leadership requirements in the 21st century : the

Andrews University Andrews University

Digital Commons Andrews University Digital Commons Andrews University

Dissertations Graduate Research

2000

Leadership Requirements in the 21st Century the Perceptions of Leadership Requirements in the 21st Century the Perceptions of

Canadian Public Sector Leaders Canadian Public Sector Leaders

M Ruth Dantzer Andrews University

Follow this and additional works at httpsdigitalcommonsandrewsedudissertations

Part of the Leadership Studies Commons and the Public Administration Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Dantzer M Ruth Leadership Requirements in the 21st Century the Perceptions of Canadian Public Sector Leaders (2000) Dissertations 315 httpsdigitalcommonsandrewsedudissertations315

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons Andrews University It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons Andrews University For more information please contact repositoryandrewsedu

Thank you for your interest in the

Andrews University Digital Library

of Dissertations and Theses

Please honor the copyright of this document by

not duplicating or distributing additional copies

in any form without the authorrsquos express written

permission Thanks for your cooperation

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted Thus som e thesis arx) dissertation copies are in typewriter face while others may be from any type of computer printer

The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted Broken or indistinct print colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs print bleedthrough substandard margins and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages these will be noted Also if unauthorized copyright material had to t)e removed a note will indicate the deletion

Oversize materials (eg maps drawings charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy Higher quality 6rdquo x 9rdquo black arxJ vîte photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge Contact UMI directly to order

Bell amp Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor Ml 48106-1346 USA

800-521-0600

UMIReproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission

Andrews University

School o f Education

LEADERSHIP REQUIREM ENTS IN TH E 21= CENTURY THE PERCEPTIONS OF C AN ADIAN

PUBLIC SECTOR LEADERS

A Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfilment

o f the Requirements for the Degree

D octor o f Philosophy

by

M Ruth Dantzer

July 2000


UMI Number 9979881

Copyright 2000 by Dantzer M Ruth

All rights reserved

UMIUMI Microform9979881

Copyright 2000 by Bell amp Howell Information and Learning Company All rights reserved This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17 United States Code

Bell amp Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor Ml 48106-1346


Q Copyright by M Ruth Dantzer 2000 All R iahts Reserved


LEADERSHIP REQUIREM ENTS IN TH E 2 1 ^ CENTURY THE PERCEPTIONS OF C A N A D IA N


A dissertation presented in partial fulfillm ent

o f the requirements for the degree D octor o f Philosophy

by

M argaret Ruth Dantzer

APPROVAL BY THE CO M M ITTEE

Chair Shirley A Freed

embenXIames A Tucker

MembecrlCaren R Graham

E x a m in ^ Jacquelyn WarwickX L

o f Education aham PhD

Date A pproved


ABSTRACT

LE ADERSHIP REQUIREMENTS IN THE 2 1 ^ CENTURY THE PERCEPTIONS OF CANADIAN


by

M Ruth Dantzer

Chair Shirlev Freed


ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STLTDENT RESEARCH

Dissertation

Andrews University


Title LEADERSHIP REQLTREM ENTS IN THE 21 CENTLTIY THE PERCEPTIONS OF CANADIAN PUBLIC SECTOR LEADERS

Name o f researcher M Ruth D antzer

Name and degree o f faculty chair Shirley Freed PhD

Date completed July 2000

Problem

Since 1995 with the realization that by 2005 m ore than 61 o f executives in

the senior ranks o f the Canadian Public Service would be eligible for retirement (La

Releve 1998) the need to recruit and develop competent leaders has become a m atter o f

urgent attention

M ethod

Public sector leaders w ere surveyed by mail-in questionnaires as to their

ratings o f a set o f leadership competencies Analogue research for private sector leaders

conducted by a colleague was incorporated for some analysis A stratified sample o f the


general public was also surveyed by telephone regarding a subset o f the same

competencies

Results

Public sector leaders perceived a shift in im portance for the following

competencies cosm opolitanworld view vision team w ork ability to learn teaching

skills negotiation interpersonal skills ethics entrepreneurial skills problem solving

initiative and stamina from 20 years ago to the 21 century however they rated

businesstechnical and organizational as decreasing in importance

Public sector leaders identified globalization technology diversity and

downsizing as important influences on the required leadership competencies for the

21 century

Public sector leaders rated problem solving ability to learn initiative

teaching ethics and organizational skills lower than the general population Public

sector leaders rated cosmopolitanworld view as m ore im portant than did the general

population

When public and private sector leadersrsquo data w ere combined public sector

leaders rated significantly larger shifts in importance for vision entrepreneurial skills and

negotiating

Public and private sector leaders ranked the top five competencies o f vision

communication team work cosmopolitanworld view and ability to learn similarly The

general public identified the ability to learn as the top-ranked competency


Conclusions

The results o f this study inform leadership training and development

opportunities for current public sector managers as they plan for the future This study

suggests that public sector leaders perceive significant changes are needed in future

leadership competencies

In considering the top five ranked future leadership competencies for the

public sector leaders vision communication teamwork cosmopolitanworld view and

ability to learn a compelling story can be told about future leadership and the emphasis

on future and relational clusters o f competencies for leaders


DEDICATION

This work is dedicated with love to my parents Vince and Mary

leaders who taught me all about leadership through their example

Ill


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES i i

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N TS ix

Chapter

I THE P R O B L E M 1

Background o f the Problem 1Statement o f the P ro b le m 5The Canadian Context 6Purpose o f the Study IIResearch Questions 13Collaborative Study 14M ethodology 15LimitationsDelimitations 16

Limitations 16D elim itations 17

Definitions 17Contribution o f the Research 22FundingSponsors23

II LITERATLRE R E V IE W 24

In tro d u c tio n 24Leadership M o d e ls 25

Traitist T h e o r ie s 27Behavioral Theories 28Situational Theories 31C o m p e ten c ie s 32

21 Century F o rc e s 36G lobalization36T echno logy 38D ow nsiz ing 40D iv e rs ity 42

IV


Preparing for the Future Survey o f Leadersrsquo Perspectiveo f C o m p e ten c y 46Introduction 46Spencer and Spencer A General M o d e l 47Duncan and Harlacher Competencies for an

Educational S e t t in g 48Donnelly and Kezbom Competencies for Project Leaders 50W atson Wyatt Global C o m p e ten c ies 51Diaz Competencies for Human Resources Specialists52

III M E T H O D O L O G Y 54

In tro d u c tio n 54M ethodology 56

Phase 1 Identifying the M ethodology and the Survey Pool 56Quantitative Survey 57

Public Sector Leaders Population 57General Public Sample P o p u la tio n 58

Telephone S u rv e y 62Private Sector Leaders P o p u la tio n 62

Phase 2 Developing the Survey Instrument andReviewing Competencies 64Survey In strum en t 64

Mail-in ldquoPublic Sector Survey rsquo 64Reviewing and Identifying the C om petencies 66

Phase 3 Administering the S u rv ey 67Mail-in Leaders S u rv e y 67Telephone Survey o f a Random Sample o f the

General Population 67Phase 4 Analysing the R esu lts 68

Public Sector Leaders Analysis 68External Drivers Analysis 69Comparison o f Results Between the Public Sector

Leadersrsquo Survey and the General P u b lic 70Comparison o f Results Between the Public Sector

and the Private Sector Leadersrsquo S u rv e y 71Ranking Within G ro u p s 71Ranking Between G roups 72


i- Risi [ r s 73

Inirodiiction 73Shifi 20 Years Ago to 2 P lsquo Cenlurgt-74External Driver Influence on Competency R equirem ents 76Leader and General Population Perspectives 78Combined Data Public and Private Sector Leaders and

General Population D ifferences81Degree o f S h i f t 82Ranking o f Competencies Within G r o u p s 82

Public Secinr Leaders 84Priate Sector L e a d e rs 84General Population84

Ranking ot L ompetencies Between Groups 87Summarx- of R esu lts 87

V SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS91

Siimmarv 91Finding 1 92binding 2 92binding 3 93binding 4 93

C o n c lu s io n s 93Future C o m p e ten c ie s 96Relational C om petenc ies 99Intellectual Competencies 100Personal Competencies 101Managerial Competencies 102Leadership D evelopm ent 102

Recommendations 103

ppeniii

1 LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES FOR ADMS AND SENIOREXECUTIVES CORRESPONDENCE WITH OTHER O R G A N IZ A T IO N S 104

2 LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES FOR ADMS AND SENIORE X E C U T IV E S106

EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR PROFILES 112

-t O U E S T IO N N A IR E 119

SELECTED BIBLIOGRYPHY 132

VI


LIST OF TABLES

1 Comparison o f Com petency Profile 49

2 Sample Size and Selection Criteria for the Public Sector L e a d e rs 59

3 Response Rate for the 1999 Survey Among the Various Sectors in thePublic Sector Target P o p u la tio n 59

4 Response History o f the Rethinking Governm ent National Survey forthe Public Sector Target S a m p le 60

5 Gender Distribution o f Public Sector L e a d e rs 60

6 Age Distribution o f Public Sector Leaders (=227) 61

7 Educational Achievement o f Public Sector Leaders ( = 2 2 7 ) 61

8 Gender o f General Population Telephone Survey (= 1503) 63

9 Age Breakdown o f the General Population Sample (= 1 4 9 9 ) 63

10 Sample Stratified by Region (= 1503) 65

11 Response by Number o f Employees (=121) 65

12 Response History o f the Rethinking G overnm ent National Suivey 66

13 Means and Standard Deviations o f the Ratings by Public Sector Leaderso f Leadership Competency Requirements 20 Years Ago andin the 2 r lsquo Century 75

14 Significance o f Shift Degrees o f Freedom t Values and Probabilitieso f the Ratings by Public Sector Leaders o f Past and Future Leadership Com petency R eq u irem en ts 77

VII


Means Standard Deviations and Percentages o f the Ratings byPublic Sector Leaders o f the Influence o f External Driverson Leadership Competency Requirements for the 2D Centurv78

1 (( Means and Standard Deviations o f the Ratings by Public Sector Leadersand the General Population o f Leadership Competency Requirements for the 2D C e n tu r y 80

1 Mean Differences and Standard Deviations o f the Shift in Ratings byPublic Sector Leaders and Private Sector Leaders o f Leadership Competency Requirements 83

I X Public Sector Leadersrsquo Ranking o f Leadership Competency Requirementsh Mean Ratings With Standard Deviations and Confidence Intervals 85

I P Pri ate Sector Leadersrsquo Ranking o f Leadership Competency Requirementsby Mean Ratings With Standard Deviations and Confidence Intervals 86

20 General Population Ranking o f Leadership Competency Requirements byMean Ratings With Standard Deviations and Confidence Intervals 88

- Ranking o f I cadership Lrsquoompetenc) R equirem ents 89

22 Leadership C ompetencies Grouped in C lu s te r s 95

V l l l


ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS

Completing this research would not have been possible without the direct intervention o f a community o f friends and associates throughout the development implementation and completion of this document Along with thanking the dissertation committee for their time and input 1 would like to gratefully acknowledge the following

Shirlev Freed my advisor dissertation committee chair and fellow Canadian whose invaluable perspective and practical suggestions ensured that this project came to fruition mdash even from a distance of 1200 kilometres

Sarny Watson the better half o f my learning group and dearest friend who first suggested that we should embark on this learning journey and whose constant encouragement and belief that we could finish made it a reality 1 have been blessed to find in Samy a mentor a champion and above all else a kindred spirit in whom 1 tmst

1 he Canadian Centre for Management Development and its President Jocelyne Bourgon u ho supported this research from its inception As a leader Jocelynes vision for the renewal o f the Public Service of Canada was instrumental in defining this research

Jennifer Miles who was a constant reminder o f how selfless academics are with their time whose competencies go well beyond the statistics and leadership models she coached me through and Alex Himelfarb who was always willing to contribute his insightful perspectives

Lena Tobin who patiently devoted countless hours o f her own time single-handedly ensuring that ev ery page o f this document met the rigorous standards set by the university and whose heroic effort and constant attention to managing my time enabled me to survive trying to complete a research project at the same time as working full time

Linda St Amour for her constant words o f encouragement and for being there when Samy was not and for my staff who never missed a chance to help me out

EKOS Research Associates Inc especially Frank Graves who from the outset supported this project and his s taff Christian Boucher and Manon Desgroseilliers whose patience never seemed to run out

1 inallv a long list o f individuals who gave o f their time either debating with me on a particular aspect o f the work reading an initial draft or providing abundant hospitality in the form o f dinners and conversation after a long day Each o f them contributed to my learning

ix


CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Background of the Problem

In considering leadership into the 2T century there is increasing

acknowledgment that the traditional concept o f leadership and the competencies which

leaders will require to be effective will be different from what they are today (Abramson

1996 Byham 1999 Dess amp Picken 2000 Diaz 1999 Donnelly amp Kezbom 1994

Hennessey amp Thomas 1998 Jacobs amp Rao 1995 Kotter 1990 1996 Nadler amp

Tushman 1999 Nanus 1992 Rifkin 1995) Many authors business writers and

students o f leadership point to the increasingly complex nature o f the issues and

environment with which leaders o f the future will have to contend to be effective

(Applegate amp Elam 1992 Arredondo 1996 Brooks 1995 Farazmand 1999 Gannon

2000 Grosser 1995 Jackson amp Associates 1992 Jamieson amp O M ara 1991 Koffler

1998 Lorine 1991 Ostroff 1995 Peters 1997)

Leadership in the 21 century will be influenced by external drivers such as

globalization (Farazmand 1999 Pettigrew 1999) technology (Brown amp Brudney 1998

Rifkin 1995) do wnsizing (Abbasi amp Hollman 1998 Bartosh 1995) and diversity

(Arredondo 1996 Jamieson amp O M ara 1991 Jackson amp Associates 1992)


Organizations need a sense o f how these external drivers will change the requirements for

leadership This knowledge will enable organizations to design developmental program s

that will enhance the skill sets that are relevant for future leadership Without a sense o f

how these external drivers are affecting the requirements for leadership competencies

there is the potential for organizations to develop training program s that promote skill

sets in their leadership cadre which are best suited to another era and not relevant for the

future environment (Diaz 1999 Sherman 1997 W atson W yatt 1998)

The increasingly complex nature o f the issues both in the public and private

sector may be traced to the external drivers specifically globalization technology

diversity and downsizing which have had an immense effect on management in the

recent past and will continue to influence management and leadership into the 21rdquo century

(Diaz 1999) Therefore conceptually it will be important to understand the perceived

impact o f the individual external drivers as well as their combined influence

The effects o f globalization are widely recognized by many leading authors

(Farazmand 1999 Kotter 1998b Porter 1998 Reich 1992 Senge 1997a Shoch

2000) In general the notion o f globalization refers to the conceptual breaking down o f

traditional barriers with the attendant increase in access to transnational ideas and models

Pettigrew (1999) notes that globalization truly became a reality in the mid-1980s when

the major stock exchanges in the world became linked and it becam e possible to trade

stocks and bonds around the clock With globalization com es the threat o f more hazards

and more opportunities (K otter 1998b) One such hazard w as the economic impact o f

the so-called Asian flu in which one countryrsquos economic crisis was felt around the world


3

A second external driver which is likely to influence the job o f leadership into

the 21 St century is technology specifically the increased access to information both in

terms o f quantity but as importantly in terms o f decreased costs to access (Attwell amp

Rule 1984 Celeste 1996 Koffler 1998 Rifkin 1995 Twiss 1992) While access to

increased technology is not a new factor in leadership the speed at which technology is

evolving to provide more access and development opportunities is unparalleled (Rifkin

1995)

The 1980s trend toward downsizing was initially a cost-saving measure but

increasingly became an opportunity to enhance partnership and cooperative models with a

clear goal o f improving efficiency (Abbasi amp Hollman 1998 Bartosh 1995 M cGoon

1994 Noer 1993) As an external driver downsizing in many companies had the effect

o f accelerating the demand for different leadership skills (Lorine 1991)

Finally authors have reported on the growing need for diversity including age

gender and cultural perspectives as an external driver which will affect the way in which

leadership is viewed (Jackson et al 1991 Jackson amp Associates 1992 Johnston amp

Packer 1987 Thomas 1990) According to Bennis (1998) the world in which an

individual leader however gifted however tireless can save the enterprise single-

handedly no longer exists

It is difficult to isolate the effects o f the individual external drivers on

leadership Instead it may be more appropriate to think o f globalization as being made

possible because o f the increased access to technology or the fact that downsizing acted

as a catalyst for increased acceptance o f technological advances It is the interaction


between the external drivers and the manner in which they move together the synergy

that is created and the speed at which the change is occurring which will mark the

2 r lsquo century

While none o f these individual themes is new taken together globalization

technology diversity and downsizing will have a dramatic impact on the leadership

competencies required for future leaders As recently as August 1999 the Organization

for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD) stated

Many observers have written about the likely shape o f organizations in the future and how they will be flatter or less layered than is now the norm This delayering o f public sector organizations will create the need for m ore leadership skills throughout the organization The rapid advance o f the Internet and electronic com m erce will only accelerate this trend as they break down the barriers to inform ation flow between and within governments Consequently leadership developm ent will have to become a priority o f public sector senior executives It can no longer be an optional activity o f top executives In both the public and private sectors there is widespread recognition that leadership is a key ingredient in the recipe for creating effective responsive and value creating organizations (p 97)

The OECD also said Cultural and linguistic diversity is important in the developm ent of

global electronic commerce (p 97) In addition to the OECD other authors have noted

the importance o f these trends and the view that given these trends leadership in the

future will require additional competencies such as collaboration team building

visioning and entrepreneurship (Bennis 1998 Kotter 1998b Nanus 1992 Peters 1997

Renesch 1992 Schrage 1995 Senge 1997b Sexton 1994 Wall amp Wall 1995

Zoglio 1993) While the perceptions o f academics and business writers inform theories

regarding leadership competencies a more direct source o f information may be the

perception o f actual leaders Because leaders actually experience the impact o f the


5

external drivers on their organizations they could be in the best position to define their

vision and goals for the future and the process required to achieve them

It is important to understand how these forces are shaping leadership in both

the public and private sectors in order to ensure that the selection and development o f

leaders is consistent with the competencies that organizations will demand to remain

competitive in the coming decades (Diaz 1999 Hesselbein Goldsmith Beckhard amp

Schubert 1998 and Renesch 1992) Edward Lawler o f the leadership program at the

University o f Southern Californias business school captures this issue noting that ldquoIBM

invested the most money o f any organization in developing executive talent but they

taught people about a world that doesn t exist any more They shrank their gene pool

down to people who were very good at managing for the 1970s-so when the 1990s

arrived IBM had lots o f people who w ere very good at the w rong time (cited in

Sherman 1997 p 90) Unlike IBM in the 1970s leaders are seeking to understand the

external pressures as they shape the w ork o f their organizations (Farazmand 1999 Hamel

amp Prahalad 1994 Jacobs amp Rao 1995)

Statement of the Problem

In a rapidly changing environment requirements for leadership also change

rapidly Yet how are the new requirements discovered articulated and developed An

important factor for accurate prediction is not only knowing which external drivers will

affect an organization but understanding how requirements change over time This

requires historical information WTtat were the requirements in the past and how have


6

they changed over time Is it possible to track changes to discover emerging

requirements for leaders

The com petency literature includes many studies o f current leadership

competencies as well as both the hypotheses o f researchers and surveys o f leaders

inquiring about their views on future leadership com petencies (Coates amp Jarratt 1992

Corporate Leadership Council 1999 Dess amp Picken 2000 Diaz 1999 Dror 1997

Duncan amp Harlacher 1991 Kotter 1990 1996 Kouzes amp Posner 1995 M cLagan 1997

Miles 1999 Quinn 1990 Sandwith 1993 Scholtes 1999 Slivinski amp Miles 1997a

Walsh-Minor 1997) H ow ever the literature is lacking any surveys o f leaders inquiring

about their perceptions about how leadership competencies will shift from the present to

the future These perceptions are important as they will play a key role in determining

organizationsrsquo recruitment and selection criteria and their training and development

efforts In turn these human resource processes will be influential for future

organizational performance

The Canadian Context

Since 1995 w ith the realization that by 2005 more than 61 o f executives in


Releve 1998) the need to recruit and develop com petent leaders has become a m atter o f

urgent attention It is im portant to note that in Canada the federal public service is a

professional cadre which is prom oted on the basis o f merit through competitive

processes These professionals do not change with the election o f new political leaders


7

As a professional non-partisan public service the Canadian Public Service is expected to

provide unbiased advice to the government on all matters related to the priorities o f the

government The executive ranks o f Canadian Public Service are structured as follows

1 The Clerk o f the Privy Council is the head o f the Public Service The

Clerk is appointed by the Prime Minister o f Canada by an Order in Council

2 D eputy Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister by Orders in

Council There are two levels o f Deputy Ministers including an Associate Deputy

Minister and a Deputy Minister (who normally is a deputy head in that he or she is in

charge o f a government department such as Finance Industry or Agriculture) While all

departments have a deputy head not all departments have an Associate Deputy Minister

The decision as to which department is allocated an Associate Deputy M inister is the

Prime M inisters on the advice o f the Clerk o f the Privy Council in hisher capacity as

head o f the Public Service In the Canadian system by tradition this rank is permanent

regardless o f which political party is governing

3 Assistant Deputy Minister is the top non-appointed rank o f the federal

public service In the Canadian system this rank is permanent regardless o f which

political party is governing It is the top executive category within the public service

In 1998 in acknowledging the urgent need to develop and train leaders to

meet the expected leadership shortage the Clerk o f the Privy Council as head o f the

Canadian Public Service expressed the vision for public sector leadership (Bourgon

1998) which spoke to a renewed leadership cadre The Public Service Commission (the

agency legislatively responsible for recruitment and promotion based on merit for the


8

federal public service) through a process o f research and validation identified

competencies to be used as the basis for selection to the senior executive ranks o f the

federal public service (Treasury Board o f Canada Secretariat amp the Public Service

Commission 1999)

This research was undertaken under the auspices o f the Canadian Centre for

M anagement Development as the entity responsible in Canada for the training o f

managers at all levels o f the Canadian federal public service It is expected that this

research will inform the debate regarding the training required to prepare the federal

public service for the future Because o f increased partnership and co-operation between

the public and private sector this research also examined the perception o f private sector

organizations In this regard human resource management models are becoming

increasingly similar for both the public and private sector as may be evidenced by

common employment equity and diversity considerations

In examining the perceptions o f current Canadian leaders with respect to the

required competencies for leaders in the future the researcher initially examined how an

understanding o f leadership has evolved from a static trait-based approach (Stogdill

1974) to a more fluid competency model (Boyatzis 1982 McClelland 1973 Spencer amp

Spencer 1993)

The 15 leadership competencies which were used for this research are taken

from various sources The Canadian federal public service has developed a leadership

com petency profile comprised o f 14 competencies (Public Service Commission 1997)

In order to keep the number o f competencies to a reasonable number researchers


9

consulted with the developers o f the Leadership competency profile to determine which if

any o f the competencies could be removed The developers suggested that personality

and self-confidence could be removed from the list because ( 1 ) they are reflected to some

degree in several o f the o ther competencies and (2) they are considered to be personal

internal characteristics that relate more to an individualrsquos ease in a leadership role as

opposed to com petencies that would be assessed or developed in any formal corporate

program In total 12 o f the 15 leadership competencies rated in the current study were

taken from the Canadian public service profile Businesstechnical knowledge was added

to be reflective o f the private sector (Diaz 1999 Donnelly amp Kezbom 1994) and because

o f feedback by scientific groups within the federal public service that the existing generic

competencies did not measure specific areas o f knowledge Teaching was added to be

reflective o f the literature in which authors are citing the need to develop learning

organizations (Senge 1990b 1994 1997b Smith 1997Tichy 1997) with coaching and

mentoring values and competencies (Hargreaves amp Fullan 2000 Keys 1994 Morris amp

Tarpley 2000) Finally cosm opolitanworld view came from the business literature

(Gannon 2000 Larson amp Mingie 1992 Piturro 1999) which indicates the need for

leaders to have a global aw areness to be able to succeed in a globalized economy

The researcher did verify that the Canadian public servicersquos 14 leadership

competencies w ere basically consistent with other organizations both public and private

(Appendix I) The set o f competencies used for this research w as compared to those

identified by the United Kingdom and the American federal public service New Zealand

and Australia and found to be generally consistent In addition similarities in leadership


10

requirements were identified for large private sector companies such as the Scotia Bank

o f Canada Sun Life Insurance General M otors and Canadian National (Miles 1999)

Recognizing that leadership requirements constantly change as a result o f

environmental drivers the researcher sought to understand the current environmental

drivers that are impacting the way that current leaders may be considering future

leadership competencies The literature review provides for a synopsis o f the academic

perspective on the effects o f globalization technology downsizing and diversity I f a

case can be made that the environmental drivers are significant one could expect that the

leadership competencies required to operate effectively in this new environment should

also evolve Current leaders both in the public and the private sector who are closest to

these environmental changes may be best positioned to predict how the environment will

modify the required leadership competencies into the 21ldquo century

Leadership competencies which are important in today s context are reported

in Diazs Venezuela study (Diaz 1999) and in the W atson Wyatt Executive Report

(W atson Wyatt 1998) The Leadership Competencies Profile for Assistant Deputy

Ministers and Senior Executives identifies current requirements for the Canadian Public

Service (Appendix 2) This study focused on leaders perceptions o f past and future

leadership competencies rather than perceptions o f the competencies required for the

present This allowed the researcher to understand how current external drivers are

affecting the design and application o f future leadership competencies Leaders

experience o f current external drivers allows them to make predictions o f w hat future

competencies will be and how best to design development courses to develop these

skills


Il

Purpose o f the Study

Surveys to identify competencies have been done in particular sectors (eg

Diaz 1999 Donnelly amp Kezbom 1994 Duncan amp Harlacher 1991) Surveys to identify

skills and competencies for specific job functions are undertaken by firms such as

Hay McBer KPMG and Saville and Holdsworth To date no survey has been

undertaken that would attempt to determine if current Canadian leaders have a consensus

o f views with respect to the shift in leadership competencies required to be effective in

the 21rdquo centurv By examining the perception o f current leaders who are most apt to

have experienced the effects o f external drivers on how they lead it may be possible to

predict future shifts in the required leadership competencies for the 21 rdquo century This

information while based on perceptions will provide the baseline data important for

charting the direction for the leadership training required to ensure effectiveness in the

coming years

In addition this study explored the similarities or the differences between the

perceptions o f leaders and the perceptions o f the general public with respect to the

required leadership competencies for the future This issue is significant By comparing

the perceptions o f the required leadership competencies for the 21rdquo century from both the

organizational and the individual perspective it may be possible to determine whether the

perceptions o f leaders were a function o f their organizational perspective or the general

impact o f the external drivers O f interest to the researcher is w hether the external drivers

have affected the perceptions o f individuals outside the leadership cadre Has the

acknowledgment o f the required skills for leaders into the future m oved beyond the


12

organizational perspective that current leaders would be expected to have to an individual

recognition as denoted by the general public proxy The research focuses on the future

perceptions because the planning and development o f appropriate leadership training will

be future orientated The perceptions o f the general public w ith respect to the future

leadership competencies is o f interest as a practical m atter to the extent that in both the

public and the private sector the support o f the general public either as taxpayers o r as

shareholders is necessary to invest in training and development expenditures Thus to

the extent that there is a shared understanding o f the training challenge there is a greater

chance that development program s will proceed

Finally this study evaluates the differences in the perceptions o f public sector

and private sector leaders with respect to the required leadership competencies for the

21 century Recognizing that the tw o sectors have traditionally had differing strategic

objectives andor organizational values it examines w hether these sectors differ

fundamentally with respect to the general direction that leadership competencies must

move As partnerships and strategic alliances between the various levels o f the public

sector (Canadian Provincial Federal Councils) between public and private sector (eg

Interchange Canada Program) and between international governm ents and companies

(United Nations World Bank O rganization for Economic C o-operation and

Development) become more commonplace the need to explore the differences with

respect to perceptions o f future leadership competencies becom es critical


13

Research Questions

This research project responds to the following four research questions

Question I Has there been a shift in public sector leadersrsquo perception as to

the leadership competencies required in the past as compared to the leadership

com petencies required for the 21 century

It was hypothesized that the ratings o f leadership com petencies required will

differ from the past as com pared to the future

The analysis for this research question was based on an assessment o f the

difference in perception that leaders express with respect to past and future leadership

competencies The following tw o questions guided the data analysis regarding this

hypothesis

Question la W hat are the perceptions o f current Canadian public sector

leaders as to the required leadership competencies for leaders 20 years ago

Question Ib W hat are the perceptions o f current Canadian public sector

leaders as to the required leadership competencies for leaders in the 21 centuryrsquo

Qttesiion 2 If there is a shift in perceptions are the external environmental

drivers-globalization technology downsizing and diversity-related to that shift

It was hypothesized that leaders will rate the external drivers as influencing

leadership competency requirements

Question 3 Is there a divergence or convergence o f views between leaders in

the public sector and the general public as to the required leadership competencies in the

21 century


14

It was hypothesized that leaders ratings o f leadership competencies required

for the 21ldquo century will differ when compared to the general publics ratings o f leadership

competencies required for the 21ldquo century

In addition consensus between groups was tested to determine

Question 4a Is there a consensus o f views between leaders in the public

sector and those i the private sector as to the size o f the shift between 20 years ago and

in the 21ldquo century

It was hypothesized that the public sectors size o f shift between past and

present required leadership competencies will differ from that o f the private sectors

Question 4b Is there a consensus o f views between public and private sector

leaders and the general population on which if any o f the leadership competencies are

the most important

It was hypothesized that each group will perceive some leadership

competencies as more important than others

It was hypothesized that leaders in both sectors will differ from the general

population

Collaborative Study

This paper forms part o f a collaborative research project focusing on the shift

in perceptions o f public sector leaders tow ard the required leadership competencies for

the 21ldquo century At the same time a colleague (W atson 2000) is researching the shift in

perceptions o f private sector leaders tow ard the required leadership competencies for the


15

21 century In addition to analyzing the shift in perceptions in their respective target

populations each research project then compares its target population results w ith the

perceptions o f a sample o f the general population After fully exploring the results o f

their respective populations the researchers combined their results and therefore a third

area o f research was added to each respective research project that o f comparing the

research associated with the public sector population with the private sector population

It must be noted that in chapter 4 where the two researchers combine their

individual data for the purpose o f comparison between the public sector and the private

sector (research question 3) the analysis is reported in both theses

Methodology

To facilitate the management o f the research this study was delineated into

four phases

1 Identifying the methodology and the survey pools (public sector leaders

general public)

2 Developing the survey instrument and identifying the competencies

3 Administering the survey to the specific populations

4 Analyzing the results

a Public sector (defined as the public sector leadersrsquo survey)

b Comparing the results obtained from the public sector leaders

survey with results obtained from the general public population identifying

any similarities and reviewing any differences


16

c Comparison o f public sector leaders results with results from

the private sector leadersrsquo survey and general public survey results

The four phases o f the research are explained and detailed in chapter 3 o f this

research

LimitationsDelimitations

Limitations

This research was limited by the following conditions

1 The normal risk associated with mailed survey questionnaires which

includes heavy demand on the respondents time dropout rate o f the participants and

the validity o f the responses

2 The sample for the public sector leadersrsquo population was no t stratified by

age o r by gender

3 The sample for the private sector leadersrsquo population was not stratified by

age o r by gender

4 Data collection methodology differed for groups the leader responses

were collected by mail-in survey whereas the general population responses were

collected through telephone survey

5 W ith respect to the telephone survey inter rater reliability o f the surveyors

evaluated was not adjusted

6 The data used for this research is based on indhidualsrsquo perceptions o f

future requirements


17

Delimitations

The research was delimited by the following conditions

1 Data were gathered from July 1999 to N ovem ber 1999

2 The telephone survey used for the sample o f the general population could

accommodate 11 leadership competencies

3 The mail survey was limited to senior executives In the public sector this

included only those executives above the Assistant Deputy Minister level at both the

federal and provincial level mayors and senior administers at the municipal level and

elected officials at the federal and provincial levels

4 The mail survey was limited to senior executives In the private sector this

included C hief Executive Officers

5 The descriptions for the leadership com petencies are largely taken from the

descriptions used by the Canadian Public Service Commission (specifically for 12 o f the

15 competencies used in the survey)

6 The terms globalization technology diversity and downsizing were not

operationally defined for the purpose o f the survey therefore leaders could interpret the

terms in their ow n context

Definitions

For the purpose o f this research the following operational definitions were

employed


18

Elxtenuil Driver Denotes one o f the four external environmental forces which

are said to be characterizing the 21 ldquo century including globalization technology

downsizing and diversity

Leadership Competencies Twelve o f the 15 leadership competencies

assessed in this research w ere taken directly from the com petencies developed by the

Canadian Federal Public Service (Public Service Commission 1997) and are paraphrased

as follows

Ability to Learn (Behavioral Flexibility) People with the ability to adjust

behavior to the demands o f a changing work environment in order to remain productive

through periods o f transition ambiguity or uncertainty They adapt the expression o f

their competencies to different situations and respond quickly to emerging opportunities

and risks They work effectively with a broad range o f situations people and groups

This competency enables ADM s to adapt to the characteristics o f particular situations to

acquire new and more effective behaviors and to discard others as contexts and roles

change It allows them to leam from the behavioral styles o f others to expand their own

repertoire The essence o f this competency is the ability to continuously develop new

ways o f interacting that are more effective in certain situations in order to accomplish

onersquos objectives (Public Service Commission 1997)

Business Technical Knowledge Added to be reflective o f the private sector

(Diaz 1999 Donnelly amp Kezbom 1994)

Communications Skills People who communicate in a compelling and

articulate manner that instills commitment They adapt communication to ensure that


19

different audiences understand key messages They use a variety o f communications

vehicles to foster open communication within their own organization and across the

Public Service They appreciate the importance o f being a good listener provide

opportunities for others to have input listen for underlying nuances and messages and

convey an understanding o f key points being communicated (Public Service Commission

1997)

Cosmopolitan W orld View From the business literature (Gannon 2000

Larson amp Mingie 1992 Piturro 1999) which indicates the need for leaders to have a

global awareness to be able to succeed in a globalized economy

Entrepreneurial (Creativity) People who respond to challenges with

innovative solutions and policies They dem onstrate a willingness to question

conventional means o f serving the public They use intuition non-linear thinking fresh

perspectives and information from non-traditional fields to generate new and imaginative

ways to succeed They will often address several objectives simultaneously solving

multiple problems at once To prepare for future challenges they enhance their creativity

by continuous learning They build a continuous learning environment in their

organizations by supporting a culture where the cutting edge is highly valued (Public

Service Commission 1997)

Ethics People with ethics treat people fairly and with dignity and are willing

to admit their mistakes even in the face o f adverse consequences They honor their

commitments and consistently strive to act in the public interest by ensuring that the

public trust is not violated Their principles act as an internal compass to guide their


20

behavior allowing them to consistently uphold the personal social and ethical norms of

the Public Service They protect fairness avoid conflicts o f interest and maintain

political and interpersonal neutrality They pursue proper goals and are resilient in the

face o f distracting external pressures They are known for doing the right thing for the

right reasons and ensure that their actions are aligned with their principles (Public Service

Commission 1997)

Initiative (Action Management) People with the abilitgt to anticipate the

short- and long-term consequences o f their strategies They have courage to propose

courses o f action that others may hesitate to suggest They have the ability to make things

happen and get things done and are known for their ability to accomplish objectives

(Public Service Commission 1997)

Interpersonal People who interact effectively with public and private sector

individuals superiors peers and subordinates in order to advance the w ork o f the Public

Service Their interactions are based on respect and an appreciation that people with

varying backgrounds and viewpoints enrich the organizational environment They have

the ability to deal with difficult and complex interpersonal situations Interpersonal skills

are not social graces they are a means o f achieving important management objectives


N egotiation (Partnering) People who work to create the policies that support

integrated service delivery and eliminate red tape and bureaucracy in the interest o f the

public good They develop a community o f shared interests with diverse levels o f

government vested interest groups and the non-profit and private sectors They use their


21

diversity o f experience and knowledge to make the best decisions They share common

goals solve common problems and work hand in hand for the common good not only o f

each partner but o f the Canadian public An essential feature o f this community is that it

functions on the basis o f shared power and responsibility This allows members to avoid

waste inefficiency and duplication o f effort while retaining the identity o f their own

organization (Public Service Commission 1997)

Organizational People who understand the inner workings o f the

government the Public Service and their own organizations in terms of structure

processes and key players They actively develop this awareness in order to effectively

position themselves to achieve strategic objectives This requires acute sensitivity to the

relationships between key players in the organization in addition to both acknowledged

and private agendas They actively seek out opportunities to keep their organizational

awareness comprehensive and current Their organizational awareness comes from a

range o f sources from intuitive perception to factual data (Public Service Commission

1997)

Problem Solving (Cognitive Capacity) People who understand and respond

strategically to the complexities inherent in service to the public They have the ability to

perceive both parallel and divergent issues within various responsibilities and to interpret

key messages and trends They create order out o f chaos and develop long- and

short-term strategies that will prevent as well as solve problems (Public Service

Commission 1997)

Stamina People must sustain high energy levels to greet the ongoing

challenge o f protecting the public interest Their ability to resist stress and remain


22

energized in the face o f difficult demands and prolonged exposure to stressors often has

an uplifting effect on others (Public Service Commission 1997)

Teaching- Added to be reflective o f the literature in which authors are citing

the need to develop learning organizations (Senge 1990b 1994 1997b Smith 1997

Tichy 1997) with coaching and mentoring values and com petencies (Hargreaves amp

Fullan 2000 Keys 1994 M orris amp Tarpley 2000)

Teamwork People who contribute actively and fully to team projects by

working with other Assistant Deputy Ministers (A D M ) and colleagues collaboratively as

opposed to competitively which includes working tow ards consensual solutions that

enhance the output o f the team ADMs recognize that a diversity o f experience and

knowledge can only enhance the quality o f the team rsquos w ork (Public Service Commission

1997)

I ision People who champion the vision o f the Public Service They have the

ability to describe the future o f service to the public in compelling terms promoting

enthusiasm and commitment from others The leaderrsquos comm itm ent to the vision sends a

message to others that change is a positive endeavor thus creating an atmosphere that

breeds new ideas They foresee potential roadblocks to success and take action to avoid

them (Public Service Commission 1997)

Contribution of the Research

The value o f establishing a reliable research database for this information is

significant especially as trainers seek to train o r hire leaders for the future The Canadian


23

Public Service has undergone a major downsizing in the last 5 years and the num ber o f

executives required to replace existing executives who are expected to retire in the next

10 years has made training o f future leaders a critical preoccupation

In addition there are exchanges betw een the public and private sectors to

provide their executives with training or recruitment opportunities o r to further expertise

in a specific area Therefore the variation in perceived leadership com petencies between

public and private sector leaders will be important in determining appropriate training

opportunities

FundingSponsors

The Canadian Centre for M anagement Development (CCM D) and Ekos

Research Associates have both agreed to sponsor the research costs (expected to be

S40000 Canadian) because o f the research gap tha t exists CCMD is responsible for

training all managers and executives in the Canadian public service Ekos Research a

private sector firm is involved with public and private sector policy developm ent


CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This century is characterized by the development o f a global economy the

pace and nature o f technological change downsizing and increasing cultural diversity

(Abbasi amp Hollman 1998 Betcherman McMullen amp Davidman 1998 Foot amp

Stoffman 1996 Hamel amp Prahalad 1994 Jackson amp Associates 1992)

This chapter reviews the key nature o f leadership in a changing world by

discussing two major topics leadership models and 21 -century forces O ur very

understanding o f leadership qualities has evolved from static trait-based approaches to

more fluid competency-based identification as the demands o f leadership have changed

This chapter describes and explains this evolution o f our understanding o f leadership and

discusses possible future developments

There has always been change There have always been leaders Leadership

is and always has been an essential element o f any organized activity Wars politics and

religion all required leadership This thesis argues that changes in the external

environment influence the form o f leadership that is required to deal with the new

challenges presented While there have always been leaders it was the age o f the

24


25

industrial revolution that introduced the science and role o f leadership in the making or

breaking o f an organization The industrial revolution marked the beginning o f modem

business as the demands o f managing that dramatic change in the economy gave birth to

organizationalmanagement science as we know it (Bass amp Stogdill 1990) Over time

this revolution also introduced new demands on governm ents to regulate the manner in

which these businesses operated and specifically how they utilized human resources

This heralded the institutionalization o f mechanisms to manage the economy such as

central banks labor laws and health and safety regulations Thus inherent and ongoing

tension between government and business emerged in this era Since the industrial

revolution environmental factors including a dram atic increase in the numbers o f

educated people technological breakthroughs the development and implementation of

efficient means o f transportation and communication have accelerated both the speed and

impact o f this change As a result the importance o f leadership has escalated In the

2 Tlsquo century the prevalence and pace o f change will be so acute that it will necessitate a

redefinition o f leadership This chapter discusses models o f leadership and key

environmental factors influencing leaders

Leadership Models

While there is consistency in the understanding o f the actions o f leadership

the diversity in what makes a leader successful in these actions is reflected in the

numerous models described in the research literature (Boyatzis 1982 Fiedler 1987

Ghiselli 1963 Likert 1961 McClelland 1973 M cG regor 1960 Stogdill 1974


26

Tannenbaum amp Schmidt 1973 Vroom amp Yetton 1973) Leaders are generally

understood to identify a vision design strategies and mobilize w ork to achieve it (H itt amp

Keats 1992 Jacques amp Clement 1991 Richards amp Engel 1994) Leaders also monitor

changes in the internal and external environment to adjust and re-frame the vision andor

the means to achieve it Researchersrsquo models differ in explanations o f the variables that

underlie an individualrsquos ability to carry out these actions These differences reflect not

only which facets o f the individual are o f interest in explaining success but may also

reflect changes in the nature o f organizations For example traditional stable command

and control-based organizations may be best described in term s o f the stable traits

associated with their leaders Organizations where strategies m ust adapt quickly to

changes such as geopolitical events may require shifts in ability sets that are just as fast

and an emphasis on adaptability and creativity in their leaders As previously noted for

the majority o f organizations external factors have been changing rapidly over the past

decades and are bound to change even faster in the future The goal o f many human

resource m anagers today is not only to respond to external factors quickly but to take

advantage o f cues in the environment to predict what will be required and pro-actively

plan for the future (Diaz 1999)

An important factor in accurate prediction is not only knowing probabilities

for future requirements but in understanding how requirem ents change over time This

necessitates a baseline an appreciation o f what was required in the past and how those

requirements were reflected in models for successful leadership These earlier models for

leadership will be considered in term s o f the competencies that w ere the focus for

success


27

Leadership models can generally be characterized into four groupings

1 Traitist theories also known as the ldquogreat manrdquo theory Traitist theories

which centered on identifying the personal characteristics o f leaders were appropriate for

the post-w ar world in which they were developed Organizations were viewed as

relatively enduring unchanging and predictable Change was perceived to be linear

2 Behaxioral theories an emphasis on how the managerleader should act

Behavioral theorists began viewing leadership as an interaction between leaders and

followers The introduction by behavioralists o f this concept o f relationship was a

valuable addition to leadership models However behavioralists had difficulty predicting

the link between leadership behavior and outcomes

3 Situational theories an emphasis on behavioral flexibility and situational

adaptability As the complexity o f organizations grew in the 1960s situational theories

were developed to reflect the need for different skills in different situations The

situational leadership model was beginning to reflect that the assumptions about

constancy were no longer valid

Competency m odels an attempt to define underlying variables that predict

job performance Competencies are the most recent approach to human resource

management The approach grew from a need to better predict Job performance

Traitist Theories

Early studies on leadership centered largely on the personal characteristics o f

the leader The researcher m ost closely associated with this theory is Ralph Stogdill


28

(1974) whose w ork spans more than 30 years beginning after the Second W orld War

Stogdill looked at managers from various functional backgrounds including

transportation insurance communications finance and manufacturing and concluded

that traits related to intelligence education responsibility independence and

socioeconomic status were important traits for effective leadership Further studies

demonstrated that some traits were more important than others in determining leadership

EE Ghiselli (1963) in particular noted that supervisory ability the need for occupational

achievement intelligence decisiveness self-assurance and initiative were particularly

important as leadership traits

And while these early studies o f traits advanced our knowledge o f leaders the

general dissatisfaction among some researchers with the traitistrsquos underlying assumption

that leaders are bom and not made encouraged further study which attempted to fill in the

role o f behavior and the environment in defining leadership

Behavioral Theories

At the core o f the behavioral theories is the query as to which leadership

behaviors are im portant to be effective Kurt Lewin and his associatesrsquo research

emphasized three behavioral styles o f leadership including directive democratic and

participatory (Lewin 1939) Further research popularized the importance o f the beliefs

that a manager has about his or her subordinates in determining their leadership style

(M cGregor 1960) In the Theory X and Theory Y model the Theory X manager

commands and tells people what to do because heshe believes their subordinates are lazy

and need to be told w hat to do The Theory Y m anager uses a democratic approach


29

believing that subordinates want more responsibility and are concerned about the

well-being o f the organization

Behavioral researchers identified tw o general behavioral configurations which

could be delineated as task versus socio-em otional (Bales amp Slater 1955) o r production

versus employee orientated (Kahn amp Katz 1953)

Rensis Likert ( 1961 ) further delineated the behavior research by identifying a

continuum o f leadership styles from task orientation to employee orientation which

included four distinct systems including the exploitative-authoritative person the

benevolent-authoritative person the consultative-democratic person and finally the

participative-democratic person

The managerial grid concept (Figure 1 ) which was advanced by Blake and

M outon ( 1985) has become one o f the m ore popular behavioral theories Styles o f

leadership are plotted on a grid with the axis depicting the managerrsquos concern for people

and concern for production While there are up to 81 possible positions on the grid five

leadership styles are overtly delineated

1 (19) Country Club M anagement M anager uses a permissive approach

and is ready to sacrifice production to keep a happy family

2 (11) Impoverished M anagement M anager has little concern for people or

for production

3 (99) Team M anagement M ost effective style o f management leader

expresses concern for people and production and is an advocate o f participative

managerial approach


30

t ôo

^ I - OP

X C

1-9(Country Club)

9-9(Team)

5-5CLS (Middle Road)

ucO mdash

U

(Impoverished)1-1

(Task)9-1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Concern for Production (High)

Figure 1 The managerial grid leadership styles

4 (91) Task Management Leader is autocratic has total concern for

production and little for people

5 (55) M iddle Road Management Leader has balanced concern for

production and people is known as a compromiser


31

While studies confirmed two reliable dimensions o f leader behavior people

versus production it proved more difficult to confirm any predictable link between leader

behaviors and organizational outcomes It is in this context that researchers began to

suggest that leadership analysis should move beyond the study o f the leader to include the

situational factors

Situational Theories

Recognizing that no single leadership trait or style was effective in all

environments situational theorists Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H Schmidt (1973)

were two early researchers who identified three characteristics that affect leadership style

including the manager the subordinates and the situation (Tannenbaum Kallejian amp

Weschler 1954) Further work by these researchers identified a leadership continuum in

which the leader is influenced by his or her background knowledge values and

experience

The first comprehensive situational model developed in 1960 was known as

the Contingency Theory (Wren 1994) Fred Fiedler s (1987) model integrated situational

parameters into the leadership equation by developing a scale o f situational control which

was based on the following three features

1 leader-member relations ie degree o f trust and support for leader

2 task structure degree to which goals are specified

3 position power leaderrsquos formal authority to reward and punish

Fiedler believed that the most important situational dimension was the degree o f

predictability and control that the leader had


32

To do his research Fiedler developed the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC)

questionnaire and scale that allowed him to measure basic motivational factors that made

a leader act in a certain way The Contingency Model and the LPC scale have been the

subject o f much debate though in the final analysis there is some basis for accepting that

the predictions o f the theory are strongly supported by data from both organizational and

laboratory studies (Strube amp Garcia 1981)

The Normative Decision Theory as presented by Vroom and Yetton (1973) is

in many respects similar to Fiedlers model especially with respect to its predictive

qualities Participatory decisions will have better results when there is little clarity or

support on the other hand autocratic decisions will be more efficient when there is strong

leader support and a specific task A striking difference between the situational models is

their assumptions with respect to the leader The Normative Decision Theory sees the

leader as adaptable to fit particular situations whereas the Contingency Model assumes

leadership style is based on learned personality traits which are difficult to modify

What has remained consistent is that the models o f leadership evolve with the

environment Competencies have become the pre-eminent approach to understanding the

makeup o f modern leadership

Competencies

Launched in 1973 in a paper by McClelland the com petency movement seeks

to identify- through research m ethods ldquocompetencyrdquo variables variables that predict job

performance A job competency is an underlying characteristic o f a person which results


in effective or superior perform ance in a job lsquoA job com petency is an underlying

characteristic o f a person in that it may be a motive trait skill aspect o f ones self-image

o r social role or a body o f knowledge which he or she usesrdquo (Boyatzis 1982 p 21)

As described by McClelland ldquoThe com petency method emphasizes criterion

validity what actually causes superior performance in a job not what factors most

reliably describe all o f the characteristics o f a person in the hope that some o f them will

relate to job perform ancerdquo (David C McClelland cited in Spencer amp Spencer 1993

p 7)

Over the past decade Spencer and Spencers Competence at Work has been

the seminal text for com petency-based human resources management The work reflects

years o f competency activities including data collected by the Hay McBer company This

is important because the originator o f the competency movem ent David McClelland was

a founding member o f that firm and designed the firm s approach to competency profiling

and data acquisition Currently there are a number o f m odels for profiling but all are

founded on this basic approach

Spencer and Spencer (1993) describe a fully integrated competency-based

human resource management system In this system

recruiters recruit and select for competencies required by jobs Training and development is focused on those competencies tha t lead to superior performance in jobs Succession planning is done by com paring em ployees competencies with the competency requirem ents o f future jobs Com pensation includes competency- based pay elem ents to encourage employees to develop needed competenciesThe performance appraisal system assesses em ployeesrsquo competencies at least yearly and inputs these data to the data base to be sure that the system has up-to- date assessments o f individualsrsquo competencies (Spencer amp Spencer 1993 p 23)


34

In practice the primary functions to which management competencies have

been applied in organizations are training and development Management competencies

have also been integrated into the performance appraisal system Application o f

management competencies to compensation has been very limited (Walsh-Minor 1997)

The model for generating competency profiles consists o f four parts (Slivinski

amp Miles 1997a) the identification o f external drivers and influences the identification

o f the objectives and values o f the organization the identification o f the work required to

achieve objectives and values and the identification o f the competencies required to

accomplish the work

Based on this approach we can assume that external drivers such as

globalization technology downsizing and diversity impact on both the public and

private sectors However there are differences in the values and objectives o f

organizations in the public sector compared to those in the private sector Public sector

organizations are more values-based since their activity and their functions are related to

the public good They operate within a legislative fram ework and are responsive to

citizens o f the state Public sector organizations are moving towards being more results-

based and skills-based while still attempting to retain their values-based focus (Boyatzis

1982)

Alternatively private sector organizations have as their objective to make a

profit As a result they value specific business knowledge competencies relevant to the

companyrsquos business lines They are moving towards defining values such as embracing

diversity in their w orkforce and promoting familywork balance Both sectors are striving

towards becoming learning organizations and instilling leadership at all levels It is


35

evident that public and private sector competencies requirements are converging as the

public sector adopts private sector business models and the private sector becomes more

citizen-focused to remain competitive Appendix 3 provides examples o f competency

profiles o f several public sector organizations the public service organizations o f the

United States the United Kingdom Australia New Zealand and o f several private sector

organizations

In summary there are several reasons why the competencies required for work

may differ between the public and private sectors First the objectives o f the public and

private sector may differ While the primary focus o f the public sector is the common

good for the private sector it is profitability In addition the environments o f the public

and private sector are different Organizations in the private sector have ready access to

timely performance indicators such as profits revenues and market share The nature o f

work the structure o f jobs and the measures o f performance used in the public sector do

not allow for as clear and quick feedback on performance Furthermore there are

differences in time horizon institutional response time and policy-directed objectives

(Boyatzis 1982)

While there are important differences between the two sectors there are also

important similarities which may result in similar competencies being required to

accomplish the work in the two sectors Both are exposed to the same external drivers in

particular globalization rapid technological change downsizing and increasing cultural

diversity Neither sector is divorced from society as a whole nor from each other as

there are significant interactions between the two sectors For example the public sector


36

through its pow er to tax regulate and disperse public funds has a significant effect upon

the private sec to rrsquos pursuit o f its objectives In turn actions o f the private sector may

assist or hinder significantly the public sec to rrsquos success in achieving its objectives

Increasingly the public and private sector are collaborating in service delivery through

contracting out and other partnership arrangem ents As another example changes in

private sector management techniques have influenced public sector management

practices

2 r lsquo-Centurgt- Forces

To be able to define the leadership competencies required for the 2 T lsquo century

it is im portant to understand the unique and unprecedented nature o f the changes taking

place today The 21 century is defined by interconnectedness A new global picture o f

reality is em erging that as Terry Mollner (cited in Renesch 1992) indicates is a new

system formed beyond capitalism and socialism Basic to this ldquothird wayrdquo is a shift from

a Material Age world view to a Relationship Age world view In the former the universe

is a collection o f separate parts where there is competition based on self-interest In the

latter the universe is comprised o f connected parts that cooperate in the interest o f the

whole Globalization technology downsizing and cultural diversity are key interrelated

com ponents that are contributing to this new world order Understanding this

environment is the first step in identifying the competencies required for future success

Globalization

For centuries the economies o f countries were largely self-sufficient and trade

was limited to areas where transportation m ade access possible The em ergence o f


37

communications technology and efficient transportation brought with it interdependence

and the emergence o f a borderless economy Events that occur far from ones country

have an immediate impact a t home For example the recent Asian economic crisis

affected the economies o f the world Corporate competition and cooperation are now

global in scope Lee lacocca (M cFarland Senn amp Childress 1994) marks the end o f the

Cold War as the event that is moving us to one world Symbolically globalization came

to being in the mid-1980s (M cFarland et al 1994 Pettigrew 1999) the day the three

major stock exchanges w ere linked electronically enabling stock and commodities

markets to trade 24 hours a day 7 days a week

It is clear that this interconnectedness has changed the nature o f corporate

competition increased the complexity o f issues accelerated the pace o f change and

contributed to the de-layering o f organizations This set o f im pacts has resulted in a

world where leaders have to leam to cope with continual uncertainty

Furthermore the nature and magnitude o f globalization have altered the

relationship between business and the state Prior to globalization the state s vertical

power was critical for the determ ination o f military and econom ic choices International

relations were determined betw een nation states For example treaties were commonly

negotiated on a bilateral basis between nation states consistent w ith the understanding

that each nation state controlled choices within its border in a m anner that could honor

the obligations o f the agreem ent This simple formula is clearly altered by the rise o f

global competition mergers and the increased presence o f transnational strategic

alliances (Pettigrew 1999)


38

With globalization the strength o f the market is derived from its horizontal

interdependence This merging o f economic spaces is occurring at the same time as there

is a dismantling o f the vertical power o f the state (Farazmand 1999 McFarland et al

1994 Pettigrew 1999) This imbalance is creating ldquoa major change in the configuration

o f public-private spheres in favor o f the globalizing corporate sectorrdquo (Farazmand 1999

p 11) State efforts have been redoubled to find means to become more horizontal to

maintain influence This has created a concerted attem pt to shift towards the

professionalization o f public administration (Farazmand 1999) but at the same time has

resulted in state efforts to create supranational organizations such as the World Trade

Organization

The total impact o f globalization is still to be determined What is

indisputable however is that it is causing a transformation and realignment o f activity

and relationship in and between every organizationmdashpublic or private

Technology

ldquoNew technologies are compressing time and distance diffusing knowledge

transforming old industries and creating new ones at a pace that is hard to grasprdquo (Opstal

199899 p 2) Jeremy Rifkin (1995) warns that this Third Industrial Revolutionrdquo while

creating a new knowledge economy will displace many Jobs and mark the end o f work

Computers have revolutionized the nature o f work In 1920 85 o f the cost o f

manufacturing an automobile went to workers and investors By 1990 they were

receiving less than 60 (Reich 1992) The knowledge workers the engineers financial


39

analysts designers are the new elite But the dawn o f computers over the last 30 years

has also demanded much o f managers and decision makers This is evidenced by the

results o f a recent survey o f 365 public and private sector Information Technology (IT)

executive managers which indicated that one third o f all IT projects were canceled before

completion The Standish Group estimates that American companies and agencies spent

581 billion on canceled IT projects (Brown amp Brudney 1998) ldquoCurrent senior IS

[Information System] executives who have not broadened their own knowledge skills

and experiences in business operations strategy and management should gain these

valuable perspectivesrdquo (Applegate amp Elam 1992 p 13)

John Scull notes that in this age the strategic resources are no longer coal oil

and wheat but ldquothe ideas and knowledge that com es out o f our mindsrdquo (cited in

McFarland et al 1994 p 43) Information is the germ o f ideas and the Internet provides

access to information to a rapidly increasing population The growth is phenom enal-the

number o f individuals online increased from 26 million in 1995 to 205 million in 1999

and is projected to increase to 350 million by 2005 (Nua Internet Survey 1999a) The

Internet is more than information it is also the new market place Online retail sales are

estimated to be SUS660 billion in 1999 and projected to increase to SUS 1234 billion by

2002 (Cyber Atlas 2000a) The next wave o f access to the Internet is wireless portal

users With this technology it will be possible to ldquodeliver time-sensitive localized and

customized content to a variety o f devices in a mobile environmentrdquo (Cyber Atlas

2000b) The number o f wireless subscribers is estimated to be 300000 in 2000 and

projected to increase to 248 million in 2006 (CyberAtlas 2000a) Clearly this explosion


40

in technology and information fiiels the new global economy The speed o f access to

information and the diflhision o f access to millions o f people presents challenges to

leaders Hoarding information is no longer power Sharing information and using it to

add value is the challenge o f today U nder these circumstances the talent is the arena o f

competition

Long-term competitive success requires access to the best and the brightest globally W ithout people to create apply and exploit new ideas there is no innovation process Capital and information and even m anufacturing may move across borders but the talent pool needed to facilitate irmovation does not transfer as readily (Opstal 199899 p 6)

But even with a talent pool and access to information there is a continuing

debate as to the outputs from technology Attwell and Rule ( 1984) noted tha t people

remain so willing to speak and write as though the overall effects o f com puting

technologies w ere a foregone conclusion But there is a gap betw een technology and

improved productidty Drucker (1995) Keen (1981 1986) and Brown and Brudney

(1998) indicate that there is a need to understand the gap between investm ents in

technology and performance And m odem leaders will have to rise to this challenge

Downsizing

The layoffs o f the 1980s have changed not only the shape o f organizations but

the social contract between employers and employees ldquoThe average American 32 year-

old has already w orked for nine different jobs W orkers today fantasize not about landing

a dream jo b rsquo but about having a rsquoportfolio careerrsquomdash one dream job after ano therrsquo

(W ooldridge 2000 p 82) According to M cG oon (1994) in the future employees who


41

stay current with their skills who contribute measurable value to their organizations year

after year and who develop new skills will be rew arded-unlike the past where loyalty

was rewarded

Organizations restructure o r re-engineer to increase efficiency reduce payroll

costs shed redundancy after a m erger or takeover o r contract out functions to stay

focused on competencies Some feel that the major challenge for business is to continue

to improve business position with fewer employee dislocations (Abbasi amp Ho liman

1998 Pfeffer 2000 as cited in W ooldridge 2000) O thers are o f the view that the

company manrsquo days rewarded longevity rather than value added (Kanter 2000

M cGoon 1994)

Kanter states that in this environment companies must earn loyalty ldquoBuilding

long-term commitment depends on four things the nature o f the work itself the

opportunity to grow the chance to speak up and be listened to and the feeling o f making

a differencerdquo (Kanter 2000 p 82) There is no doubt that in the first waves o f

downsizing there was a loss o f cumulative skills and experience o f those who endure

the wrenching human drama o f losing their jo b rdquo (Abbasi amp Hollman 1998 p 4)

The outcries and conflict that characterized the layoffs o f the 1980s and early

1990s are muted Labor unions instead o f protesting are more likely to help laid-off

workers make the transition to other jobs Executives are more likely to blame global

forces rather than the need for larger profit margins in their decisions to downsize

(Uchitelle 1998b)


42

While reorganization may have occurred for the most part for reasons o f profit

or cost reduction it also created flatter organizations o r horizontal organizations (Jacobs

amp Rao 1995 O stroff 1995) Post-downsizing the need to manage differently became

apparent Imperial Oil after three downsizings began to focus on helping the organization

rationalize the work to the core Imperial is rethinking the ldquoold traditional supervisory

modelrdquo The manager o f executive development says ldquow e are starting to leam some

things about what is really crucial in a leadership contextrdquo Hierarchical reporting will

give way to teams representing a mix o f disciplines W ith fewer resources the amount

o f time managers can devote to their staff decreases their need for more autonomy for

staff (Lorine 1991) Post-downsizing managing a flat organization requires a complete

overhaul o f the culture o f the form er pyramid structure

Companies have to organize workers into self-managing teams senior

managers must relinquish control and lower-level managers must take responsibility for

wider issues (Abramson 1996) All these managerial changes may seem obvious but

they demand a new set o f leadership competencies to succeed

Diversity

Technological advancements in transportation communications and

information have contributed to the creation o f a global economy that is complex This

new world is still emerging and as a result the rate and nature o f change it presents are

redefining leadership and w ork and the structure o f organization As was noted above

the pyramid organization is giving way to the horizontal organization Talent is more


43

valued than seniority ldquoTodayrsquos workforce has also changed significantly from six

perspectives age gender culture education disabilities and valuesrdquo (Jamieson amp

O rsquoMara 1991 p 6)

W orkforce diversity will be a key driver in understanding the leadership

competencies tha t will be required in the 2 T lsquo century By briefly reviewing some key

components o f diversity such as age gender and culture the scope and importance o f

diversity for tom orrow s leader can be established The US Bureau o f the Census

predicts that the age distribution o f the w orkforce will change in the next 20 years The

prime-age labor force will shrink while the w orkforce over the age o f 55 will begin to

increase For example in 1990 one in nine Americans were over age 65 By 2020 one in

six Americans will be over 65 This increase is being created by three phenomena the

Baby Boom the Baby Bust and advances in health care (Jamieson amp O M ara 1991)

The Baby Boom (1947-1966) cohort will exert a strong influence on public

policy and w orkforce demographic shifts Canada had the strongest baby boom in the

industrialized world

ldquoThe largest single-year age group in the mid 1990s is those bom in 1961rdquo

(Foot amp Stoffman 1996 p 18) The Baby B ust (1967-1979) a decline in birth rate is

attributable to tw o main factors the introduction o f the birth control pill in 1961 and the

increase in the participation o f women in the labor market (Foot amp Stoffman 1996) Foot

adds another cohort that he named the baby-boom echo (1980-1995) These are the

children o f the boom ers This cohort and the other tw o demographic shifts combine to

create a w orkforce where increasingly younger persons will manage older persons


44

Career development for baby boomers will become increasingly lateral competition to

attract and retain entry-level workers will be fierce (Jamieson amp O Mara 1991)

In addition to the birth patterns o f the population shifts in the gender

dimension o f the population can be seen through increasing participation o f women in the

labor force This has been the most dramatic change in the w orkforce mix US data

indicate that while their share o f the population has not changed significantly their

workforce participation numbers have almost doubled since 1970 (Deavers Lyons amp

Hattiangadi 1999) Participation o f married women with children has risen from 28 in

1960 to over 70 in 1998 As women form a greater proportion o f the workforce and to

ensure that their talents and contribution to the productivity o f the organized are

maximized it will be im portant to meet three challenges o f gender diversity in the

workforce (Jackson amp Associates 1992 Johnston amp Packer 1987 Schwartz 1989)

1 ensuring that w om enrsquos talent and competencies are fully utilized

2 removing the artificial barriers o f male-dominated organizations

3 adjusting to the fact that women shoulder a disproportionate share o f the

responsibility for family care and ensuring that the leave policies w ork flexibility and

artificial prom otion restraints are reformed

Finally racial and ethnic diversity in the w orkforce has increased through

immigration In the US immigration has accounted for more than 50 o f the increase

in the w orkforce in the 1990s (Deavers et al 1999) In both the US and Canada about

half o f all immigrants originated from northern Europe in the 1950s and 1960s In the

later 1960s and 1970s immigrants were more likely to be from southern Europe


45

including Greece Spain and Portugal Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s and

culminating in the 1990s southern Asia became the main source o f newcomers to both

Canada and the US In the late 1990s and into the next century it is predicted that Latin

America will increasingly becom e Canadas main source o f immigrants When people

with different habits and world views are in the workplace misunderstandings and

conflicts occur Some writers question whether cultural diversity is anything new In the

US the proportion o f the population that is African-American has remained fairly stable

while the number o f immigrants entering the country is only slightly higher (Richman

1990) However there are other factors to take into account other than percentage o f

cultures in the population In the US the affirmative action era has increased integration

in areas where African-Americans were not traditionally employed (Jackson amp

Associates 1992) Also as was noted above the source countries o f immigrants are

much more varied than at the turn o f the century Furthermore with the creation o f more

horizontal organizations and team-based management styles the interaction o f different

cultures increases ldquoDiversity describes the make-up o f the group Inclusion describes

which individuals are allowed to participaterdquo (Miller 1998 p 1) Cox (1995) indicates

that diversity in the workplace potentially lowers members morale and makes

communication more difficult One empirical study indicates that heterogenous groups

experience more turnover than homogenous groups (Jackson et al 1991) Creating an

inclusive organization is therefore important and difficult ldquoOrganizations are beginning

to identify diversity as a potential asset and are making inclusion o f differences a part o f

their culture and success M ost organizations however require a fundamental culture

change to value difference as an assetrdquo (Miller 1998 p 4)


46

Preparing Tor the Future Survey of LeadersrsquoPerspective o f Competency

Introduction

Globalization technology downsizing and diversity are creating an

increasingly complex environment o f rapid change and driving organizations to become

less hierarchical with more emphasis on teamwork

The leadership competencies required to succeed in this fast-changing

unpredictable environment are constantly being redefined In fact both the structural

changes in organizations and the complexity o f the issues indicate that no one individual

or one trait or behavior or situation can be sufficient for success in this environment

The interconnectedness o f our global community requires an interdependent view of

leadership This approach is being critically examined by a wide num ber o f academic

practitioners (Bennis 1994 1995 1997 Covey 1992 Hamel amp Prahalad 1994 Kotter

1995 1996 Senge 1994)

In this section we will discuss several surveys o f leaders The first is a

general com petency model developed by Spencer and Spencer (1993) The second is a

survey by Duncan and Harlacher (1991) designed to determine the competency profile o f

leaders in an educational setting Donnelly and Kezbom (1994) investigated critical

leadership qualities required for effective project management W atson W yatt ( 1998)

provides a competency-based leadership framework that is global in scope Finally this

section ends w ith a survey conducted by Diaz ( 1999) designed to determ ine the

competency profile required for human resource managers in the 21ldquo century The Diaz


47

w ork is particularly relevant since human resource specialists implement the selection and

recruitment strategies related to a particular com petency profile and are more recently part

o f the decision-making process for the development o f the workforce

Spencer and Spencer A General Model

Spencer and Spencer (1993) present a series o f competencies that they and

other researchers see as increasingly important for executives managers and employees

in organizations in the future These perspectives are based on external drivers alm ost

identical to those discussed previously

For executives these competencies consist o f strategic thinking change

leadership and relationship management For m anagers these consist o f flexibility

change implementation entrepreneurial innovation interpersonal understanding

empowering team facilitation and portability Spencer and Spencer (1993) provide

detailed descriptions o f these competencies

From a comprehensive review o f the com petency research literature Slivinski

and Miles (1997a) conclude that although term inologies for competencies differ across

profiles and time the constructs underlying successful perform ance are generally

equivalent They argue that the focus should be on the understanding rather than the

nomenclature (Slivinski amp Miles 1997a)

Accordingly for the purpose o f the survey undertaken by the authors the

competencies identified by Spencer and Spencer (1993) as being increasingly im portant

in the future for executives and managers were redefined to terminology in m ore com m on


48

usage W ork motivation under time pressure which was identified by Spencer and

Spencer (1993) as increasingly important only for employees was also included In

addition ethics and base job requirements o f organizational (administrative) ability and

businesstechnical knowledge were added

The definitions for teamwork visioning organizational interpersonal

relations communication skills stamina ethics and values are those used by the Public

Service Commission o f Canada This agency is legislatively responsible for promotion

recruitment and development o f public service employees o f the Government o f Canada

in accordance with the principle o f merit Problem solving ability to leam

entrepreneurial competencies and negotiationconsultationengagement are defined by

the Public Service Commission as subsets o f cognitive capacity behavioral flexibility

and communications respectively Teaching and businesstechnical knowledge as well

as cosmopolitanworld view were added to test their continued applicability in the

z r-cen tu ry environment Table 1 provides a comparison o f the Spencer and Spencer

competency model and the profile used in the survey for this thesis

Duncan and Harlacher Competencies for an Educational Setting

For example Duncan and Harlacher (1991) conducted a survey to determine a

competency profile for an ideal executive leader o f an American community college for

the 2 r lsquo century They surveyed the Chief Executive Officers o f 10 institutions The

results o f this survey were characterized into five dimensions (1) institutional vision and

revitalizationmdashstrategic analysis o f the long-term impact o f pending decisions (2) ethical


49

Table 1 Comparison o f Competency Profile

Spencer and Spencer Competency Competency Used in Survey1

Strategic thinking Problem solving (anaKiical decisive judgment innovative)Ability to leam (integrative intelligence change agent)

Change leadership Vision (creativity) Communications skills

Relationship management Interpersonal (relationship collaborative serving others)Negotiationconsult and engage

1 Flexibility

1

Ability to leam (integrative intelligence change agent)Entrepreneurial (risk taker experiment)

1 Change implementationi1

Communications skills TeamworkTeaching (coaching mentoring)

Entrepreneurial innovation Initiative (m otivated)

Interpersonal understanding Interpersonal (relationship collaborative serving others)

i Team facilitation Teamwork

i Portability Cosmopolitanworld view

W ork motivation under time pressure1

Staminaresilienceself-renewal


50

leadershipmdashintegrating personal philosophies into the institutions value system (3 )

institutional power and transform ationmdashestablishing an environment which fosters

innovation and creative problem solving (4) political leadership-m aintaining coalitions

to advance the cause o f the institution and (5) institutional conceptualization and

survival mdashthe ability to perceive and analyze institutional issues from a global

perspective

Donnelly and Kezbom Competencies for Project Leaders

Another study by Donnelly and Kezbom ( 1994) investigated those critical

leadership qualities most im portant for effective project management In this study a

distinction is made between competency and know-how Com petency was defined as an

augmentable quality o f leadership that appears to be a personality construct but is

capable o f modification via skills awareness and developm entrdquo (Donnelly amp Kezbom

1994 p 3) Know-how w as defined as strictly learned information that is ldquoan elem ent o f

leadership comprising a body o f knowledge that is largely learned via education training

and on-the-job experiencesrdquo (Donnelly amp Kezbom 1994 p 3) This study indicated that

in the future more and m ore organizations will have matrix structures with few er

hierarchical structures and largely composed o f horizontal teams There was a m arked

distinction between those subjects o f the study that had matrix o r hierarchical experience

Those in hierarchical structures ranked know-how higher than competencies relative to

matrix organizations This study concluded that project leaders ldquoin addition to being

astute at managing subordinates must be more analytical m ore integrative more


51

Watson Wyatt Global Competencies

W atson W yatt (1998) a private sector managerial consulting firm conducted

a survey o f 11000 employees in the US and Canada as well as a survey o f 2000 senior

managers from 24 countries around the world to update a 1977 model o f a competency-

based framework developed by Dalton Thom pson and Price (1977) They assumed that

individuals progressed through competency stages linearly stage 1 following

directionsmdashthe apprentice stage 2 contributing independentlymdashthe colleague stage 3

contributing through othersmdashthe mentor and stage 4 influencing organizational

directionmdashthe sponsor Watson W yattrsquos motivation for updating this study is that in the

20 years since the original study organizations have become flatter and less hierarchical

AJso the im portance o f information and technology has increased the number o f

knowledge workers The study developed what they term the ldquovalue-creation

continuum

A key difference between W atson W yattrsquos perspective and that o f

Dalton et al is that individuals instead o f following a linear progression through

competencies can contribute on multiple dimensions depending on their role at a given

moment In the W atson Wyatt model a new dimension has been added called

contributing through expertisemdashdimension three This was added to capture particularly

workers in technology fields They added another factor to the fourth dim ension-

contributing through othersmdashwhich is the ability to accomplish things through others

which is a higher standard than merely being proficient in more than one area A fifth

dimension has been added called contributing through vision This is seen as higher than


52

the sponsor role as it defines individuals who not only have a significant influence on the

whole organization but whose organization extends outside their w ork group

The W atson Wyatt study recognizes the pace o f change and the complexity o f

the world today through its flexible structure through a seemingly simple but profound

shift from the concept o f stages to dimensions It recognizes that in the 21 century

individuals move back and forth through dimensions as their roles o r positions change An individual may return to dimension one or two when he or she needs to leam a new technology or role and then move back to dimension three four or five as knowledge skills and expertise grow (W atson Wyatt 1998 p 6)

Diaz Competencies for Human Resources Specialists

Diaz (1999) in his March 1999 study o f challenges facing Venezuelan human

resource managers in the 21 century surveyed the opinions o f a sample o f 400

individuals com posed of executives human resource practitioners university professors

and students In his findings Diaz found no significant differences in the opinions of

these groups o f participants about the skills required for the 21 century Interpersonal

skills such as teamwork achievement motivation pro-active attitude and ethical values

and directive skills such as vision leadership entrepreneur spirit able to develop

strategic alliances were ranked extremely important (Diaz 1999 p iv) Ranked low in

importance w ere knowledge o f specific areas such as psychology labor statistics and

statistics Diaz sets his study against the backdrop o f a number o f trends affecting

Venezuela including globalization an increasingly multi-cultural workplace the rapid

growth o f new information technology and increased organizational downsizing These


53

are similar to the drivers that motivated the study o f future com petencies o f Watson

Wyatt and the hypotheses o f Spencer and Spencer

In response to ongoing increasingly rapid change organizations o f the future

will be less liierarchical more organizationally flexible and include more horizontal

teams (Spencer amp Spencer 1993) Just as IBM had by the beginning o f the 1990s trained

managers fo r a world that no longer existed leaders to be successful in the future must

have the com petencies necessary for both the continually changing environment o f the

future and the organizational structures that will need to be adopted to function

effectively In a world where relationship defines success and where change is at an

increasingly fast pace tom orrow rsquos leaders must be able to deal with ambiguity while

maintaining multiple relationships-both horizontally and vertically

Reproduced with permission of tfie copyrigfit owner Furtfier reproduction profiibited witfiout permission

CHAPTER 3

M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter describes the design and methodology o f the study This study

responds to the following four research questions

Research Question 1 Has there been a shift in public sector leaders

perception as to the leadership com petencies required in the past as compared to the

leadership competencies required for the 21rdquo century

Hypothesis 1 The ratings o f leadership competencies required will differ

from the past as compared to the future



competencies The following two questions guided the data analysis regarding this

hypothesis

1 W hat are the perceptions o f current Canadian public sector leaders as to the

required leadership competencies for leaders 20 years ago


required leadership competencies fo r leaders in the 21ldquo century

54


55

Research Question 2 If there is a shift in perceptions are external

environmental drivers globalization technology downsizing and diversity related to that

shift

Hypothesis 2 Leaders will rate the external drivers as influencing leadership

competency requirements

Research Question 3 Is there a divergence or convergence o f views between

leaders in the public sector and the general public as to the required leadership

competencies in the 21 century

Hypothesis 3 Leadersrsquo ratings o f leadership competencies required for the

21 century will differ when com pared to the general publicrsquos ratings o f leadership

competencies required for the 21 century

In addition consensus between groups will be tested to determine

Research Question 4a Is there a consensus o f views between leaders in the

public sector and those in the private sector as to the size o f the shift between 20 years

ago and in the 21 century

Hypothesis 4a The public sectorrsquos size o f shift between past and present

required leadership competencies will differ from that o f the private sectorrsquos

Research Question 4b Is there a consensus o f views between public and

private sector leaders and the general population on which if any o f the leadership

competencies are the most important

Hypothesis 4b Each group will perceive some leadership com petencies as

more important than others


56

It is hypothesized that leaders in both sectors will differ from the general

population

Methodology

To facilitate the management o f the research this study may be delineated into

four phases


general public)

2 Developing the survey instrument and identifying the leadership

competencies to be investigated



a Public sector leaders

b Comparing the results obtained from the public sector leadersrsquo

survey question 2 with results obtained from the general public population

identifying any similarities and reviewing any differences

c Comparison o f public sector leadersrsquo results with results from the

private sector leadersrsquo survey

The four phases o f the research are explained and detailed below

Phase 1 Identifying the Methodology and the Survey Pool

In order to develop an appropriate instrument for identifying current leadersrsquo

perceptions o f the competencies for the 21ldquo century two distinct methodologies w ere

considered the Delphi technique and the survey method


57

The Delphi technique has been used quite successfully when attem pting to

ascertain nevvs on an issue or problem related to the prediction o f the future The

technique also affords an opportunity to develop a consensus o f views for topics which

are highly subjective The purpose o f the Delphi method which was developed in 1953

by the Rand Corporation to ascertain if there was a consensus view among military

experts on the issue o f the atomic bomb is to elicit perceptions o r Judgments held by

experts knowledgeable in a specialized area (Boberg amp M orris-Khoo 1992) However

given that the purpose o f this research was to establish whether it was possible to identify

some generic attributes for leadership in the IT century the possibility o f finding experts

who would provide the breadth o f experience without being linked too closely to a

particular field proved difficult Since the authors could not identify any specific

empirical base for the study it was decided that while a qualitative study might have

provided a m ore nuanced description o f the competencies for the 2T century a

quantitative survey based on the shifting perceptions o f Canadian leaders w ould make the

greatest contribution to the field in ensuring baseline data for further study in the field

Quantitative Survey

For the purposes o f this study there were two target survey populations the

public sector leaders population and the general public population The following

describes each sample population and the survey methodology employed

Public sector leaders population

In responding to the first research question (Has there been a shift in public

sector leadersrsquo perception as to the competencies required in the past as com pared to the


58

competencies required for the 2 P lsquo century) the survey pool used for this study comes

from an existing database o f senior public servants at municipal provincial and the

federal levels o f government Table 2 delineates the various clusters o f individuals that

made up the survey pool and the proposed basis for sampling for the survey As is noted

in Table 2 where the sample size was not based on a census the methodologgt for

choosing the sample has been identified

Table 3 delineates the response rate for the 1999 survey among the various

sectors in the public sector target population

-A 12 response rate is within the 10-15 range common to mail-in surveys

(Boyd amp Westfall 1972 Kanuk amp Berenson 1975 Luck Wales amp Taylor 1970

McDaniel amp Rao 1980 W under amp Wynn 1988 Yu amp Couper 1983)

The response rate o f 12 was deemed acceptable based on historical data for

this database Table 4 provides the most recent response history o f the Rethinking

Government national survey for the public sector target sample

While the sample was not stratified by gender age or region Tables 5 6 and

7 describe the gender age and educational level o f the sample population

General public sample population

In order to consider the third research question (Is there a divergence or

convergence o f views between leaders in the public sector and the general public as to the

required leadership competencies in the 21ldquo century) the results o f the public sector

leadersrsquo survey were com pared to a sample o f the general public (laquo=1503) The general


59

Table 2 Sample Size and Selection Criteria for the Public Sector Leaders

Leaders Selection Criteria Population Sample

Federal 431 431Federal MPs All 301Federal DMsADMs All 130

Provincial 1390 758Provincial MPPsMLAs Random 765Provincial DMsADMs All DMsRandom ADMs 625

Municipal 480 411MayorReeves Descending city size 255Municipal clerks Descending city size 225

Table 3 Response Rate for the 1999 Survey Among the Various Sectors in the PublicSector Target Population

Sector Percentage

Total Federal

Total Provincial

Total Municipal

127

136

167

Total Public Sector 142


60

Table 4 Response History o f the Rethinking Governm ent National Survey for the PublicSector Target Sample

Y ear Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142

Table 5 Gender Distribution o f Public Sector Leaders

G ender Percentage

Male 69

Female 3 1


61

Table 6 Age Distribution o f Public Sector Leaders (=227)

Age Percentage

lt35 26

35-44 181

45-54 551

55-64 211

654- 3 1

Table 7 Educational Achievement o f Public Sector Leaders (raquo=227)

Educational Level Percentage

Graduated from high school (grade 12-13) 3

Vocationaltechnical college or CEGEP 2

Trade certification 1

Some university 8

B achelors degree 25

Professional certification 17

G raduate degree 44


62

public survey sample o f 1503 was randomly generated from the Canadian population o f

persons over the age o f 16 and was conducted by means o f a centralized com puter-

assisted telephone interviewing facility The sample was stratified along age gender and

regional lines (Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairies and British Columbia) as described in

the following tables (Tables 8 9 10)

The full sample yielded a margin o f error o f -r- 18 percentage points

19 times out o f 20

The research question noted above was embedded in the Ekos Research

bullAssociates Rethinking Government survey and represented 1 o f the 21 questions posed in

the survey

Telephone Survey

The intent is to compare the results o f public sector leadersrsquo perception o f

required leadership competencies for the 21ldquo century with results obtained from a

telephone survey o f the general populationrsquos perception o f the requirement for 11 o f the

same leadership competencies as were tested in the public sector leaders survey Not

included in the survey o f the general population were interpersonal teamwork

businesstechnical knowledge and vision

Private sector leaders population

In responding to the fourth research question (Is there a consensus o f views

between public and private sector leaders and the general population on which if any o f

the leadership competencies are the most important) data from a separate research study


63

Table 8 Gender o f General Population Telephone Survey (t=1503)

Gender Percentage

Female 51

Male 49

Table 9 Age Breakdown o f the General Population Sample (=1499)

Age Percentage

lt25 17

25-34 18

35-44 22

45-54 20

55-64 7

65+ 15

DKNR I

donrsquot know no response


64

were used (W atson 2000) The Private Sector L eader survey data com e from an existing

pool o f senior Canadian leaders including C h ief Executive Officers (CEOs) and senior

executives from the private sector A sample o f 960 CEOs of the top econom ic

perform ing Canadian companies as identified by total revenues was sent a sur ey

questionnaire w ith a m ail-in response

The sam ple was not stratified by gender age o r region Table 11 delineates

the response rate for the 1999 suiwey between private sector companies w ith differing

numbers o f em ployees

A response rate o f 126 was deem ed acceptable based on historical data for

this group which has been identified by Ekos for a longitudinal study Table 12 provides

the most recent response history o f the Rethinking Government national survey

Phase 2 Developing the Surv ey Instrument and Reviewing Competencies

Survey Instrument

M ail-in Public Sector Survey

The survey instrument was developed as a m ail-in surv ey G iven the tim e

constraints o f the individuals being surveyed and the num ber of surv eys these individuals

see in any given period the length and the presentation o f the questionnaire w ere key

considerations

Respondents were asked to use a L ikert scale to rank their perceptions o f the

leadership com petencies required 20 years ago and those that will be necessary 20 years

from now The researcher chose a Likert scale because o f the advantages o f this scaling


65

Table 10 Sample Stratified by Region (=I503)

Region

British Columbia

Alberta

Prairies

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

Percentage

13

10

7

38

24

8

Table 11 Response by Number o f Employees (= 121)

Percentage Number Number o f Employees

31

29

40

38

35

48

lt100

100-500

over 500


66

Table 12 Response History of the Rethinking Government National Survey

Year Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142

technique First individuals typically have the same understanding o f the differences

between the points on the scale which enables comparison o f rankings Second this

approach has been found to yield data which can be analyzed by statistics for normal

distributions For both reasons this type o f scale provides informative and uncomplicated

data (Arnold McCroskey amp Prichard 1967 Edwards 1957)

A sample questionnaire is provided in Appendix 4 o f this paper

Reviewing and identifying the competencies

The 15 competencies were identified by the sponsors o f the research and

therefore closely track the competencies currently used in the Canadian federal public

service The competencies including teamwork problem solving ability to learn

communication skills vision interpersonal entrepreneurial initiative stamina ethics

organizational and negotiationconsultengage are identified as part o f the Public Service

Commissionrsquos competencies for public service managers In addition businesstechnical


67

knowledge cosmopolitanworld view and teaching were added to be consistent with the

literature

Phase 3 Administering the Survey

Mail-in Leaders Survey

The survey was sent by mail to all leaders in the survey pool in

September 1999 to maximize the response rate by avoiding both the summer holiday

season and any fiscal year-end considerations Included in the package was a letter

describing the study the questionnaire and the response envelope Respondents were

reminded to complete the survey 21 days after the initial mail-out Once a 12-15

response rate had been achieved and a minimum o f 4 weeks had elapsed the results were

tabulated for analysis The sample o f public sector leaders for the purposes o f this study

included 227 individuals (=227) The sample o f private sector leaders for the purpose o f

this study included 121 individuals (=121) (Watson 2000)

Telephone Survey of a Random Sample of the General Population

The telephone survey o f the general population with respect to question 2 was

embedded in an existing Rethinking Government survey with a sample population o f

1503 (laquo=1503) This survey w as administered by Ekos Research Association

The results o f this national random sample o f Canadians over the age o f 16

were gathered between July 15 and July 30 1999 The time lag between the mail-in

survey and the telephone survey is not deemed to be significant as there were no

outstanding short-term econom ic or political events during the period that would have

influenced perceptions


68

Phase 4 Analyzing the Results

In analyang the results the Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS)

was used The results were tabulated with the data analyzed to respond to the research

questions

Public Sector Leadersrsquo Analysis

The focus o f the analysis was to determine if am ong the sample population

there has been a shift in perception as to the required leadership competencies The

comparison o f the leadersrsquo perceptions o f the required skills for leaders 20 years ago and

their perceptions o f the required skills for leaders in the 21ldquo century provides some basis

to evaluate w hether training and development needs o f potential leaders should be altered

as a result o f the changing requirements This analysis was completed by comparing

responses and adjusting statistically for the variance in the responses

f-tests for dependent paired means were applied for within group comparisons

as the actual population variance is unknown Tw o-tailed probabilities are reported as the

direction o f the differences could not be predicted from the research base for every

competency

In com paring shifts in competency ratings only cases where a rating was

provided for both 20 years ago and the 21ldquo century w ere included in the analysis To

compute a mean within one time epoch all ratings are included In the paired -test that is

applied to determine the significance o f changes betw een tim e epochs only where ratings

are provided for both time epochs are they included in com puting a change One effect o f


69

paired ratings can be that means computed for each time epoch separately may not match

exactly means that are based on paired ratings For example if a respondent rates a

competency as im portant in the past that rating is included in computing the mean for the

past When com puting the mean difference over time that rating would be excluded if

the respondent did not also provide a rating for that competency in the future Because

some ratings that contribute to the mean in one time epoch may not be included in the

computation o f the shift in a competency rating means may differ when the data contain

missing cases

The 95 confidence level was adopted as the cut-off for significance

reflecting research and publication standards (Coldeway 1989) When probabilities were

slightly above 05 but less than 10 differences were described as approaching

significance

Although there is some hesitation in applying inferential statistics such as t to

ordinal scale data it is a commonly used approach for Likert data as responses are

generally normally distributed and results are considered relevant for discussions o f

general trends (Arnold et al 1967 Edwards 1957)

External Drivers Analysis

To support the premise that changes in perceived competency requirements

are related to external drivers the leaders ratings o f the importance o f each o f the four

drivers was analyzed Respondents were asked to rate the importance o f each external

driver on a scale o f 1 -7 from low to high importance


70

In testing for significance the researcher chose a two-tailed -test applied on

the differences betw een dependent means o f the external driver ratings This test was

chosen based on one group o f subjects with a repeated measure and not more than two

observations per subject (Coldeway 1989)

Comparison of Results Between the Public Sector Leadersrsquo Survey and the General Public

The results obtained from the public sector leadersrsquo survey (survey question 2)

were compared with results obtained for the same survey question from the General

Public population survey identifying any similarities and reviewing any differences This

analysis is important in testing how broadly the future competencies are acknowledged

In addition this allows a comparison o f individual versus organizational perspectives

j-tests w ere applied on comparisons o f means between groups r-tests are

commonly used when population variance is known and -tests when population variance

is unknown However -tests for differences even for independent means are based on

the assumption that sample variances are equal even though they are unknown In this

case the variance o f the general population and leadersrsquo samples could not be assumed to

be equal because the leaders by virtue o f their position would be likely to differ in at

least demographic variables such as age or education A modified r formula does not

require the equal sample variance assumption and was therefore considered to be the

more appropriate statistic in addition the large sample size supports the application o f

the z formula because convergence with population variance increases with sample size

(Hogg amp Tanis 1993)


71

Comparison o f Results Between the Public Sector and the Private Sector Leaders Survey

The shifts in perceptions o f the required competencies for leaders in the

21 century as measured by the survey o f the public sector were compared to the shifts in

perceptions as measured by the analysis o f the private sec to r survey

This analysis is particularly useful in determining if there is a convergence o f

perceptions by both public sector and private sector leaders as to the importance o f

leadership competencies for the 21 century To the extent that both sectors are seeking to

cross fertilize their leadership personnel the extent to which both sectors share a

common perception o f the future com petencies facilitates that transfer o f personnel

Ranking W ithin groups

The ratings for the com petencies were ranked to establish an order o f level o f

importance Mean rankings were tested for significance to determine if any com petencies

are o f higher importance This was applied for each leaders group and the general

population

To determine if any com petencies were perceived as being m ore im portant

than others the mean ratings for each competency were ranked in descending order

Confidence interval comparisons w ere used to determine i f the ranked mean for one

com petency rating differs significantly from the ranked m ean for another com petency If

the confidence intervals for two com petencies overlap it cannot be inferred that the ir

m eans differ significantly Therefore only when the confidence intervals do not overlap

can ranked means be described as significantly higher or low er than another


72

Ranking Between groups

The order in w hich the competencies were ranked was com pared across

groups to determine if both leaders groups rated sim ilar sets o f competencies as m ore

im portant than other competencies The general populations rankings w ere com pared to

the public and private sector leaders to identify organizational versus individual

perspective differences


CHAPTER 4

RESL^LTS

Introduction

The ratings by public sector leaders o f leadership competencies were used to

determine if there is a difference between perceived importance 20 years ago and in the

21 century The hypothesis that a shift would be due to a set o f external drivers was

tested by public sector leaders rating the importance o f each driver To support the

validity o f considering public sector leaders as subject m atter experts differences

between organizational perceptions those o f the leaders and individual perceptions

those o f a sample o f the general population were compared Tw o additional analyses

combine data from the two research studies public sector leaders and private sector

leaders One addresses the size o f shift in requirements over time Will the changes be

larger for one sector than anotherrsquo The other analysis compares the top ranked

competencies across groups Is there a difference in what public and private leaders

consider the most im portant competencies and do they differ from what individuals in the

general population perceive

j


74

Shift 20 Years Ago to 21ldquo Century

Q uestion 1 Has there been a shift in public sector leadersrsquo perception as to

the leadership com petencies required in the past as compared to the leadership


It w as hypothesized that the ratings o f leadership competencies required will

differ from the past as compared to the future




hypothesis

Q uestion la W hat are the perceptions o f current Canadian public sector


Q uestion Ib W hat are the perceptions o f current Canadian public sector

leaders as to the required leadership competencies for leaders in the 21 ldquo centuryrsquo

The im portance o f each competency was rated by public sector leaders

20 years ago and in the 21ldquo century

The variability o f responses is greater for the ratings o f competencies in the

past as com pared to the future For the ratings o f the 21ldquo century there is less variability

especially am ong the top-rated competencies demonstrating a strong consensus o f views

In examining Table 13 it is apparent that the relative ordering o f importance

for some com petencies has changed from the past as compared to the future For

example 20 years ago cosmopolitanworld view had the lowest mean at 3 493 whereas


75

Table 13 M eans and Standard Deviations o f the Ratings by Public Sector Leaders o f Leadership Competency Requirements 20 Years Ago and in the 21ldquo Century

Competency 20 Years Ago Competency 21ldquo Century

Initiative 5486 (1199) Vision 6419 (807)

Problem Solving 5450 (1143) Communication 6379 (702)

Organizational 5390 (1188) Teamwork 6242 (740)

BusinessTechnical 5344 (1306) CosmoW orld View 6185 (863)

Stamina 5256 (1227) Ability to Leam 6159 (854)

Ethics 5158 (1381) Ethics 6128 (1007)

Communication 4789(1272) Problem Solving 6009 (882)

Vision 4586 (1391) Initiative 5969 (840)

Interpersonal 4574 (1374) Interpersonal 5925 (972)

Entrepreneurial 4561 (1546) Negotiation 5797 (947)

Negotiation 4516 (1237) Entrepreneurial 5661 (1028)

Ability to Leam 4491 (1291) Stamina 5619 (1065)

T eamwork 3897(1440) Teaching 5489 (1036)

T eaching 3857 (1318) Organizational 4991 (1244)

Cosmopolitan 3493 (1345) BusinessT echnical 4867(1 211)

World View


76

in the 21 century respondents gave a mean response o f 6185 With respect to

businesstechnical knowledge 20 years ago the mean response o f 5344 was among the

top five mean scores whereas for the 21 century this competency received the lowest

mean score

-tests two-tailed were used to compare rating means for past and future

requirements Results are presented in Table 14 Differences were significant for all

competencies with ratings higher for the 21 century than for the past across all

competencies except for businesstechnical knowledge and organizational skills where

21 -century ratings were lower

External Driver Influence on Competency Requirements

Q uestion 2 If there is a shift in perceptions are the external drivers-

globalization technology downsizing and diversity-related to that shiftlsquod


leadership com petency requirements

It has been previously suggested that the external drivers used in this research

are influencing the need for leadership competencies To support this relationship public

sector leaders were asked to rate the importance o f each external driver on the 1-7 point

scale Responses were described at high moderate or low points on the scale and

percentages calculated for each driver at each descriptor -tests two-tailed were applied

to the means Data are presented in Table 15


77

Table 14 Significance o f Shift Degrees o f Freedom Values and Probabilities o f the Ratings by Public Sector Leaders o f Past and Future Leadership Competency

Requirements

Competency J f

CosmopolitanAVorld View 222 26782 p lt 000

Team work 223 21375 p lt 000

Vision 221 17946 p lt 000

Ability to Leam 222 16577 p lt 000

Communication 222 16531 p lt 000

Teaching 220 15103 p lt 000

Negotiation 222 12434 p lt 000

Interpersonal 222 12056 p lt 000

Ethics 221 9834 p lt 000

Entrepreneurial 222 9743 p lt 000

Problem Solving 221 5 751 p lt 000

Initiative 221 5424 p lt 000

Stamina 222 3165 p lt 002

Organizational 221 -3397 p lt 001

BusinessT echnical 222 -3777 p lt 002


78

Table 15 Means Standard Deviations and Percentages o f the Ratings by Public Sector Leaders o f the Influence o f External Drivers on Leadership Competency Requirem ents

for the 21ldquo Century

External Driver Ratings High M oderate Low

Globalization 5911 (1014) 86 10 1

Technology 5964 (1024) 90 7 3

Diversity 4920(1386) 65 19 15

Downsizing 4200(1323) 39 32 28

Comparison o f mean ratings indicates that globalization and technology are

considered equally important Globalization and technology are considered to have more

influence than diversity t (224) = 9 303 (p lt 000) t (223) = 9222 (jj lt 000) and than

downsizing i (224) = 15500 p lt 000) t (223) = 17060 p lt 000) Diversity is

considered to have more influence than downsizing t (224) = 6324 p lt 000)

The ranking o f the drivers is significant in that some are considered more

important than others however it should be noted that almost 40 o f the sample

considered even the lowest rated driver downsizing to have a high influence and 71

considered it to have at least a moderate influence

Leader and General Population Perspectives

Question 3 Is there a divergence o r convergence o f views between leaders in

the public sector and the general public as to the required leadership com petencies in the

21 ldquo centuryrsquo


79

It w as hypothesized that leaders ratings o f leadership competencies required

for the 2T centurs will differ when compared to the general publicrsquos ratings o f leadership

competencies required for the 21rdquo century

Because the external driversrsquo impact on the general population as well as

organizations it was important to establish that the ratings by the public sector leaders

were reflecting an organizational perspective rather than that o f an individual

Individuals may experience the external drivers as more general influences without

consideration o f specific strategic objectives values or work while leaders may

experience them specifically as they affect their organizationrsquos objectives values and

work An individual may rate the importance o f leadership competencies from the point

o f view o f what they personally would need to focus on to take a leadership role whereas

an organizational perspective would frame a response in terms o f the needs o f the

organization itself

To determine if there were differences in the perceptions o f the general

population and public sector leaders r-tests (as described previously) on the independent

sample means w ere calculated Results are presented in Table 16

W hile it is important to note that a direct comparison betw een the rankings o f

competencies betw een the leaders and the general population is somewhat constrained

given the fact that four o f the competencies (businesstechnical knowledge interpersonal

teamwork and vision) rated by the leaders w ere not ranked by the general populations it

is nonetheless possible to make some general observations with respect to the

comparisons betw een the two groups The general population rated a number o f


80

Table 16 Means and Standard Deviations o f the Ratings by Public Sector Leaders and the General Population o f Leadership Competency Requirements for the 21ldquo Century

Competency Public Sector General DifferenceLeaders Population

Problem Solving 6009 (882) 6290 (948) -0281

Ability to Leam 6159 (854) 6364 (695) -0205

Communication 6379 (702) 6318 (913) 0061

Initiative 5969 (840) 6170 (991) -0201

Entrepreneurial 5661 (1028) 5694(1170) -0033

Teaching 5489 (1036) 5672 (1239) -0183

Stamina 5619 (1065) 5668 (1197) -0049

Ethics 6128 (1007) 6262(1106) -0134

Organizational 4991 (1244) 5998 (1094) -1007

Negotiation 5797 (1947) 6106 (1022) -0309

CosmopolitanAVorld View 6185 (1863) 5668 (1283) 0517


81

competencies as more important for the 21ldquo century than did public sector leaders O f

these the following were statistically significant problem solving r = -4795 p lt 000)

ability to leam z = -3595 p lt 000) initiative r = -3597 p lt 000) teaching z = -2646

ip lt 008) ethics z = -2008 p lt 044) organizational skills z = -12171 p lt 000) and

negotiating z = -4905 p lt 000)

Public sector leaders rated cosm opolitanworld view at a significantly higher

rate than did the general population z = 9028 p lt 000)

In reporting these results it is im portant to note that significance is achieved

even when actual mean differences are small This results from the high degree o f

consensus am ong the raters regarding the im portance o f each competency for each epoch

Combined Data Public and Private Sector Leaders and General Population Diflerences

This section o f the results combines findings from the public sector leaders

group and the private sector leaders group (W atson 2000) It has been established for

both groups that there is a shift in the perception o f leadership competency requirements

between the past and the 21ldquo century It has been supported that this shift is a function to

some extent o f the set o f external drivers defined for this study Additional analysis

indicates that each group o f leaders differs from the general population in their

perspective o f how important each competency will be in the future

Comparisons o f ratings by public and private sector leaders are reported to

address two issues First is there a difference in the size o r degree o f shift between these


82

groups o f leaders that is is there a bigger change for leaders in one sector o r the other

Second is there a difference in which o f the leadership competencies is perceived as the

most important and does that differ from the perspective o f the general population

Degree of Shift

Question -fa Is there a consensus o f views between leaders in the public

sector and those in the private sector as to the size o f the shift between 20 years ago and

in the 21 century

It was hypothesized that the public sec to rs size o f shift between past and


Data are presented in Table 17 r-tests (as described previously in chapter 3)

on the differences in the mean differences indicated significantly different size shifts

Public sector leaders demonstrated a larger shift in leadership requirements

than did private sector leaders on vision r - 2488 ip lt 016) entrepreneurial skills

r = 2305 ip lt 022) and approached significance for negotiating r = 1898 ip lt 056)

Public sector leaders indicated that the difference in the requirements for these

competencies will increase more so than in the private sector

Ranking of Competencies Within Groups



the most important


83

Table 17 M ean Differences and Standard Deviations o f the Shift in Ratings by Public Sector Leaders and Private Sector Leaders o f Leadership Competency Requirements

Competency Public Sector Leaders Shift

Private Sector Leaders Shift

Difference

T eamwork 2348 (1644) 2133 (1608) 0215

Problem Solving 0559(1447) 0567(1488) -0008

Ability to Leam 1677 (1511) 1639(1454) 0038

Communication 1596(1442) 1558 (1500) 0038

Vision 1829(1510) 1364(1718) 0465

Interpersonal 1345 (1886) 1479(1641) -0134

Initiative 0482 (1324) 0525 (1270) -0043

Entrepreneurial 1103 (1691) 0678 (1603) 0425

Teaching 1629(1803) 1521 (1473) 0108

Stamina 0372(1745) 0331 (1422) 0041

Ethics 0 959(1484) 0802(1 430) 0157

Organizational -0392(1719) -0227(1475) -0165

BusinessTechnical -0471 (1882) -0142(1502) -0329

Negotiation 1291 (1551) 0975 (1429) 0316

Cosmopolitan 2691 (1500) 2669(1575) 0022

World View


84

It was hypothesized that each group will perceive som e leadership



population

Public sector leaders

To determine if the ratings by public sector leaders o f the leadership

competencies required in the 21rdquo century differed in terms o f importance the ratings were

ranked and compared using a 95 confidence interval Data are presented in Table IS

Organizational skills and businesstechnical knowledge indicate lower ratings for

importance than the other competencies p lt 05)

Private sector leaders

To determine if the ratings by private sector leaders o f the leadership


ranked and compared using a 95 confidence interval Data are presented in Table 19

(W atson 2000) Private sector leaders rated a number o f com petencies significantly

higher than others These include vision cosmopolitanworld view ability to learn

communication teamwork and initiative p lt 05)

General population

To determine if the ratings by the general population o f leadership

competencies required in the 21 rdquo century differed in terms o f importance the ratings were


85

Table 18 Public Sector Leaders Ranking o f Leadership Competency Requirements byMean Ratines With Standard Deviations and Confidence Intervals

Com petency Rank Rating Confidence Interval Lower U pper

Vision 1 6419 (807) 6313 6524

Communication 2 6379 (702) 6288 6470

Team work 3 6242 (740) 6146 6 339

Cosm opolitanW orld View 4 6185 (863) 6073 6297

Ability to Learn 5 6 159 (854) 6048 6271

Ethics 6 6 128 (1007) 5997 6259

Problem Solving 7 6009 (882) 5894 6124

Initiative 8 5969 (840) 5880 6079

Interpersonal 9 5925 (972) 5799 6052

N egotiation 10 5797 (947) 5674 5921

Entrepreneurial 11 5661 (1028) 5527 5795

Stamina 12 5 6 1 9 (1 0 6 5 ) 5481 5758

Teaching 13 5489 (1036) 5354 5624

Organizational 14 4991 (1244) 4829 5153

BusinessT echnical 15 4 8 6 7 (1 2 1 1 ) 4709 5025


86

Table 19 Private Sector Leadersrsquo Ranking of Leadership Competency Requirements byMean Ratings With Standard Deviations and Confidence Intervals

Competency Rank Rating Confidence IntervalLower Upper

Vision 1 6446 (866) 6292 6601

CosmopolitanW orld View 2 6372 (743) 6239 6504

Ability to Learn 3 6248 (849) 6097 6399

Communication 4 6231 (883) 6074 6369

Teamwork 5 6182 (876) 6026 6338

Initiative 6 6116 (829) 5968 6263

Ethics 7 6041 (970) 5869 6214

Problem Solving 8 5982 (946) 5822 6161


Interpersonal 10 5842 ( 944) 5673 6011

Negotiation 11 5835 (916) 5671 5998

Stamina 12 5760(1017) 5579 5941

Teaching 13 5496 (1034) 5312 5680

BusinessT echnical 14 5225 (1104) 5028 5422

Organizational 15 5000 (1174) 4790 5210


87

ranked and compared using a 95 confidence internal D ata are presented in Table 20

Results indicate that ability to learn communication problem solving ethics initiative

and negotiation were rated as the most important (p lt 05) Organizational skills

entrepreneurial skills teaching stamina and cosmopolitanworld view were rated as less

important p lt 05) The 95 confidence interval was adopted as the cut-off for

significance reflecting research and publication standards

Ranking of Competencies Between Groups

Means associated with the rankings were com pared across groups using a 95

confidence interval Data are presented in Table 21 Public sector and private sector

leaders ranked the competencies similarly Vision communication teamwork

cosmopolitanworld view and ethics were common to both groups as higher rated

competencies Private sector leaders ranked businesstechnical knowledge higher than

did public sector leaders (p lt 05) The competencies rated the highest by the general

population differed from those o f both groups o f leaders ip lt 05) The general

population rated problem solving as more important than did both groups o f leaders and

rated ability to learn higher than did the public sector leaders ip lt 05)

Sum m ary of Results

Public sector leaders perceived a shift in importance o f most leadership

competencies from 20 years ago to the 21 century however they rated

businesstechnical knowledge and organizational as decreasing in importance


88

Table 20 General Population Ranking o f Leadership Competency Requirements byMean Ratings With Standard Deviations and Confidence Intervals

Competency Rank Rating Confidence IntervalLower U pper

Ability to Learn 1 6 364 (895) 6318 6409

Communication 2 6318 (913) 6272 6365

Problem Solving 3 6290 (948) 6242 6338

Ethics 4 6 262(1 105) 6206 6318

Initiative 5 6 1 7 0 ( 991) 6120 6220

Negotiation 6 6 106(1 022) 6054 6157

Organizational 7 5 998 (1094) 5943 6053


Teaching 9 5 672(1 238) 5609 5734

Stamina 10 5669 (1197) 5608 5730

Cosmopolitan 11 5668 (1263) 5604 5732

W orld View


89

Table 21 Ranking o f Leadership Competency Requirements

Rank

Com petency Public Sector Private Sector General

Vision 1 1 na

Communication 2 4 2

Team w ork 3 5 na

CosmopolitanAVorid View 4 2 11

Ability to Leam 5 3 1

Ethics 6 7 4

Problem Solving 7 8 3

Initiative 8 6 5

Interpersonal 9 10 na

Negotiation 10 11 6

Entrepreneurial 11 9 8

Stam ina 12 12 10

Teaching 13 13 9

O rganizational Skills 14 15 7

BusinessT echnical 15 14 na


90

They rated all external drivers as having influence on the competencies

especially globalization and technology

Public sector leaders rated problem solving ability to leam initiative

teaching ethics and organizational skills lower than the general population and a similar

effect for negotiating approached significance Public sector leaders rated

cosmopolitanworld view as more important than did the general population This may

reflect the differences in organizational versus individual experiences o f the impact o f the

external drivers

Public sector leaders differed from private sector leaders in that they rated

larger shifts in importance for vision entrepreneurial skills and negotiating

Both public and private sector leaders identified the same top five ranked

competencies including vision communication teamwork cosmopolitanworld view

and ability to leam The general population ranked ability to leam as the most important

competency (within a smaller group o f 11 competencies)


CHAPTER 5

SLHVIMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM M ENDATIONS

This chapter contains a summary overview including a brief review o f the

purpose conclusions and recommendations for further study

Summary

As previously established in chapter 2 the pace o f change in the 21 century is

most evident when considered in the context o f the effects o f globalization technology

diversity and downsizing These external drivers individually as well as in combination

will affect the way in which we think about leadership requirements for the future

Leaders perceptions as to the trend toward particular leadership competencies required

for future leadership will be important input into training and development opportunities

for current managers

In this context the purpose o f this study w as to identify whether public sector

leaders perceive a shift in the required leadership competencies for the 21 century The

hypothesis that the shift would be perceived to be related to a set o f external drivers was

then tested by private sector leaders rating their perception o f the influence o f each

external driver on leadership competency requirements To support the validity that

public sector leaders are subject m atter experts differences between organizational

91


92

perspective and the individual perspective are then compared Two additional analyses

combine data from the tw o research studies public sector leaders and private sector

leaders using data from a similar study (W atson 2000) Using these com bined data the

size o f shift in leadership requirements over time was compared between the tw o sectors

The other analysis com pared top-ranked competencies across groups specifically public

sector leaders private sector leaders and the general public

Finding 1

As described in chapter 4 public sector leaders perceive that the following

leadership com petencies will be more im portant in the 21ldquo century team w ork problem

solving ability to leam communication vision interpersonal initiative entrepreneurial

teaching stamina ethics negotiation and cosmopolitanworld view At the same time

public sector leaders perceive that both organizational and businesstechnical

competencies will be less important for leaders in the 21ldquo century than 20 years ago

Finding 2

Respondents identified both globalization and technology as im portant

environmental factors which are driving the requirem ents for leadership com petencies

into the 21ldquo century While there was more divergence o f perceptions the respondents

further identified both diversity and downsizing as having an impact on the com petencies

for 21 ldquo-century public sector leaders


93

Finding 3

Because the external drivers impact on the general population as well as


were reflective o f an organizational perspective rather than that o f an individual The

public sector leaders rated cosmopolitanworld view higher than did the general public

The general public rated problem solving ability to leam initiative teaching ethics

organizational skills and negotiating higher than public sector leaders

F inding 4

In comparing public sector leaders and private sector leaders the variation in

perception is m easured by the size or degree o f shifts between these tw o groups o f

leaders As noted in chapter 4 public sector leaders demonstrated a larger shift in

leadership requirem ents for vision and entrepreneurial skills than did private sector

leaders

Both public and private sector leaders ranked the competencies similarly with

the exception that public sector leaders ranked businesstechnical knowledge somewhat

less than private sector leaders The general public rated problem solving as more

important than both groups o f leaders and rated ability to leam higher than did the public

sector leaders

Conclusions


opportunities for current public sector managers as they plan for the future Very simply


94

this study dem onstrated that public sector leaders acknowledged that future leadership

competencies will be different than they were in the past Adding to this simple finding is

that another researcher (W atson 2000) has found that private sector leaders in general

acknowledge a similar shift in leadership competencies for the future A key question is

Why Both groups experience the external drivers firsthand in the daily operation o f

their organization At the same time both groups o f leaders operate within different

organizational structures and have recognizably different organizational values In the

past there was general though unspoken acceptance that notwithstanding similar

external drivers public and private sectors required very different leaders The results o f

this study would indicate that a shared understanding o f the leadership competencies

which will be needed in the future is being developed By understanding the external

drivers and their influence on the 21 century the convergence on particular leadership

competencies can be better understood

AS established previously the 21 century is characterized by the

interdependence o f the external drivers including globalization technology diversity and

downsizing The speed o f technology has facilitated increased globalization in the same

way that diversity is demanded to address complex global issues The complex

interdependence o f the external drivers has created an environment in which the increased

speed o f change is not only accepted but assumed The findings in this study confirm that

the external drivers o f globalization and technology are perceived by public sector leaders

as pervasive influences in their vision o f the future Diversity and downsizing have a

somewhat lesser yet still important influence in modelling the future for leaders


95

W hat is notable in the 21ldquo century is leadersrsquo consensus w ith respect to the

perception that the external drivers including globalization technology diversity and

downsizing will have in shaping future leadership requirements For the public sector

the convergence o f required leadership competencies among sectors both public and

private is an im portant consideration given the urgent need to recruit and retain

leadership candidates at the federal level

The discussion o f the findings o f this study is facilitated by grouping the

15 competencies in this study into the five clusters as described in Table 22 Each cluster

is discussed individually

Table 22 Leadership Competencies Grouped in Clusters

Cluster Competencies

Future VisionCosmopolitan World V iew

Relational T eamworkCommunicationInterpersonalTeachingNegotiation

Intellectual Ability to LeamProblem Solving

Personal EthicsInitiativeStamina

Managerial EntrepreneurialOrganizationalBusiness Technical


96


public sector leaders-vision communication teamwork cosmopolitanworld view and

ability to leam -a compelling story can be told about future leadership and the trend

toward future and relational clusters o f competencies for leaders It is a story that can be

explained in large part by understanding the interaction that the external environmental

drivers have had on shaping leaders perception o f the future This is particularly evident

when the various clusters o f com petencies and their ranking in the 2 T lsquo century are

considered

Future Competencies

Public sector leaders ranked vision and cosmopolitanworld view as among

the most im portant competencies Furthermore the public sector leaders demonstrated a

larger shift in vision leadership requirements than did private sector leaders Finally

there was a convergence o f perceptions between the public sector leaders and private

sector leaders who ranked vision and cosmopolitanworld view as the most important

At the same time the general public ranked cosmopolitanworld view last

among their 11 rated competencies

Relating these results to the external drivers is useful Globalization and

technology are causing the velocity o f change to increase exponentially Current public

sector leadersrsquo perception that the importance o f future-related competencies such as

vision cannot be surprising in this environment The need for a diversity o f ideas

perceptions and biases in order to solve tom orrow rsquos challenges is to some extent


97

captured by the dem onstrated preference o f public sector leaders for a leadership

competency called cosmopolitan world view It is worth noting that while this term has

not been formally defined the term has sufficient significance to elicit a consensus among

public sector leaders that future leaders need to have this competency

The fact that public sector leaders rated cosmopolitanworld view higher than

did the general public and that the general public ranked this competency last is

consistent with the theory that the external drivers may have a different effect depending

on whether the individual is considering the external driver from an organizational versus

an individual perspective The ranking comparisons between the three groups starkly

demonstrate a difference in perspective from top-ranked competency among the leader

groups to last among the general public It is quite possible that globalization and

diversity have not influenced the individualrsquos perspective o f future leadership to the same

extent that they have organizations Which is not to say that the external drivers have not

influenced the individual perspective they have but with differing results The

individual perspective for future leadership competencies follows a trend toward personal

and intellectual clusters competencies Individuals may be very interested in how the

external drivers influence their place o f work but take an individual perspective when

asked about future leadership competencies

The results o f this study would at a minimum confirm that from an

organizational perspective the trend toward cosmopolitan competencies is more evident

This result is similar in the private sector leadersrsquo analysis which provides more evidence

from an organizational perspective regarding the emerging importance o f cosmopolitan


98

world view Adding to this finding was the lower ranking by the general public for

cosmopolitanworld view While both public and private sector leaders ranked this future

competency near the top the general public indicated their quite different perception by

ranking it near the bottom

In seeking to understand why there was such a break between the

organizational and the individual perspectives on this competency it may be useful to

examine the environment beyond the four external drivers The public debate regarding

pay equity employment quotas and affirmative action plans have all been part o f the

corporate debate for some time This in a sense has positioned organizations to be

prepared for the speed with which organizations have had to cope with global change

global markets and global custom ers The diversity that legislation in many cases

encouraged organizations to seek beyond their normal scope in fact positioned them for

the demands o f the 21 century

bullAnother trend which is evident in examining the future competencies

identified by the public sector leaders is the similarities with the perceptions and rankings

o f the private sector leaders In a world where external drivers such as technology both

its development and transfer and downsizing are compelling organizations to form

partnerships trade information and personnel the finding that both public sector and

private sector leaders have very similar perceptions with respect to future leadership

competencies provides for significant opportunities between the tw o sectors The

convergence despite different organizational values and objectives creates potential for

increased exchange opportunities as well as shared training and development

opportunities


99

Relational Competencies

A second trend that is evident is the public sector leadersrsquo perception that in

the 21ldquo century there will be an increased reliance on the cluster o f relational

competencies for leaders In particular the ranking o f both team w ork and

communication competencies am ong the top-rated competencies is w orthy o f note

These competencies along with interpersonal teaching and negotiation were all

perceived by public sector leaders to shift towards greater im portance for future leaders

The ranking o f team work and communication was similarly ranked by private sector

leaders as among the top five future competencies

The 21ldquo century has been characterized as the relationship age

(Renesch 1992) and the perceptions o f current public sector leaders would seem to

confirm that view The ability to communicate has always been im portant But with the

increased diversity o f the workplace and the demands o f a constantly changing

work-place with new technologies and applications the capacity to envision the future

may not be sufficient Leaders must be able to communicate the vision And

communicate that vision to various teams

The concept o f team w ork as being the organizational construct o f choice in

the 21ldquo century is confirmed by the results in this study Problems in the 21ldquo century

have become more complex and multi-faceted Resolving issues in the 21ldquo century will

require multi-dimensional team s o f individuals and perhaps even organizations who come

together with a shared objective to resolve a particular problem W e are already seeing

evidence o f this in the increased partnership arrangements am ong Canadian government


100

departments as well as in the corporate field W here organizations do not have the

existing capacity or the diversity o f experience required for a particular project they seek

it out more and more on a short-term basis N ot only are organizations as a result o f

downsizing embracing this organizational construct but as importantly workers

especially new entrants into the workforce and women are taking advantage o f

project-specific employment as a means to preserve their flexibility as well as a means to

ensure a dynamic work environment which is constantly contributing to their personal

experience base In this paradigm teamwork becomes essential Again the results o f this

study demonstrate that there is convergence between the public sector leaders and the

private sector leaders with respect to the importance o f the cluster o f relationship

competencies

Intellectual Competencies

Ability to leam was ranked by public sector leaders as among the top five

rated leadership competencies for the 21ldquo century The general population ranked this

leadership competency as their number one ranked priority with the private sector leaders

ranking ability to leam third The cluster o f intellectual competencies typically includes

both ability to leam as well as problem solving Taken together these intellectual

competencies were ranked by leaders in the top eight competencies It is noteworthy that

ability to leam ranked higher than even problem solving in the context o f the 21ldquo century

In an environment where change is commonplace and technologies are

evolving at a pace never seen before the ability to leam and adapt is essential It differs


101

from the 1980srsquo term o f leaders as change agents which reflected the need for leaders to

convince organizations o f the need to either downsize or catch up with the latest

technology Leaders were seen to be the catalyst for change In the 21ldquo century the

salient competency has become an ability to leam The term itself is neutral in term s o f

leadership The competency ability to leam fits into a 21 ldquo-century context because it

suggests that in the 21ldquo century the changes which an organization will face will not be

predictable Instead the changes will be fast and qualitatively different from the status

quo In this environment the ability to leam and integrate will be key The convergence

o f the public sector leaders and the private sector leaders on this cluster o f com petencies

is consistent with a view o f the 21ldquo century as one o f interdependent leadership

Personal Competencies

The personal competencies including ethics initiative and

staminaresilienceself-renewal are consistently ranked in the middle tier o f the

15 competencies Both public and private sector leaders ranked the personal

competencies similarly

It is interesting that the public sector leaders ranked ethics higher than

initiative whereas the situation is reversed with respect to the private sector leaders In

part this may be understood by considering the differing values that exist in the tw o

sectors The public sector prom otes the public good and in this context it is not surprising

that the public sector would rank ethics higher than the private sector In a highly

competitive environment such as the private sector where innovation and first m overs are

prized the higher ranking o f initiate by the private sector is in part explainable


102

Managerial Competencies

In the 21 century across both sectors there is a clear perception that the

cluster o f m anagerial competencies especially organizational skills and

businesstechnical knowledge will be less important than other competencies

Entrepreneurial skills are ranked higher by the private sector leaders which is consistent

with the organizational values o f that sector In the 21ldquo century with the perception o f

the velocity o f change the need for static skills is less important To some extent this

will represent a dramatic shift in the planning for leadership development training The

assumption in the 21ldquo century will be that the business or technical skills will be so

precise and project specific that it will be m ore efficient to buy or borrow them for the

specific project This is especially true if projects are o f short duration

Leadership Development

The results o f this study suggest that public sector leaders perceive an

important shift in the required leadership competencies for the 21ldquo century The trend is

mirrored by leaders in the private sector (W atson 2000) This information enables

current leaders to re-evaluate and modify current training and development plans in

preparation for a dynamic future environment Directionally the trend tow ards clusters

o f future com petencies and relationship competencies is clear As importantly especially

in a public sec to r dynamic the general public perceives the same future to a large extent


103

Recommendations

The following are recommendations for further research

Recom m endation I Implement a quantitative study which would test whether

or not the convergence o f view o f Canadian public sector leaders with respect to the shift

in leadership competencies for the 21ldquo century is reflected in other countries

Recom m endation 2 Implement a quantitative study to ascertain if leaders

perceive the effects o f the external drivers as having differing impacts on the individual


Recom m endation 3 Repeat the general population telephone survey to ensure

that all 15 o f the com petencies are ranked


APPENDIX I

LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES FOR ADMs AND SENIOR EXECUTIVES Correspondance with other organizations


CDDOQC

gQ

DCD

C)

o3O

APPENDIX 1 LEADERSHIP C O M P E T E N C IE S FOR ADMs AND SENIOR EXECUTIVESCorrespondence with oilier organizations

Table 23 CORRESPONDENCE WITH BEST PRACTICES IN EXECUTIVE SELECTION

8D( O 3

i3CD

nc33 CD

CDDOQCaO3

DO

CDQ

DCD

()()

ConipctciicicsBank Instiraitcc Manttfacturiitg Technology Trans-

ponaiiottTraining

CentreProvGovt

ForeignGovts

CIBC B of M Royal Sun Life G E GM Xerox Nortel CN ENAP Oitl US(OPM)

NZ

1 C ogiiilivc C apacity

2 C reativ ity

V V isioning

4 A ction M anagcincn t 1

3 O rg an i^ tio n a l A w areness

6 T eam w ork

7 Irsquoa tlncring

N Interpersonal R ela tions

9 C om m u n ica tio n

1(1 S tam inaS ttc ss R esistance

11 lith ies and V alues

12 Personality

IV B ehavioural Flexibility

14 Self-C onfidence

OLA

APPENDIX 2

LEA D ERSH IP CO M PETEN CIES FOR ADMs AND SEN IO R EXECUTIVES


107

Public Servce Commission Commission de la fonction pJblique j of Canada du Canada

Leadership Competencies for ADMs and Senior Executives

The Public Service C om m ission and Deputy M inisters recognize there are a certain number o f com petencies required to ensure an individualrsquos success at senior m anagem ent levels These com petencies form the basis o f a standard o f leadership behaviour that can be consistently applied across the executive com m unity

Assistant Deputy M inisters are champions o f the Canadian Public Service In the m idst o f change and am biguity they elicit com m itm ent and enthusiasm for the Public Service vision o f the future ADM s develop and carry out government policies that are in the best interests o f the public They plan strategies to help move toward the vision com m itting to action and achieving their goals in the most efficient and effective manner W orking w ith o ther ADMs they jo in forces in the interest o f serving the public good ADMs build partnerships w ith other organizations to better meet the objectives o f all partners and in the interest o f better serving the public


Cognitive Capacity

ADM s possess the cognitive capacity to understand and respond strategically to the com plexities inherent in public service The cognitive capacity o f the ADM allow s him or her to understand com plex and divergent issues and to interpret key messages and trends They recognize how these relate to their organization and develop policies that are acceptable from m ultip le points o f view W hile focusing on their u ltim ate goal o f the public good they recognize that a m ultip licity o f different facets must work together to achieve that goal ADMs use their cognitive capacity to protect the public interest they create order out o f chaos and develop long-term and short-term strategies that w ill prevent as well as solve problem s


108

Creativity

ADM s respond to challenges w ith innovative solutions and policies They demonstrate a w illingness to question conventional m eans o f serving the public They may use intuition non-linear thinking fresh perspectives and inform ation from non-traditional fields to generate new and im aginative ways to succeed They will often address several objectives sim ultaneously solving m ultip le problem s at once To prepare for future challenges A D M s enhance their creativity by continuous learning

Future Building Competency

Visioning

ADMs cham pion the vision o f the Public Service They describe the future o f service to the public in com pelling terms prom oting enthusiasm and com m itm ent in others The leaders com m itm ent to the vision sends a message to others that change is a positive endeavour thus creating an atmosphere that generates new ideas They explain how the vision incorporates the Public Service culture and values and how it responds to external factors at the local national and international level This includes opportunities for partnerships w orldw ide com petition and com m unity involvem ent A D M s foresee potential roadblocks to success and take action to avoid or overcom e them

Management Competencies

Action Management

ADM s are action-oriented individuals w ho anticipate the short- and long-term consequences o f the ir strategies They consider strategies as they relate to their own organization the Public Service as a w hole and the com m on good T heir efficiency in carrying out policies ensures the public is properly served They develop backup strategies to deal w ith potential negative outcom es As A D M s deal w ith serious tim e-sensitive issues and may have to m anage a num ber o f crises sim ultaneously they remain focused in the face o f m ultiple distractions They know that m ost decisions must be taken before all the facts are available and are at ease w ith am biguity and risk in this regard They have the courage to propose courses o f action that others may hesitate to suggest These sk ills enable ADM s to m ake things happen and get th ings done they are known for their ab ility to accomplish objectives

Organizational Awareness

ADM s understand the inner workings o f the governm ent the Public Service and their own organizations in term s o f structure processes and key players They actively develop this awareness in order to effectively position them selves to achieve strategic


109

objectives This requires acute sensitiv ity to the relationships betw een key players in the organization in addition to both acknow ledged and private agendas ADMs actively seek out opportunities to keep the ir organizational awareness comprehensive and current O rganizational awareness allow s one to set the stage w hen m aking strategic decisions^ in both the short- and long-term This com petency must be actively m aintained by the individual using good judgem ent about the relationships that influence the organization A D M s use this com petency to steer decision-m aking in the d irection that w ill m ost effectively serve the public interest Learning from experience A D M s develop the w isdom to know when to cut their losses o r when to pursue an issue more aggressively O rganizational awareness com es from a range o f sources from intuitive perception to factual data

Teamwork

ADMs are aware that service to the public com pels them to contribute actively and fu lly to team projects by working w ith o ther A D M s and colleagues collaboratively as opposed to com petitively which includes working tow ards consensual solutions that enhance the output o f the team A D M s so lic it and provide inform ation that could affect the planning or the decision-m aking process by dem onstrating a genuine interest in receiving inform ation from others and encouraging others to offer their ideas or opinions A D M s negotiate m utually acceptable so lu tions by trying to understand the positions thoughts concerns and feelings o f others ADM s assure all parties that fair solutions and better options will be identified A D M s develop and m ain tain sm ooth cooperative w orking relationships by showing consideration concern and respect for others They recognize that a diversity o f experience and knowledge can only enhance the quality o f the team s work They are sym pathetic to and tolerant o f differing needs and view points w hile m eeting com m on goals

Partnering

A D M s w ork w ith partners to create the policies that support integrated service delivery and elim inate red tape and bureaucracy in the interest o f the public good ADM s develop a com m unity o f shared interests w ith diverse levels o f governm ent interest groups and the non-profit and private sectors Partners use their diversity o f experience and know ledge to make the best decisions Partners share com m on goals solve com m on problem s and work hand in hand for the com m on good not on ly o f each partner but o f the C anadian public A n essential feature o f this com m unity is that it functions on the basis o f shared power and responsibility T his allows m em bers to avoid waste inefficiency and duplication o f effort w h ile retaining the iden tity o f their own organization This allow s them to serve the country to the best o f their abilities both individually and collectively Fundam ental to successful partnering are com m itm ent trust and the open com m unication tha t helps to articulate and align the objectives and expectations o f all members Partnering is an expression o f team w ork outside onersquos organization It requires the same sp irit o f collaboration and diplom acy however e lic iting the cooperation o f external partners may require even keener collaborative skills


no

Relationship Competencies

Interpersonal Relations

ADM s interact effectively w ith public and private sector individuals in order to advance the work o f the Public Service T heir interactions are based on respect and an appreciation that people w ith varying backgrounds and view points enrich the organizational environm ent Their negotiating skills a llow them to m aintain relationships and produce w in-w in results Through persuasion and assertiveness they gain support for ideas and in itiatives influence peers and superiors and effectively represent their organization s interests to other groups A D M s have the ab ility to deal w ith difficult and com plex interpersonal situations and to take firm control in order to actualize the agenda or to protect the public interest For an ADM interpersonal skills are a means o f achieving im portant management objectives

Communication

ADM s com m unicate in a com pelling and articulate m anner that instills com m itm ent They adapt their com m unication to ensure tha t different audiences understand key messages They use a variety o f com m unications vehicles to foster open com m unication w ith in their own organization and across the Public Service ADM s effectively represent the Public Service as a protector o f the com m on good to special interest groups clients and the media They also appreciate the importance o f being a good listener providing opportunities for others to have input listening for underlying nuances and m essages and conveying an understanding o f the key points being com m unicated


StaminaStress Resistance

A D M s must sustain high energy levels to greet the ongoing challenge o f protecting the public interest Their ab ility to resist stress and remain energized in the face o f d ifficult dem ands and prolonged exposure to stressors often has an uplifting effect on others A D M s are realistic about the ir own lim its They respond to the early signs o f burnout to ensure that their energy reserves rem ain high over the long term

Ethics and Values

A D M s treat people fairly and w ith dignity They are w illing to adm it their m istakes even in the face o f adverse consequences These individuals honour their com m itm ents and consistently strive to act in the public interest by ensuring that the public trust is not violated Their principles act as an internal compass to guide their behaviour a llow ing them to consistently uphold the personal social and ethical norms o f the Public Service


I l l

They protect fairness avoid conflicts o f interest and m aintain political and interpersonal neutrality They pursue proper goals and are resilient in the face o f distracting external pressures AD M s are known for doing the right thing for the right reasons they ensure that their actions are aligned w ith their principles

Personality

ADMs possess the am bition to set challenging goals and the tenacity to pursue them over the long term They have the stability and self-control to m aintain fbcus and composure in the midst o f com plex logical problems or em otionally stressful interactions A D M s are m otivated by the challenge o f protecting and serving the public good For A DM s power is pursued as a tool to accom plish objectives rather than an end in itself

Behavioural Flexibility

ADMs adjust their behaviour to the dem ands o f a changing w ork environm ent in order to remain productive through periods o f transition am biguity or uncertainty They can adapt the expression o f their com petencies to different situations and respond quickly to emerging opportunities and risks Behavioural flexibility allow s them to work effectively w ith a broad range o f situations people and groups A D M s use behavioural flexibility to m ove both horizontally and vertically in the Public Service This competency enables them to adapt to the characteristics o f particular situations to acquire new and more effective behaviours and to discard others as contexts and roles change It allow s them to learn from the behavioural styles o f others to expand the ir ow n repertoire The essence o f this com petency is the ability to continuously develop new ways o f interacting that are more effective in certain situations in order to accom plish one s objectives

Self-Confidence

ADMs possess realistic confidence in their abilities They are secure and are self-directed as opposed to other-directed T his inner strength is the backbone that enables them to use their com petencies to the fullest and to distinguish a challenging task from an impossible m ission ADM s seek and consider input but they are not dependent on the judgem ent o f others They make the ir decisions independently and take ownership o f and responsibility for them A D M s express their opinions w illing ly and take calculated risks even when their ideas are not endorsed by others They handle failures and criticism in a constructive manner They project an air o f assurance that quells the fears o f others which especially in tim es o f transition helps to m aintain productive w orking conditions


APPENDIX 3

EXANIPLES OF P L ^L IC AND PRIV A TE SECTOR PROFILES


xjCDoOQCsQ

oCD

C)

o3

CD

8euml

Appendix 3 Examples of Public and Private Sector Profiles

CANADA (La Relegraveve - Framework)

Intellectual C om petencies Cognitive Capacity Creativity

NEW ZEALAND (State Services Commission)

O utcom es amp R esultsC oncep tual ThinkingO utcom e Action amp E xcellence O rientation

3CD

Cp

CDoOQCaO3

oO

CDQ

Future Building C om petencies Visioning

M anagem ent C om petenc ies Action M anagem ent O rganizational A w areness Team w ork Partnering

Relational C om petenciesInterpersonal Relations Com m unication

LeadingM anagingTeam w ork amp Com m itm entM anagersh ipL eadersh ip

Client FocusC lientS takeholder Service Com m itm entInfluencing o thersG overnm ent amp S ec to r A w areness

oCD

()()

P ersona l C om petenciesS tam inaS tress R esist Ethics amp V alues Behavioural Flexibility Self-C onfidence

K now ledge C om petencies Knowledge

CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

C)C)

CD

8Olsquolt3 (O

3CD

CDOOQC

aO3OO

amp

Oc8

C)(0o3

BANK OF MONTREAL (Managerial Leadership Capabilities)

A chievem ent Orientation Relationship M anagem ent B usiness Acum en C h an g e Leadership C ontinuous Learning Client Service Focus C oncep tual amp S trategic Thinking P ersona l E ffectiveness M anagerial Orientation

73CDOOQC

gQ

OCD

O

CD

33 CD

CDO

O

CDQ

OCD

CicircC)

GM (Competencies X Domain)

In terpersonal E ffectivenessBuilds R elationships amp Partnersh ips Com m unication Skills

o Visionary Leadership2 C ustom er Focus

LeadershipSupervision C oaching Em pow erm ent T eam D evelopm ent C h an g e L eadership

P ersona l Q ualities amp Traits0 Motivational Patterna Maturity mdash1 R esu lts Orientation Ucirco Diversity

Technical K now ledge amp M anagem ent Decision Making M anaging the Jo b Functional Expertise Integrating amp Functioning Globally S tra teg ic Thinking and Execution

73CDOOQC

3Q

OCD

(gt(go3

3CD

Cp3 CD

CDOOUcircCaO3

OO

O

SCOTIABANK (Competencies X Cluster)

Action amp A chievem ent R esults Focus Decision Making EfficiencyA ccuracy amp T horoughness

sect P e rse v e ran c e

Problem SolvingAnalytical Thinking S tra teg ic Thinking Fonward Thinking Innovation

M anagerial E ffectiveness T eam FocusD evelopm ent of O thers ^

T eam L eadersh ip

g P ersona l E ffectivenessg C om m unicationf P ersuasion

Flexibilitysect O rganizational Com m itm ent

Self-developm ent Em pathy

O rganizational ImpactRelationship Building Influence C onfidence

C ustom er Sen iceC ustom er focus

CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

()C)

OCUcirc

Bank of Canada (Competency Dictionary) SUN LIFE (Core Values)

deg L eadership C ustom er Focus^ Team work Valuing our P eop lew Com m unication Team w ork8 Planning amp O rganizing (Project M anagem ent) Excellence

Delegation IntegrityCoaching amp F eed b ack Financial S trengthDeveloping Self amp O thers Relationship M anagem ent Analytic ThinkingProblem Solving Innovation Client FocusFlexibilityFacilitating C h an g eD ecisiveness

sect- T horoughnessQ ualitya Initiativedeg Future Thinking (Vision)3 Self-C onfidence~ R esults Focus

I

OcoCD

(gto=3

118

ll3UO

V)o

(UE

3 2(Uuml

gt()3

Uumls ofilt 0) S sectOSalt

E3()C i l i f

-euml(0

LU o (U (U Ccedil 3() O OS i t - i o


APPENDIX 4

QUESTIONNAIRE


120

Cmiadwr V icircre o Cei laquoe anarfiumlerV a r j o f OeN-eôofê Ce j^fsion

Svrtembvr 1 1999

Dear SirM adam

A5 w e move into the 21raquo Century there is an on-going and important debate as to what skills and abilities will be required of future leaders This is a debate which is of interest to both the public sector and private sector I would like to invite you to participate in this important debate by m aking your views known on these issues The attached survey is being sent to an elite cadre of public and private sector leaders so that their views can shape and influence the debate and subsequent direction of policy in this area

Your contribution to this debate can be secured by completing the attached questionnaire and returning it as soon as possible using the envelope provided Know ing how limited your time is every effort has been m ade to ensure the questiormaire is brief and to the point

All of your responses will be completely confidential mdash your name or the name of your organization will never be linked to any of your answers There is no way to track the completed questionnaires we receive mdash there are no hidden codes or identifiers We would appreciate it i f you could answer the questionnaire as soon as possible and return it to us in the envelope provided If you have any questions about the study please do not hesitate to call Dr Sheila Redmond Project Co-ordinator at Ekos Research Associates Inc at (613) 235-7215 (ccecr)

To thank you for your input we would like to send you an executive sum m ary of the report when the project is completed If you are interested please enclose your business card w ith the questionnaire o r if you prefer send us a note separately

Thank you in advance for taking the tim e to complete the questionnaire and for contributing to the debate on the abilities required for leaders of the future

Sincerely

LM aunce Demers Director General Strategic Planning and Research

D e La SalleT el (613) lt115-2263 Fraquoraquo lt613) lsquo 4 3 -3 2 6 1

D e U SaUeT e le p h o n e (6 1 3 ) raquo52 2 6 3 T eacute leacute c o p ie u r 6133 4 3 -3 2 6 1 Canada


121

While the purpose of this survey is to identify the key leadership abilities for the 21st century (ie 20 years from now) initially it will be important to get your views as to the most important leadetsftip abilities which were required 20 years ago

a

b

cd

f

ghi

i-

k

I

m

n

0

R a tf tho im p o r ta n c e o t th e t o l lo w m g a b il i t ie s fo r le a d e r s 2 0 y e a r s a g o Plcitblt- rnte your response on a scae from I not at all important to 7 extremely iinportiint where the niul-point 4 is moderately important

M e tM a uiMfoanar

MoMmniTtneeeraiT

CmoMLTiMMwraitT

Team w orL

Preblctn sollaquoin( (vatfatiC dtm nt leiitm tnc anoaow)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ability to learn (im p m t mtUipna danfupm )-

Com inuniaiions ik i l l i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

IfitioB (a titm tf)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Interperunal (rtkondnp oH tagravetatm K trm fihm )

Initiative (m cm ai)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Entrepreneurial (m i aagravetr opm am t)-

T eadiin (atdm i am tom f) ___

Staminaresiliencetcif-renewal_ _

Ethicj funrfhtf n tm )_ _ _ _ _ _ _

O rpnita liona l (tH m stntm )mdash

B u sin eu tK h n ia l knovrledfe _

N efotiationconsult and e n p p _

Cosaiopolitaneerld v iew _ _ _ _ _

2 3 6 7

3


122

2a

b

c

d

t

f

lhIIkt

m

n

0

R a te t h e im p o r t a n c e o f th e fo l lo w in g a b i l i t ie s f o r l e a d e r s o f th e 21st c e n tu r y (i e - 20 t a r s from now) Please rate your response on a scale from I not at all im portant to 7 extremely important loltere the mid-point 4 is moderately important

WOT AT h i lnoooTwr

M O O C U T U TIH R M T U T

Teamwork

Problem solving (u a ^ a lirnonmt)-----------------------------Ability to learn (intrfntn uitrlliftKe claaHtnr)bdquo

Communications skills----------------------------------

Vision (craontf)-----------------------------------------

Interpersonal (rcuumlnoarJup celUbontm urwifottienl

Initiative (moonrtd)---------------------------------------

Entrepreneurial (mkakrr aptrmttn)

Teaching poicMf memaruiJ-----------

Staminaresilienceself-renewal_____

Ethics (mrepitjr aua)-------------------

Qtganitltional tdntatamnt) mdash

Businesstechnical knowledge mdash

Negotiationconsult and engage

Cosmopolitanworld view_____

E i n K H I l TiMranuT


123

b N o w p le a s e id e n t i f y w h ic h tw o o f th e a b i l i t i e s l is te d a b o v e w il l b e m o s t c r i t ic a l f o r le a d e r s in 20 y e a r s a n d th e n r a t e th e e x te n t to w h ic h th e tw o a b i l i t ie s w il l b e e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t to f in d in 20 y e a r s

v n r t i n Eit k m it DirncuirTo Fm N u n n To Fwo

I I I i I i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 A r e th e r e a n y a b i l i t ie s n e e d e d f o r l e a d e r s o v e r th e n e x t 20 y e a r s th a t y o u fe e l h a v e n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d in th is s u r v e y

4 H o w im p o r t a n t d o y o u t h i n k l e a d e r s h i p is in r e la t io n to in te l l ig e n c e Please rate your response on a scale from 1 not at all important to 7 extremely important where the mid-point 4 is moderately important

NOTAT h i M a o o A i a T E x m i i f i TiM F O IT U n N VW TAN T tMOOOTiOT

I I I I I I I1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 4

Sa

ib

c

d

ecirc

f

1-kI

m

n

0

R a te th e im p o r ta n c e o f t h e f o l lo w in g a b i l i t ie s f o r w o r k e r s o f th e 2 1 st c e n tu r y (ie 20 years from now ) Please rate uuumliir response on a scale front I not at all important to 7 extremelu important where the mid-point 4 is moderatelu important

MoTAracircuiwatTMr

MosfumrInrciM ii

reamwork_

Problem solving (nalfBal dtaunludimtaL iitnonrnt)___________________________

Ability 10 Inrn fiMtfamt lettllifma d iu ftiptitl-__

CoRimuniaiions skills_______________________

Vision (aaantf)____________________________

Interpersonal (nugraveoomiip alUicnmt iemn[othm)

Initiative (manttd)__________________________

Entrepreneurial (miatertipenmtnr)

Teaching (catdunf attnamf)_______


Ethics (attpitf nluts)------------------

Organizational (idm m m tnt)__

Businesstechnical knowledge__



2 3

EmWMfLTInrotTUT

6 7

6

36

6666

6666i

i

6


125

b N o w p le a s e id e n t i fy w h ic h tw o o f t h e a b i l i t ie s l i s te d a b o v e w il l b e m o s t c r i t ic a l f o r w o r k e r s in 20 y e a r s a n d th e n r a t e th e e x te n t to w h ic h th e tw o a b i l i t i e s w i l l b e e a s y o r d i f f i c u l t to f in d in 2 0 y e a r s

Von EtiT ExmmiT OirncuirTo r a e No tm i To f i n

I 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

___________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T h in k i n g o f t h e a b il i t ie s C a n a d i a n l e a d e r s a n d w o r k e r s w il l r e q u i r e o v e r t h e n e x t 2 0 y e a r s h o w d i f f e r e n t w o u l d y o u s a y th e a b i l i t ie s r e q u i r e d f o r l e a d e r s w il l b e c o m p a r e d to t h o s e r e q u i r e d o f t h e a v e r a g e w o r k e r Please respond using a 7-point scale tuhere 1 means not at all different 7 means very different and the mid-point 4 m ean s somewhat different

NOTacircTOU SOMTMMr VlfTOanimT OvRoar Oinmvr

I-------1-------1-------1----- 1------- 1-----11 2 3 4 5 6 7


d

126

I h in k in g igtt 20 v e a r s a ^ o p le a s e r a te th e d e g r e e to v h ic h y o u a g r e e o r d i - a g r e e w i th e a c h o t th e f o l lo w in g s ta te m e n ts u s in g a 7 - p o in t s c a le w h e r e 1 m e a n s v o u s t r o n g ly d i s a g r e e 7 m e a n s v o u s t r o n g lv a g r e e a n d th e m id - p o i n t A m e a n s v o u n e i t h e r a g r e e n o r d is a g re e

Si mdash IT No t m i OHiCM i SraoacirD o i c i n n m i c m i i c m

1 ifiink that iKitty his the si in nd 1erdesigM ttd I t id tn In th public ind p rin tesKtors as it did 20 jrwrs ago____________________ 1 2 J

Givtn higher overall levels of education and skillsand a greater emphasis on shared decision-makingin the workplace there is less need for designatedleaden than there was 20 yean ago_______________I 2 3

The abilities for private sector leaden 20 yean ago were fundamentally the same as those for public sector leaden

If you responded 12 or 3 (ie ldquodisagree) to question 7c What is the key difference


127

I

N o w th in k in g 2 0 y e a r s f r o m to d a y p le a s e r a te th e d e g r e e to w h ic h y o u a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e w i th e a c h o f t h e fo l lo w in g s t a te m e n ts u s i n g a 7 -p o in t s c a le w h e r e 1 m e a n s y o u s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 7 m e a n s y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e a n d th e m id - p o in t 4 m e a n s y o u n e i t h e r a g r e e n o r d i s a g r e e

SimdashlaquoT WitmOnmdashii SimdashcirOnican Hoamdashn poundlaquoii

1I think that socitty will halaquoc the same need for designated leaders in the public and private sectors20 years from now as it does to d ay --------------------- 1 2 3 4 5

Given higher overall levels of education and skillsand a greater emphasis on shared decision-makingin the workplace there will be less need fordesignated leaden 20 yean from now than there istoday---------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5

The abilities required for private sector leaders 20 years from now will be fundamentally the sameas those for public sector leaden_________________ 1 2 3 4 5

If you responded 12 or 3 (ie disagree) to question 8c What is the key differencersquo

9a In y o u r o p in io n is t h e choice o f a b i l i t i e s fo r le a d e r s i n d ic a t iv e o f a t r e n d to w a r d s g e n e r a l i s t s o r t o w a r d s s p e c ia l i s t s P le a s e r a te y o u r r e s p o n s e o n a 7 -p o in t s c a le w h e r e I m e a n s a t r e n d to w a r d s g e n e r a l i s t s 7 m e a n s a t r e n d to w a r d s s p e c ia l i s t s a n d 4 m e a n s n o t r e n d

Towuos Mo Towmdash 1Cmdash M usn Tk m s n c u u in

n Imdash I I4 5 6 7


128

In y o u r o p in io n to w h a t e x te n t w il l th e f o l lo w in g f a c to r s in f lu e n c e th e a b i l i t ie s r e q u i r e d fo r le a d e r s 20 y e a r s f ro m n o w Please rate your response on a scale from J not at all to 7 a great deal where the mid-point 4 is somewhat

teoAcirciDtAL

a

b

c

de

Globalization

Ttdinologr mdash

Downsizingmdash

Onronity (raw gender culture etc) _

Otber (please specify)____________

10

a

b

W h ic h b e s t d e s c r ib e s th e s ty le o f l e a d e r s h ip

ConnauioioeMmuwKMKHooaoni

1-----120 years ago

20 years from now


129

B B a c k g r o u n dC h a r a c t e r is t ic s

N o w w e h a v e a f e w f i n a l q u e s t i o n s f o r s t a t i s t i c a l p u r p o s e s o n ly

II In w h a t y e a r w e re y o u b o m

h raquo I I I

12 W h a t is y o u r g e n d e r

(lilt

1 3 W h a t s e c to r d o y o u r w o r k in

Public Sectorfedrral--------------------------------------ProTincialitmtarial- Mumiopal--------------Private SectorHanufacturing------H i-W __________Financial Semices___EnwrtainmrntMriia Tsuriun___________Oihrr (pllaquoaw sptcify) _ Voluntary SectorHealth_____________Social SemceuOther (please specifj)


130

14 H o w m a n y e m p lo y e e s w o r k in y o u r o r g a n iz a t io n

Under 1 0 0 1Between 100 and 3 0 0 2Between 301 and 5 0 0 3Over 500 ^

15 H o w lo n g h a v e y o u b e e n m a l e a d e r s h ip p o s i t io n

I I I Tdub

16 W h a t is th e h ig h e s t le v e l o f s c h o o l in g t h a t y o u h a v e c o m p le te d

Publictlttnenuiy school or less (grade 1-8)-------------------------------------------- ISome high schoolGraduated from high school (grade 12-13)Vocationaltechnical college or CEGEP------Trade certification____________________Some university_____________________Bachelorrsquos degree-------------------------------Professional certification Graduate degree----------

17 H o w lo n g h a v e y o u b e e n in y o u r p r e s e n t o r g a n iz a t io n

Under 3 years 3-S years------6-10 years___11-20 years__Over 20 years


131

18 H o w lo n g h a v e y o u b e e n a m e m b e r o f th e w o rk fo rc e

Under 5 yean 5-10 yean___11-20 yean__21-30 yean__Over 30 yean-

1


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbasi S amp Hollman K (1998) The myth and realities o f downsizing Records Sfcmagemeni Quarterly 2 31

Abramson M (1996 September) In search o f the new leadership G overnm entExecutive 39

Adler VL amp Ziglio E ( 1996) G azing into the oracle Applications on the D elphi nnjihuds to socia l policy and public health London Jessica Kingsley

Andersen Consulting Change managem ent - thought leadership - the evolving role o j executive leadership Retrieved October 5 1999 from the World Wide Web htttpwwwaccomserviceschangechan_tI_evoIrole6htmI

Applegate LM amp Elam JJ (1992 December) New information systems leaders A change role in a changing world T5 Quarterly 16A) 469-491

Arnold WE VlcCroskey JC amp Prichard SVO (1967) The Likert-type scaleiodity Speech 15 3 1 -33

Arredondo P 1996) Successful d iversity management initiatives Thousand Oaks CA Sage Publications

Association o f Professional Executives (APEX) (1999) Report on EX selection am i prom otion - part 1 -principles values and m odernizing the system Ottawa Canadian Centre for M anagement Development

Attwell P amp Rule J ( 1984) Computing and organization What we know and what we don t know Communication o f the JCT 27 1184-1192

Baker JK (1995) Leadership 101 Indianapolis Guild Press o f Indiana

Bales RF amp Slater PE (1955) Role differentiation in sm all-decision-m aking groups In T Parsons and RF Bales (Eds) Family socialization and interaction processes New York Free Press

132


1J J

Bartosh B (1995 Winter) Adventures in downsizing A case study Information Strategy The Executive Journal I (2) 47

Bass BM amp Stogdill RM ( 1990) Bass a n d S to g d il lrsquos handbook on leadership theory research a n d m anageria l applications (3 ed) New York Free Press

Bennis W ( 1989) On becoming a leader Reading MA Addison-Wesley

Bennis W (1994) Learning to lead A workbook on becom in g a leader Reading MA Addison-Wesley

Bennis W (1995) The 21st century organization R einventing through reengineering A m sterdam Pfeiffer amp Co

Bennis W ( 1997) O rganizing genius The secrets o f c rea tive collaboration London Nicholas Brealey

Bennis W ( 1998 Februan ) Rethinking leadership E xecutive Excellence 15(2)7 - 8

Bennis W amp Nanus B ( 1985) Leaders S tra teg ies fo r taking charge New ork Marper amp Row

Betcherman G M cM ullen K amp Davidman K (1998) Training fo r the new economy Ottawa Renoul

Blake RR amp M outon JS (1985) The m anagerial g r id III Houston TX G ulfPublishing

Boberg A L amp Morris-Khoo SA (1992 A pril-M ay) T he Delphi method A review o f m ethodology and an application in the evaluation o f a higher education program Canadian Journal o f Program Evaluation Revue canadienne d evaluation de program me 7(1) 27-39

Bossidy L (1998 August-September) Reality-based leadership Executive Speeches 13() 10

Bourgon J ( 1998) Fifth annual report to the Prim e M in ister on the public service of Canada Ottawa Government o f Canada

Boyatzis RE ( 1982) The competent m anager- A m odel f o r effective perform ance New York John Wiley amp Sons


134

Boyd HW amp Westfall R (1972) M arketing research (3rd ed) Homewood Ill Richard D Irwin

Briscoe J amp Hall D (1999 Autumn) An alternative approach and new guidelines for practice O rganizaiional Dynamics 2S(2) 37

Brooks SS (1995 June) Managing a horizontal revolution M agazine40(6) 52

Brosnahan J ( 1996 June) Nurturing leaders Princeton Harkness Fellow

Brown MM amp Brudney JL ( 1998 Septem ber) Public sector information technology initiatives Administration amp Society 30(4) 421-443

Byham W (1999 Februarv) Grooming next millennium leaders HR M agazine46-50

Cam pbell R Sessa V amp Taylor J (1995) Choosing top leaders Learning to do better Issues amp Observations 75(4) 1-5

Canadian Centre for Management Development Accelerated Executive De elopm ent Program (1996) Ottawa Government o f Canada

Canadian Centre for Management Development (2000) The learning-centred public service Leadership at every level Ottawa Government o f Canada

Carr NG ( 1999 May-June) Being virtual Character and the new economyIlarvard Business Review 7(3) 181

Celeste RF ( 1996 Winter) Strategic alliances for innovation Emerging models ol technology-based iwenty-llrsl centurv economic development Economic Development Review 74(1) 4-9

Chesbrough H amp Teece D (1996 Januarv-February) When is virtual virtuous H arvard Business Review 65-73

Coates J amp Jarratt J (1992 July) Exploring the future A 200-year record of expanding com petence Annals o f the American A cadem y o f Political a n d Social Sciences 522 12

Co I de way AE ( 1989) Using basic statistics in the behavioral sciences Scarborough Prentice-Hall


135

Corporate Leadership Council (1999 October) International competencies li orpurcite Leadership Cuuncil Fuel Brief) London Corporate Leadership Council

Covey S ( 1992) Principle-centered leadership London Simon amp Schuster

Covey S (1994 December) Veursquo wine old bottles Executive Excellence 12

Cox T Jr (1995) Cultural diversity in organizations theory research amp practice San Francisco Berretl-Koehler

Critten P ( 1993) Investing in people towards corporate capabilityrsquo Oxford Butteruorth-Heinem ann

CyberAtlas The Web M arketers Guide to Online Facts (2000a) Consumables Market Takes Larger Scale o f E-Commerce Retrieved April 24 2000 from the World Wide Web httpcyberatlasintemetcombig_picturedemographicsarticle013235931_273531 OOhtml

CyberAtlas The Web Marketers Guide to Online Facts (2000b) Wireless Portal I sers Growing in Fumber Retrieved April 24 2000 from the World Wide WebImp cyberatlasinternetcombig_picturedemographicsarticle(gt1323593 1_309191OOhtml

Dalton GW Thompson PH amp Price RL (1977 Summer) The four stages o f professional careers Organizational Dynamics 19-42

Davis S amp Meyer C (1998) Blur Reading Addison-W esley

Deavers KL Lyons M R amp Hattiangadi AU (1999) A century o f p rogress a century of change Washington DC Employment Policy Foundation

Denneh- RF ( 1999 March) The executive as storvteller Management Review40-43

De Pree M (1992) Leadership jazz New York Dell Publishing

De Pree M (1989) Leadership is an art New York Dell Publishing

Dess G G amp Picken JC (2000) Changing roles Leadership in the 2T centurxOrganizational Dynamics 28(3) 181


136

Diaz EJO (1999) Identifying knowledge skills and abilities (KSA sj required hv human resources managers to fa ce twenty-first-century challenges The case o f I cnezuela Ann Arbor UMI Company

Donnelly RG amp Kezbom DS (1994 M ay) Overcoming the responsibiliiy- auihority gap An investigation o f effective project team leadership for a new decade Cost Engineering 365) 33-41

Dror Y (1997) Delta-type senior civil service for the 21 century International Review o f Administrative Sciences 63 7-23

Drucker P (1967) The effective executive New York Harper amp Row

Druckcr P ( 1995) Managing in a time o f great change New York Truman 1 alley Books

Drucker P ( 1999 Winter) Knowledge m anagem ent and competition in the consulting industry California M anagement Review 4 (2 ) 79

Dubrin AJ (1995) Leadership research findings practice and skills Boston Houghton M ifflin

Dumaine B amp Faircloth A ( 1995 April 15) D istilled wisdom Buddy can youparadigm Fortune Magazine 131(9) 205

Duncan AM amp Harlacher EL (1991 Spring) The twenty-first century executive leader Community College Review 18(4) 39-48

Edwards A (1957) Techniques o f attitude scale construction New York Appleton Centur^ amp Crofts

Farazmand A (1999 November-December) Globalization and public administration Public Administration Review 59(6) 509-525

Farewell to the pyramid chart (1993 D ecem ber 20) Business (Peek 122

Fiedler F ( 1987) ew approaches to effective leadership New York JohnWiley

Fiedler F (1996 June) Research on leadership selection and training one view o f the future Administrative Science Quarterly 41 241


137

Foot DK amp Stoffman D (1996) Boom bust amp echo How to pro fit fro m the coming demographic shift Toronto M acFarlane W alter amp Ross

Fulmer RM amp W agner S (1999 M arch) Lessons from the best Training andDcwdopnient 5 3 0 ) 28-32

Gannon J (2000 Februar) 1) The CIA in the new world order Intelligence challenges through 2015 Remarks made at Cam pus on the Mall Smithsonian Associates W ashington DC

Ghisclli EE (1963 October) M anagerial talent -Imercan Psychologist 18 631-641

Giber DJ Carter LL amp G oldsm ith M (Eds) (2000) Linkage Incs best practices in leadership development handbook Case studies instruments training Jossey-Bass San Francisco

Gilbertson TF (1999) Leadership and teams in the marketing environm ent Journal o f Professional Services Marketing I9 ) 61

Grant L (1994 February 28) New jew el in the crown US News amp W orld Report lt8) 55

Grosser J (1995) Piloting through chaos Sausalito Five Rings Press

Guggenheimer P amp Szulc MD (1998) Understanding leadership competencies United Stales o f America Crisp Publications

Hamel G amp Prahalad CK (1994) Com peting fo r the fu ture Boston Harvard Business School PressMcGraw-Hill

Hargreaves A amp Fullan M (2000 W inter) Mentoring in the new m illennium Theory into Practice 39(1) 50

Hennessey J amp Thomas J (1998 November-December) Reinventing go ernment Does leadership make the difference Public Administration Review 5S6)

Hensey Mel (1992) Collective excellence Building effective teams N ew York American Society o f Civil Engineers

Hesselbein F Goldsmith M Beckhard R amp Schubert RF (Eds) (1998) The community o f the fu ture San Francisco Jossey-Bass


138

Hill VIA amp fCeals BW ( 1992) Strategic leadership and restructuring A reciprocal interdependence In RL Phillips amp JG Hunt (Eds) Siraiegic leadership A nmUiorganizadonal-level perspective Westport Quorum

Hodgetts R amp Luthans F (1999 Autumn) Redefining roles and boundaries linking competencies and resources Organizational Dynamics 25(2) 7

Hogan R amp Curphy H J (1994 June) WTiat vve know about leadership American Psychologist 49(6) 493

Hogg R amp Tanis E (1993) Probability and statistical inference (4rsquorsquo ed) New )ork Prentice-Hall

Hooijberg R amp Hunt JG (1997) Leadership complexity and development o f the leaderplex model Journal o f Management 22(3) 375-409

Hyden H (1994 December) From manager to leader Executive Excellence ( 1 2 ) 1 0

Jackson SE amp Associates (1992) Diversity in the workplace New York Guilford Press

Jackson SE Brett JF Sessa VI Cooper DVL Julian JA amp Peyrormin K (1991) Some differences make a difference Individual dissimilarity and group heteroginity as correlates o f recruitment promotion and turnover Journal o f Applied Psychology 75(5) 675-689

Jacobs R amp Rao RM (1995 April 3) The struggle to create an organization tor the 2 r lsquo century Fortune Magazine 131(6) 90

Jacques E amp Clement SD (1991) Executive leadership Cambridge MA Cason Hall amp Co

Jamieson D amp O M ara J (1991) M anaging workjbrce 2000 gaining the diversity advantage San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Johnston WB amp Packer AE (1987) Workforce 2000 Work and workers fo r the 21 century Indianapolis Hudson Institute

Jordan D ( 1998 October) Leadership the state o f the research Parks amp Recreation 55(10) 32


139

Kahn RL amp Katz D (1953) Leadership practices in relation to productivity and morale ID Cartwright and A Zander (Eds) Croup dy namics New York Harper amp Row

Kanter R (2000) In W ooldridge A (Ed) (2000 M arch 5) Come back company man New York Times Section 6 p 82 col 1

Kanuk L amp Berenson C (1975) Mail survey response rates literaturerc iew Journal of M arketing Research 12 440 - 453

Kapp KV1 (1997) M easuring (raining competencies using the analytic hierarchy process Ann Arbor UMI Company (University o f Pittsburgh)

Katzenbach J amp Sm ith D (1993 March-April) The discipline o f teams Harvard Business Review I I I

Keen P (1981) Shaping the fu ture Boston Harvard Business School Press

Keen P (1986) Com peting in time Cambridge MA Bellinger

Kelly R ( 1991 ) Com bining follow ership and leadership into partnership Making organizations competitive Enhancing networks and relationships across traditional boundaries San Francisco Bass

Kets de Vries VI (1994) The leadership mystique Academ y o f M anagem entExecutive cV(3)

Kets de Vries M M iller D amp Noel A (1993 January) Understanding the leader-strategy interlace Application o f the strategic relationship interview methodHuman Relations 46( 1 ) 5

Keys G ( 1994) Effective leaders need to be good coaches Personnel Management 26 1 1 ) 52

Kingwell J (1995 October) Why Johnny can t lead Saturday Night 22-27

Koffler A (1998 Vlarch) Digital Europe 1998 Policies technological developm ent and im plem entation o f the emerging information society Innovation The European Journal o f Social Sciences 7 (1) 53-72

Kofodimos J R ( 1989) Why executives lose their balance Greensboro NC Centre for Creative Leadership


140

Kotter JP (1990) A force fo r change H ow leadership differs from management New York Free Press

Kotter JP (1995) The new rules How to succeed in todays post-corporate world New York Free Press

Kotter JP (1996) Leading change Boston MA Hars ard Business School Press

Kotter JP (1998a March) Cultures and coalitions Executive Excellence 15(3)14-15

Kotter JP (1998b May) 21ldquo century leadership Executive Excellence 15(5) 5

Kouzes JM amp Posner BZ (1995) The leadership challenge San FranciscoJossey-Bass

Larson PE amp Coe A (1998) M anaging change The evolving role o f the commonwealth s top public servants Ottawa Public Policy Forum

Larson P amp Mingie R (1992) Leadership fo r a changing world The Conference Board o f Canada Report 95-92 Ottawa Conference Board o f Canada

Leadership Network (1998) La Releve O ttawa Public Service Commission

Lewin K (1939) Field theory and experim entation in social psychologyConcepts and methods American Journal o f Sociology 44 868-896

Liken R ( 1961 ) Sew patterns o f management New YorkyTorontoLondon MeCJraw Hill

Loeb M (1994) Where leaders come from Fortune Magazine 130(6) 241-242

Lom bardo MM amp Eichinger (1989) Preventing derailment What to do before its too late G reensboro NC Centre for Creative Leadership

Lorine J (1991 June) Managing when there s no middle Canadian Business 64(6) 86

Luck DJ Wales HG amp Taylor DA (1970) M arketing research New York Prentice-Hall

M acLachlan R (1995 March 23) Flatter structures create problems o f their own People Management 1(6) 16

R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission

141

Maslow A Kaplan AR Stephens DC amp Hell G (1998) M aslow on numagemeni New York John Wiley amp Sons

Maxwell JC (1999) The 21 indispensable qualities o f a leader Nashville Thom as Nelson

McCauley CD Moxley RS amp Van Velsor E (Eds) (1998) The center fo r creative leadership handbook o f leadership development Jossey-Bass San Francisco

McClelland D amp Burnham D (1995 January-February ) Power is the great motivator Harvard Business Review 54 (2) 100-110

McClelland D C (1973 January) Testing for competence rater than for neVgerce American Psychologist 28 1-14

McDaniel SW amp Rao CP (1980) The effect o f monetargt inducem ent on mailed questionnaire response rate and quality Journal o f Marketing Research H 265 -208

McFarland LJ Senn LE amp Childress JR (1994) 2T century leadership Dialogues with 100 lop leaders Los Angeles Leadership Press

McGoon C (1994 May) After downsizing then what 4BC Communications W orld (5 ) 16-19

McGregor D (1960) Human side o f enterprise Tokyo M cGraw-Hill Kogakusha

VIcLagan P ( 1997 May) Competencies The next generation Training and Development 5 (5 ) 40

Meisel SI amp Fearon DS (1999 April) The new leadership construct Wliat happens when a flat organization builds a tall tower Journal o f M anagement Education 25(2) 180

Miles J ( 1999) The La Releve com petencies - a fresh look Ottawa Government o f Canada Public Service Commission

Miles J (2000 February) Developing and implementing senior management and leadership competency profiles and tools Ottawa Government o f Canada Public Service Commission

Miller FA (1998 Summer) Strategic cultural change The tools to achieving high performance and inclusion Public Personnel Management 27(2) 151-162


142

Morris B amp Tarpiey N (2000 February 21) So you re a player Do you need a coach Fortune Magazine - (4 ) 144

Morrison AM (1992) The new leaders G uidelines on leadership diversity in America San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Nadler D amp Tushman M (1999 Summer) The organization o f the future Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 2T century Organizational Dynamics 2ltV( 1 ) 45

Nanus B ( 1992) I isionary leadership Creating a com pelling sense o f direction tor your organization San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Noer D ( 1993) H ealing the wounds Overcoming the traum a o f layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Nua Internet Sur eys ( 1999a) How many online worldwide Graphs and charts comparisoiupredictions Hua Analysis Retrieved April 24 2000 from the World Wide Web http7wwwnuaiesureysanalysisgraphs_chartscom parisons hou_m any_onlinehtm l

Nua Internet Surveys ( 1999b) Internet generated revenue 1996-2002 Graphs amp charts - comparisonspredictions Nua Analysis Retrieved April 24 2000 from the World Wide Web httpvAvwnuaiesureysanalysisgraphs_chartscomparisons loial_revenue_generatcd_2002html

O Connor W (1999 July 1) The workplace o f the new millennium Vital Speeches o f the Day 45(18) 561

Oli er E amp Sealy J ( 1999) Using power and influence to change the gam e or the rules of the game Retrieved November 4 1999 from the World Wide Web hup vwwkpmgcoukkpm guLwervicesmanageebookpowerindewhtml

Olson MS (1999 March) Giving voice to leadership Association Management 5 (3 ) 14

Opstal D Van (1998-1999 Winter) The new com petitive landscape Issues in Science amp Technology^ 15(2) 47-55

Organization for Economic Coordination and D evelopm ent (OECD) (1999 August 12) Beyond training Developing and nurturing leaders fo r the public sector (Publication no 80532) (97)139 Paris OECD


143

Ostroff F (1995 April 3) Is a horizontal organization for you Fortune Magazine 73(6) 90

Pellet J (1999 March) Leadership challenges for the third millennium C h ie f Lxcciitive 142 24-29

Peters T (1987) Thriving on chaos New York Harper amp Row

Peters T (1997) The circle o f innovation London Hodder amp Stoughton

Pettigrew PS (1999) The new politics o f confidence Toronto Stoddart

Pinchot G amp E ( 1996) The intelligent organization San Francisco Berrett- Koehler

Pilurro M (1999 March) What are you doing about the new global realities Management Review AV(3) 17-23

Porter ME ( 1998) Competitive advantage Boston H arard Business

Portnoy RA (1999) Leadership 4 com petencies fo r success Upper Saddle River NJ Simon and Schuster

Price W aterHouse Coopers (1999 Septem ber 14-15) Endowment fo r the hits mess o f government Future government leaders survey Proceedings from Ssmposium on beyond training Developing and nurturing leaders for the public sector

Public Service Commission (1997 January) La releve survey o f selected private sector competencies O ttawa Public Service Com m ission

Quinn R E ( 1990) Becoming a master manager 4 competence fram ew ork Toronto Wiley amp Sons

Reich R ( 1992) The work o f nations Preparing ourselves fo r 2 T century capitalism New York Random House

Renesch J (1992) Ven- traditions in business San Francisco Berrett-Kochler

Reynes R (1999 September-October) Training to manage across silos Research Technology Management 42(5) 20

Richards A (1999 March) Focused drive Fxecutive Excellence 9-10


144

Richards D amp Engel S (1994) After the vision Suggestions to corporate visionaries and vision champions In JD Adams (Ed) Transforming leadership From vision to results Alexandria Miles R iver Press

Richman LS ( 1990 January 29) Lets change the immigration law - now iurtiine Magazine 12

R iihin J (1995) The end oj work New York GP Putnam amp Sons

Rosell S A (1999) Renewing governance Oxford University Press

Sandwith P (1993) A hierarchy o f management training requirem ents The com petency domain model Public Personnel Management 22(1) 43-62

Scholtes P ( 1999 July) The new competencies o f leadership Total Quality Management 6(45 ) S704

Schrage M (1995) So more team s Mastering the dynamics o f creative collaboration New York Currency Doubleday

Schwartz P (1989 January-February) Management women and the new facts o f life H arvard Business Review 65-76

Sengc PM ( 1990a) The fifth discipline London century business

Senge PM ( 1990b Fall) The leaders new work Building learning organizations Sloan Management Review 66-75

Senge PM ( 1994) The fifth discipline fie ld book London N icholas Brealey

Senge PM (1997a March) C reating learning communities Executive Excellence 4 (3) 17-18

Senge PM (1997b September-October) Communities o f leaders and learnersI larvard Business Review 5(5) 30-21

Sexton DL (1994) The state o f the art o f entrepreneurship Boston PWS Kent

Sherm an S (1997 November 27) How tom orrow s best leaders are learning their stuff Fortune Magazine 132 1) 90

Shoch J (2000 March) C ontesting globalization Organized labor NAFTA and the 1997 and 1998 fast-track fights Politics and Society 2ltS(1) 119


145

Shtogren A (Ed) (1999) Skyhooks fo r leadership A new fram ew ork that brings logether fiv e decades o f thought New York AMACOM

Slivinski L amp Miles J (1997a) The wholistic competency profile A model Iêrsonnel P sych o lo g y Centre Government o f Canada Public Service Commission

Slivinski L amp Miles J (1997b) Leadership competencies fo r ADMs and senior executives Ottawa Government o f Canada Public Service Commission

Smith AW (1997) Leadership is a living system Learning leaders and organizations Human Systems Management d(4) 277-285

Spencer L amp Spencer SM (1993) Competence at work Models fo r superior perfonnunce Somerset John Wiley amp Sons

Stalk G Jr amp Black JE (1994 Winter) The m yth o f the horizontal organization Canadian Business Review 2 (4) 26

Stogdill RM (1974) Handbook o f leadership A survey o f theory and research New York Free Press

Strube MJ amp Garcia JE (1981) A meta-analytic investigation o f Fiedlerscontingency model o f leadership effectiveness Psychological Bulletin 90 307-321

Tannenbaum R Kallejian V amp Weschler lR (1954) Training managers fo r leadership Instructions on industrial relations (So 35) Los Angeles UCLA

Tannenbaum R amp Schmidt WH (1973) How to choose a leadership patternI larvard Business Review 51 162-164

Tannenbaum R Weschler IR amp Massarik F (1961) Leadership and Organization New York McGraw-Hill

Thack L amp Heinselman T (1999 March) Executive coaching definedTraining a nd Development 53(3) 34

Thom as RR 1990 March-April) From affirmative action to affirming dix ersity H arvard Business Review 90(2) 107

Tichy NM with Cohen E (1997) The leadership engine New York Harper Collins


146

Trcasur Board o f Canada Secretariat (1998) Profile o f public service leaders and managers Ottawa G overnm ent o f Canada

Treasurgt- Board o f Canada Secretariat (2000) HR connections Retrieved March 14 2000 from the W orld Wide Web httpwvvwtbs-sctgccaHR CONNEXIONS RHHRX m enu fhtml

Treasuiv- Board o f Canada Secretariat and the Public Service Com m ission (1999) Framework fo r com petency-based management in the pub lic service o f Canada Ottawa Government o f Canada

Twiss B (1992) Vfanaging technological innovation (4rsquo ed) London Pitman Publishing

Uchitelle L (1998a Februaiv 10) Study questions the usual view o f downsizing cu- York Times Section D p 1 col 2

Uchitelle L (1998b December 7) Downsizing com es back but the outer is muted Mew York Times Section A p 1 col 1

Ulrich D amp Lake D (1991 Februatv) Organizational capability creating competitive advantage 4cademy o f Management Executive 5(1) 77-92

Vroom VH amp Yetton PW ( 1973) Leadership and decision-makingPittsburgh University o f Pittsburgh

Wall L ( 1998 Septem ber) Making sense o f the global chaos Afanagement Review S7(8) 31

Wall SJ amp W all SR (1995) The new strategists Creating leaders at all levels New York Free Press

W alsh-Minor R ( 1997) n analysis ol management com petencies and their iinplemeniation in selected health care institutions in South Florida Doctoral dissertation Ann Arbor UMI Company (University o f Miami)

Watson SH (2000) Leadership requirements in the 21 century The perceptions o f Canadian priva te sector leaders Unpublished doctoral dissertation Andrews University M ichigan


147

Watson W ail Worldwide (1998) Competencies and the competitive edge( Drpurate strategies for creating competitive advantage through people Retrieved 1 cbruargt- 9 2000 from the World Wide Web ht[pw w w w atsonw attcomhomepaae indexasp

Wheatley M J (1992) Leadership and the new science San Francisco Berrett- Koehler

Wheatley MJ (1996) A simpler way San Francisco Berrett-Koehler

W ooldridge A (2000 March 5) Come back company man ew York Times Section 6 p 82 col 1

Wren DA (1994) The evolution o f management thought N ew York Wiley1994

Wunder G C amp Wynn GW (1988) The effects o f address personalisation on mailed questionnaires response rate time and quality Journal o f the M arket Research Society 30 91-101

Yu J amp C ooper H (1983) A quantitative review o f research design effects on response rates to questionnaires Votrna o f M arketing Research 20 36-44

Zoglio SW (1993) Teams at work 7 keys to success D oylestown PA Tower Hill Press


Leadership Requirements in the 21st Century the Perceptions of Canadian Public Sector Leaders

Recommended Citation

tmp1443533580pdf8v1nh

Thank you for your interest in the

Andrews University Digital Library

of Dissertations and Theses

Please honor the copyright of this document by

not duplicating or distributing additional copies

in any form without the authorrsquos express written

permission Thanks for your cooperation








800-521-0600



Andrews University




A Dissertation




by

M Ruth Dantzer

July 2000


UMI Number 9979881


All rights reserved













by








Date A pproved


ABSTRACT



by

M Ruth Dantzer

Chair Shirlev Freed



Dissertation

Andrews University






Problem




urgent attention

M ethod






competencies

Results








21 century




population



negotiating





Conclusions










DEDICATION



Ill


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES i i


Chapter









IV

















i- Risi [ r s 73








Recommendations 103

ppeniii






VI


LIST OF TABLES















VII










V l l l


ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS










ix


CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM









































3







1995)



















2 r lsquo century
















5























6























7
























8




Commission 1999)














Spencer 1993)






9
























10























skills


Il













coming years











12






















13

Research Questions










hypothesis











21 century


14












the most important




population

Collaborative Study






15










Methodology


four phases


general public)









16




research


Limitations






age o r by gender


age o r by gender







future requirements


17

Delimitations

















Definitions


employed


18







as follows

















19






1997)


















20






Commission 1997)


















21















1997)






Commission 1997)




22












1997)











23








opportunities

FundingSponsors







CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
















24


25

















Leadership Models






26























success


27



















Traitist Theories




28














Behavioral Theories










29



















for production



managerial approach


30

t ^oo

^ I - OP

X C

1-9(Country Club)

9-9(Team)


ucO mdash

U

(Impoverished)1-1

(Task)9-1








31





situational factors








experience











32


















Competencies












p 7)












34









accomplish the work









1982)







35






organizations










(Boyatzis 1982)








36







practices













Globalization




37
























38










Organization




Technology









39
























40





competition









Downsizing







41



was rewarded







M cGoon 1994)











(Uchitelle 1998b)


42
















Diversity







43
























44
























45

























46


Introduction











1995 1996 Senge 1994)










47























48























49






1 Flexibility

1











50






perspective

















51













continuum











52





















53













CHAPTER 3

M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction











hypothesis





54


55



shift





















56


population

Methodology


four phases


general public)

















57
















Quantitative Survey








58























59







Sector Percentage

Total Federal

Total Provincial

Total Municipal

127

136

167



60


Y ear Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142


G ender Percentage

Male 69

Female 3 1


61


Age Percentage

lt35 26

35-44 181

45-54 551

55-64 211

654- 3 1






Some university 8



G raduate degree 44


62







19 times out o f 20



the survey

Telephone Survey












63


Gender Percentage

Female 51

Male 49


Age Percentage

lt25 17

25-34 18

35-44 22

45-54 20

55-64 7

65+ 15

DKNR I



64













Survey Instrument





considerations





65


Region

British Columbia

Alberta

Prairies

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

Percentage

13

10

7

38

24

8



31

29

40

38

35

48

lt100

100-500

over 500


66


Year Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142















67


literature






















68




questions












competency







69








missing cases




significance











70























71














population









72








CHAPTER 4

RESL^LTS

Introduction














j


74










hypothesis














75








Ethics 5158 (1381) Ethics 6128 (1007)










World View


76




mean score


















77


Requirements

Competency J f


Team work 223 21375 p lt 000

Vision 221 17946 p lt 000






Ethics 221 9834 p lt 000








78




Globalization 5911 (1014) 86 10 1

Technology 5964 (1024) 90 7 3

Diversity 4920(1386) 65 19 15

Downsizing 4200(1323) 39 32 28















79













organization itself











80



Problem Solving 6009 (882) 6290 (948) -0281

Ability to Leam 6159 (854) 6364 (695) -0205

Communication 6379 (702) 6318 (913) 0061

Initiative 5969 (840) 6170 (991) -0201


Teaching 5489 (1036) 5672 (1239) -0183

Stamina 5619 (1065) 5668 (1197) -0049

Ethics 6128 (1007) 6262(1106) -0134

Organizational 4991 (1244) 5998 (1094) -1007

Negotiation 5797 (1947) 6106 (1022) -0309



81






















82




Degree of Shift



in the 21 century













the most important


83




Difference

T eamwork 2348 (1644) 2133 (1608) 0215

Problem Solving 0559(1447) 0567(1488) -0008

Ability to Leam 1677 (1511) 1639(1454) 0038

Communication 1596(1442) 1558 (1500) 0038

Vision 1829(1510) 1364(1718) 0465

Interpersonal 1345 (1886) 1479(1641) -0134

Initiative 0482 (1324) 0525 (1270) -0043


Teaching 1629(1803) 1521 (1473) 0108

Stamina 0372(1745) 0331 (1422) 0041

Ethics 0 959(1484) 0802(1 430) 0157

Organizational -0392(1719) -0227(1475) -0165


Negotiation 1291 (1551) 0975 (1429) 0316

Cosmopolitan 2691 (1500) 2669(1575) 0022

World View


84




population














General population




85



Vision 1 6419 (807) 6313 6524

Communication 2 6379 (702) 6288 6470

Team work 3 6242 (740) 6146 6 339


Ability to Learn 5 6 159 (854) 6048 6271

Ethics 6 6 128 (1007) 5997 6259

Problem Solving 7 6009 (882) 5894 6124

Initiative 8 5969 (840) 5880 6079

Interpersonal 9 5925 (972) 5799 6052

N egotiation 10 5797 (947) 5674 5921


Stamina 12 5 6 1 9 (1 0 6 5 ) 5481 5758

Teaching 13 5489 (1036) 5354 5624

Organizational 14 4991 (1244) 4829 5153



86



Vision 1 6446 (866) 6292 6601


Ability to Learn 3 6248 (849) 6097 6399

Communication 4 6231 (883) 6074 6369

Teamwork 5 6182 (876) 6026 6338

Initiative 6 6116 (829) 5968 6263

Ethics 7 6041 (970) 5869 6214

Problem Solving 8 5982 (946) 5822 6161


Interpersonal 10 5842 ( 944) 5673 6011

Negotiation 11 5835 (916) 5671 5998

Stamina 12 5760(1017) 5579 5941

Teaching 13 5496 (1034) 5312 5680


Organizational 15 5000 (1174) 4790 5210


87






















88



Ability to Learn 1 6 364 (895) 6318 6409

Communication 2 6318 (913) 6272 6365

Problem Solving 3 6290 (948) 6242 6338

Ethics 4 6 262(1 105) 6206 6318

Initiative 5 6 1 7 0 ( 991) 6120 6220

Negotiation 6 6 106(1 022) 6054 6157

Organizational 7 5 998 (1094) 5943 6053


Teaching 9 5 672(1 238) 5609 5734

Stamina 10 5669 (1197) 5608 5730

Cosmopolitan 11 5668 (1263) 5604 5732

W orld View


89


Rank


Vision 1 1 na

Communication 2 4 2

Team w ork 3 5 na



Ethics 6 7 4


Initiative 8 6 5


Negotiation 10 11 6


Stam ina 12 12 10

Teaching 13 13 9




90








external drivers








CHAPTER 5




Summary














91


92







Finding 1







Finding 2







93

Finding 3







F inding 4





leaders





sector leaders

Conclusions




94
























95


















96








considered

Future Competencies














97
























98























opportunities


99
























100











competencies












101
























102





















103

Recommendations











APPENDIX I



CDDOQC

gQ

DCD

C)

o3O



8D( O 3

i3CD

nc33 CD

CDDOQCaO3

DO

CDQ

DCD

()()


ponaiiottTraining

CentreProvGovt

ForeignGovts


NZ


2 C reativ ity

V V isioning



6 T eam w ork

7 Irsquoa tlncring





12 Personality


14 Self-C onfidence

OLA

APPENDIX 2



107






Cognitive Capacity



108

Creativity



Visioning



Action Management





109


Teamwork


Partnering



no




Communication





Ethics and Values



I l l


Personality




Self-Confidence



APPENDIX 3



xjCDoOQCsQ

oCD

C)

o3

CD

8euml






3CD

Cp

CDoOQCaO3

oO

CDQ






oCD

()()



CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

C)C)

CD

8Olsquolt3 (O

3CD

CDOOQC

aO3OO

amp

Oc8

C)(0o3



73CDOOQC

gQ

OCD

O

CD

33 CD

CDO

O

CDQ

OCD

CicircC)







73CDOOQC

3Q

OCD

(gt(go3

3CD

Cp3 CD

CDOOUcircCaO3

OO

O






T eam L eadersh ip






CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

()C)

OCUcirc





I

OcoCD

(gto=3

118

ll3UO

V)o

(UE

3 2(Uuml

gt()3


E3()C i l i f

-euml(0



APPENDIX 4

QUESTIONNAIRE


120


Svrtembvr 1 1999

Dear SirM adam






Sincerely





121


a

b

cd

f

ghi

i-

k

I

m

n

0


M e tM a uiMfoanar

MoMmniTtneeeraiT

CmoMLTiMMwraitT

Team w orL




IfitioB (a titm tf)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _











2 3 6 7

3


122

2a

b

c

d

t

f

lhIIkt

m

n

0


WOT AT h i lnoooTwr


Teamwork



Vision (craontf)-----------------------------------------













123



I I I i I i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7




I I I I I I I1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 4

Sa

ib

c

d

ecirc

f

1-kI

m

n

0


MoTAracircuiwatTMr

MosfumrInrciM ii

reamwork_




Vision (aaantf)____________________________











2 3

EmWMfLTInrotTUT

6 7

6

36

6666

6666i

i

6


125



I 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

___________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



I-------1-------1-------1----- 1------- 1-----11 2 3 4 5 6 7


d

126








127

I









n Imdash I I4 5 6 7


128


teoAcirciDtAL

a

b

c

de

Globalization

Ttdinologr mdash

Downsizingmdash



10

a

b



1-----120 years ago

20 years from now


129




h raquo I I I


(lilt




130




I I I Tdub






131



1














132


1J J
















134
















135
















136
















137
















138















139
















140


















141
















142














143


















144


















145
















146














147




















800-521-0600



Andrews University




A Dissertation




by

M Ruth Dantzer

July 2000


UMI Number 9979881


All rights reserved













by








Date A pproved


ABSTRACT



by

M Ruth Dantzer

Chair Shirlev Freed



Dissertation

Andrews University






Problem




urgent attention

M ethod






competencies

Results








21 century




population



negotiating





Conclusions










DEDICATION



Ill


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES i i


Chapter









IV

















i- Risi [ r s 73








Recommendations 103

ppeniii






VI


LIST OF TABLES















VII










V l l l


ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS










ix


CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM









































3







1995)



















2 r lsquo century
















5























6























7
























8




Commission 1999)














Spencer 1993)






9
























10























skills


Il













coming years











12






















13

Research Questions










hypothesis











21 century


14












the most important




population

Collaborative Study






15










Methodology


four phases


general public)









16




research


Limitations






age o r by gender


age o r by gender







future requirements


17

Delimitations

















Definitions


employed


18







as follows

















19






1997)


















20






Commission 1997)


















21















1997)






Commission 1997)




22












1997)











23








opportunities

FundingSponsors







CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
















24


25

















Leadership Models






26























success


27



















Traitist Theories




28














Behavioral Theories










29



















for production



managerial approach


30

t ^oo

^ I - OP

X C

1-9(Country Club)

9-9(Team)


ucO mdash

U

(Impoverished)1-1

(Task)9-1








31





situational factors








experience











32


















Competencies












p 7)












34









accomplish the work









1982)







35






organizations










(Boyatzis 1982)








36







practices













Globalization




37
























38










Organization




Technology









39
























40





competition









Downsizing







41



was rewarded







M cGoon 1994)











(Uchitelle 1998b)


42
















Diversity







43
























44
























45

























46


Introduction











1995 1996 Senge 1994)










47























48























49






1 Flexibility

1











50






perspective

















51













continuum











52





















53













CHAPTER 3

M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction











hypothesis





54


55



shift





















56


population

Methodology


four phases


general public)

















57
















Quantitative Survey








58























59







Sector Percentage

Total Federal

Total Provincial

Total Municipal

127

136

167



60


Y ear Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142


G ender Percentage

Male 69

Female 3 1


61


Age Percentage

lt35 26

35-44 181

45-54 551

55-64 211

654- 3 1






Some university 8



G raduate degree 44


62







19 times out o f 20



the survey

Telephone Survey












63


Gender Percentage

Female 51

Male 49


Age Percentage

lt25 17

25-34 18

35-44 22

45-54 20

55-64 7

65+ 15

DKNR I



64













Survey Instrument





considerations





65


Region

British Columbia

Alberta

Prairies

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

Percentage

13

10

7

38

24

8



31

29

40

38

35

48

lt100

100-500

over 500


66


Year Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142















67


literature






















68




questions












competency







69








missing cases




significance











70























71














population









72








CHAPTER 4

RESL^LTS

Introduction














j


74










hypothesis














75








Ethics 5158 (1381) Ethics 6128 (1007)










World View


76




mean score


















77


Requirements

Competency J f


Team work 223 21375 p lt 000

Vision 221 17946 p lt 000






Ethics 221 9834 p lt 000








78




Globalization 5911 (1014) 86 10 1

Technology 5964 (1024) 90 7 3

Diversity 4920(1386) 65 19 15

Downsizing 4200(1323) 39 32 28















79













organization itself











80



Problem Solving 6009 (882) 6290 (948) -0281

Ability to Leam 6159 (854) 6364 (695) -0205

Communication 6379 (702) 6318 (913) 0061

Initiative 5969 (840) 6170 (991) -0201


Teaching 5489 (1036) 5672 (1239) -0183

Stamina 5619 (1065) 5668 (1197) -0049

Ethics 6128 (1007) 6262(1106) -0134

Organizational 4991 (1244) 5998 (1094) -1007

Negotiation 5797 (1947) 6106 (1022) -0309



81






















82




Degree of Shift



in the 21 century













the most important


83




Difference

T eamwork 2348 (1644) 2133 (1608) 0215

Problem Solving 0559(1447) 0567(1488) -0008

Ability to Leam 1677 (1511) 1639(1454) 0038

Communication 1596(1442) 1558 (1500) 0038

Vision 1829(1510) 1364(1718) 0465

Interpersonal 1345 (1886) 1479(1641) -0134

Initiative 0482 (1324) 0525 (1270) -0043


Teaching 1629(1803) 1521 (1473) 0108

Stamina 0372(1745) 0331 (1422) 0041

Ethics 0 959(1484) 0802(1 430) 0157

Organizational -0392(1719) -0227(1475) -0165


Negotiation 1291 (1551) 0975 (1429) 0316

Cosmopolitan 2691 (1500) 2669(1575) 0022

World View


84




population














General population




85



Vision 1 6419 (807) 6313 6524

Communication 2 6379 (702) 6288 6470

Team work 3 6242 (740) 6146 6 339


Ability to Learn 5 6 159 (854) 6048 6271

Ethics 6 6 128 (1007) 5997 6259

Problem Solving 7 6009 (882) 5894 6124

Initiative 8 5969 (840) 5880 6079

Interpersonal 9 5925 (972) 5799 6052

N egotiation 10 5797 (947) 5674 5921


Stamina 12 5 6 1 9 (1 0 6 5 ) 5481 5758

Teaching 13 5489 (1036) 5354 5624

Organizational 14 4991 (1244) 4829 5153



86



Vision 1 6446 (866) 6292 6601


Ability to Learn 3 6248 (849) 6097 6399

Communication 4 6231 (883) 6074 6369

Teamwork 5 6182 (876) 6026 6338

Initiative 6 6116 (829) 5968 6263

Ethics 7 6041 (970) 5869 6214

Problem Solving 8 5982 (946) 5822 6161


Interpersonal 10 5842 ( 944) 5673 6011

Negotiation 11 5835 (916) 5671 5998

Stamina 12 5760(1017) 5579 5941

Teaching 13 5496 (1034) 5312 5680


Organizational 15 5000 (1174) 4790 5210


87






















88



Ability to Learn 1 6 364 (895) 6318 6409

Communication 2 6318 (913) 6272 6365

Problem Solving 3 6290 (948) 6242 6338

Ethics 4 6 262(1 105) 6206 6318

Initiative 5 6 1 7 0 ( 991) 6120 6220

Negotiation 6 6 106(1 022) 6054 6157

Organizational 7 5 998 (1094) 5943 6053


Teaching 9 5 672(1 238) 5609 5734

Stamina 10 5669 (1197) 5608 5730

Cosmopolitan 11 5668 (1263) 5604 5732

W orld View


89


Rank


Vision 1 1 na

Communication 2 4 2

Team w ork 3 5 na



Ethics 6 7 4


Initiative 8 6 5


Negotiation 10 11 6


Stam ina 12 12 10

Teaching 13 13 9




90








external drivers








CHAPTER 5




Summary














91


92







Finding 1







Finding 2







93

Finding 3







F inding 4





leaders





sector leaders

Conclusions




94
























95


















96








considered

Future Competencies














97
























98























opportunities


99
























100











competencies












101
























102





















103

Recommendations











APPENDIX I



CDDOQC

gQ

DCD

C)

o3O



8D( O 3

i3CD

nc33 CD

CDDOQCaO3

DO

CDQ

DCD

()()


ponaiiottTraining

CentreProvGovt

ForeignGovts


NZ


2 C reativ ity

V V isioning



6 T eam w ork

7 Irsquoa tlncring





12 Personality


14 Self-C onfidence

OLA

APPENDIX 2



107






Cognitive Capacity



108

Creativity



Visioning



Action Management





109


Teamwork


Partnering



no




Communication





Ethics and Values



I l l


Personality




Self-Confidence



APPENDIX 3



xjCDoOQCsQ

oCD

C)

o3

CD

8euml






3CD

Cp

CDoOQCaO3

oO

CDQ






oCD

()()



CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

C)C)

CD

8Olsquolt3 (O

3CD

CDOOQC

aO3OO

amp

Oc8

C)(0o3



73CDOOQC

gQ

OCD

O

CD

33 CD

CDO

O

CDQ

OCD

CicircC)







73CDOOQC

3Q

OCD

(gt(go3

3CD

Cp3 CD

CDOOUcircCaO3

OO

O






T eam L eadersh ip






CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

()C)

OCUcirc





I

OcoCD

(gto=3

118

ll3UO

V)o

(UE

3 2(Uuml

gt()3


E3()C i l i f

-euml(0



APPENDIX 4

QUESTIONNAIRE


120


Svrtembvr 1 1999

Dear SirM adam






Sincerely





121


a

b

cd

f

ghi

i-

k

I

m

n

0


M e tM a uiMfoanar

MoMmniTtneeeraiT

CmoMLTiMMwraitT

Team w orL




IfitioB (a titm tf)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _











2 3 6 7

3


122

2a

b

c

d

t

f

lhIIkt

m

n

0


WOT AT h i lnoooTwr


Teamwork



Vision (craontf)-----------------------------------------













123



I I I i I i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7




I I I I I I I1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 4

Sa

ib

c

d

ecirc

f

1-kI

m

n

0


MoTAracircuiwatTMr

MosfumrInrciM ii

reamwork_




Vision (aaantf)____________________________











2 3

EmWMfLTInrotTUT

6 7

6

36

6666

6666i

i

6


125



I 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

___________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



I-------1-------1-------1----- 1------- 1-----11 2 3 4 5 6 7


d

126








127

I









n Imdash I I4 5 6 7


128


teoAcirciDtAL

a

b

c

de

Globalization

Ttdinologr mdash

Downsizingmdash



10

a

b



1-----120 years ago

20 years from now


129




h raquo I I I


(lilt




130




I I I Tdub






131



1














132


1J J
















134
















135
















136
















137
















138















139
















140


















141
















142














143


















144


















145
















146














147














Andrews University




A Dissertation




by

M Ruth Dantzer

July 2000


UMI Number 9979881


All rights reserved













by








Date A pproved


ABSTRACT



by

M Ruth Dantzer

Chair Shirlev Freed



Dissertation

Andrews University






Problem




urgent attention

M ethod






competencies

Results








21 century




population



negotiating





Conclusions










DEDICATION



Ill


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES i i


Chapter









IV

















i- Risi [ r s 73








Recommendations 103

ppeniii






VI


LIST OF TABLES















VII










V l l l


ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS










ix


CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM









































3







1995)



















2 r lsquo century
















5























6























7
























8




Commission 1999)














Spencer 1993)






9
























10























skills


Il













coming years











12






















13

Research Questions










hypothesis











21 century


14












the most important




population

Collaborative Study






15










Methodology


four phases


general public)









16




research


Limitations






age o r by gender


age o r by gender







future requirements


17

Delimitations

















Definitions


employed


18







as follows

















19






1997)


















20






Commission 1997)


















21















1997)






Commission 1997)




22












1997)











23








opportunities

FundingSponsors







CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
















24


25

















Leadership Models






26























success


27



















Traitist Theories




28














Behavioral Theories










29



















for production



managerial approach


30

t ^oo

^ I - OP

X C

1-9(Country Club)

9-9(Team)


ucO mdash

U

(Impoverished)1-1

(Task)9-1








31





situational factors








experience











32


















Competencies












p 7)












34









accomplish the work









1982)







35






organizations










(Boyatzis 1982)








36







practices













Globalization




37
























38










Organization




Technology









39
























40





competition









Downsizing







41



was rewarded







M cGoon 1994)











(Uchitelle 1998b)


42
















Diversity







43
























44
























45

























46


Introduction











1995 1996 Senge 1994)










47























48























49






1 Flexibility

1











50






perspective

















51













continuum











52





















53













CHAPTER 3

M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction











hypothesis





54


55



shift





















56


population

Methodology


four phases


general public)

















57
















Quantitative Survey








58























59







Sector Percentage

Total Federal

Total Provincial

Total Municipal

127

136

167



60


Y ear Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142


G ender Percentage

Male 69

Female 3 1


61


Age Percentage

lt35 26

35-44 181

45-54 551

55-64 211

654- 3 1






Some university 8



G raduate degree 44


62







19 times out o f 20



the survey

Telephone Survey












63


Gender Percentage

Female 51

Male 49


Age Percentage

lt25 17

25-34 18

35-44 22

45-54 20

55-64 7

65+ 15

DKNR I



64













Survey Instrument





considerations





65


Region

British Columbia

Alberta

Prairies

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

Percentage

13

10

7

38

24

8



31

29

40

38

35

48

lt100

100-500

over 500


66


Year Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142















67


literature






















68




questions












competency







69








missing cases




significance











70























71














population









72








CHAPTER 4

RESL^LTS

Introduction














j


74










hypothesis














75








Ethics 5158 (1381) Ethics 6128 (1007)










World View


76




mean score


















77


Requirements

Competency J f


Team work 223 21375 p lt 000

Vision 221 17946 p lt 000






Ethics 221 9834 p lt 000








78




Globalization 5911 (1014) 86 10 1

Technology 5964 (1024) 90 7 3

Diversity 4920(1386) 65 19 15

Downsizing 4200(1323) 39 32 28















79













organization itself











80



Problem Solving 6009 (882) 6290 (948) -0281

Ability to Leam 6159 (854) 6364 (695) -0205

Communication 6379 (702) 6318 (913) 0061

Initiative 5969 (840) 6170 (991) -0201


Teaching 5489 (1036) 5672 (1239) -0183

Stamina 5619 (1065) 5668 (1197) -0049

Ethics 6128 (1007) 6262(1106) -0134

Organizational 4991 (1244) 5998 (1094) -1007

Negotiation 5797 (1947) 6106 (1022) -0309



81






















82




Degree of Shift



in the 21 century













the most important


83




Difference

T eamwork 2348 (1644) 2133 (1608) 0215

Problem Solving 0559(1447) 0567(1488) -0008

Ability to Leam 1677 (1511) 1639(1454) 0038

Communication 1596(1442) 1558 (1500) 0038

Vision 1829(1510) 1364(1718) 0465

Interpersonal 1345 (1886) 1479(1641) -0134

Initiative 0482 (1324) 0525 (1270) -0043


Teaching 1629(1803) 1521 (1473) 0108

Stamina 0372(1745) 0331 (1422) 0041

Ethics 0 959(1484) 0802(1 430) 0157

Organizational -0392(1719) -0227(1475) -0165


Negotiation 1291 (1551) 0975 (1429) 0316

Cosmopolitan 2691 (1500) 2669(1575) 0022

World View


84




population














General population




85



Vision 1 6419 (807) 6313 6524

Communication 2 6379 (702) 6288 6470

Team work 3 6242 (740) 6146 6 339


Ability to Learn 5 6 159 (854) 6048 6271

Ethics 6 6 128 (1007) 5997 6259

Problem Solving 7 6009 (882) 5894 6124

Initiative 8 5969 (840) 5880 6079

Interpersonal 9 5925 (972) 5799 6052

N egotiation 10 5797 (947) 5674 5921


Stamina 12 5 6 1 9 (1 0 6 5 ) 5481 5758

Teaching 13 5489 (1036) 5354 5624

Organizational 14 4991 (1244) 4829 5153



86



Vision 1 6446 (866) 6292 6601


Ability to Learn 3 6248 (849) 6097 6399

Communication 4 6231 (883) 6074 6369

Teamwork 5 6182 (876) 6026 6338

Initiative 6 6116 (829) 5968 6263

Ethics 7 6041 (970) 5869 6214

Problem Solving 8 5982 (946) 5822 6161


Interpersonal 10 5842 ( 944) 5673 6011

Negotiation 11 5835 (916) 5671 5998

Stamina 12 5760(1017) 5579 5941

Teaching 13 5496 (1034) 5312 5680


Organizational 15 5000 (1174) 4790 5210


87






















88



Ability to Learn 1 6 364 (895) 6318 6409

Communication 2 6318 (913) 6272 6365

Problem Solving 3 6290 (948) 6242 6338

Ethics 4 6 262(1 105) 6206 6318

Initiative 5 6 1 7 0 ( 991) 6120 6220

Negotiation 6 6 106(1 022) 6054 6157

Organizational 7 5 998 (1094) 5943 6053


Teaching 9 5 672(1 238) 5609 5734

Stamina 10 5669 (1197) 5608 5730

Cosmopolitan 11 5668 (1263) 5604 5732

W orld View


89


Rank


Vision 1 1 na

Communication 2 4 2

Team w ork 3 5 na



Ethics 6 7 4


Initiative 8 6 5


Negotiation 10 11 6


Stam ina 12 12 10

Teaching 13 13 9




90








external drivers








CHAPTER 5




Summary














91


92







Finding 1







Finding 2







93

Finding 3







F inding 4





leaders





sector leaders

Conclusions




94
























95


















96








considered

Future Competencies














97
























98























opportunities


99
























100











competencies












101
























102





















103

Recommendations











APPENDIX I



CDDOQC

gQ

DCD

C)

o3O



8D( O 3

i3CD

nc33 CD

CDDOQCaO3

DO

CDQ

DCD

()()


ponaiiottTraining

CentreProvGovt

ForeignGovts


NZ


2 C reativ ity

V V isioning



6 T eam w ork

7 Irsquoa tlncring





12 Personality


14 Self-C onfidence

OLA

APPENDIX 2



107






Cognitive Capacity



108

Creativity



Visioning



Action Management





109


Teamwork


Partnering



no




Communication





Ethics and Values



I l l


Personality




Self-Confidence



APPENDIX 3



xjCDoOQCsQ

oCD

C)

o3

CD

8euml






3CD

Cp

CDoOQCaO3

oO

CDQ






oCD

()()



CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

C)C)

CD

8Olsquolt3 (O

3CD

CDOOQC

aO3OO

amp

Oc8

C)(0o3



73CDOOQC

gQ

OCD

O

CD

33 CD

CDO

O

CDQ

OCD

CicircC)







73CDOOQC

3Q

OCD

(gt(go3

3CD

Cp3 CD

CDOOUcircCaO3

OO

O






T eam L eadersh ip






CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

()C)

OCUcirc





I

OcoCD

(gto=3

118

ll3UO

V)o

(UE

3 2(Uuml

gt()3


E3()C i l i f

-euml(0



APPENDIX 4

QUESTIONNAIRE


120


Svrtembvr 1 1999

Dear SirM adam






Sincerely





121


a

b

cd

f

ghi

i-

k

I

m

n

0


M e tM a uiMfoanar

MoMmniTtneeeraiT

CmoMLTiMMwraitT

Team w orL




IfitioB (a titm tf)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _











2 3 6 7

3


122

2a

b

c

d

t

f

lhIIkt

m

n

0


WOT AT h i lnoooTwr


Teamwork



Vision (craontf)-----------------------------------------













123



I I I i I i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7




I I I I I I I1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 4

Sa

ib

c

d

ecirc

f

1-kI

m

n

0


MoTAracircuiwatTMr

MosfumrInrciM ii

reamwork_




Vision (aaantf)____________________________











2 3

EmWMfLTInrotTUT

6 7

6

36

6666

6666i

i

6


125



I 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

___________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



I-------1-------1-------1----- 1------- 1-----11 2 3 4 5 6 7


d

126








127

I









n Imdash I I4 5 6 7


128


teoAcirciDtAL

a

b

c

de

Globalization

Ttdinologr mdash

Downsizingmdash



10

a

b



1-----120 years ago

20 years from now


129




h raquo I I I


(lilt




130




I I I Tdub






131



1














132


1J J
















134
















135
















136
















137
















138















139
















140


















141
















142














143


















144


















145
















146














147













UMI Number 9979881


All rights reserved













by








Date A pproved


ABSTRACT



by

M Ruth Dantzer

Chair Shirlev Freed



Dissertation

Andrews University






Problem




urgent attention

M ethod






competencies

Results








21 century




population



negotiating





Conclusions










DEDICATION



Ill


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES i i


Chapter









IV

















i- Risi [ r s 73








Recommendations 103

ppeniii






VI


LIST OF TABLES















VII










V l l l


ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS










ix


CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM









































3







1995)



















2 r lsquo century
















5























6























7
























8




Commission 1999)














Spencer 1993)






9
























10























skills


Il













coming years











12






















13

Research Questions










hypothesis











21 century


14












the most important




population

Collaborative Study






15










Methodology


four phases


general public)









16




research


Limitations






age o r by gender


age o r by gender







future requirements


17

Delimitations

















Definitions


employed


18







as follows

















19






1997)


















20






Commission 1997)


















21















1997)






Commission 1997)




22












1997)











23








opportunities

FundingSponsors







CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
















24


25

















Leadership Models






26























success


27



















Traitist Theories




28














Behavioral Theories










29



















for production



managerial approach


30

t ^oo

^ I - OP

X C

1-9(Country Club)

9-9(Team)


ucO mdash

U

(Impoverished)1-1

(Task)9-1








31





situational factors








experience











32


















Competencies












p 7)












34









accomplish the work









1982)







35






organizations










(Boyatzis 1982)








36







practices













Globalization




37
























38










Organization




Technology









39
























40





competition









Downsizing







41



was rewarded







M cGoon 1994)











(Uchitelle 1998b)


42
















Diversity







43
























44
























45

























46


Introduction











1995 1996 Senge 1994)










47























48























49






1 Flexibility

1











50






perspective

















51













continuum











52





















53













CHAPTER 3

M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction











hypothesis





54


55



shift





















56


population

Methodology


four phases


general public)

















57
















Quantitative Survey








58























59







Sector Percentage

Total Federal

Total Provincial

Total Municipal

127

136

167



60


Y ear Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142


G ender Percentage

Male 69

Female 3 1


61


Age Percentage

lt35 26

35-44 181

45-54 551

55-64 211

654- 3 1






Some university 8



G raduate degree 44


62







19 times out o f 20



the survey

Telephone Survey












63


Gender Percentage

Female 51

Male 49


Age Percentage

lt25 17

25-34 18

35-44 22

45-54 20

55-64 7

65+ 15

DKNR I



64













Survey Instrument





considerations





65


Region

British Columbia

Alberta

Prairies

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

Percentage

13

10

7

38

24

8



31

29

40

38

35

48

lt100

100-500

over 500


66


Year Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142















67


literature






















68




questions












competency







69








missing cases




significance











70























71














population









72








CHAPTER 4

RESL^LTS

Introduction














j


74










hypothesis














75








Ethics 5158 (1381) Ethics 6128 (1007)










World View


76




mean score


















77


Requirements

Competency J f


Team work 223 21375 p lt 000

Vision 221 17946 p lt 000






Ethics 221 9834 p lt 000








78




Globalization 5911 (1014) 86 10 1

Technology 5964 (1024) 90 7 3

Diversity 4920(1386) 65 19 15

Downsizing 4200(1323) 39 32 28















79













organization itself











80



Problem Solving 6009 (882) 6290 (948) -0281

Ability to Leam 6159 (854) 6364 (695) -0205

Communication 6379 (702) 6318 (913) 0061

Initiative 5969 (840) 6170 (991) -0201


Teaching 5489 (1036) 5672 (1239) -0183

Stamina 5619 (1065) 5668 (1197) -0049

Ethics 6128 (1007) 6262(1106) -0134

Organizational 4991 (1244) 5998 (1094) -1007

Negotiation 5797 (1947) 6106 (1022) -0309



81






















82




Degree of Shift



in the 21 century













the most important


83




Difference

T eamwork 2348 (1644) 2133 (1608) 0215

Problem Solving 0559(1447) 0567(1488) -0008

Ability to Leam 1677 (1511) 1639(1454) 0038

Communication 1596(1442) 1558 (1500) 0038

Vision 1829(1510) 1364(1718) 0465

Interpersonal 1345 (1886) 1479(1641) -0134

Initiative 0482 (1324) 0525 (1270) -0043


Teaching 1629(1803) 1521 (1473) 0108

Stamina 0372(1745) 0331 (1422) 0041

Ethics 0 959(1484) 0802(1 430) 0157

Organizational -0392(1719) -0227(1475) -0165


Negotiation 1291 (1551) 0975 (1429) 0316

Cosmopolitan 2691 (1500) 2669(1575) 0022

World View


84




population














General population




85



Vision 1 6419 (807) 6313 6524

Communication 2 6379 (702) 6288 6470

Team work 3 6242 (740) 6146 6 339


Ability to Learn 5 6 159 (854) 6048 6271

Ethics 6 6 128 (1007) 5997 6259

Problem Solving 7 6009 (882) 5894 6124

Initiative 8 5969 (840) 5880 6079

Interpersonal 9 5925 (972) 5799 6052

N egotiation 10 5797 (947) 5674 5921


Stamina 12 5 6 1 9 (1 0 6 5 ) 5481 5758

Teaching 13 5489 (1036) 5354 5624

Organizational 14 4991 (1244) 4829 5153



86



Vision 1 6446 (866) 6292 6601


Ability to Learn 3 6248 (849) 6097 6399

Communication 4 6231 (883) 6074 6369

Teamwork 5 6182 (876) 6026 6338

Initiative 6 6116 (829) 5968 6263

Ethics 7 6041 (970) 5869 6214

Problem Solving 8 5982 (946) 5822 6161


Interpersonal 10 5842 ( 944) 5673 6011

Negotiation 11 5835 (916) 5671 5998

Stamina 12 5760(1017) 5579 5941

Teaching 13 5496 (1034) 5312 5680


Organizational 15 5000 (1174) 4790 5210


87






















88



Ability to Learn 1 6 364 (895) 6318 6409

Communication 2 6318 (913) 6272 6365

Problem Solving 3 6290 (948) 6242 6338

Ethics 4 6 262(1 105) 6206 6318

Initiative 5 6 1 7 0 ( 991) 6120 6220

Negotiation 6 6 106(1 022) 6054 6157

Organizational 7 5 998 (1094) 5943 6053


Teaching 9 5 672(1 238) 5609 5734

Stamina 10 5669 (1197) 5608 5730

Cosmopolitan 11 5668 (1263) 5604 5732

W orld View


89


Rank


Vision 1 1 na

Communication 2 4 2

Team w ork 3 5 na



Ethics 6 7 4


Initiative 8 6 5


Negotiation 10 11 6


Stam ina 12 12 10

Teaching 13 13 9




90








external drivers








CHAPTER 5




Summary














91


92







Finding 1







Finding 2







93

Finding 3







F inding 4





leaders





sector leaders

Conclusions




94
























95


















96








considered

Future Competencies














97
























98























opportunities


99
























100











competencies












101
























102





















103

Recommendations











APPENDIX I



CDDOQC

gQ

DCD

C)

o3O



8D( O 3

i3CD

nc33 CD

CDDOQCaO3

DO

CDQ

DCD

()()


ponaiiottTraining

CentreProvGovt

ForeignGovts


NZ


2 C reativ ity

V V isioning



6 T eam w ork

7 Irsquoa tlncring





12 Personality


14 Self-C onfidence

OLA

APPENDIX 2



107






Cognitive Capacity



108

Creativity



Visioning



Action Management





109


Teamwork


Partnering



no




Communication





Ethics and Values



I l l


Personality




Self-Confidence



APPENDIX 3



xjCDoOQCsQ

oCD

C)

o3

CD

8euml






3CD

Cp

CDoOQCaO3

oO

CDQ






oCD

()()



CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

C)C)

CD

8Olsquolt3 (O

3CD

CDOOQC

aO3OO

amp

Oc8

C)(0o3



73CDOOQC

gQ

OCD

O

CD

33 CD

CDO

O

CDQ

OCD

CicircC)







73CDOOQC

3Q

OCD

(gt(go3

3CD

Cp3 CD

CDOOUcircCaO3

OO

O






T eam L eadersh ip






CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

()C)

OCUcirc





I

OcoCD

(gto=3

118

ll3UO

V)o

(UE

3 2(Uuml

gt()3


E3()C i l i f

-euml(0



APPENDIX 4

QUESTIONNAIRE


120


Svrtembvr 1 1999

Dear SirM adam






Sincerely





121


a

b

cd

f

ghi

i-

k

I

m

n

0


M e tM a uiMfoanar

MoMmniTtneeeraiT

CmoMLTiMMwraitT

Team w orL




IfitioB (a titm tf)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _











2 3 6 7

3


122

2a

b

c

d

t

f

lhIIkt

m

n

0


WOT AT h i lnoooTwr


Teamwork



Vision (craontf)-----------------------------------------













123



I I I i I i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7




I I I I I I I1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 4

Sa

ib

c

d

ecirc

f

1-kI

m

n

0


MoTAracircuiwatTMr

MosfumrInrciM ii

reamwork_




Vision (aaantf)____________________________











2 3

EmWMfLTInrotTUT

6 7

6

36

6666

6666i

i

6


125



I 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

___________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



I-------1-------1-------1----- 1------- 1-----11 2 3 4 5 6 7


d

126








127

I









n Imdash I I4 5 6 7


128


teoAcirciDtAL

a

b

c

de

Globalization

Ttdinologr mdash

Downsizingmdash



10

a

b



1-----120 years ago

20 years from now


129




h raquo I I I


(lilt




130




I I I Tdub






131



1














132


1J J
















134
















135
















136
















137
















138















139
















140


















141
















142














143


















144


















145
















146














147



















by








Date A pproved


ABSTRACT



by

M Ruth Dantzer

Chair Shirlev Freed



Dissertation

Andrews University






Problem




urgent attention

M ethod






competencies

Results








21 century




population



negotiating





Conclusions










DEDICATION



Ill


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES i i


Chapter









IV

















i- Risi [ r s 73








Recommendations 103

ppeniii






VI


LIST OF TABLES















VII










V l l l


ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS










ix


CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM









































3







1995)



















2 r lsquo century
















5























6























7
























8




Commission 1999)














Spencer 1993)






9
























10























skills


Il













coming years











12






















13

Research Questions










hypothesis











21 century


14












the most important




population

Collaborative Study






15










Methodology


four phases


general public)









16




research


Limitations






age o r by gender


age o r by gender







future requirements


17

Delimitations

















Definitions


employed


18







as follows

















19






1997)


















20






Commission 1997)


















21















1997)






Commission 1997)




22












1997)











23








opportunities

FundingSponsors







CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
















24


25

















Leadership Models






26























success


27



















Traitist Theories




28














Behavioral Theories










29



















for production



managerial approach


30

t ^oo

^ I - OP

X C

1-9(Country Club)

9-9(Team)


ucO mdash

U

(Impoverished)1-1

(Task)9-1








31





situational factors








experience











32


















Competencies












p 7)












34









accomplish the work









1982)







35






organizations










(Boyatzis 1982)








36







practices













Globalization




37
























38










Organization




Technology









39
























40





competition









Downsizing







41



was rewarded







M cGoon 1994)











(Uchitelle 1998b)


42
















Diversity







43
























44
























45

























46


Introduction











1995 1996 Senge 1994)










47























48























49






1 Flexibility

1











50






perspective

















51













continuum











52





















53













CHAPTER 3

M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction











hypothesis





54


55



shift





















56


population

Methodology


four phases


general public)

















57
















Quantitative Survey








58























59







Sector Percentage

Total Federal

Total Provincial

Total Municipal

127

136

167



60


Y ear Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142


G ender Percentage

Male 69

Female 3 1


61


Age Percentage

lt35 26

35-44 181

45-54 551

55-64 211

654- 3 1






Some university 8



G raduate degree 44


62







19 times out o f 20



the survey

Telephone Survey












63


Gender Percentage

Female 51

Male 49


Age Percentage

lt25 17

25-34 18

35-44 22

45-54 20

55-64 7

65+ 15

DKNR I



64













Survey Instrument





considerations





65


Region

British Columbia

Alberta

Prairies

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

Percentage

13

10

7

38

24

8



31

29

40

38

35

48

lt100

100-500

over 500


66


Year Percentage

1996 14

1997 12

1998 17

1999 142















67


literature






















68




questions












competency







69








missing cases




significance











70























71














population









72








CHAPTER 4

RESL^LTS

Introduction














j


74










hypothesis














75








Ethics 5158 (1381) Ethics 6128 (1007)










World View


76




mean score


















77


Requirements

Competency J f


Team work 223 21375 p lt 000

Vision 221 17946 p lt 000






Ethics 221 9834 p lt 000








78




Globalization 5911 (1014) 86 10 1

Technology 5964 (1024) 90 7 3

Diversity 4920(1386) 65 19 15

Downsizing 4200(1323) 39 32 28















79













organization itself











80



Problem Solving 6009 (882) 6290 (948) -0281

Ability to Leam 6159 (854) 6364 (695) -0205

Communication 6379 (702) 6318 (913) 0061

Initiative 5969 (840) 6170 (991) -0201


Teaching 5489 (1036) 5672 (1239) -0183

Stamina 5619 (1065) 5668 (1197) -0049

Ethics 6128 (1007) 6262(1106) -0134

Organizational 4991 (1244) 5998 (1094) -1007

Negotiation 5797 (1947) 6106 (1022) -0309



81






















82




Degree of Shift



in the 21 century













the most important


83




Difference

T eamwork 2348 (1644) 2133 (1608) 0215

Problem Solving 0559(1447) 0567(1488) -0008

Ability to Leam 1677 (1511) 1639(1454) 0038

Communication 1596(1442) 1558 (1500) 0038

Vision 1829(1510) 1364(1718) 0465

Interpersonal 1345 (1886) 1479(1641) -0134

Initiative 0482 (1324) 0525 (1270) -0043


Teaching 1629(1803) 1521 (1473) 0108

Stamina 0372(1745) 0331 (1422) 0041

Ethics 0 959(1484) 0802(1 430) 0157

Organizational -0392(1719) -0227(1475) -0165


Negotiation 1291 (1551) 0975 (1429) 0316

Cosmopolitan 2691 (1500) 2669(1575) 0022

World View


84




population














General population




85



Vision 1 6419 (807) 6313 6524

Communication 2 6379 (702) 6288 6470

Team work 3 6242 (740) 6146 6 339


Ability to Learn 5 6 159 (854) 6048 6271

Ethics 6 6 128 (1007) 5997 6259

Problem Solving 7 6009 (882) 5894 6124

Initiative 8 5969 (840) 5880 6079

Interpersonal 9 5925 (972) 5799 6052

N egotiation 10 5797 (947) 5674 5921


Stamina 12 5 6 1 9 (1 0 6 5 ) 5481 5758

Teaching 13 5489 (1036) 5354 5624

Organizational 14 4991 (1244) 4829 5153



86



Vision 1 6446 (866) 6292 6601


Ability to Learn 3 6248 (849) 6097 6399

Communication 4 6231 (883) 6074 6369

Teamwork 5 6182 (876) 6026 6338

Initiative 6 6116 (829) 5968 6263

Ethics 7 6041 (970) 5869 6214

Problem Solving 8 5982 (946) 5822 6161


Interpersonal 10 5842 ( 944) 5673 6011

Negotiation 11 5835 (916) 5671 5998

Stamina 12 5760(1017) 5579 5941

Teaching 13 5496 (1034) 5312 5680


Organizational 15 5000 (1174) 4790 5210


87






















88



Ability to Learn 1 6 364 (895) 6318 6409

Communication 2 6318 (913) 6272 6365

Problem Solving 3 6290 (948) 6242 6338

Ethics 4 6 262(1 105) 6206 6318

Initiative 5 6 1 7 0 ( 991) 6120 6220

Negotiation 6 6 106(1 022) 6054 6157

Organizational 7 5 998 (1094) 5943 6053


Teaching 9 5 672(1 238) 5609 5734

Stamina 10 5669 (1197) 5608 5730

Cosmopolitan 11 5668 (1263) 5604 5732

W orld View


89


Rank


Vision 1 1 na

Communication 2 4 2

Team w ork 3 5 na



Ethics 6 7 4


Initiative 8 6 5


Negotiation 10 11 6


Stam ina 12 12 10

Teaching 13 13 9




90








external drivers








CHAPTER 5




Summary














91


92







Finding 1







Finding 2







93

Finding 3







F inding 4





leaders





sector leaders

Conclusions




94
























95


















96








considered

Future Competencies














97
























98























opportunities


99
























100











competencies












101
























102





















103

Recommendations











APPENDIX I



CDDOQC

gQ

DCD

C)

o3O



8D( O 3

i3CD

nc33 CD

CDDOQCaO3

DO

CDQ

DCD

()()


ponaiiottTraining

CentreProvGovt

ForeignGovts


NZ


2 C reativ ity

V V isioning



6 T eam w ork

7 Irsquoa tlncring





12 Personality


14 Self-C onfidence

OLA

APPENDIX 2



107






Cognitive Capacity



108

Creativity



Visioning



Action Management





109


Teamwork


Partnering



no




Communication





Ethics and Values



I l l


Personality




Self-Confidence



APPENDIX 3



xjCDoOQCsQ

oCD

C)

o3

CD

8euml






3CD

Cp

CDoOQCaO3

oO

CDQ






oCD

()()



CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

C)C)

CD

8Olsquolt3 (O

3CD

CDOOQC

aO3OO

amp

Oc8

C)(0o3



73CDOOQC

gQ

OCD

O

CD

33 CD

CDO

O

CDQ

OCD

CicircC)







73CDOOQC

3Q

OCD

(gt(go3

3CD

Cp3 CD

CDOOUcircCaO3

OO

O






T eam L eadersh ip






CDOOQC

8Q

OCD

()C)

OCUcirc





I

OcoCD

(gto=3

118

ll3UO

V)o

(UE

3 2(Uuml

gt()3


E3()C i l i f

-euml(0



APPENDIX 4

QUESTIONNAIRE


120


Svrtembvr 1 1999

Dear SirM adam






Sincerely





121


a

b

cd

f

ghi

i-

k

I

m

n

0


M e tM a uiMfoanar

MoMmniTtneeeraiT

CmoMLTiMMwraitT

Team w orL




IfitioB (a titm tf)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _











2 3 6 7

3


122

2a

b

c

d

t

f

lhIIkt

m

n

0


WOT AT h i lnoooTwr


Teamwork



Vision (craontf)-----------------------------------------













123



I I I i I i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7




I I I I I I I1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 4

Sa

ib

c

d

ecirc

f

1-kI

m

n

0


MoTAracircuiwatTMr

MosfumrInrciM ii

reamwork_




Vision (aaantf)____________________________











2 3

EmWMfLTInrotTUT

6 7

6

36

6666

6666i

i

6


125



I 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

___________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



I-------1-------1-------1----- 1------- 1-----11 2 3 4 5 6 7


d

126








127

I









n Imdash I I4 5 6 7


128


teoAcirciDtAL

a

b

c

de

Globalization

Ttdinologr mdash

Downsizingmdash



10

a

b



1-----120 years ago

20 years from now


129




h raquo I I I


(lilt




130




I I I Tdub






131



1














132


1J J
















134
















135
















136
















137
















138















139
















140


















141
















142














143


















144


















145
















146














147













leadership requirements in the 21st century : the

Documents