The women in assessments... professional executive coaching

The Women in Assessments
The power-packed field of Assessments has never been so prevalent as we try
to understand leadership and its effects on the world. Leadership in crisis and
leadership under scrutiny are two phases representing our times.
There are over 250 instruments to help leaders perform stronger and as
authentic leaders with the end result of strengthening their organization’s
bottom line, increasing employee enhancement and creating a corporate
culture of a positive tribe. Some are simple self-assessments requiring only
90 seconds to take, and some are more complex requiring more time to
complete and analysis, however all validate instruments can be beneficial
providing five things have taken place:
1. The interpreter has been properly trained including having the ability to
eliminate self-bias
2. The instrument has statistical data to prove validity.
3. The receiver is open to accepting the results as well as has a wiliness to

positively act on the results
4. A support team is in place to help effect change
5. Goals have been pre-established
This article presents interviews for five instruments with a twist.. all three are
developed or owned by women! Thus given support to women being
recognized for the work they are doing in the field.
I asked these accomplished women, Tricia Nadoff, CEO of Management
Research Group (MRG); Sharon Birkman, CEO Birkman International;
Barbara Singer CEO of ExecutiveCore; Shreya Sarkar-Barney, Ph.D., CEO of
Human Capital Growth, and Cheri Tree, CEO of BANKCODE, the same
questions. As expected, each had different and exciting responses; thus,
proving there are many approaches to the goal of recognizing and supporting
different styles, personalities, temperaments, and goals.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Download Article 1K Club
Tricia Nadoff, CEO of Management Research Group (MRG)

· Management Research Group (MRG) Leadership Effectiveness
Analysis™ (LEA360™)
The LEA360 is a multi-rater leadership assessment designed to provide
insights on an individual through measurement of 22 leadership behaviors
and 30 leadership competencies. The purpose of the LEA360 is to
significantly increase the leader’s self-awareness, provide clear choices for
increasing effectiveness, and clear coaching suggestions and
recommendations for moving forward successfully.
What makes the LEA360 effective is the clarity and insight of the feedback;
the combination of both behavior pattern feedback and competency
effectiveness feedback; the insights provided through the open-ended
questions; the detailed coaching suggestions included in the companion
resource guide; and the guided action planning process, also included in the
resource guide. In addition to what the individual leader receives, the coach
has an extensive research library available to her/him to gain further insights
into leadership effectiveness – this research includes, but is not limited to,
leadership effectiveness by gender, age, management level, function,
industry, leadership competencies and leadership potential. The tool is over
30 years old.
Sharon Birkman, CEO Birkman International · Birkman 360™
The Birkman Assessment is a Behavioral and occupational assessment used
for executive coaching and building teams. It views people in a 3-dimensional
way within one 30-minute assessment. The Birkman 360 is unique in that the
results can be mapped to the Birkman Method results. This mapping makes
it easier for the coach to understand the reasoning behind the 360 results and
can provide a place to start when developing the action plan for the subject.
The tool is 68 years old.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney CEO of Human Capital Growth HCG
Leadership Effectiveness Profile™; the HCG Team Effectiveness

Assessment™
The HCG Leadership Effectiveness Profile assesses attributes that are hard-
wired and those that can be developed for success in a leadership role. It is an
ideal tool for making hiring decisions and for gaining insight into
development needs of a leader.
The HCG Team Effectiveness Assessment is based on meta-analytic findings
of team effectiveness across a variety of job types, including production
teams, airline teams, and paramedic teams. The online survey can be
conducted with an intact team or with multiple collaborative teams. Parts of
the assessment can be customized to gain a deeper insight into specific areas.
When conducted across teams, the comparison of ratings highlights
differences and similarities in perceptions among team members or between
teams.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Barbara Singer CEO of ExecutiveCore · Awareness 2020™

A newcomer in the assessment space the Awareness 2020™ is an Awareness
IQ™ for presence and self-awareness. This assessment is used to explore how
well a person inspires employee engagement and obtains results. The
Awareness Index communicates the value of belonging to groups in a way
that energizes others to be optimistic, hopeful, and resilient. It helps to distill
complex ideas into a clear plan of action and extend others’ ideas to
synthesize/combine normally unrelated thoughts, ideas, and actions. It can
help a leader operate with an entrepreneurial mindset to make decisions as if
they were the “owner of a business.” The tool was introduced in 2018.
Cheri Tree, CEO of BANKCODE BankCode™
BankCode™ is a self- report assessment, which predicts buying behavior
based on four personality types that are based on the four temperaments.
The temperaments identify four discrete factors that identify unique
motivators: Blueprint, Action, Nurturing, and Knowledge (B.AN.K.™). The
short version takes up to 90 seconds and the long version takes two to five
minutes. It can be administered and scored by anyone. The tool has been in
use for over 10 years.
♦♦♦
Q: Who is able to administer your instrument?
Tricia Nadoff · LEA360 requires experience in both development and
prior assessment usage. Certification includes pre-work conducted through a
learning management system, completing one’s own assessment,
participating in either a two day in person training session or a five module
remote session, and the completion of one LEA360 assessment feedback with
an individual outside their certification cohort.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sharon Birkman · Eight hours of online pre-work, three days of onsite
training in a small classroom setting and a follow-up is required to pass the
conversation exam.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · A background in psychology is preferred and
prior experience in HR, and coaching is preferred. Half day training is
required for each instrument
Barbara Singer · Awareness 2020 requires that a coach be certified in
other 360-degree assessments and/or test and measures graduate level
course
Cheri Tree · Training and certification are broken down into various
components and are based on levels of expertise. Level 1 involves 1.5 days
training plus three days certification training; Level two requires 2.5 days of
training plus five days of certification training; Level 3 requires 5.5 days of
training plus seven days of certification training.
Q: When do 360 assessments work best/ best practices?

Tricia Nadoff · Because 360 assessments can consume a fair amount of
time and money and cause a certain level of vulnerability in both the
participants as well as their observers, 360s work best when the organization
is prepared to provide the time and resources needed to gather the data,
provide effective feedback, and make available resources to support the
development that will be both needed and desired after the 360 feedback has
been delivered. 360 feedback should not be attempted if the organization is
not prepared to provide the time and resources needed.
360 feedback should also not be attempted if there is a high degree of
perceived threat and lack of trust in the environment. The best 360
assessments measure behavior, skills, and or competencies. 360 assessments
should only be used to measure aspects of an individual that can be readily
observed by others. Therefore, attributes such as motivations, values, beliefs,
and personality should only be measured in self-assessments.
When choosing observers for a 360 assessment, individuals should be
coached to choose wisely. This means choosing observers who have the
opportunity to work with the leader on a regular enough basis to have a full
view of the individual’s approach to her or his work. When choosing direct
reports, it is important for the leader, wherever possible, to choose all of
her/his direct reports. The best 360 assessments will allow the ability to
divide observer groups within a single observer category. In situations where
a leader may have two bosses, or peers from two different subgroups, or two
or more sets of direct reports the data can be separated appropriately to get
the most accurate and actionable feedback.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sharon Birkman · 360s work best as a developmental tool when there
is a plan to conduct an initial 360 and a follow-up 360 once the agreed upon
action plan has been completed. This provides the “subject” the opportunity
to determine if their hard work has paid off.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · Documented in (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996)
feedback fails about a third of the time. Whether 1:1 or multi-source not all
feedback is a gift as one believes. The context matters! If the goal of for the
360 feedback to be developmental, the receiver must see the sources to be
trustworthy, and the feedback must be constructive (does not have to be
positive) and it must be behavioral.
Q: How does your instrument support the role of a master-level
executive coach regarding being an “enterprise-wide business
partner™”*?
Tricia Nadoff · LEA360 Provides behavior feedback such as strategic,
persuasive, production; competency feedback such as the ability to see the big
picture, ability to deliver results, effective decision-making, ability to develop

others; and research that all support the development of leaders to be more
effective at bringing about enterprise-wide success.
Sharon Birkman · We can help the coach in an individual or a systemic
way. As the coach aligns teams and works with leaders at all levels.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · Assessments allow a leader to gain self-
awareness and with the guidance of a coach to develop a behavioral repertoire
that is relevant to their work setting. Coaches benefit from these instruments
because it quickly helps them narrow down on the areas where their client
needs help and it allows their clients to make visible improvements.
Barbara Singer · Instruments can provide executive coaches with a
focused and multi-faceted way to assess a client’s current self-awareness and
to support that client to achieve greater self-awareness for better
performance and more successful outcomes. Self-awareness and awareness
management have been linked to leadership excellence. But “awareness” has
been difficult to reliably assess and quantify. Awareness 20/20™ is designed
to meet the need for a quantitative method of assessing leaders’ awareness
skills and practices to provide ROI data for the coaching engagement.
Cheri Tree · BANK™ can be used to provide a simple, quick, common
language for people to better understand each other and communicate more
effectively. Leaders can understand their direct reports and communicate in a
more effective manner.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Q: Define qualitative versus quantitative assessment, which is
best?
Tricia Nadoff · Both qualitative and quantitative assessments provide
important insights that support the development of an individual. A well-
designed quantitative assessment helps reduce bias in the feedback, while
qualitative assessments often provide examples and rich detail. The best
quantitative assessments provide the opportunity for both the participant and
the observer to respond to open-ended questions, allowing a degree of
qualitative feedback in addition to the quantitative measures.
Aristotle famously said, “Self-awareness is the beginning of all wisdom.” If we
believe there is some element of truth in this statement then certainly helping
leaders have deeper self-awareness is the entrée into a more effective way of
leading, and certainly, assessments are effective and efficient vehicles for
bringing about increased self-awareness.
As neuroscience will tell us, the more overwhelmed and the more stressed we
become, the more our actions become habitual and even more biased.

Because of this, leaders can relatively quickly get entrenched in being overly
reactive and shortsighted. With 360 assessment leaders are required to
pause, understand and reflect in ways that are both broader and deeper than
they will encounter in their business as usual responses to their role.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · Irrespective of the type of assessment, what is
more, important is the evidence-basis of what is being assessed. Does it
predict anything of value or is it simply descriptive. A skilled coach relying on
an evidenced foundation can derive value from a qualitative assessment
(assuming one that is gathered through an interview without using a scale).
Similarly, a quantitative assessment that is evidence-based can provide
comparisons to a normative group and float up information that needs
attention.
Cheri Tree · There is no best; it depends on what the researchers are
exploring or trying to prove. Typically, a mixed-methods approach provides
quantitative data for analysis of known characteristics along with qualitative
data to capture not-yet-known characteristics.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Q: What do assessments have to do with leadership efficacy?
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · Science in this space is extensive. Personality
relates to (which has elements of character e.g. integrity) about 19% of
leadership effectiveness and about 30% of leader emergence.
Q: Should High Achievers be identified only though assessments?
Tricia Nadoff · Selecting high achievers is a very complex endeavor
subject to a great deal of bias and subjectivity. While assessments can help
reduce biases and subjectivity, they cannot be a full replacement for objective
observations of past performance, cultural fit, and an individual’s interest in
future growth. No assessment, no matter how well constructed, is universally
infallible, and so while a well-constructed assessment can, and should be, a
vital part of identifying individuals with high potential and/or high
achievement, they should not be the lone or single factor in the
determination.
Sharon Birkman · No, an assessment – any assessment – is only that.

There are too many other pieces of necessary information to consider for a
determination of who is or will be a high achiever.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · Ideally, one should use what is called a multi-
trait, multi-method approach to minimize errors in measurement and
maximize prediction.
Barbara Singer · High potential leaders can be identified more fairly
using assessment data, performance ratings, financial results, third-party
satisfaction measures, and employee engagement. No one measure is enough
but coaching without data or an evidence-based approach can be dangerous.
Great succession management employs more data and works hard to level
the playing field for all people.
A leader’s ability to positively impact revenue is often measured in OIBTDA,
Operating Income Before Taxes and Depreciation, and Amortization. We can
use pre and post testing of valid 360° survey reports to see if leaders improve
their behavior. We can gather anecdotal examples from stakeholders (bosses,
peers, direct reports, and those outside of the organization) to demonstrate
that the person has made positive change. We can also begin to measure
increased self-awareness when we see a person’s own evaluation of them
matching how others evaluate them. A Gestalt way of thinking helps a
person take action faster in a way that can be seen and reported on by others
around them.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Cheri Tree · High achievers should be assessed at the very least with a
triangular approach, meaning at least three different perspectives. The
personal interview is still known scientifically as the best assessment;
however, self-report assessments, peer and leader assessments, and KSA tests
should also be employed based on the job description.
Q: What is the validity of managing/confronting blind spots
through assessment?
Tricia Nadoff · 360 assessments are highly effective at managing and
confronting blind spots. Leaders are often surprised to see the variation
among their observer ratings as well as between observer ratings and their
self-ratings. Initial reactions often include a statement such as “they don’t
know the real me.” The wisest response to this statement is “the
questionnaire did not ask your observers to describe the real you” but rather
the questionnaire asked your observers to describe their perceptions of you as
a leader.
We often tell leaders that it doesn’t matter whether you are a creative thinker

or feel empathetically, when it comes to being a leader if your observers don’t
experience these things from you then, in fact, you are not seen as an
innovative leader or as an empathetic leader. For leadership to be realized it
must be seen heard and experienced by the leader’s constituents. So blind
spots are a beautiful opportunity for gaining greater self-awareness and
building stronger intentionality in one’s approach to leadership.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · If a leader disagrees with the scores explaining
the evidence-based origin of the assessment helps shift the focus from
accuracy to what it means for the individual.
Barbara Singer · Some of the many negative factors that result from
blind spots include: isolating/withdrawing; not asking for feedback from
those who can tell you the difficult truth; making decisions based on fears;
pleasing people (wanting to be liked/accepted at your own expense); being
impatient; demonstrating anger that is more than the situation calls for; loss
of humor and playfulness; distorting reality; not synthesizing all the available
data/facts into a good course of action; missing key themes/patterns when
making a decision, forgetting to assess how people will be impacted and
adjust accordingly; failing to act because you fear failing; winning at all costs
— others get hurt; not clearly understanding how others perceive you; and or
not being clear in your intentions.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Q: How do we measure assessments for reliability/ how do we
determine the best?
Tricia Nadoff · The reliability measures of an assessment essentially
answer the question “If nothing else changes in this individual, will her
results in this assessment remain consistent?” The measure of the validity of
an assessment essentially answers the question “Does this assessment
actually measure what it says it is measuring?” The tests for reliability are
pretty simple and straightforward, depending on the type of assessment you
can either compare time 1 and time 2 results of the assessment or you can
compare the responses from the first half of the assessment to the responses
in the second half of the assessment.
On the other hand, the pursuit of demonstrating the validity of any given
assessment never actually ends. To keep an assessment current an
assessment organization must constantly be measuring how the assessment
performs against current, modern expectations of leadership. To do this
assessment providers gather various types of concurrent measures and
examine correlations between their assessment and the outside measures.

In this way, the validity is determined based on the degree to which the
assessment performs in relation to the concurrent measures. For example,
you would expect measures of empathy to correlate positively with
concurrent measures such as sensitivity to others feelings and willingness to
listen while you would expect there to be a negative correlation with a
concurrent measure such as aggressiveness. Additional measures of validity
include face validity which essentially means those who were receiving
feedback believe that the feedback is accurate and expert peer review in which
those respected in the field review the structure of the questionnaire, the
scoring mechanism, and the output and make an expert assessment of
validity.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · Our assessments are based on validated models
that are backed by research evidence and global applicability.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cheri Tree · Assessment tools need to have shown the reliability of

inferences from their scores by assessing Cronbach’s alpha and split-half
testing. For new tools > .70 is the threshold. More established tools,
especially with over 20 items should be > .80. Sources of validity should
correlate appropriately > .70 positively for convergent validity and negatively
for divergent validity. Effect sizes and confidence intervals should always be
reported. Many assessments do not have predictive validity and are,
therefore, inappropriate for selection decisions, such as hiring, firing,
promotion, etc., but are useful in other ways.
Q: How do instruments deal with bias such as academic
discrepancies, cultural differences generational differences?
Tricia Nadoff · Biases are universally present in all human endeavors
and assessments are no different. However, there are things that assessment
creators can do to both minimize the possibility for biased responses in the
structure of the questionnaires and in the structure of the feedback. Further,
assessment providers can also attend to insights about biases through their
research. To deal with academic discrepancies in participants, most
assessment providers will standardize on a reading level of questionnaire
vocabulary at the eighth or ninth grade level (depending on the intended
audience for the questionnaire, this may be standardized at a lower grade
level).
Cultural differences are much more complex to attend to. First and foremost,
language translation is critical since most assessment takers will be more
accurate in their responses in their native tongue. To do an accurate
translation the process requires several steps. First, the original questionnaire
is translated into the desired language. Second, the translated questionnaire
is back translated into the original language. Third, the original English text
and the translated text are compared and discrepancies are worked through
with the assessment creator and the translator in order to get a more accurate
translation.
Once this is done and in person native speaking practitioner reviews the

translated text and makes recommendations for cultural nuances that may
not have been picked up in the back-translation reconciliation. Finally, you
can expect a new translation to go through three or four minor iterations over
time until you have an accurate translation both in language and cultural
nuance. The degree to which the content of an assessment needs to be
modified culturally is based on the type of assessment.
In the case of the LEA360, because we are not promoting an idealized model
of leadership but rather a descriptive model of behavior, content adjustment
for culture has not been needed because cultural variation is expressed in the
pattern of usage across the 22 behaviors. MRG has been doing cultural
research globally for the last 30 years and has a number of studies
documenting the unique patterns of leadership by country.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Other demographic biases such as generation and gender are also rich areas
for research exploration. MRG’s research shows the different approaches to

leadership based on age and based on gender. To explore the dynamics of
gender bias MRG recently conducted a study to examine the rating patterns
in the LEA360 based both on the gender of the rater and the gender of the
individual being rated. The results of that study show very specific patterns of
gender bias based on both the gender of the rater and the gender of the
person being rated. Studies like these and others conducted by MRG are
readily shared with practitioners certified in our assessments to help them
navigate through, and help their clients navigate through, the complexities of
human bias in the workplace.
Shreya Sarkar-Barney · These biases are less of an issue when one relies
on meta-analyses and not findings from individual studies.
Most leadership assessment tools are descriptive, which means they help
describe a facet of leadership but may not provide a forward-looking view of
what a leader is likely to do. The later requires building predictive tools.
Such endeavors take time to build, as they require testing the validity of the
instrument across samples and across time. The bias for leaning on science
allows us to draw upon the 1000s of studies that are continuously evolving
our understanding and ability to more accurately measure leadership. It
ensures that the tools we build are backed by a rock-solid foundation in
prediction and explanation. Further, instruments should undergo rigorous
psychometric evaluations to ensure they meet four critical gold standards.
(a) Reliability – the instrument consistently measures the attributes of
interest for the same individual and across individuals, (b) Differentiating –
the instrument measures the full spectrum of the attribute on a yardstick as
opposed to only middle range scores, (c) Validity – the instrument accurately
measure the attributes of interest, and (d) Predictive – the instrument scores
provide a forward-looking view of the phenomenon of interest with a high
level of accuracy.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Barbara Singer · Clients should use leadership assessments over time
to level the playing field for women and other under represented groups of
people at the top of the house, for example, 360 and 720 data show clearly in
nearly every study that women are held to higher performance standard
which shows their skills are usually rated significantly higher than men in
group report with the exception of strategic conversations… when a company
included 720 assessment in its succession management along with employee
engagement and other metrics like financial performance , promotions tend
to accelerate more women and underrepresented groups
Q: How do instruments work when there is resistance to reality?
Tricia Nadoff · We all have some resistance to reality and leaders
undergoing 360 assessment processes are no different. Openness to 360
feedback depends on many factors. First and foremost, participants need to
feel safe. If the participant feels they are at risk for ridicule or receiving any
type of negative consequence then she/he is less likely to be open to feedback.
Further, if the leader is overwhelmed and stressed that she/he is unlikely to
have the bandwidth to take in the depth and breadth of 360 feedback. So

when there is resistance, it’s important for the coach to explore these
individual factors.
Each one of us is at varying states of readiness to hear or not hear many of the
messages that can come through 360 assessments. Fortunately, almost all
leaders can benefit from development across any number of behaviors or
competencies. So while the leader may not be ready to take in feedback in one
area of their assessment they will often indicate a lower level of resistance and
a higher level of readiness for change in other aspects of their feedback.
Well-designed assessments can provide significant insights for an individual
leader, and in the hands of a qualified, effective, motivated coach these
insights can be revealed to the leader in ways that increase the leader’s self-
awareness and stoke the fire of motivation for growth.
♦♦♦
Some of the above instruments require extensive training and a certification
to administer while others require less time. Some of the above assessments
have existed for over 60 years for, example, Birkman 360 while others are
new to the field like BankCode and Awareness2020. However, all have been
statistically validated.
Some assessments relate to personality, some behavior and some for team
building, etc. there is an instrument out there for all types of human capital
query. I encourage you to take a look our e-book on assessment for master
level corporate executive coaches for a description of some of the more widely
used tools but I also encourage you to explore the new instruments which are
being published as we learn more and more about human behavior and
human science. The caution is to ensure that you engage a highly qualified
individual for the interpretation and that you examine the reliability/
statistics for each instrument you select.
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The women in assessments... professional executive coaching

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to The women in assessments... professional executive coaching (20)

More from MEECO Leadership Development Institute (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The women in assessments... professional executive coaching