COMPETENCIES & DIMENSIONS · 14/11/2019 · Specific Knowledge • Airline Business Models and...

第42届全球人才评鉴高峰会

暨领导人才发展论坛THE 42ND INTERNATIONAL

CONGRESS ON ASSESSMENT CENTER METHODS

AND DEVELOPING LEADERSHIP TALENT

Using a Coaching Development Centre during a Succession Development Programme

14 November 2019ICACM, Shanghai China

2014 – A South-African organisation in the aviation industry identified the internal Leadership Pipeline as an organisational risk

Required internal employees to be readied to fill senior positions – wanted to realise possible time and cost savings

Needed an accelerated development approach that balanced organisational needs and personal employee needs

ICACM 14 November 2019, Shanghai, China

The Situation


Decision taken to introduce a Succession Pool Programme (Byham, Smith, & Paese, 2001)

Programme aimed at readying people for appointment to the second level of senior management within the organisation (SPP2)

No guarantees to participants, but participants would be in a better position to be appointed when applying for second level positions within the organisation

The Decision

ICACM 14 November 2019, Shanghai, ChinaICACM 14 November 2019, Shanghai, China

Programme stretched over 3 years: 2015 – 2018

Candidates nominated by their direct line manager OR they could apply themselves for inclusion in the programme

Eligible candidates were invited to a selection process

Results of the selection process was presented to the Executive Talent Review Committee (ETRC) who decided on the candidates to be included in the Programme

13 participants were selected

The Programme


2015 2018

The Programme Outline


(Schlebusch & Roodt, 2019)


The development journey started with participants attending a Coaching Development Centre (CDC)

Reasons for deciding on the use of a CDC:Participants were to receive personal attention while assessing

their current leadership-management skillsIt was critical for participants to accept the assessment resultsIt was critical for participants to take ownership of their own

development for the duration of the programme and beyondBehaviour change was requiredAccelerated skills transfer was requiredChanged mind sets were required

The Programme


Heading 1.


Visible

Not Visible

Leader Behaviour

Knowledge, Skills, Techniques

Mind Sets; Frames of Reference;

Thinking; Feelings

Change on 3 Levels:

•Behavioural Level

•Cognitive Level

•Emotional Level

Behaviour Change



CDC Process


SIMULATION

• Delegate participates in a simulation

LEARNING

• Immediate Discussion

• Immediate Feedback

• Immediate Coaching

REINFORCE

• Apply new learning in next simulation

• Transfer to different situation/context

Learning Process during CDC



Role of Coach-Observer

*Prepares for Simulations

*ONCE

*Co-Assesses Participant Behaviour during Simulation

after Simulation

*Coaches Participant

*Assists Participant to Draw-up Development Plan

*Is a catalyst for Participant learning, planning, goal

setting

Role of Participant

*Prepares for Simulations

*Participates in Simulations

*Co-Assesses own Behaviour during Simulation after

Simulation

*Learns, plans, sets goals

*Draws-up Development Plan

Roles at a CDC


A Technology Enhanced Assessment Centre (TEAC)

The same Coach-Observer works with the same participant during the whole CDC

Ratio of 1 Coach-Observer for every 2 participants

Post Exercise Dimension Ratings (PEDRs)

Behaviour Observation Scale (BOS)

Data-driven approach to observing, noting, classifying, evaluating (ONCE) Behaviour

CDC Characteristics


Simulations -

Career Discussion (questionnaire completed prior to CDC, discussion at CDC)In-Box (delivered electronically, completed prior to the CDC)Constructive Dialogue (face-to-face role-play)True-allocated role group discussion (face-to-face; only 1

participant per group discussion, other group members are role-players (Schlebusch & Roodt, 2019))

Rating Scale –

ND – Needs DevelopmentR – Rounding-offP - ProficientS - Strength

CDC Characteristics (continue)



CDC Adheres to 10 Essential AC Elements (International Taskforce on Assessment Center Guidelines, 2015)

Essential Element CDC PCDC Comment

Job Analysis Yes Yes Based on organisation’s Leadership Competency Framework; Interviews; Role Descriptions

Behavioural Classification Yes Yes Coach-Observer + Participant Classify Behaviour according to centres’ focal constructs

Multiple AC Components Yes Yes Career Questionnaire; 3 Simulations

Link bt AC Components & Behavioural Constructs

Yes Yes Focal Constructs-Simulation Matrices Compiled

Simulation Exercises Yes Yes 3 Simulations

Multiple Assessors Yes Yes Coach-Observer Plus Participant Classify & Evaluate Behaviour

Assessor Training Yes Yes Coach-Observer Certified Competent; Participants Trained on Competencies and Behavioural Elements / anchors / indicators

Recording & Scoring of Behaviour

Yes Yes Coach-Observer Observe & Record / Note Behaviour; Coach-Observer & Participant Score Behaviour according to Norm Tables

Data Integration Yes Yes All Data Integrated at end According to Norm Tables & Decision Rules; Mini-Data-Integration Discussions @ end of each simulation between Coach-Observer & 1 other observer

Standardisation Yes Yes Administration Guides; Quality Checks; Feedback to Coach-Observers; Annual Refresher Training; Norm Tables

Additional DAC ConsiderationsFocal constructs should be developable (Rupp, Snyder, Gibbons & Thornton, 2006)

All CDC focal constructs are divided into behavioural elements / anchors / indicators

Care should be taken to ensure that participants perceive the focal constructs to be developable (Rupp, Snyder, Gibbons & Thornton, 2006)

This is done during the CDC through the participant orientation session; the pre-reading; self-evaluations; one-on-one discussions

Participant development process should be designed in detail prior to embarking on programme (Pollock, Jefferson, Wick, 2015)

SPP2 Programme designed and approved prior to CDC



Personal Development Plan (PDP) based on CDC

CDC Deliverables

17


Final Evaluation/

Parallel Assessment

Post-CDCDevelopmentDiscussion

AttendCoaching

DevelopmentCentre

Pre-CDC:360° Evaluation

ImplementDevelopment

Plan

Follow-up: 360°

Evaluation

Follow-up DevelopmentDiscussion

Follow-up: 360°

Evaluation


Follow-up: 360°

Evaluation


Post CDC Process

(Schlebusch & Roodt, 2019)ICACM 14 November 2019, Shanghai, China


Generic Learning Path aimed at level 2 senior management within organisation

Learning Path aimed at transferring knowledge and skills related to:

Specific Organisation (e.g. divisions, departments, organigrams, etc.)

Aviation Industry (e.g. competitors, best practices, challenges, business and operating models, etc.)

General Business (e.g. marketing, business development, human resources, finances, etc.)

Additional Development Plan for SPP2 Participants



Self-Learning Social Learning Classroom Learning On-the-job Learning

• Reading• Podcasts• Webcasts• Applications• Videos• E-learning

• Internal Mentoring

• Quarterly Group Forums

• Power Hours focused on Company Specific Knowledge

• Airline Business Models and Competitive Strategies (IATA Mini MBA)

• Crucial Conversations Training

• Professional Writing Workshop

• PLOC (Planning, Leading, Organising and Controlling)

• On-the-job activities such as chairing meetings, leading project teams, acting in higher positions, etc.

• Specific assignments as per the Learning Path

Learning Path Development Activities



*Monthly Written Development Progress Reports*Quarterly Progress Discussions – Participant, Line Manager, Development

Broker*6-Monthly Progress Report to ETRC

*Annual 360° Evaluations

*Quarterly Written Development Progress Reports*Quarterly Progress Discussions – Participant, Line Manager, Development


Annual 360° Evaluations

*Quarterly Written Development Progress Reports*Quarterly Progress Discussions – Participant, Line Manager, Development


*Annual 360° Evaluations

SPP2 Follow-up Activities

Data Collection Points:

Round 1: CDC 2015

Round 2: PCDC 2018

Round 3: Post PCDC (qualitative data)


Heading 1.


CDC Results (Overall Ratings) 2015ND = Needs Development; R = Rounding-Off; P = Proficient; S = Strength

Competencies P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9

Career and Self Development ND ND ND ND ND P ND ND ND

Initiative ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Analysing P/ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Judgement P/ND ND R ND ND R ND R ND

Empowerment R ND P/ND ND ND R ND P/ND R

Interpersonal Sensitivity R ND ND ND ND R ND ND ND

Oral Communication S R S R P S P S P

Persuading and Influencing P ND R ND ND P ND R ND

Providing Direction P/ND ND P/ND ND P/ND P ND P/ND P/ND

Management Control ND ND P/ND ND ND R ND ND ND

In-Box ND ND ND ND ND R ND ND ND

Constructive Dialogue P ND R ND ND R ND R ND

Group Meeting R ND R ND ND P ND ND ND

Parallel CDC conducted 2018




Developing the Parallel CDC

Proposed 3-Step process to constructing parallel simulations (Brummel, Rupp, Spain,

2009):

Step 1: Construct detailed simulation specifications

Step 2: Construct alternate simulation forms(s)

Step 3: Equate alternate simulation forms

Followed Steps 1 & 2:

Used original CDC & simulation specifications and refined Designed parallel simulations & CDC Obtained sign-off from client


Heading 1.


PCDC Results (Overall Ratings) ND = Needs Development; R = Rounding-Off; P = Proficient; S = Strength

Competencies P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9

Career and Self Development R R P R R P R R R

Initiative ND ND ND P ND ND ND ND ND

Analysing R ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Judgement P/ND ND R S/ND P/ND P R ND P/ND

Empowerment R P/ND R R R R P/ND P/ND R

Interpersonal Sensitivity S/ND ND P/ND P/ND P R P ND P

Oral Communication S P S P P S P P P

Persuading and Influencing R P/ND ND ND ND P P ND R

Providing Direction R P/ND P/ND R P/ND R R P R

Management Control P/ND ND ND ND ND R ND ND ND

In-Box R ND ND P ND P R ND ND

Constructive Dialogue P R R ND R R P ND R

Group Meeting P ND R R R P R ND R


Comparing PCDC with CDC Results (Overall Ratings per Focal Construct) Green = Higher Rating in PCDC; Yellow = Same Rating in PCDC; Red = Lower Rating in PCDC

Competencies P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 Improved Same Same: Both S

Same: Both ND Weaker

Career & Self Development 8 1 0 0 0

Initiative 1 0 0 8 0

Analysing 1 0 0 8 0

Judgement 5 2 0 1 1

Empowerment 5 4 0 0 0

Interpersonal Sensitivity 5 1 0 2 1

Oral Communication 2 3 3 0 1

Persuading & Influencing 3 1 0 2 3

Providing Direction 6 2 0 0 1

Management Control 1 1 0 6 1

In-Box 4 0 0 5 0

Constructive Dialogue 4 3 0 1 1

Group Meeting 5 2 0 2 0

Improved 6 6 3 9 6 2 9 2 7 50

Same: Could have Changed 3 0 4 0 2 7 1 1 2 20

Same: Both S 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3Same: Both ND 1 7 3 4 5 2 3 6 4 35

Weaker 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 0 9

“Of all the courses I’ve attended during the SPP2 Programme, theCoaching Development Centres had the greatest impact on my learningand growth. I needed that reality check early in the programme. It tookme out of my comfort zone and made me question my managementstyle. My greatest take-aways from the Coaching Development Centrewas that as a Manager-Leader, my role, is to give clear direction, create anenvironment where others can perform and empower my team to makedecisions…not just use them as ‘hands and feet’! I’ve put the manylearnings into practise and continue to achieve positive results”

Participant P3’s Response


“Leadership in 2018 is about understanding the people we work with,our environment and relying on each other to achieve strong andsincere outcomes. The coaching development centres helped me buildrelationships and confidence. For me the coaching developmentcentres were a refreshing reminder that work is not always aboutdiligence on paper”



“The Coaching Development Centres were for me a great eye opener, itis where I embarked on my journey towards self-awareness. The factthat we did them early on in the SPP2 programme was also very welldone as this allowed me to be conscious of which areas still requiredfurther development coaching. When implemented with care it can bea great tool for any manager that wants to develop themselves and theirteams, particularly in high pressure environments like ours”



Winner of the Rising Star 2018 – Independent nationalcompetition

Appointment to the Office of the CEO

Appointment to Acting Customer Service Executive

The 9 participants enjoy high internal visibility, hence moreopportunities

Participants’ Career Successes So Far


Why the varying results:

Some participants’ results improved, e.g. P9; P7; P4

Some participants’ results remained the same, e.g. P5; P2

A participant’s results are weaker, e.g. P8




Factors Influencing PCDC Results(Adapted from: Baldwin & Ford, 1988)


Already Known

Follow-up actions focused on the implementation of the Learning Path and not necessarily the implementation of the PDP related to the CDC E.g. P8’s PDP made recommendations around English and problem

solving that were not implemented

Secondments and project work focused on expanding the participants’ company and industry knowledge, not people related management-leadership knowledge and skills E.g. P8, P5 were not exposed to situations where people reported to them

and they had to manage their performance

Participants were re-deployed when they experienced inter-personal problems E.g. P8 & P6



Already Known (continue)

Not all training programmes on the PDPs were presented due to the

organisation’s financial situation

E.g. Writing Skills; Presentation Skills; Problem Solving; Positive Power

and Influencing Programme, etc.

Negative organisational climate



Lessons Learnt (Schlebusch & Roodt, 2019)

Attrition will occur – 13 participants started, 1 withdrew, 1 participant was poached by another organisation, 2 participants resigned

Participants in specialist positions should have the opportunity to lead a section where they have full accountability for all aspects of people management-leadership

2 periods of secondment should take place – the first secondment at the beginning of the programme and the second secondment towards the end of the programme to balance out functional exposure and business acumen



Lessons Learnt (continue)

Key success factors:

Keeping participants accountable for implementing their own PDPs

Following-up on the CDC’s PDP implementation

Enabling participants to attend training programmes

Having a dedicated internal custodian, and an external development broker



Further Research

Identifying the reasons for the differences between participants’ PCDC results (i.e. improving, remaining same, weaker performance than CDC)

Recommendation:

Implementing a tool to assist participants to change their habits related to the behaviour linked to the CDC focal constructs independent of the support from other people

As example an App that can assist participants to implement new behaviour daily – micro-learning (Lanik, 2018)


References


Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J.K. 1988. Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology. 41:63-105.

Byham, W.C., Smith, A.B., & Paese, M.J. 2001. Grow your own leaders – Acceleration pools: a new method of succession management. Pittsburgh: DDI Press.

Brummel, B.J., Rupp, D.E., & Spain, S.M. 2009. Constructing parallel simulation exercises for assessment centers and other forms of behavioral assessment. Personnel Psychology. 62: 137-170.

International Taskforce on Assessment Center Guidelines. 2015. Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. Journal of Management . 10:1-30.

Lanik, M. 2018. The Leader Habit. New York: American Management association.

Pollock, R.V.H., Jefferson, A.McK., & Wick, C.W. 2015. The six principles of breakthrough learning: How to turn training and development into business results (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Rupp, D.E, Snyders, L.A., Gibbons, A.M., & Thornton, G.C. 2006. What Should Developmental Assessment Centers be Developing? The Psychologist-manager Journal. 9(2), 75–98.

Schlebusch, S., & Roodt, G. (ed.). 2019. Assessment Centres: Unlocking people potential for growth (2nd

Ed.) Randburg: Knowres Publishing.


COMPETENCIES & DIMENSIONS · 14/11/2019 · Specific Knowledge • Airline Business Models and...

Documents

Transcript of COMPETENCIES & DIMENSIONS · 14/11/2019 · Specific Knowledge • Airline Business Models and...