Too often, companies and HR practitioners develop leadership competency models based on what worked in the past. But this may well be a recipe for disaster. By Lisa Cheong

All motorists know that it is nearly impossible (and dangerous!) to drive while only looking through the rear view mirror. In order to drive competently, motorists need to pay attention to what is happening in front of them and anticipate possible hazards and emergencies.

And yet, driving while using the rear view mirror is exactly what companies are doing when they attempt to establish leadership competency models based on previous successes, says Samuel M. Lam, president of Linkage Asia.

For instance, Lam says, during interviews with chief executive officers, they tend to describe their management style and how that has achieved success for the organisation. “The thing is, they are talking about one man’s experience at one organisation, at one point in time,” Lam warns. “And that is one slice of an experience that may not be able to be replicated.”

Instead, Lam says companies need to move away from leadership competency models that are based on past behaviours to one that includes “futuristic” competencies which will meet the challenges of the future as well.

Some of the good leadership competencies include:

• A cognitive component, or the ‘thinking part’. This component comprises of skills such as strategic thinking, scenario planning, the ability to deal with complexities and ambiguities, and the ability to reduce massive amounts of data to critical assets.

• An emotional component, or possessing emotional intelligence and interpersonal sensitivity.

• An executive component, whereby a leader possesses focus, drive, and execution skills.

Understanding behaviours, and more…

While it is one thing to understand what competencies leaders should possess, Lam says companies also need to understand the reasons why leaders might engage in behaviours that may derail his or her leadership effectiveness.

One example Lam cites is in the case of leaders who are seen as being unable to influence or impact the organisation. In cases like these, the common response would be to attribute the leader’s lack of communication skills as a reason for their low influential clout.

However, this may not be the case if one digs below the surface. Instead, Lam says the real reason may actually stem from the lack of trust the leader has among his colleagues in the organisation. “So no matter how slick your Powerpoint presentation is, how convincing you are, how clever you sound, if [employees] don’t trust you, you’re history,” he says. Furthermore, Lam says the lack of trust in a leader could also be due to small micro-messages the person sends out during work hours, such as showing more concern for one employee over the rest or having lunch with one person consistently.

Hence, by utilising a range of psychometric tools together with 360-degree feedback, these tools can provide leaders with a higher degree of self-awareness as to why they are behaving a certain way, as well as how their behaviours affect the organisation around them. “In a sense, leadership competencies describe the ‘whats’ of your behaviour. We need to get beneath that and figure out the ‘whys’ as well,” he says.

The role of HR

So where do HR practitioners come in when it comes to developing leadership competencies?

Lam says an HR practitioner’s primary role is to facilitate and help the leader understand the impact of his behaviour on the work environment and the people around him. One way HR can do this is by utilising data (such as employee engagement surveys) and understanding how the leader’s actions play a part in that. “Training is just one component,” Lam says. “But more so, HR needs to advise on how people are engaged, or not engaged, based on certain input factors of the [person].”

Secondly, HR needs to ensure that leadership development efforts are aligned with strategic HR components. And part of this involves thinking about the “futuristic” competencies mentioned earlier.