Leadership Evaluation

1. 04-Oct-2004 1 Leadership Evaluation Selecting a Leadership Measurement Approach Effective leaders create the future, and their legacy within an organization is to foster not only extraordinary success but longevity of the enterprise (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). Is there any doubt that, as a company, we need to be investing in the development of our leaders? How much investment (attention, time, energy, dollars) is warranted in developing leadership for our company? As a company, we�ve come to a place where we know that we need to be making significant investments in our leadership. Our future success depends on it. This presentation is about making such an investment by evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of leaders so that each leader can take action to become more effective. Effective leaders create the future, and their legacy within an organization is to foster not only extraordinary success but longevity of the enterprise (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). Is there any doubt that, as a company, we need to be investing in the development of our leaders? How much investment (attention, time, energy, dollars) is warranted in developing leadership for our company? As a company, we�ve come to a place where we know that we need to be making significant investments in our leadership. Our future success depends on it. This presentation is about making such an investment by evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of leaders so that each leader can take action to become more effective.

2. 04-Oct-2004 2 Agenda What is the purpose of this presentation? What are range of leadership evaluation alternatives? What are the preferred choices? What are the strengths and weaknesses? What conclusions can we draw? What are the next steps? Let�s review the agenda. First, we�ll discuss the purpose of this presentation as well as business objectives. Second, we�ll consider alternative approaches for leadership evaluation. . Third, we�ll identify two reasonable choices for implementing a leadership evaluation and development program. Fourth, we�ll identify strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. Then, we�ll draw appropriate conclusions and consider possible next steps. Let�s review the agenda. First, we�ll discuss the purpose of this presentation as well as business objectives. Second, we�ll consider alternative approaches for leadership evaluation. . Third, we�ll identify two reasonable choices for implementing a leadership evaluation and development program. Fourth, we�ll identify strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. Then, we�ll draw appropriate conclusions and consider possible next steps.

3. 04-Oct-2004 3 Purpose Recommend leadership evaluation tool Methodology Services Business objective: Provide growth opportunity for leaders Investment for future Bottom line impact The intended audience for this presentation is leadership and upper management in the company. Eventually, middle level management and team leadership may also need to receive this information. The purpose of this presentation is to engage in a discussion about approaches to evaluate or measure leadership performance. First, we�ll look generally at available options for leadership evaluation and then we�ll look at some specific tools including associated vendor products and services. We�ll conclude with a recommendation on how to proceed with the leadership evaluation process. Before we begin looking at options, why should we evaluate leaders at all? Obviously, we are talking about committing time, money, and energy to this process. What do we expect to get out of it? First, let�s understand that the act of evaluation itself promotes awareness on the part of leaders of exactly what is important. As Larry Bossidy, former CEO of Allied-Signal and then Honeywell, states �you get what you measure for� (Bossidy & Charan, 2002, p. 94). So, the process of leadership evaluation sends two messages to leaders: 1) it makes individual leaders aware of traits and characteristics of effective leaders thereby providing a basis for personal growth, and 2) it emphasizes that the role and effectiveness of leaders is important to the company. Second, the evaluation process presents an opportunity to increase the involvement of leaders in their own personal growth and application of new found skills in their work. It emphasizes that the company is concerned about and is willing to invest in the development of its leaders. This is likely to improve the level of engagement of leaders (Thackray, 2001). As Gallup research shows, �engaged employees are more productive employees� and �engaged employees are more profitable� (Gallup, 2004). Recognizing that there is a range of options for evaluating leaders, let�s look at some of them.The intended audience for this presentation is leadership and upper management in the company. Eventually, middle level management and team leadership may also need to receive this information. The purpose of this presentation is to engage in a discussion about approaches to evaluate or measure leadership performance. First, we�ll look generally at available options for leadership evaluation and then we�ll look at some specific tools including associated vendor products and services. We�ll conclude with a recommendation on how to proceed with the leadership evaluation process. Before we begin looking at options, why should we evaluate leaders at all? Obviously, we are talking about committing time, money, and energy to this process. What do we expect to get out of it? First, let�s understand that the act of evaluation itself promotes awareness on the part of leaders of exactly what is important. As Larry Bossidy, former CEO of Allied-Signal and then Honeywell, states �you get what you measure for� (Bossidy & Charan, 2002, p. 94). So, the process of leadership evaluation sends two messages to leaders: 1) it makes individual leaders aware of traits and characteristics of effective leaders thereby providing a basis for personal growth, and 2) it emphasizes that the role and effectiveness of leaders is important to the company. Second, the evaluation process presents an opportunity to increase the involvement of leaders in their own personal growth and application of new found skills in their work. It emphasizes that the company is concerned about and is willing to invest in the development of its leaders. This is likely to improve the level of engagement of leaders (Thackray, 2001). As Gallup research shows, �engaged employees are more productive employees� and �engaged employees are more profitable� (Gallup, 2004). Recognizing that there is a range of options for evaluating leaders, let�s look at some of them.

4. 04-Oct-2004 4 Evaluation Approaches Organization driven evaluation Evaluation and consultation Self driven evaluation Passive Approaches to evaluating leaders span a continuum of investment and corresponding value potential. The range of options and associated characteristics are: The passive approach places no special emphasis on leadership development outside of the annual company performance evaluation process that includes a skills development component. This approach depends on each individual leader and their manager to recognize and pursue leadership development opportunities as part of a larger skills development agenda. A self driven evaluation is an approach whereby leaders are provided resources that they can choose to apply. Such a program could include offering self-scoring, self-assessment instruments (such as the Personal Profile System (DiSC), Strategic Leadership Styles Instrument, or others) or more comprehensive 360 degree feedback approaches (such as the Leadership Practices Inventory) coupled with resources such as books, training, seminars, and other leadership developmental opportunities. The company would standardize on specific resources and acquire, promote, and make them available to leaders. The company would encourage but not require participation. An evaluation and consultation approach combines aspects of the self evaluation approach with third party services to assist the participant in interpreting results, comparing against a benchmark database, and suggestions for preparing a leadership development plan. In this approach, third party services are provided for a group as a whole or remotely rather than individual one-on-one consulting. The organization driven evaluation approach is a more formal approach that is managed by the organization to complement the annual review process. In this case, all leaders are expected to participate in the measurement process and a decision not to participate would be frowned upon. Now that we�ve reviewed the possibilities around leadership evaluation, let�s look at two relevant options. Approaches to evaluating leaders span a continuum of investment and corresponding value potential. The range of options and associated characteristics are: The passive approach places no special emphasis on leadership development outside of the annual company performance evaluation process that includes a skills development component. This approach depends on each individual leader and their manager to recognize and pursue leadership development opportunities as part of a larger skills development agenda. A self driven evaluation is an approach whereby leaders are provided resources that they can choose to apply. Such a program could include offering self-scoring, self-assessment instruments (such as the Personal Profile System (DiSC), Strategic Leadership Styles Instrument, or others) or more comprehensive 360 degree feedback approaches (such as the Leadership Practices Inventory) coupled with resources such as books, training, seminars, and other leadership developmental opportunities. The company would standardize on specific resources and acquire, promote, and make them available to leaders. The company would encourage but not require participation. An evaluation and consultation approach combines aspects of the self evaluation approach with third party services to assist the participant in interpreting results, comparing against a benchmark database, and suggestions for preparing a leadership development plan. In this approach, third party services are provided for a group as a whole or remotely rather than individual one-on-one consulting. The organization driven evaluation approach is a more formal approach that is managed by the organization to complement the annual review process. In this case, all leaders are expected to participate in the measurement process and a decision not to participate would be frowned upon. Now that we�ve reviewed the possibilities around leadership evaluation, let�s look at two relevant options.

5. 04-Oct-2004 5 Relevant Options and Representative Instruments Self driven evaluation Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) Focused on leadership Highly recognized Organization driven evaluation Denison Leadership Development Survey Comprehensive Organizational focus Two specific instruments are selected in order to aid in the evaluation of two relevant alternatives that fit the objective of leadership development. For a self driven evaluation approach, the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes, 2001) instrument is selected. Other popular self evaluation instruments such as the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Personal Profile System (DiSC) were not selected because measurement of knowledge, skills, and behaviors is more relevant to leadership development and these instruments tend to measure personality traits and interaction styles (Team Builders, 2004). Other self assessment instruments designed for leadership evaluation such as the Leadership Style Questionnaire (Bradford & Cohen, 1997) and the Campbell Leadership Descriptor (Campbell, 2002) were not selected because these instruments are not as well recognized or have as wide use. For an organization driven evaluation approach, the Denison Leadership Development Survey (Denison, 2000a) instrument is selected. The Denison approach is selected over others because of its comprehensive leadership trait model and its research based correlation to organizational culture attributes and organizational performance measures. Both of these instruments use a 360 degree feedback approach. Two specific instruments are selected in order to aid in the evaluation of two relevant alternatives that fit the objective of leadership development. For a self driven evaluation approach, the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes, 2001) instrument is selected. Other popular self evaluation instruments such as the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Personal Profile System (DiSC) were not selected because measurement of knowledge, skills, and behaviors is more relevant to leadership development and these instruments tend to measure personality traits and interaction styles (Team Builders, 2004). Other self assessment instruments designed for leadership evaluation such as the Leadership Style Questionnaire (Bradford & Cohen, 1997) and the Campbell Leadership Descriptor (Campbell, 2002) were not selected because these instruments are not as well recognized or have as wide use. For an organization driven evaluation approach, the Denison Leadership Development Survey (Denison, 2000a) instrument is selected. The Denison approach is selected over others because of its comprehensive leadership trait model and its research based correlation to organizational culture attributes and organizational performance measures. Both of these instruments use a 360 degree feedback approach.

6. 04-Oct-2004 6 360 Degree Feedback Self assessment Manager assessment Peer assessment Subordinate assessment Gap analysis Development plan Both of the instruments selected for the self driven and the organizational driven approaches use a 360 degree feedback instrument. The 360 degree feedback (also known as multi-source feedback, multi-rater assessment, upward feedback, or peer evaluation) is �A process in which you evaluate yourself on a set of criteria, your manager evaluates you, as do your peers and direct reports. You receive a gap analysis between how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you� (Team Builders, 2004). The purpose of soliciting feedback from others is to learn, improve performance, and gain insight into personal strengths and weaknesses (Lockwood, 2004). The 360 degree feedback process includes a self-assessment instrument as well as collection and comparison of feedback received from manager, peers, and subordinates. A 360 degree feedback process compares an individual�s self assessment with the perceptions of others so that the individual can recognize gaps that exist. These gaps then provide the basis from which the individual can gain insights into their performance and prepare appropriate development plans. Let�s briefly review the chief characteristics of each of the 360 degree feedback instruments. Both of the instruments selected for the self driven and the organizational driven approaches use a 360 degree feedback instrument. The 360 degree feedback (also known as multi-source feedback, multi-rater assessment, upward feedback, or peer evaluation) is �A process in which you evaluate yourself on a set of criteria, your manager evaluates you, as do your peers and direct reports. You receive a gap analysis between how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you� (Team Builders, 2004). The purpose of soliciting feedback from others is to learn, improve performance, and gain insight into personal strengths and weaknesses (Lockwood, 2004). The 360 degree feedback process includes a self-assessment instrument as well as collection and comparison of feedback received from manager, peers, and subordinates. A 360 degree feedback process compares an individual�s self assessment with the perceptions of others so that the individual can recognize gaps that exist. These gaps then provide the basis from which the individual can gain insights into their performance and prepare appropriate development plans. Let�s briefly review the chief characteristics of each of the 360 degree feedback instruments.

7. 04-Oct-2004 7 Leadership Practices Inventory Overview Leadership Challenge Model Personal best leadership experiences The Five Practices Leadership: understandable and learnable Time tested, research based 20 year history One million respondents Valid and reliable The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes, 2001) is based on qualitative research conducted by Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner beginning in 1983. Their purpose in conducting this research was to identify best leadership practices by interviewing both senior and middle managers in business organizations. leaders in the community, schools, churches, government, as well as others in non-managerial positions to discover what occurred during personal best leadership experiences (Pfeiffer, 2004a). Through this research, Kouzes and Posner distilled a model of leadership called The Five Practices: 1) Challenging the process, 2) Inspiring a shared vision, 3) Enabling others to act, 4) Modeling the way, and 5) Encouraging the heart. This model forms the basis of a leadership development instrument that measures performance of The Five Practices (Pfeiffer ,2004a). It is a 360 degree feedback process, but is administered over the Internet by a third party company. Since participation in this evaluation process is optional, it is also optional whether the participant would choose to solicit feedback from others. Even without feedback from others, the instrument has value for self evaluation. Over about twenty years, nearly a million leaders around the world have used the LPI; it�s the most popular leadership instrument in the world (Pfeiffer, 2004a). The results have demonstrated that �leadership is understandable and learnable� (Pfeiffer, 2004a). Research and testing shows that the instrument is reliable and valid. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes, 2001) is based on qualitative research conducted by Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner beginning in 1983. Their purpose in conducting this research was to identify best leadership practices by interviewing both senior and middle managers in business organizations. leaders in the community, schools, churches, government, as well as others in non-managerial positions to discover what occurred during personal best leadership experiences (Pfeiffer, 2004a). Through this research, Kouzes and Posner distilled a model of leadership called The Five Practices: 1) Challenging the process, 2) Inspiring a shared vision, 3) Enabling others to act, 4) Modeling the way, and 5) Encouraging the heart. This model forms the basis of a leadership development instrument that measures performance of The Five Practices (Pfeiffer ,2004a). It is a 360 degree feedback process, but is administered over the Internet by a third party company. Since participation in this evaluation process is optional, it is also optional whether the participant would choose to solicit feedback from others. Even without feedback from others, the instrument has value for self evaluation. Over about twenty years, nearly a million leaders around the world have used the LPI; it�s the most popular leadership instrument in the world (Pfeiffer, 2004a). The results have demonstrated that �leadership is understandable and learnable� (Pfeiffer, 2004a). Research and testing shows that the instrument is reliable and valid.

8. 04-Oct-2004 8 Denison Leadership Development Survey Dension Leadership Development Model links Leadership Organizational performance Culture Relevant and proven 1000 organizations, 40000 individuals over 15 years Backed by research Graphical portrayal of results The Denison Leadership Development Survey is an integrated process that can include an organizational culture survey to link aspects of leader practices and organizational cultural traits to organizational performance measures such as return on investment, return on assets, sales growth, innovation, market share, quality, and employee satisfaction (Denison, 2000b). This linkage is backed by research and validated through use by over 1,000 organizations and 40,000 individuals over fifteen years. The results of administering the Denison Leadership Development Survey is a Summary Report and Action Planning Guide of the findings for each individual. The Summary Report graphically depicts the survey results in terms of the Denison Leadership Development Model. Let�s take a closer look at the Denison Leadership Development Model. The Denison Leadership Development Survey is an integrated process that can include an organizational culture survey to link aspects of leader practices and organizational cultural traits to organizational performance measures such as return on investment, return on assets, sales growth, innovation, market share, quality, and employee satisfaction (Denison, 2000b). This linkage is backed by research and validated through use by over 1,000 organizations and 40,000 individuals over fifteen years. The results of administering the Denison Leadership Development Survey is a Summary Report and Action Planning Guide of the findings for each individual. The Summary Report graphically depicts the survey results in terms of the Denison Leadership Development Model. Let�s take a closer look at the Denison Leadership Development Model.

9. 04-Oct-2004 9 Denison Leadership Development Model The Leadership Development Model is based on four culture and leadership traits: Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission. Within each of these traits are three indexes of leadership practices (Denison, 2000c). Adaptability is �translating the demands of the organizational environment into action� and consists of skills: creates change, emphasizes customer focus, and promotes organizational learning (Denison, 2000d). Mission is �defining a meaningful long-term direction for the organization� and consists of skills: defines strategic direction and intent, defines goals and objectives, and creates shared vision (Denison, 2000e). Involvement is �building human capability, ownership and responsibility� and consists of skills: empowers people, builds team orientation, and develops organizational capability (Denison, 2000f). Consistency is �defining the values and systems that are the basis of strong leadership� and consists of skills: defines core values, works to reach agreement, manages coordination and integration (Denison, 2000g). The model splits horizontally to reflect an external (top) as well as an internal focus (bottom). The model splits vertically to reflect flexibility (left) as well as stability (right) (Denison, 2000h). �Surveys are collectively tabulated into the individual's data file, and results are graphically presented in a Summary Report. The survey, Summary Report and Action-Planning Guide are written in easily understood business terms, making the Denison Leadership Development Survey a powerful tool for leadership development.� (Denison, 2000a). The Leadership Development Model is based on four culture and leadership traits: Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission. Within each of these traits are three indexes of leadership practices (Denison, 2000c). Adaptability is �translating the demands of the organizational environment into action� and consists of skills: creates change, emphasizes customer focus, and promotes organizational learning (Denison, 2000d). Mission is �defining a meaningful long-term direction for the organization� and consists of skills: defines strategic direction and intent, defines goals and objectives, and creates shared vision (Denison, 2000e). Involvement is �building human capability, ownership and responsibility� and consists of skills: empowers people, builds team orientation, and develops organizational capability (Denison, 2000f). Consistency is �defining the values and systems that are the basis of strong leadership� and consists of skills: defines core values, works to reach agreement, manages coordination and integration (Denison, 2000g). The model splits horizontally to reflect an external (top) as well as an internal focus (bottom). The model splits vertically to reflect flexibility (left) as well as stability (right) (Denison, 2000h). �Surveys are collectively tabulated into the individual's data file, and results are graphically presented in a Summary Report. The survey, Summary Report and Action-Planning Guide are written in easily understood business terms, making the Denison Leadership Development Survey a powerful tool for leadership development.� (Denison, 2000a).

10. 04-Oct-2004 10 Evaluation of LPI Instrument Strengths Low barriers, high potential value Resonance of Five Practices model Backed by research Weaknesses Optional participation Self validating Downside potential The Leadership Practices Inventory instrument has several strengths. There are low barriers to its use by leaders within the organization in that the costs of acquiring and administering the survey are low (no more than $100 per head). Included in this fee are Internet based survey administration that is entirely managed by the participant. The participant chooses when to conduct their self assessment, and if the participant chooses to involve others to solicit feedback, selects individuals from within or outside of the company. Analysis of the results of the self assessment and feedback from others is totally automated so response is quick upon completion (Pfeiffer, 2004b). Since initial investment is low, the company can try it out without making a significant up front investment. The LPI is popular because The Five Practices model resonates with leaders. It is intuitive, easy to understand, and applicable immediately to work situations. Training material is inexpensive as well as readily available. The approach and its results are backed by extensive research and practical use. The weaknesses behind this approach are that optional participation presents a risk that the potential value will not be realized by leaders within the company if participation is low. If leaders choose to participate, but do not fully engage others in soliciting feedback, then results may be helpful by providing some insight to the participant, but not nearly as valuable since there is no basis to do gap analysis between the perception of self and others. Also, the resulting developmental action plans would not be as meaningful.The Leadership Practices Inventory instrument has several strengths. There are low barriers to its use by leaders within the organization in that the costs of acquiring and administering the survey are low (no more than $100 per head). Included in this fee are Internet based survey administration that is entirely managed by the participant. The participant chooses when to conduct their self assessment, and if the participant chooses to involve others to solicit feedback, selects individuals from within or outside of the company. Analysis of the results of the self assessment and feedback from others is totally automated so response is quick upon completion (Pfeiffer, 2004b). Since initial investment is low, the company can try it out without making a significant up front investment. The LPI is popular because The Five Practices model resonates with leaders. It is intuitive, easy to understand, and applicable immediately to work situations. Training material is inexpensive as well as readily available. The approach and its results are backed by extensive research and practical use. The weaknesses behind this approach are that optional participation presents a risk that the potential value will not be realized by leaders within the company if participation is low. If leaders choose to participate, but do not fully engage others in soliciting feedback, then results may be helpful by providing some insight to the participant, but not nearly as valuable since there is no basis to do gap analysis between the perception of self and others. Also, the resulting developmental action plans would not be as meaningful.

11. 04-Oct-2004 11 Evaluation of Denison Leadership Development Survey Strengths Comprehensive leadership trait model Link to organizational culture survey and performance measures Individualized development plans Weaknesses High cost Complexity Major commitment The strengths of the Denison Leadership Development Survey are attributable to its comprehensive leadership trait model, corresponding indexes of practices, and the fine grained results of the analysis represented by its graphical portrayal. In addition, the opportunity to administer the Denison Organizational Culture Survey in conjunction with the Leadership Development Survey has potentially significant benefits in transforming not only leadership but the organizational culture as well. The correlation between the results of these surveys and organizational performance measures portends to provide a basis from which specific action plans can be established to transform the organization and dramatically impact its bottom line performance. Individualized leader developmental action plans are the basis for this transformation. Weaknesses center around the high costs to achieve such a dramatic transformation in terms of administering the program, conducting the organizational wide training needed, and engaging outside consulting resources. The costs in conjunction with the complexities of the approach and models means that a major commitment on the part of the entire organization is required. With this major commitment comes associated risks of not being able to realize the benefits due to problems in sustaining the approaches over time. The strengths of the Denison Leadership Development Survey are attributable to its comprehensive leadership trait model, corresponding indexes of practices, and the fine grained results of the analysis represented by its graphical portrayal. In addition, the opportunity to administer the Denison Organizational Culture Survey in conjunction with the Leadership Development Survey has potentially significant benefits in transforming not only leadership but the organizational culture as well. The correlation between the results of these surveys and organizational performance measures portends to provide a basis from which specific action plans can be established to transform the organization and dramatically impact its bottom line performance. Individualized leader developmental action plans are the basis for this transformation. Weaknesses center around the high costs to achieve such a dramatic transformation in terms of administering the program, conducting the organizational wide training needed, and engaging outside consulting resources. The costs in conjunction with the complexities of the approach and models means that a major commitment on the part of the entire organization is required. With this major commitment comes associated risks of not being able to realize the benefits due to problems in sustaining the approaches over time.

12. 04-Oct-2004 12 Recommendation Denison Leadership Development Survey Preponderance of strengths Trait based model Linkage of leader traits to bottom line performance Organizational Culture Survey Meets business objectives Leadership development for future Impact company performance Both alternatives have potential for real improvements in the skills of company leaders. Although the minimal investment and lower risk associated with the LPI option is attractive, the upside potential is not large enough for significant development of leadership skills at the company. The Five Practices model does resonate and the concepts most certainly apply. Additionally, even if there�s a high level of participation on the part of leaders in the program, there is insufficient research that demonstrates a strong link between the improvement of leadership skills as represented by the LPI instrument and their impact on bottom line company performance. The strengths of the Denison approach include a trait based model, research proven linkage between the leader traits of the model to bottom line company performance, and the opportunity to also administer the Organizational Culture Survey. The combination of these strengths coupled with the high likelihood of a real impact on the company�s performance better meets the stated business objectives of investing in leadership development and impacting bottom line performance. Therefore, our recommendation is to proceed with implementation of the Denison approach. Both alternatives have potential for real improvements in the skills of company leaders. Although the minimal investment and lower risk associated with the LPI option is attractive, the upside potential is not large enough for significant development of leadership skills at the company. The Five Practices model does resonate and the concepts most certainly apply. Additionally, even if there�s a high level of participation on the part of leaders in the program, there is insufficient research that demonstrates a strong link between the improvement of leadership skills as represented by the LPI instrument and their impact on bottom line company performance. The strengths of the Denison approach include a trait based model, research proven linkage between the leader traits of the model to bottom line company performance, and the opportunity to also administer the Organizational Culture Survey. The combination of these strengths coupled with the high likelihood of a real impact on the company�s performance better meets the stated business objectives of investing in leadership development and impacting bottom line performance. Therefore, our recommendation is to proceed with implementation of the Denison approach.

13. 04-Oct-2004 13 Next Steps Engage vendor Determine implementation approach Develop implementation plan Resources Sponsorship Project team Schedule Run pilot program and adjust plan Proceed with gusto! Upon approval of the recommendation, our first step is to engage the vendor to understand the choices around program alternatives and implementation. Once an understanding of these options has been acquired, negotiation for the terms of engagement with the vendor is appropriate. Once the approach is determined and the vendor is engaged, preparation of a detail implementation plan follows (resources, sponsorship, project team, schedule, etc.). The plan is to use a pilot program to test the instrument and the implementation approach. Based upon learning from the pilot, final adjustments to the implementation plan may be warranted. We are ready to proceed! Upon approval of the recommendation, our first step is to engage the vendor to understand the choices around program alternatives and implementation. Once an understanding of these options has been acquired, negotiation for the terms of engagement with the vendor is appropriate. Once the approach is determined and the vendor is engaged, preparation of a detail implementation plan follows (resources, sponsorship, project team, schedule, etc.). The plan is to use a pilot program to test the instrument and the implementation approach. Based upon learning from the pilot, final adjustments to the implementation plan may be warranted. We are ready to proceed!

14. 04-Oct-2004 14 References Bossidy, L. & Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York: Crown Business Bradford, D. & Cohen, A. (1997). Managing for Excellence : The Guide to Developing High Performance in Contemporary Organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons. Campbell, D. (2002). Campbell Leadership Descriptor. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Denison, D. (2000a). The Denison Leadership Development Survey. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/lead_main.html Denison, D. (2000b). Links to Performance. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/lead_links.html

15. 04-Oct-2004 15 References Denison, D. (2000c). Definitions. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/lead_def.html Denison, D. (2000d). Adaptability. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/adaptability.html Denison, D. (2000e). Mission. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/mission.html Denison, D. (2000f). Involvement. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/involvement.html Denison, D. (2000g). Consistency. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/consistency.html Denison, D. (2000h). Understanding the Model. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.denisonculture.com/leadership/lead_under.html

16. 04-Oct-2004 16 References Gallup. (2004). Measuring and Improving Employee Engagement. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=52 Kouzes, J. (2001). The Leadership Practices Inventory. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lockwood Leadership International. (2004). Lockwood Leadership Assessment. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from www.lockwoodleaders.com/instruments/assessment.cfm Pfeiffer. (2004a). About LPI � The Methodology. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from www.lpionline.com/lpi/helpInfo/methodology.jsp

17. 04-Oct-2004 17 References Pfeiffer. (2004b). About LPI � Product Information. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.lpionline.com/lpi/helpInfo/productInfo.jsp Team Builders. (2004). 360 FAQ. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.360-degreefeedback.com/ Thackray, J. (2001). Feedback for real. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=811