Guthrie, J. P., & Datta, D. K. 1997. Contextual influences on executive selection: Firm
characteristics and CEO experience. Journal of Management Studies, 34(4): 537-560.
Understanding Executive Jobs
32
Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. 1998. The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and
employees adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 26(3): 22-37.
Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. 2005. Executive job demands: New insights
for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review,
30(3): 472-491.
Hay, E. N. 1958. Any job can be measured by its "know, think, do" elements. Personnel Journal,
36(11): 403-406.
Hay, E. N., & Purves, D. 1954. A new method of job evaluation: The Guide Chart-Profile
method. Personnel, July: 72-80.
Hayes, J., Rose-Quirie, A., & Allinson, C. W. 2000. Senior manager's perceptions of the
comptencies they require for effective performance: Implications for training and
development. Personnel Review, 29(1): 92-105.
Horch, H. D. 2003. Competencies of sport managers in German sport clubs and sport. Managing
Leisure, 8(2): 70-84.
Jordan, M. H., & Schraeder, M. 2003. Executive selection in a government agency: An analysis
of the department of the navy's senior executive service selection process. Public
Personnel Management, 32(3): 355-366.
Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. 2001. Breaking through boundaries for organizational innovation: New
managerial roles and practices in e-commerce firms. Journal of Management, 27(3): 347361.
Kovach, B. E. 1986. The derailment of fast-track managers. Organizational Dynamics, 15(2):
41-48.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals'
fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2): 281-342.
Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1): 1-49.
McClelland, D. C. 1998. Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews.
Psychological Science, 9(5): 331-339.
Mogel, G. S. 2006. Top-executive turnover set record in January: Officer changes may be
investment red flag. Investment News, 10(7): 30.
Motowidlo, S. J., Carter, G. W., Dunnette, M. D., Tippins, N., Werner, S., Burnett, J. R., &
Vaughan, M. J. 1992. Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77: 571-587.
Understanding Executive Jobs
33
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. 2000.
Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership
Quarterly, 11(1): 11-35.
Numerof, R. E., & Abrams, M. N. 2002. Matrix management: Recipe for chaos? Directors &
Boards, 26(4): 42-46.
O'Roark, A. M. 2002. The quest for executive effectiveness: Consultants bridge the gap between
psychological research and organizational application. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 54(1): 44-54.
Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. 1983. Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and
functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1): 170-177.
Pfeffer, J. 1977. Toward an examination of stratification in organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22(4): 553-567.
Pomeroy, A. 2005. Take this executive job and. HR Magazine, 50(5): 14.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal,
12(Winter): 95-117.
Raelin, J. A. 1997. Executive professionalization and executive selection. Human Resource
Planning, 20(2): 16-27.
Ronan, W. W., & Latham, G. P. 1974. The reliability and validity of the critical incident
technique: A closer look. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 6: 53-64.
Sandberg, J. 2000. Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): 9-25.
Skenes, C., & Kleiner, B. H. 2003. The Hay system of compensation. Management Research
Review, 26(2-4): 109-115.
Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. 1985. Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of
Management Review, 10(4): 724-736.
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. 1993. Competence at work: Models for superior performance.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, A. S., & Ramaswamy, K. 1996. Matching managers to strategy: Further tests of the
miles and snow typology. British Journal of Management, 7: 247-261.
Tjosvold, D., & Tjosvold, M. M. 1991. Leading the team organization: How to create an
enduring competitive advantage. New York: MacMillan.
Understanding Executive Jobs
34
U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.). Washington D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. 1999. Results-based leadership: How leaders build the
business and build the bottom line. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Understanding Executive Jobs
TABLE 1
Distribution of Sample by Industry
Industry
# Cases
Percent
Manufacturing
53
15%
Food Products
51
13%
Chemical and Pharmaceutical
46
13%
Technology
62
16%
Telecommunications
25
7%
Financial Services and Banks
42
11%
Insurance
21
6%
Health
16
4%
Petroleum
21
6%
Retail
4
.5%
Hospitality/Tourism
2
.5%
Communications
11
3%
Unknown
6
2%
Total
360
35
Understanding Executive Jobs
TABLE 2
Distribution of Sample by Geography
Geographical
Region
# Cases
Percent
North America
171
47.5%
Europe
28
7.8%
Asia
21
5.8%
South America
7
1.9%
Africa
3
.8%
Mid-East
4
1.1%
Australia
4
1.1%
Unknown
122
34%
Total
360
36
Understanding Executive Jobs
TABLE 3
Distribution of Executive Jobs by Role Profile and Job Complexity
Role Profile
Complexity
Advisory
Collaborative Operational
Total
Tactical Implementation
13
23
56
92
Strategic Implementation
19
32
54
105
Strategic Alignment
16
35
44
95
Strategy Formulation
0
12
56
68
Total
48
102
210
360
37
Understanding Executive Jobs
38
TABLE 4
Definition of Competencies used in this Study
Competency
Definition
Sophistication and completeness with which one thinks about meeting and/or
surpassing performance standards
Achievement
Orientation
A concern for working well or for surpassing a standard of excellence. The standard
may be one’s own past performance (striving for improvement); an objective measure
(results orientation); outperforming others (competitiveness); challenging goals one has
set, or even what anyone has ever done (innovation).
Strength and completeness of assumption of the role of leader
Team
Leadership
The intention to take a role as leader of a team or other group. It implies a desire to lead
others. Team Leadership is generally, but certainly not always, shown from a position
of formal authority. The “team” here should be understood broadly as any group in
which the person takes on a leadership role, including the enterprise as a whole.
Insightfulness or innovation of the pattern recognition
Conceptual
The ability to identify patterns or connections between situations that are not obviously
Thinking
related, and to identify key or underlying issues in complex situations. It includes using
creative, conceptual, or inductive reasoning.
The distance into the future that one is looking for problems and opportunities on
which to take action
Refers to the following:
Initiative
1.
The identification of a problem, obstacle, or opportunity and
2.
Taking action in light of this identification to address current or future problems
or opportunities. Initiative should be seen in the context of proactively doing things and
not simply thinking about future actions. The time frame of this scale moves from
addressing current situations to acting on future opportunities or problems.
Thoroughness of understanding of one’s own or another’s organization
The ability to understand and learn the power relationships in one’s own organization
Organizational
Awareness
or in other organizations (customers, suppliers, etc.). This includes the ability to
identify who the real decision makers are; the individuals who can influence them; and
to predict how new events or situations will affect individuals and groups within the
organization.
Understanding Executive Jobs
TABLE 5
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (n = 360)
Competency
1. Achievement Orientation
Meana S.E.b
3.20
.10
1
2
3
2. Team Leadership
3.62
.12
0.28**
3. Conceptual Thinking
3.13
.08
0.18**
0.27**
4. Initiative
2.61
.10
0.45**
0.26** 0.32**
5. Organizational Awareness
3.39
.09
0.34**
0.31**
** p < .01
a
Estimated Marginal Grand Mean
b
Standard Error
0.38**
4
0.36**
39
Understanding Executive Jobs
40
TABLE 6
Results of Two-way ANOVA by Competency
ANOVA
Linear Contrast
Mean
Adj
Sq.
F
Sig.
. R2
Est.
Sig.
Corrected Model
7.72
2.93
0.00
.05
--
--
Accountability
16.58
6.29
0.00
0.46
0.02
Complexity
5.30
2.01
0.11
0.56
0.01
Accountability * Complexity
1.55
0.59
0.71
--
--
Corrected Model
10.06
2.83
0.00
--
--
Accountability
14.03
3.95
0.02
0.61
0.01
Complexity
14.88
4.19
0.01
0.85
0.00
Accountability * Complexity
2.24
0.63
0.68
--
--
Corrected Model
4.35
2.24
0.01
--
--
Accountability
3.66
1.89
0.15
-0.17
0.29
Complexity
8.62
4.45
0.00
0.58
0.00
Accountability * Complexity
3.28
1.69
0.14
--
--
Corrected Model
11.22
4.26
0.00
--
--
Accountability
8.37
3.17
0.04
0.26
0.17
Complexity
10.15
3.85
0.01
0.85
0.00
Accountability * Complexity
6.17
2.34
0.04
--
--
Corrected Model
8.21
3.72
0.00
--
--
Organizational
Accountability
5.19
2.35
0.10
0.18
0.32
Awareness (H5)
Complexity
17.79
8.07
0.00
0.48
0.02
Accountability * Complexity
6.39
2.90
0.01
--
--
Competency
Achievement
Orientation (H1)
Team Leadership
(H2)
Conceptual
Thinking (H3)
Initiative (H4)
Source
.05
.03
.08
.07
Note: Dashes indicate analysis of linear effects for these sources of variance is inappropriate. Degrees of
freedom for the corrected model = 10, accountability = 2, complexity = 3, the accountability by complexity
interaction = 5, error = 349, and the corrected total = 359.
Understanding Executive Jobs
41
TABLE 7
Estimated Marginal Means
Role Profile
Advisory
Achievement
Orientation
Team Leadership
Conceptual
Thinking
Initiative
Organizational
Awareness
a
Standard Error
Tactical
Strategic
Strategic
Strategy
Implementation
Implementation
Alignment
Formation
Operational
Meana
S.E.b
Meana
S.E.b
Meana
S.E.b
Meana
S.E.b
Meana
S.E.b
Meana
S.E.b
Meana
S.E.b
2.86
0.24
3.00
0.18
3.66
0.11
2.85
0.20
3.08
0.17
3.35
0.18
3.68
0.26
3.07
0.28
3.60
0.20
4.07
0.13
3.01
0.23
3.51
0.20
3.80
0.21
4.45
0.30
3.38
0.20
2.99
0.15
3.08
0.10
2.69
0.17
3.10
0.15
3.48
0.16
3.29
0.22
2.32
0.24
2.47
0.18
2.96
0.11
2.22
0.20
2.44
0.17
2.69
0.18
3.33
0.26
3.26
0.22
3.24
0.16
3.64
0.10
2.67
0.18
3.45
0.16
3.81
0.17
3.77
0.24
Estimated Marginal Mean
b
Collaborative
Complexity
Understanding Executive Jobs
42
FIGURE 1
Guide Chart-Profile Framework
ROLE PROFILE
Enterprise
Leadership
JOB COMPLEXITY
Strategic
Alignment
Strategic
Implementation
Tactical
Increasingly Complex
Problem-Solving
Strategic
Strategy
Formation
Tactical
Implementation
Advisory Roles
Collaborative Roles
Operational Roles
NA
NA
Leads all aspects of business to
generate results. Typically the
highest level leadership role in a
diverse enterprise with multiple
business units, lines, and markets.
Focuses on the
alignment and
integration of strategies
for a function that is a
critical driver of business
success. Partners in
determining business
strategy and provides
strategic advice that
supports the
achievement of critical
business objectives.
Develops and delivers
strategically important
programs critical to the
organization’s mission
through
coordination and direction of
diverse resources over
whom direct control is not
exercised.
Focused on the achievement of
bottom-line results where global and
/ or business-critical objectives must
be achieved. Typically more
complex general manager or sales
roles.
Focuses on the
alignment and
integration of policy in a
strategically important
and diverse area.
Provides advice and
guidance that support
the achievement of
major business
objectives. Seen as
thought leader internally.
Defines and delivers
specific and measurable
long-term programs and
results through a complex
network of resources and
partners over whom direct
control is not exercised.
Focuses on the achievement of
bottom-line results where product
and market developments demand
significant change to current
business capabilities. Typically
general manager or sales roles.
Focuses on the
translation and
application of policy in
diverse although usually
related areas.
Delivers specific,
measurable results across a
broad, complex area
through a network of diverse
resources and partners over
whom direct control is not
exercised.
Integrates and balances operational
or sales resources to extend current
business capabilities, ensuring that
market demands are met in the
short and medium term.
Focuses on the
translation and
application of policy in a
specific functional area.
Delivers specific,
measurable results in a
discrete, defined area
through a network of
internal and external
resources and partners over
whom direct control is not
exercised.
Manages a large, complex operating
unit to predetermined requirements.
Manages defined resources to
ensure achievement of clearly
specified objectives such as volume,
cost, quality, and service to meet
schedule and customer
requirements.
Increasing Accountability for Organizational Results