“If you can’t measure it, then you can’t manage it.” Peter Drucker
When you talk to people about selecting anything, especially people or talent, they are usually going to advocate for a multiple hurdles approach. This means you don’t just look at the resume and hire based on it, you have several steps in your hiring process all of which come together to help you make the best hiring decision.
In measuring training effectiveness, we have Kirkpatrick’s model (a multiple dimensional approach) by measuring 1. Reactions (did they like it?), 2. Learning (did they learn something?), 3. Transfer (did their behaviors change because of it?) and 4. Results (did outcomes change in a positive direction as a result of the training?)
I think one of the reasons why we all seem to hate performance appraisals is that they seem to be a single hurdle approach. One person’s opinion doesn’t get it.
So we do something more and conduct a 360o evaluation to measure multiple views. Maybe we do an employee engagement survey that may lend some further insight for a more well-rounded view, especially when it comes to measuring leadership. This is better, but not perfect.
Then we look at the results the person achieved. Some of which they should be given credit for, some of which may be out of their hands because so many things factor into results. It’s the one I lean towards- measuring results, especially for leadership- but I realize there are some limitations to this approach as well.
So maybe we need a multiple hurdle approach to leadership (and overall employee evaluation) measurement. We do it in most other talent management practices (selection, training), but we tend to rely on one method over another when measuring leadership. We pick one- a boss’s appraisal, a 360 evaluation type measure, or results- and bank our leadership measurement on just one thing or tool.
As my tried and true Leadership textbook from college (Leadership: Enhancing the Lesson of Experience insert link to it by Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy) states:
“Practitioners need to understand the advantages and problems associated with the different measures, and that multiple measures often yield the best information about leadership success.”
People are complex, and I think we would all agree that the reason to measure anything is to be able to then make better decisions off that information. So, when it comes to leadership, let’s measure more instead of less, and then use that information to make better leaders.
Then those leaders will do what has been done to them- examine their team members from a multiple hurdles approach and use that to guide them in developing each individual towards results (see my bias in measuring results?).
What is your go-to method for measuring leadership? How does your measurement help you and your organization make better decisions?
