Identifying and developing effective leaders is at the core of what we do at Hogan Assessments. We recently conducted a global study that reveals a striking divide between the characteristics executives display and the qualities employees say define effective leadership.
On episode 150 of The Science of Personality, Hogan’s Managing Director of Asia Pacific Krista Pederson, PhD, and Senior Consultant of Asia Pacific Nicole Dickie, MS, discuss key findings of the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study and implications for leaders around the world.
Our report, The Leadership Divide, contains personality assessment data from more than 21,000 executives in Hogan’s global database and survey responses from nearly 10,000 full-time employees around the world. Let’s explore.
What Is the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study?
As the global authority on leadership and job performance, Hogan Assessments differentiates between effective leadership and emergent leadership. Effective leaders focus on supporting their teams to perform and compete; emergent leaders focus on getting into positions of leadership and reaching the top. “We challenge people to think about what actions a leader needs to do to become effective,” said Krista.
Generally, effective leaders excel at casting a vision, making good decisions, and showing integrity, competence, and humility. But instead of surveying only leaders, the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study focuses on the perspective of employees. How do workers from different global markets describe effective leaders? Are those the people that organizations tend to promote?
Theoretical Background and Methodology
Implicit leadership theory informed the background of our study. “Every person has an unconscious, personal idea of what makes a leader,” Nicole explained. “When you evaluate someone as a leader, you’re willing to follow them. Our goal was to use information about respondents’ perceptions of an ideal leader to help develop current and future leaders.”
We used Hogan's Job Evaluation Tool, or JET, to administer our survey. While a typical job analysis would survey subject-matter experts and incumbents about what success requires in a particular job (for example, accountant), this survey considered anyone who has ever had a boss to be a subject-matter expert on what success requires in an ideal leader. For each item, the survey presented a behavioral statement and asked respondents to rate the behavior on a five-point scale (very good to very bad) for an ideal leader. For instance, global respondents said that the ability to see things from the perspective of others was very good for ideal leader performance. Perspective-taking was the top endorsed behavior for ideal leaders around the world.
After collecting data on the leaders that people want, we compared their responses to the personality data of existing leaders. Our findings? We uncovered a concerningly large leadership divide.
The Leadership Divide: A Gap Between the Leaders We Have and the Leaders We Want
The leaders that organizations promote are not necessarily the leaders people want. Compare the five highest-ranking competencies of current global leaders with the competencies that global respondents want to see in their leaders.
The Leaders We Have
- Inspiring others
- Competing with others
- Presenting to others
- Taking initiative
- Driving innovation
These behaviors correspond closely to those of emergent leaders, or leaders who strive to attain positions of leadership.
The Leaders We Want
- Effective communication
- Effective decision-making
- Accountability
- Integrity
- Leadership ability (supporting team performance)
Respondents prioritized effective leadership characteristics, such as communicating to the team, making good decisions, and being willing to admit mistakes. “The leaders that we have are emergent leaders, and the leaders that people want are effective leaders,” Krista said.
What Employees Around the World Want from Their Leaders
The Global Leadership Effectiveness Study produced clear themes on how global employees view ideal leadership. First, they want their leaders to value teamwork and relationships. This relates to the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) scale Affiliation, which measures preferences for teamwork. Global executives score only moderately on Affiliation. However, their followers want them to foster a sense of belonging, help people work together as a team, and place importance on relationships in organizations.
Respondents also want people-first leadership. They positively described their ideal leaders as having energy and drive, being empathetic and caring about people, and being curious and strategic. These characteristics relate to higher scores on the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) scales Ambition, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Inquisitive. Global leaders do tend to have these characteristics. However, both high and low HPI scores have positive and negative behaviors associated with them. Someone who scores high on Interpersonal Sensitivity is likely to be tactful, empathic, and caring, but they may be reluctant to confront others. This can be an opportunity for development.
Finally, global workers emphatically do not want leaders who show Hogan Development Survey (HDS) behaviors associated with the scales Excitable, Cautious, Leisurely, and Bold. Excitable concerns emotional volatility, Cautious concerns fear of risk or failure, Leisurely concerns being outwardly agreeable but inwardly resentful, and Bold concerns entitlement and arrogance. Global leaders tend to have high HDS Bold scores, positioning themselves as the superheroes who will save their organizations. “The facet of Bold where leaders are entitled was really, really disliked by respondents,” Nicole said. Instead, employees desire humble leaders who admit their mistakes and listen to feedback.
Does Effective Leadership Look the Same Around the World?
Our data show that employees are overall consistent in what they want in a leader (see above). But there are intriguing differences in regional data, Nicole explained. High MVPI Science was more desirable in some regions than others. The demand for making data-based decisions was particularly strong in Latin America (Mexico, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia), Europe (Spain, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic, Greece), and Asia Pacific (Mainland China and India). Fifty percent or more of respondents in these countries said that high Science behaviors are good to very good for ideal leadership.
High HPI Prudence was more desirable in other regions. Respondents in these markets want leaders to organize work, adhere to rules, strive for quality, and initiate structure: Middle East (specifically United Arab Emirates), Asia Pacific (Vietnam and Greater China), Europe (France and Spain), and Latin America (Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, and Mexico).
Each country showed individualized and nuanced results. Indian leaders tend to have high Excitable, high Leisurely, high Bold, and moderate Cautious scores. Yet most respondents in India did not want Excitable, Leisurely, Bold, and Cautious behaviors in leaders—a significant misalignment. Conversely, respondents did not prioritize HPI Ambition in Japan, where harmony and group consensus are valued, and this is consistent with how Japanese leaders tend to score. However, in Denmark, where executives tend to have extremely high Ambition scores, respondents did not prioritize Ambition either. Danish respondents perhaps have less concern with competition and prefer cooperation and collaboration.
How to Use These Findings to Develop Better Leaders
“We hope the results of this report can inspire organizations to think about how leadership development programs can better support the needs of the followers,” Krista said. Most organizations assume that leaders know what their followers need from them. Instead, organizations can increase engagement by knowing what teams say they need and providing leadership development to close any gaps. “We should think beyond a leader who can drive profitability and think about leaders who can support the team members,” she added.
Executive coaches can increase developmental impact by focusing on top gaps and themes. Nicole called out MVPI Affiliation, MVPI Science, and HDS Bold. Leaders who prefer operating independently (Affiliation) should learn relationship-building techniques. Practical techniques include informal check-ins, team rituals, cross-team collaboration, and meetings without agendas to prioritize connection. Leaders who rely on intuition and experience to make decisions (Science) should make their reasoning clear to teams, test their assumptions, and use data as an input rather than an afterthought. Leaders who are confident and decisive (Bold) should be wary of overusing these strengths. “We see in the data from respondents that they don’t want to be steamrolled,” Nicole said. “They want their leaders to be open to feedback. They want their leaders to be humble.” She added that coaches equipped with regional data can tailor development goals to align with specific trends.
Overall, the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study shows that employees know what they need to be successful. They desire leaders who are emotionally intelligent and people oriented, driven for excellence and quality, thoughtful and structured, and confident and goal directed. “Let’s listen to employees and see if we can align to meet their expectations to better engage them,” Nicole said.
Listen to this conversation in full on episode 150 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts. Cheers, everybody!