Executive Job Analysis and Leadership Assessment Challenges

Introduction

Assessment of executive leadership capacity and aptitude is not a straightforward practice. An enormous array of assessment instruments has been developed over the past several decades. It is big business, and a strong pantheon of supporters — consisting primarily of human resources managers — fends off attacks on the practice of assessing executives and quantifying complex senior jobs. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), for just one example, has mixed reviews. Zagorsek et al. (2006) describe the LPI as a moderately reliable instrument that is more precise for individuals with low to moderate leadership ability, but not as reliable for high performers, and better suited for leader development than for leader identification, selection, or promotion purposes (p. 190). Assuming other assessment tools will not fare much better, it is worth exploring the idea of reliably assessing executive talent and matching candidates with jobs that have also been precisely, if not accurately, analyzed.

Companies should devote more attention to defining and articulating job requirements when hiring senior-level executives. Individuals who are responsible for executive selection do not put enough resources or time into determining what new executives should do in their new positions in order to contribute to organizational success. In fact, search committees rarely consider in any depth the strategic position requirements and the performance imperatives that affect a future executive. Beyond the analysis of an executive job, it is important for the search committee or human resources manager to consider the context of the job. Zaccaro (2008) suggests that these individuals consider (a) the unique nature of executive leadership; (b) where the organization is in its current growth or performance cycle; (c) the strategic challenges and imperatives within the company's industry; and (d) the global strategic positioning of the company. The following discussion addresses how these considerations make a typical job analysis for an executive position an exercise with limited utility.

This essay first examines why job analyses are even considered a viable practice for senior-level executive positions. It then explores whether the work of executives is truly quantifiable, and whether job analyses such as those described herein have reasonable validity and reliability. The final major point is that the job analysis exercise only makes sense if one is able to accurately identify executive-level capacity in order to match that capacity with a position.

Why Is Job Analysis of Senior Positions of Interest?

In conventional business situations, leaders are held responsible for the overall performance of the organizations they lead. This convention is upheld even when it is understood that there are a tremendous number of moving parts in a company, much of which may be completely obscured from those in subordinate roles. Leaders often face termination when things go awry. A serious breach can trigger a dismissal, or something as mundane as volatile stock fluctuations in an erratic market. Does this phenomenon reflect honest attempts to improve situations by finding new talent, or is it more the case that someone must be held accountable to appease the stockholders?

When looking to fill top executive positions, many companies continue to be overly enamored of external candidates. However — except in response to very specific conditions — most research indicates that internal candidates typically outperform external candidates when they fill an executive position. This research appears to make the case for succession planning that recruits from within. Regardless, the company needs to invest in development for senior leaders through talent management programs that are sustainable.

How Quantifiable Is Complex Work?

The traditional practice of constructing job analyses began as an attempt to match workers with jobs or roles. World War I and World War II caused a great many men and women to be displaced — and then placed — in jobs for which they had little to no experience. An efficient system for determining the best fit between people and positions was developed. It involved testing aptitude and intelligence, and, judging by the proliferation of the occupational assessment industry, it proved to be a reasonably effective system.

The trouble with a system that is neat and tidy, and seems to provide applicable outcomes a good portion of the time, is that it begins to take on a life of its own. As the field of psychological and attitudinal testing expanded, the human resources field grew in concert. Human resource managers came to embrace a philosophy that every worker could be assessed and that every job could be quantified. Many companies capped the assessment of employees at the highest levels, promoting the idea that executives should not be subject to such treatment. Others asserted that certain jobs were characterized by a sort of chiaroscuro effect — there was as much about those jobs that was in the dark as there was highlighted and perceptible. How could a human resources professional measure what they could not see, define, or even articulate?

This challenge is well recognized in the broader literature on industrial and organizational psychology, which has long grappled with the limits of standardized tools when applied to highly complex, context-dependent roles.