Wave Leadership Impact Technical Summary
Wave Leadership ImpactTechnical Summary
2 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved
Contents1.0 Introduction to the Leadership Impact Model. 21.1 Building on the Existing Leadership Model.21.2 The New Leadership Impact Model.21.3 The Criterion Space – What does ‘good’ look like?.31.4 Why Focus on Impact?.41.5 The Leadership Impact Hierarchy - 3Ps, 9 Impact Areas,18 Leadership Styles.51.6 Predicting Leadership Impact.62.0 Reporting.73.0 Reliability. 113.1 Alternate Form Reliability. 113.2 Test-Retest Reliability.144.0 Validity.164.1 Criterion-Related Validity.164.2 Construct Validity.195.0 Fairness.216.0 References.25 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved.1
1.0 Introduction to the Leadership ImpactModelThe Leadership Impact model is a new model of leadership effectiveness which focuseson the impact that a particular leader has in the workplace.Its development has been guided by empirical data from conception to conclusion,based on international research on thousands of individuals working across hundreds ofdifferent organizations. The model is powered by the Saville Assessment Wave portfolioand therefore benefits from the established psychometric rigor of these tools and, inparticular, Wave’s validation-centric development method.This document introduces the new Impact model of leadership, which attempts to bridgethe gap between specific, behaviorally-based and general, outcome-based approachesto measuring workplace leadership. Our research suggests that focusing on a leader’simpact provides a psychometrically-robust, conceptually-appropriate and especiallyefficient model of leadership performance.1.1 Building on the Existing Leadership ModelSaville Assessment’s existing leadership model is an established and globally used modelof workplace leadership effectiveness. It captures both broad areas of general leadershipeffectiveness and more specific leadership styles which individual leaders may adoptdepending on the situation in which they find themselves. Through data collected over adecade, we have been able to identify trends and collect substantial banks of validationevidence. From this, we have leveraged empirical insights which have now been broughtto bear in order to enhance the existing leadership model.The new Leadership Impact model is the latest milestone in our international programof leadership data collection, analysis and refinement. In addition to providing a newprediction of a leader’s likely workplace impact, the Leadership Impact model alsoretains valuable leadership style information from the existing model and integratesthese different sources of data to produce new reflections and development guidancetext. This guidance has been written to help leaders best leverage the different behaviorsthat they may deploy in the workplace.1.2 The New Leadership Impact ModelThe Leadership Impact model and aligned report put the Saville Assessment 3Pframework at the heart of our leadership offering. Based on our extensive research,the scales in the Impact model have been grouped under the three Ps of leadership –Professional, People and Pioneering. Professional leaders are likely to be effective atleading in specialist contexts and providing professional or technical knowledge; Peopleleaders are likely to be effective at managing a wide range of people across teams orfunctions and Pioneering leaders are likely to be effective at driving success, change andgrowth.The three Ps themselves were identified from factor analyses on large, global data sets.A consistent picture has emerged from our leadership assessment data over the yearsshowing that three overarching factors provide a reliable and useful framework in whichto position the more specific components of leadership effectiveness.2 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved
In addition to being derived from factor analyses, the development of the new leadershipmodel also sought to clarify the empirical relationships between the three P scales and arange of different workplace performance criteria. The original 3P model validation, seeHopton et al. 2014, was based on 308 individuals who completed Wave Professional Stylesand for whom sets of independent performance ratings were collected, concurrently,from stakeholders. In this research, we specified a priori which criteria each leadershipconstruct would be expected to forecast.Having carried out criterion validation and factor analysis to cement the three P scalesas our overarching framework of leadership effectiveness, we then turned our attentionto consider the more specific units of leadership effectiveness in our model. Our primaryresearch question was of both an empirical and a practical nature: When trying to definewhat matters for effective leadership, how detailed do we need to be in terms of whatwe’re measuring? Is leadership really best measured in terms of whole business leveloutcomes – or is it best evidenced in the specific day-to-day behaviors of leaders? It isto this question of criteria – namely, what we are trying to measure – that we now turnour attention.1.3 The Criterion Space – What does ‘good’ look like?Work performance, as a construct, has been the subject of considerable scientificscrutiny, with many different models of multidimensional performance having beenelucidated over the last quarter century. Prominent examples include the models ofBorman & Motowidlo, (1993), Campbell et al. (1993), Campbell (2012), Kurz & Bartram(2002) and Murphy (1989).While such models inevitably differ in certain respects, a common feature of many is afocus on workplace ‘competencies’. Kurz and Bartram (2002) adopted a definition ofcompetencies as ‘sets of behaviors that are instrumental in the delivery of desired resultsor outcomes’. This definition is useful because it introduces one of the key assumptionsof many performance models; namely that performance can be thought of as beingcomposed of a hierarchy of components. At the most basic level, tangible behaviors canbe clustered together into sets or groups to form competencies. These competencies areoften themselves clustered and sometimes combined with other kinds of performancemetrics to form higher-order performance criteria.There has been a degree of debate about the best unit of analysis when measuringworkplace performance. While the pragmatic answer is that the best approach to takedepends somewhat on the situation at hand, the measurement of leadership performanceposes particular challenges as, by its very nature, leadership performance is invariablyconcerned with more than ‘just’ the behaviors demonstrated by the leader. When talkingabout leadership performance, we are often also concerned with the leader’s effect orimpact on others and, sometimes, on the organization.Many of the most well-known models of workplace performance feature competenciesor components which attempt to capture leadership performance. For example, the GreatEight model (Kurz & Bartram, 2002) has a scale called ‘Leading & Deciding’; likewise,the Campbell (2012) model features six sub-factors which together comprise leadershipperformance. An advantage of such competency-based approaches to leadershipperformance is in their clear conceptual link to specific behaviors and actions. As such,they can frequently be measured relatively straightforwardly and it is often possibleto draw transparent inferences from results derived from such models. Nevertheless,their specificity can also be a hindrance as they tend to be somewhat role- and context- Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved.3
specific in nature. In some cases, this specificity may render it impossible or inappropriateto compare leaders in different contexts using the same competencies.On the other hand, leaders can be (and often are) judged against a range of higherorder performance criteria including indices such as company share price, turnover,staff engagement levels, staff retention rates and countless other organization-levelmetrics. These performance criteria tend to be much broader in focus and thus moregeneralizable across contexts and situations. They also benefit from being commonlyperceived as somewhat more ‘objective’ in nature than competencies. This is largelybecause they frequently take the form of quantifiable metrics which do not rely on theso-called ‘subjective’ stakeholder ratings of performance typically used to measurecompetencies. Yet, organizational outcomes are often somewhat disconnected from thespecific actions of individuals; clearly, no one leader (no matter how omnipotent) canreasonably be held solely responsible for a company’s total share price, turnover, staffengagement levels and staff retention rates. So there remains a question about the valueof such broad criteria in forecasting individual leader performance.1.4 Why Focus on Impact?Having outlined just a few of the issues associated with the measurement of workplaceperformance, we’d like to reiterate that both specific competencies and broad outcomecriteria can and do have their uses. There will often be requirements or considerations ina given situation which favor the use of one type of criteria over others.Nevertheless, our latest research argues for a model of leadership performance whichacknowledges the impact of leaders in the achievement of organizational outcomes,while also recognizing that individual leader behaviors matter. We propose that the useof competencies to measure leadership performance can be helpfully supplemented byfocusing on higher-order, but still behaviorally oriented, organizational outcomes. Ournew Impact model tries to find a ‘goldilocks zone’ between relying too heavily on eithervery specific behavioral criteria or on very general organizational-outcome criteria.4 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved
1.5 The Leadership Impact Hierarchy - 3Ps, 9 Impact Areas,18 Leadership StylesOrganizational CommitmentNew Products/Marketsmaintaining productive delivery ofgoods and/or services; drivingquality customer service; deliveringappropriate solutionscreating a shared sense of purpose;enhancing employee motivation;building organizationalmoraleidentifying market gaps or routes tomarket; cultivating innovation;generating impactful solutionsManaged RiskSuccessful TeamsOrganizational Transformationactively controlling risk; championingeffective corporate governance;ensuring compliance with policies,procedures and legal requirementsbuilding effective teams; attractingand developing talent; utilizingpotentialPioneeringService & Product DeliveryPeopleProfessionalDerived from factor analysis and validation, as described in this document, the Impactmodel comprises nine primary Impact areas. They are clustered under the three higherorder 3P factors, and their definitions are provided below.delivering organizationaltransformation; buildingcommitment to change; activelymanaging change processesExpert ReputationCommunicationOrganizational Growthbuilding organizational expertise;promoting technical excellence;enhancing organizationalreputationdelivering influential communication;building cross-functional/geographiccommunication; encouraginginvolvement and consultationincreasing stakeholder value;establishing challengingorganizational goals; drivingorganizational successThese represent nine areas at work in which leaders can exert a critical impact. Thenine Impact areas can be thought of as primary components of effective workplaceleadership. They are aligned conceptually to the three higher order P scales.There are also 18 Leadership Styles which are grouped in pairs under each of the nineImpact scales.EnthusiastCatalystAdministrators focus on the qualityof work while also maintainingactivity levels.Enthusiasts engage others bybuilding rapport and taking anoptimistic approach.Catalysts promote new initiativesby offering their insights andputting forward their rs organise and realisedetailed plans.Facilitators lead by responding tothe needs of others.Innovators foster a creative andconceptual environment whereoriginal thought is valued.RegulatorInspirerChange AgentRegulators make use of establishedprinciples and procedures to guidetheir leadership.Inspirers lead by motivating otherswhile asserting themselves in theleadership role.Change Agents seek out changeand act to get things ministratorPeopleProfessionalEach pair of styles forms the primary component of the prediction equation for eachImpact area, as described below.Crisis HandlerTechnicians combine practical skillsand factual understanding todevelop solutions to issues.Collaborators lead by encouragingothers to work togetherconstructively in order to achievegoals.Crisis Handlers react to issues asthey arise and decisively deal withcrisis situations.IntellectualPersuaderStrategic OpportunistIntellectuals lead by developingunderstanding and capability withintheir team.Persuaders lead through activecommunication and seekagreements which are mutuallybeneficial.Strategic Opportunists combinecompetitiveness with strategicawareness.Expert AdvisorConsulterGrowth SeekerExpert Advisors combine analyticalcapability with an underlyingconfidence in their approach.Consulters develop wide networksof contacts and are responsive toexternal feedback.Growth Seekers combine a drive toachieve with a willingness tochallenge the approaches of others. Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved.5
1.6 Predicting Leadership ImpactIn addition to needing to ascertain what the best units of analysis are for measuringleadership effectiveness, we also need to identify how to measure these constructs.The measurement of leadership impact creates a particular challenge. As is outlinedabove, traditional workplace performance measures tend to take the form of stakeholderratings of behavioral effectiveness (e.g. 360 assessment) or use of so-called ’objective’measures. However, the Impact model is intended as a unit of analysis in betweenaggregated behavioral effectiveness measures and overall organizational measures. Anew measurement method was required.A new 360 rating format, using a 1-7 Likert Impact scale, was devised and trialed in aninternational validation study (for further details, please refer to the Validity section ofthis document). Analysis of this rating format demonstrated that asking stakeholdersto directly rate the impact of a leader in the nine Impact areas was an appropriate andeffective way to collect leadership impact data.However, in many leadership assessment scenarios, we do not have access to criteriondata in the form of 360 ratings. Often, we have only self-report data from the assessmenttaker. Therefore, the Leadership Impact Expert Report includes a prediction, based onself-report data, of the leader’s likely impact in the nine Impact areas. These predictionequations are primarily formed of the Wave styles dimensions underpinning the twoleadership styles which relate to each Impact area. These scales are weighted accordingto their conceptual and empirical importance and are combined with other Wave scalesto maximize the validity. The evidence used to refine these a priori predictions comesfrom the first validation study described in the Validity section of this document.In summary, the Leadership Impact Expert Report contains an Impact Prediction Profile,which is powered by self-report Wave data. More direct measurement of a leader’sImpact can be achieved through the Leadership Impact 360 Report.6 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved
2.0 ReportingFigure 1. Summary Leadership Styles ProfileSummary Leadership Styles ProfileThis profile provides a summary of Chris Park's Leadership Styles, with the 18 LeadershipStyles ectualExpert hange AgentCrisis HandlerStrategic OpportunistGrowth SeekerReport for Chris Park Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved.Comparison Group: Professionals & Managers (US, IA, 2017)7
Figure 2. Leadership Profile – Professional Service & Product DeliveryLeadership Profile - ProfessionalService & Product DeliveryAdministrator (4)Administrators focus on the quality of work while also maintaining activity levels.Meticulous1234567891012345678910Sten 4has little focus on making sure the detail is right (2); lessthorough than many people (4); ensures a reasonablyhigh level of quality (6)Activity OrientedSten 5works at a moderately fast pace (5); works well whenbusy (7); prefers to do one thing at a time (4)Coordinator (2)Coordinators organize and realize detailed plans.OrganizedSten 1lless well organized than most people (2); very muchdislikes having to make plans (2); less inclined toprioritize than most people (1)ReliableSten 3places less emphasis on meeting deadlines than manypeople (3); less punctual than many people (4); issometimes prepared to leave tasks unfinished (4)Service & Product Delivery - Reflections for DevelopmentEnsure that teams and groups within the organization are directly accountable for their work.Ensure the necessary effort and resources are invested when required and there is an expectationof high quality and deadlines being met.Is there a risk that services and products are being delivered too slowly, or that they're not of asufficient level of quality? Reviewing deliverables at the end of projects can provide usefulfeedback for future improvements.8Report for Chris ParkGenerated on: 4-Jan-2017Page 7 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reservedComparison Group: Professionals & Managers (US, IA, 2017) 2017 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
Figure 3. Leadership Impact Potential PredictionLeadership Impact Potential PredictionThis profile provides a summary of the likely potential of Chris Park to demonstrateLeadership Impact in the nine key Impact areas. It is based on Chris Park's responses to theStyles questionnaire.Impact AreaLeadership Impact PotentialService & Product DeliveryVery LowProfessionalmaintaining productive delivery of goodsand/or services; driving quality customerservice; delivering appropriate solutionshigher potential than about 5% ofthe comparison group2Managed Riskactively controlling risk; championingeffective corporate governance; ensuringcompliance with policies, procedures and legalrequirementsExtremely Lowhigher potential than about 1% ofthe comparison group1Expert ReputationHighbuilding organizational expertise; promotingtechnical excellence; enhancingorganizational reputationhigher potential than about 90%of the comparison group8Organizational CommitmentPeoplecreating a shared sense of purpose;enhancing employee motivation; buildingorganizational moraleFairly Lowhigher potential than about 25%of the comparison group4Successful TeamsAveragebuilding effective teams; attracting anddeveloping talent; utilising potentialhigher potential than about 40%of the comparison group5CommunicationAveragedelivering influential communication; buildingcross-functional/geographic communication;encouraging involvement and consultationhigher potential than about 60%of the comparison group6New Products/MarketsExtremely HighPioneeringidentifying market gaps or routes to market;cultivating innovation; generating impactfulsolutions10Organizational TransformationVery Highdelivering organizational transformation;building commitment to change; activelymanaging change processes9Organizational Growthhigher potential than about 95%of the comparison groupVery Highincreasing stakeholder value; establishingchallenging organizational goals; drivingorganizational successReport for Chris ParkGenerated on: 4-Jan-2017higher potential than about 99%of the comparison group9Page 16higher potential than about 95%of the comparison groupComparison Group: Professionals & Managers (INT, IA, 2017) 2017 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved.9
Figure 4. Situational Leadership ProfileSituational Leadership ProfileThe Situational Leadership Profile gives an indication of the workplace situations in whichChris Park is likely to be more or less effective as a leader. This profile shows the top andbottom ranked situations, based on responses to the Professional Styles Questionnaire.Chris Park is likely to be more effective as a leader where:there are opportunities to achieve better results by directly challenging existingpracticesnew thinking is essential and valuedthere is value in the leader promoting ways to improve thingsquick thinking and decisiveness under pressure are especially valuabletaking a longer-term view of potential opportunities is important for future successChris Park is likely to be less effective as a leader where:practical understanding is required to guide others and take a logical approachthere is a need for people with conflicting views to work well togetherthere is a real requirement to show empathy and a concern for othersstrong planning is critical to completing tasksrules, regulations and principles are essential for guiding behaviorReport for Chris ParkGenerated on: 4-Jan-201710Page 17 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reservedComparison Group: Professionals & Managers (INT, IA, 2017) 2017 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved.
3.0 ReliabilityThis section provides two different forms of reliability evidence for the LeadershipImpact model. Alternate form reliability is where two equivalent (parallel) versions of aquestionnaire are completed by the same sample of individuals. Test-retest reliability iswhere the same sample of individuals complete the same questionnaire twice, with atime delay between the two completions. In both types of analysis, the two sets of scoresare correlated and this provides a useful indication of the consistency of the measureof a questionnaire. A development aim of the Leadership Impact model was that theseforms of reliability should be as high as possible.3.1 Alternate Form ReliabilityTables 1 and 2 show alternate form reliability figures for the nine Leadership Impactareas and the 18 Leadership Styles. This is based on a sample of 1,153 participantswho completed both the invited access and the supervised access versions of WaveProfessional Styles. Leadership Impact scores were derived from these data using prespecified equations. The nine Leadership Impact areas demonstrate high alternate formreliabilities with coefficients ranging from .87 (Managed Risk) to .94 (Service & ProductDelivery; Organizational Transformation; Organizational Growth). The 18 LeadershipStyles also demonstrate high alternate form reliabilities with coefficients ranging from.83 (Technician; Expert Advisor) to .93 (Coordinator) and a median reliability coefficientof .89. Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved.11
Table 1: Alternate Form Reliability - Invited Access (IA) vs. Supervised Access (SA) - 9Leadership Impact area scales (N 1,153)LeadershipImpact ighestCorrelationOther ImpactAreaService & 47.94.50OrganizationalGrowthManaged anizationalTransformationExpert .51Managed 5.7113385.22.60.91.58CommunicationSuccessful 76106461.8812887.00.59.91.72Service & ProductDeliveryNew .49.94.76Service & 4717442.46109180.4017431.44.50.94.74Service & 80107136.7916448.20.49.94.75Managed RiskMean Median d Error of Measurement12 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved
Table 2: Alternate Form Reliability - Invited Access (IA) vs. Supervised Access (SA) - 18Leadership Styles scales (N torExpert ge Agent119.5817.84118.5918.26.67.89.52Crisis HandlerCrisis Handler108.0020.24107.0720.95.59.91.50Change .91.52InspirerGrowth rtunistMean average120.0818.48118.8518.60.67.89.49Median .93.62LeadershipStyle*Standard Error of Measurement Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved.13
3.2 Test-Retest ReliabilityTables 3 and 4 show test-retest reliability figures for the nine Leadership Impact areasand the 18 Leadership Styles. This is based on a sample of 100 participants whocompleted Wave Professional Styles twice with an average period of 18 months betweenthe two completions. Leadership Impact scores were derived from these data usingpre-specified equations. The nine Leadership Impact areas demonstrate high testretest reliabilities with coefficients ranging from .70 (Managed Risk) to .86 (Service &Product Delivery) and a median reliability of .83. The 18 Leadership Styles demonstrateacceptable test-retest reliabilities with coefficients ranging from .62 (Catalyst) to .85(Administrator) and a median reliability coefficient of .76.Table 3: Test-Retest Reliability of 9 Leadership Impact area scales (N 100)Leadership Impact AreaMeant1SDt1Meant2SDt2SEm(Sten)rtService & Product naged Risk123641.199506.62123100.389708.521.10.70Expert 15440.89.81.84Successful w 6108432.6018087.47.82.83Organizational Growth107354.1916917.93107425.7716780.33.78.85Mean ian 17685.66126736.4718087.471.10.86Note: There was an average of 18 months between the first and second assessments.14 Willis Towers Watson 2017. All rights reserved
Table 4: Test-Retest Reliability of 18 Leadership Styles (N tual119.0819.39118.2420.41.86.82Expert 2Innovator113.0021.07112.8622.201.00.75Change Agent117.9218.00119.3219.50.88.81Crisis Handler104.9021.45106.1921.45.95.77Strategic Opportunist107.8222.43107.5022.06.90.80Growth Seeker112.5518.23111.3018.531.02.74Mean average119.8818.58119.1219.11.96.77Median 06.1912.67.79.62Max1
1.5 The Leadership Impact Hierarchy - 3Ps, 9 Impact Areas, 18 Leadership Styles Derived from factor analysis and validation, as described in this document, the Impact model comprises nine primary Impact areas. They are clustered under the three higher order 3P factors, and their definitions are provided below.
Motive Wave. It is a five wave trend but unlike a five wave impulse trend, the Wave 4 overlaps with the Wave 1. Ending Diagonals are the last section ("ending") of a trend or counter trend. The most common is a Wave 5 Ending Diagonal. It is a higher time frame Wave 5 trend wave that reaches new extremes and the Wave 3:5 is beyond the .
Wave a and Wave c are constructed of five waves as Elliott originally proposed. As opposed to the five wave impulse move in Elliott’s original version that could form either a Wave 1, Wave 3, Wave 5, Wave A or Wave C the harmonic version can only f
So, the wave 1, wave 3 and wave 5 are parts of impulsive wave in upward direction. [6] Though Elliott waves follow many rules but three basic rules are followed by each wave to interpret Elliott wave. These guidelines are unbreakable. These rules are as follow: Rule 1: Wave 2 is not retracted more than 100% of wave 1.
So, the wave 1, wave 3 and wave 5 are parts of impulsive wave in upward direction. [2] Though Elliott waves follow many rules but three basic rules are followed by each wave to interpret Elliott wave. These guidelines are unbreakable. These rules are as follow: Rule 1: Wave 2 is not retracted more than 100% of wave 1.
Wave Speed Calculating wave speed – Wave moves one wavelength every period Wave speed depends on the substance – Called the “medium” of the wave – Wave speed is a constant in a specific medium So if the frequency of a wave increases. –.Wavelength must decrease! WaveSpeed wavelength period wavelength frequency v f
Ground-Wave Propagation Ground-wave propagation involves the transmission of a radio signal along or near the surface of the earth. The ground-wave signal is divided into three parts: the direct wave, the reflected wave, and the surface wave. The direct wave travels through the atmosphere from one
Elliott Wave has been enhancing my trading profits for years and my hope is that it will do the same for you. Enjoy this “Cheat Sheet” and enjoy counting waves! WAVE 1 Impulsive Wave - Wave 1 will begin after Wave 5 of the preceding trend ends. Wave 1 will usually b
There is 3 basic rules in 1930's (Old) version of Elliott Wave Principle which are listed below 1) Wave 2 always retraces less than 100% of wave 1. 2) Wave 3 cannot be the shortest of the three impulse waves, namely waves 1, 3 and 5. 3) Wave 4 does not overlap with the price territory of wave
