University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS:
A GAP ANALYSIS

By

Laurence Francesco Akiyoshi

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Laurence Francesco Akiyoshi

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

ii
EPIGRAPH

Truth is something we discover by carrying it out. It is not a list of statements, but a direction of
life.
- Brother David Steindl-Rast
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

iii
DEDICATION
To my three mothers-
Per Anna Rita Peluso, tu sei la madre che mi ha dato la vita, tuttavia, non ci siamo mai
incontrati. Spero, se mi conoscessi, saresti orgoglioso di tuo figlio. For Ruth Elizabeth Berry,
you adopted me at the very moment I arrived in this world, however you left much too early. I
think of you nearly every day, live by the advice you gave, and you would adore the family you
helped me create. Para Charlotta Andrade, me enseñaste qué son la humildad y el trabajo duro.
Y me enseñaste que para pedir poco y darlo todo, la vida te bendeciría con abundancia.

In memory of David H. Simpson-
A unique human pattern, never to be repeated. When I moved from San Francisco to
Dallas, David was one of the first people I met. A native Texan, born and raised in the Texas
Panhandle. What brought us together was the modest, yet enduring pleasure of a cigar. A cigar
can alter and change the course of a life. It is true, there are no coincidences. David worked as a
funeral director his entire life, possessed uncanny observational skills, and was deftly aware of
living his life with honor, purpose, and loyalty. David was not a simple man, but David was
simply a man.

To my family-
Christine, Jordan, Jaz, Joe, and Elli your support, encouragement, and love made this, for
me, a possibility. You are what is most precious to me in life. Thank you for our family.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Completing this dissertation represents countless hours of research, writing, editing,
reflection, and a bit more editing. Over the past three years at USC I have been blessed with a
community of professors, staff, and colleagues to learn with and from. With complete
confidence, I am proud to say that each member of our cohort will apply what they have learned
in the venues of their practice and contribute in ways that will make the lives of those they
encounter both inspired and transformed.
Foremost is my Dissertation Committee. Dr. Melora Sundt, as my Dissertation
Committee Chair, you provided the essential human ingredient when I was faced with being
overwhelmed; you offered the gift of patience and compassion. Your gentle guidance provided
the right level of nudging and respectful advice that ultimately allowed me to complete the
labyrinth of doctoral study. Your guidance and feedback on drafts of dissertation chapters, your
manner of encouraging and challenging me, and welcoming us into your home for writing
weekends revealed to me, your absolute and selfless vow to the learning and education of others.
I hope one day to become a measure of the scholar that you are. Dr. Nicole MacCalla, your
practical guidance in research methodology and methods, conceptual frameworks, ethics, and the
reminder that at the end of the day, our research is with people who have hopes and dreams just
as we do and are trusting us with their perspectives. You demonstrate that our humanism and
respect for others must be at the forefront, and to become the caring witness as we learn and try
to understand what others see and experience. As a bonus, you have left me well equipped in life
with the appropriate response to nearly all research dilemmas, “It depends.” Dr. Thomas
Cummings, your observations and commentary on my research and the mechanics of my
dissertation have proven invaluable. As you would speak, thought balloons would appear as I
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

v
listened to your advice and wisdom that would say, “Why didn’t I think of that?” Experience
and maturity enhance the ability to discern what is front of us and the harvesting of wisdom.
Thank you for sharing what can only be gained though experience and reflection. To my
Dissertation Committee, thank you and one day I hope to join you in the profession of teaching.
Every professor I had the privilege to be a student of in the Ed.D. Program has left an
indelible and beneficial, learning and education illustration on my being. Thank you, Dr. Wayne
Combs, Dr. Jenifer Crawford, Dr. Darline Robles, Dr. Maria Ott, Dr. Holly Ferguson, Dr. Issaic
Gates, Dr. Frances Kellar, Dr. Mark Pearson, Dr. Nicole MacCalla, Dr. Ken Roth, Dr. Patricia
Tobey, Dr. Adrian Donato, Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, Dr. Lawrence
Picus, Dr. Helena Seli, Dr. Julie Slayton, and Dr. Kenneth Yates.
Then there is the Saturday OCL group, a cadre of students that registered for nearly every
Saturday morning class over the past three years. I will miss our Saturday mornings together,
however, I remain forever thankful to have studied and worked with such an amazing group of
individuals committed to the service of education, learning, and creating value to the world.
To my wife, Christine. You read every paper I wrote, every section and chapter of my
dissertation, you know more about the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model than you probably
ever wanted to know, and you gave me up for three years. You actively supported me in ways I
would never have dreamed were possible, you rearranged your schedule and commitments to
accommodate my class and writing schedule, and you constantly supported and encouraged me
every step of the way. It’s time for our next adventure! And to Elliana our youngest at home.
Your support, encouragement, and letting me know how proud you are of me earning a doctorate
makes my spirit soar. Likewise, I am proud of you and the accomplishments you have made
happen in your last two years of High School. We both graduate this year, it’s time to celebrate!
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EPIGRAPH ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
ABSTRACT xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE 1
Background of the Problem 2
Importance of addressing the problem 4
Organizational Context and Mission 5
Organizational Goal 7
Related Literature 9
Description of Stakeholder Group 11
Purpose of the Study and Questions 12
Methodological Framework 13
Definitions 15
Organization of the Dissertation 17
CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18
Developing Leaders 18
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences 20
Knowledge and Skills 21
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

vii
Motivation 28
Organization 35
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings 36
Conceptual Framework 42
Conclusion 44
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 46
Purpose of the Study and Questions 46
Methodological Framework 52
Assessment of Performance Influences 54
Knowledge Assessment 56
Motivation Assessment 58
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment 62
Methodology 65
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 69
Direct Report Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 69
Direct Report Survey Sampling Rationale 70
Direct Report Interview Sampling Criteria 71
Direct Report Interview Sampling Rationale 71
Instrumentation 72
Survey 72
Interview Protocol 72
Data Collection 73
Survey 73
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

viii
Interviews 74
Historical Documents 75
Reliability and Validity 76
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data 78
Role of Investigator 79
Ethics 80
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 82
Status of Direct Report Group Stakeholder Goal 86
Summary Status of Direct Report Group Stakeholder Goal 90
Results and Findings for Study Question 1: Results and Findings for Knowledge, Motivation,
and Organization Gaps 90
Knowledge Validated and Non-Validated Gaps 92
Summary of Knowledge Findings 98
Results and Findings for Motivation Gaps 99
Motivation Validated and Non-Validated Gaps 99
Summary of Motivation Findings 118
Results and Findings for Organization Gaps 119
Organization Validated and Non-Validated Gaps 119
Summary of Organization Findings 129
Summary 129
CHAPTER 5 : SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION PLANS 131
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 132
Knowledge Recommendations 133
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

ix
Motivation Recommendations 137
Organization Recommendations 140
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 148
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 149
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 150
Level 3: Behavior 151
Level 2: Learning 155
Level 1: Reaction 160
Evaluation Tools 162
Data Analysis and Reporting 164
Chapter Summary 166
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 167
Limitations and Delimitations 168
Future Research 169
Conclusion 172
References 175
Appendices

Appendix A: Survey Instrument Protocol 189
Appendix B: Survey Items 190
Appendix C: Interview Introduction 199
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 200
Appendix E: Documents and Artifacts Collection Protocol 204
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

x
Appendix F: Example of Blended Evaluation of Kirkpatrick for Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 205
Appendix G: University of Southern California Information Sheet for Research 206

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Direct report group population by functional group 11
Table 2. Organization Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal 12
Table 3. Key Terms and Definitions 15
Table 4. Summary of Knowledge Influences on Leadership Development and Literature 27
Table 5. Summary of Motivation Influences on Leadership Development and Literature 34
Table 6. Summary of Organization Influences on Leadership Development and Literature 41
Table 7. Summary of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 55
Table 8. Summary of Knowledge Influences on Leadership Development and Assessment 57
Table 9. Summary of Motivation Influences on Leadership Development and Assessment 59
Table 10. Summary of Organization Influences on Leadership Development and Assessment 63
Table 11. Direct Report Group Population and Proposed Sample by Data Source 70
Table 12. Requested Documents by Source 75
Table 13. Summary of Assumed KMO Influences 91
Table 14. Q10-A Descriptive Statistics 100
Table 15. Q10-D Descriptive Statistics 104
Table 16. Q10-E Descriptive Statistics 124
Table 17. Q10-F Descriptive Statistics 124
Table 18. Summary Table of Validated Gaps 130
Table 19. Validated of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Gaps 133
Table 20. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 135
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

xii
Table 21. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 137
Table 22. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 141
Table 23. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 150
Table 24 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Direct Reports 152
Table 25. Required Drivers to Support Direct Reports’ Critical Behaviors 153
Table 26. Components of Learning for the Program. 158
Table 27. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 161
Table 28. Example of Possible Leadership Development Dashboard Performance Indicators 164

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Executive management team structure reporting to the CEO 8
Figure 2. Engineering Unit GMs, Presidents of Sales and Services, and SVP Marketing 8
Figure 3. Executive management team leaders of the five support functions 9
Figure 4. Clark and Estes gap analysis process 14
Figure 5. Conceptual framework and knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences 44
Figure 6. Clark and Estes gap analysis process 52
Figure 7. Three data gathering methods 66
Figure 8. Convergent parallel approach 68
Figure 9. Survey participant demographics: direct report completion data 83
Figure 10. Survey participant demographics: gender 84
Figure 11. Survey participant demographics: level of education 84
Figure 12. Survey participant demographics: number of years at The Company 85
Figure 13. Survey participant demographics: number of years in the same industry 85
Figure 14. Survey responses to question 4-A 87
Figure 15. Survey responses to question 4-C 88
Figure 16. Survey responses to question 6-A 88
Figure 17. Survey responses to question 4-E 89
Figure 18. Survey responses to question 9 90
Figure 19. Survey responses to question 10-A 100
Figure 20. Survey responses to question 10-D 103
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

xiv
Figure 21. Survey responses to question 6-D 106
Figure 22. Survey responses to question 6-E 106
Figure 23. Survey responses to question 6-F 107
Figure 24. Survey responses to question 7-A 110
Figure 25. Survey responses to question 7-B 111
Figure 26. Survey responses to question 7-E 111
Figure 27. Survey responses to question 7-C 112
Figure 28. Survey responses to question 8-A 114
Figure 29. Survey responses to question 8-C 115
Figure 30. Survey responses to question 8-D 116
Figure 31. Survey responses to question 8-E 117
Figure 32. Survey responses to question 8-B 123
Figure 33. Survey responses to question 10-E 123
Figure 34. Survey responses to question 10-F 124
Figure 35. Survey responses to question 6-B 127
Figure 36. Survey responses to question 6-C 128
Figure 47. Examples of possible Level 4 metrics of external and internal outcome 166

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

xv
ABSTRACT
This research study utilized the gap analysis framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008) as
foundational scaffolding to understand how a highly successful pre-IPO technology company is
addressing the development of its next generation of executive leaders. The purpose of this
study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and barriers
influencing the ability of direct reports to the executive leadership team to develop the critical
leadership competencies needed to advance into executive leadership positions, or to assume
more complex leadership roles as the organization continues to grow in size and scale. The
design of this study drew from four principle data sources to understand and evaluate the current
practices of leadership development; they included literature review, surveys, individual
interviews and document analysis. The literature review identified fourteen requisite knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. Through analysis of survey, interview, and historical
document data, eight influences were validated of the fourteen initially identified. Key points
from the eight influences recognized the need for a shared understanding of the leadership
competencies needed by future leaders, that leadership development tools and infrastructure are
in place to the development process, and that current executive leadership fosters an organization
culture where developing future leaders is as high a priority as building valued products or
revenue generation. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) was utilized in
the development of recommendations and evaluation mechanisms. This model facilitates the
development of a holistic approach in selecting recommendations to close the validated influence
gaps and evaluation strategies to monitor and measure impact. While the results and
recommendations from this study provide one unique company an approach to developing its
next generation of leaders, selected recommendations may transfer to other organizations.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
Leadership stationed at the top levels of organizations is in place to provide vision,
direction, and guidance; leaders are looked upon to lead ethically, equitably, and create
purposeful and directed engagement throughout the organization (Drucker, 2004; Goleman,
2004; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Leaders are judged by not only
what they accomplish, but also by the means and process steps they took to achieve
organizational goals and the outcomes they desired (Drucker, 2004; Goleman, 2004). In an
organization’s structural topography, leadership is often viewed and described in the language of
organization hierarchy and placement. This structural-hierarchal view has long suggested that
leaders occupy the upmost positions near or at the top of the organization’s structure, and for the
most part that is the common belief (Daft & Lewin, 1993; Spillane, 2005; Stogdill, 1950).
Leaders are looked upon to perform and behave in ways that demonstrate and galvanize
the vision, culture, and ethical conduct of the organization (Yardbi, 2012). In the past twenty
years, CEO turnover has increased from 10 percent to over 14.2 percent, an increase of nearly
50% (Favaro, Karlsson, & Neilson 2011; Stoddard & Wyckoff, 2008), and there are examples of
failed leadership strategies and actions (Dikolli, Mayew, & Nanda, 2014) have significantly
lowered shareholder value and market capitalization (Conger & Nadler, 2004). During this same
time, significant ethical transgressions in leadership judgment in companies such as Enron,
Worldcom, Hollinger International, Tyco, Bear Sterns, AIG, and more recently Fédération
Internationale de Football Association, and Volkswagen have become everyday points of
reference (George & McLean, 2007; Sridharan, Dickes, & Caines, 2002).
Board oversight and governance of CEOs and executive leadership team decisions and
behavior is intended to prevent these leadership failures from occurring (Charan, Carey, &
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

2
Useem, 2014; Clarke, 2014; Cohan, 2002). In fact, researchers have found that Board oversight
and monitoring of CEO and executive team performance have been shown to decline as CEO
tenure increases (Dikolli, Mayew, & Nanda, 2014). When board oversight remains robust, the
likelihood of CEO dismissal after four consecutive quarters of negative results was 89% to
100%. Dikolli, Mayew, and Nanda (2014) attributed lower levels of monitoring to early success
and performance on the part of the CEO and executive leadership team, however, they found in
their research that Board oversight tended to become more relaxed even, in some cases, where
year-over-year financial results were lower. Each of the organizations mentioned in the
preceding paragraph was praised for financial success, entrepreneurialism, and innovation until
the lapses of ethical judgment, miscalculations in growth or market share, not doing the right
things, or having the right talent in the right place revealed problems in strategy and execution,
and ultimately triggered a massive downfall (Drucker, 1997; Drucker, 2004; Goleman, 2004;
Lease, 2006; Thomas, 2002).
Peter Drucker (1997) wrote that an organization is a social system and its ability to
effectively perform is through its people. Drucker (2004) went on to say that leaders lead by
engaging employees, that leadership is an ethical responsibility, leaders must act with equity and
fairness, leaders lead by their actions as they get things done, and that becoming an effective
leader can be learned. The purpose of this study was to examine, evaluate, and learn how a
successful venture-funded, high-growth organization approached the identification and
development of the next generation of executive leaders.
Background of the Problem
Leadership development, executive development, succession planning, talent
management, management development, employee development, talent acquisition – each of
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

3
these efforts is aimed at improving the capability and performance of individuals and groups,
with the desired outcome of improved contribution and increased levels of organization
performance and results (Day, 2001; Leskiw & Singh, 2007; Schein, 2010). Various reports on
the financial investment in leadership and management development in 2016 was over $70
billion in the United States alone (2016 Training Industry Report, 2017; Bersin, 2014).
While significant amounts of financial resources and human effort are focused on
leadership, researchers found that organizations take a varied approach to leadership
development (Cacioppe, 1998; Church, Rotolo, Ginther, & Levine, 2015; Quinones & Leon,
2016). Some organizations rely heavily on the use of assessment tools (Church, Rotolo, Ginther,
& Levine, 2015) while others utilize experiential activities and simulations, executive coaching,
in class or self-directed study, corporate designed leadership training programs, and university
designed educational experiences or degree programs. Cacioppe (1998) states that an integrated
approach to leadership development is critical and that it must align with the strategic goals of
the organization, however it must also align with its culture (Schein, 2010).
Lastly, researchers agreed that in the organizations they studied they found that
leadership development and succession planning were stated as critical to current and future
business success (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Quinones & Leon; 2016).
Leadership development initiatives that utilized rigorous assessment methods to determine
strengths and gaps in leadership knowledge, skills, and performance, provided consistent and
systematic feedback, and actively sought out ways to improve their approach and methods, were
positioning their organizations and leaders for continued success (Conger, 2014; Day, Fleenor,
Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Day & Harrison, 2007).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

4
Importance of addressing the problem
Substantial and continual investments of time, human resources, infrastructure, and
capital are made in organizations to solve critical problems of development, growth, and survival
(Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012; Schein, 2010). When leaders at
companies such as Enron, Volkswagen, or United Airlines misinterpret the problems they are
faced with solving, misjudge the results of their decisions, or behave in ways that produce
negative consequences, the subsequent impacts to the organization, the employees, and the
communities they live in can be damaging and long lasting (Lint, 2017; Sridharan, Dickes, &
Caines, 2002; Stoddard & Wyckoff, 2008). These errors in decision-making are especially
evident when organizational strategies fail because of lapses in ethical judgment, narrow
perspective and maintaining status quo, and miscalculation on needed support and engagement
of the workforce (Lease, 2006; George & McLean, 2007).
The Company, the term used to identify the organization and the site for this study, was a
high technology organization, in a rapidly evolving, and highly competitive segment of the
industry. The Company recently completed its Series D round of financing, has tripled in size
over the past three years, and continues to forecast high growth in revenue and workforce. The
Company’s products and services continue to expand in complexity and competitiveness. Given
the technical complexity of the problems The Company solves for its customers, the pressure
customers experience in rapid product development and release cycles, and the relentless
pressure on margin and costs of goods sold, the leaders of The Company cannot afford to
miscalculate the strategic decisions and investments in developing and growing the organization
they lead. Market and competitive pressures force The Company to bring innovative, trusted,
and high-value products and services even faster to current and new customers, while expanding
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

5
the product and service portfolio into innovative offerings that further reduce cycle-time and
increase margin. Current leadership at The Company realized that the solutions to these
organizational challenges are social solutions, meaning solutions should focus the best talent on
the right problem, motivate and engage employees at all levels, and develop the next generation
of leadership to bring greater innovation and new ideas (Drucker, 2004; Goleman, 2004; Hogan
& Kaiser, 2005).
This problem of leadership development will remain critically important well into the
future. The Company understood the need to address this problem so that it could anticipate
leadership turnover, avoid a leadership vacuum, and mitigate potential losses of productivity
when the next leader in line is not equipped or available. The Company focused on learning
from this evaluation study the impact of their decision, actions, and results of current efforts to
develop the leadership capabilities to lead the organization into the future. This evaluation,
recommendations, and potential solutions has identified: a) knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors such as programs, interventions, and development activities that influence
leader performance and results; b) positive changes that could be made to affect desired results;
and, c) strategies to measure the impact of improved leadership performance (Conger &
Benjamin, 1999; Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Day, 2001; Day & Harrison, 2007; Ofori, 2009;
Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007; Stoddard & Wyckoff, 2008).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Company develops, markets, sells, and licenses a unique set of products and services
to organizations globally. The products and services are based on a highly complex architecture
that allows for extremely rapid cloud-based deployment, machine learning, and reporting
mechanisms that are far faster and more comprehensive than any of their competitors. The
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

6
Company offers additional services focused on providing in-depth information and analytics that
provide customers with highly valuable insight for the strategic business decisions they are
considering. The mission of the company suggests the extreme sensitivity of what they provide
is indispensable to the customers they service and society at large.
At the time of the study, The Company had approximately 850 employees worldwide,
office and lab locations in seven countries, and the majority of the workforce deployed
throughout the United States. Employee voluntary turnover was approximately five percent and
involuntary, seven percent. Growth rate, year-over-year was approximately 70%. The executive
leadership team consisted of ten members who were located across the United States with
concentrations on the East and West Coasts. Each executive team member had a span of control
from two to eighteen direct reports which then made the extended leadership team approximately
67 in total. Of the approximately 67 individuals, 60 were Caucasian, five were East Indian, two
were Asian five, eleven were female, and five were based outside the United States. In 2017,
two vacant executive leadership team positions were filled, the General Council and VP of
Human Resources. Also in 2017, a third member of the executive leadership team left the
company, however that role was not replaced and the team the individual led was absorbed in the
engineering and marketing organizations. None of these vacancies were filled by internal
candidates
The Company was incorporated in 2012 and is headquartered in California. The
Company has many industry competitors, most of which are led by former colleagues of the two
founders. These innovators that could see changes in the industry, broke away from the larger
and well-established companies they worked for, and sought venture funding. This group of
rapidly growing start-ups find themselves in a highly competitive race for the same customers,
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

7
channel partnership, talent, technical breakthrough, and funding. At the same time, product
innovation cycles are under high pressure, time-to-market, and brand differentiation become
even critical in this currently crowded product space.
Organizational Goal
The Company grew significantly in size, revenue, product and service offerings, and
reputation during the prior three-year period. Most of the growth in workforce was largely
organic in addition to a limited number of acquisitions of small companies with strategically
identified products and intellectual property. During that three-year period, the demographics of
the organization mirrored the makeup of the executive leadership team, the average age of
employees was in the late-twenties while executive leadership team members is approximately
mid-forties. Each consecutive year, over this three-year period, two to three executive leadership
team members voluntarily left or were removed from the organization. Some of these changes
were due to conflicts regarding the direction of the company, others were a result of the evolving
complexity of the leadership role, and outpacing the capability of the incumbent executive. At
the time of this study was initiated, there was a shared belief that the current composition of the
executive leadership team would remain intact for the foreseeable future, however that was not
the case. Membership in the Board of Directors was largely comprised of venture fund
executives including two outside members. The executive team reporting structure at the time of
this study (Figure 1) shows the ten members as they report to the CEO. In addition, Figure 2
shows the number of individuals that are direct reports to each of the General Manager (GM)
business unit leaders and Senior Vice President (SVP) of worldwide sales, and Figure 3
illustrates the number of direct reports to each of the executive management team leaders of the
five support functions.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

8
Figure 1. Executive management team structure reporting to the CEO

Figure 2. Engineering Unit GMs, Presidents of Sales and Services, and SVP Marketing and the
number of direct reports

SVP
Human
Resources
CEO
GM
Engineering
Unit A
President
Sales
GM
Engineering
Unit B
GM
Engineering
Unit C
General
Counsel
SVP
Marketing
President
Services
Chief
Operations
Officer
Chief
Financial
Officer

18
Direct
Reports
CEO
GM
Engineering
Unit A
President
Sales
GM
Engineering
Unit B
GM
Engineering
Unit C
10
Direct
Reports
President
Services
6
Direct
Reports
8
Direct
Reports
2
Direct
Reports
SVP
Marketing
8
Direct
Reports
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

9
Figure 3. Executive management team leaders of the five support functions and the number of
direct reports

A key strategic goal for The Company was to successfully identify and develop
leadership talent below the executive leadership team level and prepare them for broader roles
and responsibilities. In addition, The Company wanted to create a pipeline of high-potential
talent and identified individuals that possess the depth and breadth of business, organization,
ethics, and relationship capabilities, to assume and succeed critical executive leadership team
positions by January 1, 2019.
Related Literature
Research studies and reports describe in detail the impacts of leadership actions and
decisions resulting in loss of shareholder value and market capitalization, and increasing
organization disarray (Conger & Nadler 2004; Sridharan, Dickes, & Caines, 2002; Yardibi,
2014). In addition, there are numerous studies presenting data covering the past twenty years on
the changes and factors that contribute to increasing rates of CEO and executive leadership team
turnover (Favaro, Karlsson, & Neilson 2011; Stoddard & Wyckoff, 2008). Researchers are not

SVP Human
Resources
CEO
General
Counsel
Chief
Operations
Officer
Chief
Financial
Officer
3
Direct
Reports
2
Direct
Reports
5
Direct
Reports
4
Direct
Reports
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

10
in agreement on any one reason or a consistent cause of leadership failure by executive leaders
and their teams, but suggest multiple factors and sources of why and how leadership failure can
result, e.g., failed vision, miscalculated strategies, lack of relevant experience, absence of critical
skills and knowledge, lapses in ethical judgment and conduct, and insignificant Board oversight
(Dikolli, Mayew, & Nanda 2014; George & McLean, 2007; Lease, 2006; Padilla, Hogan, &
Kaiser, 2007; Sridharan, Dickes, & Caines, 2002). However, while there is extensive research
on the strategies organizations implement to internally develop the effectiveness of current and
future leaders (Day, 2001; Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014), outside the scope of
this study is whether developed executive leaders continue to perform effectively over time and
if they continue to demonstrate the capability to assume even higher level positions and/or
broader and more complex roles in the current organization or in other companies (Dikolli,
Mayew, & Nanda 2014; Ofori, 2009; Yardibi, 2014).
The pace of change in our business and political environments requires leaders of
national and multinational organizations to integrate greater amounts of information and operate
at a higher level of complex cognitive capability (Calori, Johnson, & Sarnin, 1994). Researchers
found that industries with higher levels of stability tended to favor longer tenure of CEOs and
executive officers than those organizations which operate under constant pressure of innovation
and technological change (Henderson, Miller, & Hambrick, 2006). However, what remains as a
consistent theme is the desire for leaders and executives to continue to learn and adapt to
business, competitive, organizational, and societal changes so their capability, performance, and
contribution match the organization’s needs for successful performance and effectiveness
(Calori, Johnson, & Sarnin, 1994; Dikolli, Mayew, & Nanda, 2014; Henderson, Miller, &
Hambrick, 2006).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

11
Description of Stakeholder Group
At The Company, the key stakeholder group was the direct reports to each of the
members of the executive leadership team (ELT). The direct report group (DRG) was the
primary stakeholder group and focus of this study. The DRG was comprised of the direct reports
to each member of the ELT. This stakeholder group was approximately 67 individuals in size
(Table 1). In total, they represented all the engineering unit functions, as well as, sales, services,
marketing, finance, operations, human resources, and legal. As the stakeholder group for this
study, members of the DRG were responsible for the following: full participation and completion
of in all development initiatives, challenge themselves in broadening their learning, take risks in
discovering new and innovative ways of getting things done, and confront their biases and
internal rules that can prevent learning and inclusion.
Table 1
Direct report group population by functional group
Number of Executive Leadership
Team by Functional Group
Number of Direct Reports by
Functional Group
Survey
Population
1 ELT Engineering A 8
1 ELT Engineering B 18
1 ELT Engineering C 6
1 ELT Sales 10
1 ELT Marketing 8
1 ELT Services 2
4 ELT Support functions 15
10 ELT members Total Direct Reports 67

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

12
Purpose of the Study and Questions
A key strategic goal for The Company (Table 2) was to design and implement an
approach and methodology that would result in the identification and development of high-
potential leadership talent by January 1, 2019. This goal had two main purposes. First, The
Company would identify and develop top individuals from across the organization that
demonstrated the capability, readiness, and potential to assume broader and more complex
leadership roles as The Company grew and expanded. Second, drawing from this same pool of
high-potential talent, succession candidates would be proposed and selected for each member of
the current executive leadership team. Succession candidates would need to demonstrate and
sustain their depth and breadth of business, organization, and relationship capabilities and their
readiness to assume critical senior executive leadership roles by January 1, 2019.
Table 2
Organization Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Organization Mission
The mission of this organization states that it is cloud-based, Software as a Service (SaaS)
organization chartered with the protection of their customers’ more valued assets; those assets
are the data they house.
Organizational Global Goal
By January 1, 2019, the organization will have a succession plan and the executive talent
equipped and positioned to assume key executive leadership team roles and new executive
positions identified in The Company’s growth strategy.
Stakeholder Goal
By January 1, 2019, direct reports to the members of the executive leadership team will have
completed all development goals and identified competencies documented in their individual
leadership development plans in preparation to assume the next level of leadership in the
organization.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

13
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which the population of direct
reports to the executive leadership team were achieving all the leadership development goals and
identified competencies needed by January 1, 2019 to qualify them for the next level of
leadership. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
related to achieving these organizational goals. While a comprehensive evaluation effort would
focus on multiple stakeholders, e.g., the executive leadership team, executive development
professionals in the human resources organization, for practical purposes the stakeholders of this
study were the direct reports to the members of the organization’s executive leadership team.
As such, the two questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organization factors either supported or served as
barriers to direct reports successfully implementing their development plans to achieve
their leadership development goals and identified competencies?
2. What were the knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions that could help the
DRG meet the stakeholder goal?
Methodological Framework
The methodological framework or approach for this study was Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework. The ability to improve organization performance requires a clear
understanding between current organization performance and the disparity in achievement of
desired organization goals. The gap analysis framework, Figure 4, is a structured methodology
that helps organizations and their stakeholders identify and develop recommendations for change
and improvement. For the purposes of this study, the gap analysis process was used as a post
implementation evaluation framework to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies and actions
taken to close performance gaps and improve goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

14
Figure 4. Clark and Estes gap analysis process

In applying Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, multiple approaches to
gathering, observing, and analyzing stakeholder and organizational data were used. This study
used a convergent parallel mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2014). Data instruments included
a quantitative survey, individual interviews, and series of available historical documents from the
organization under study. In addition, a list of definitions (Table 3) is provided for terms that are
used throughout this document.

Knowledge Organization Motivation
GAP Analysis Process
Current
Achievement
Root Causes
Causes Goals Gaps
Solutions Implement Evaluate
Source: Clark & Estes, (2008).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

15
Definitions
Table 3
Key Terms and Definitions
Agile software
development
An Agile framework allows team members to collaborate to
decide on the most effective and efficient ways to complete
work while making sure that the end users receive what they
want and need. The focus is on people and interactions, not
processes and tools (Beck, et.al., 2001)
Career development and
planning

Actions planned and implemented towards the achievement of
career objectives. Actions might include specific skill
building, training, performance feedback, receiving mentoring
and/or coaching, stretch assignments, and rotational or
temporary assignments (Cummings & Worley, 2014).
Competency The skills, knowledge, and experience critical to complete a
specific, task activity, assignment, or functional responsibility
(Cummings & Worley, 2014).
Confidence

Confidence is defined as the degree to which training
participants think they will be able to do what they learned
during training on the job, as characterized by the phrase, “I
think I can do it on the job.” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016)
Executive coaching

Intervention technique for managers, administrators, and
leaders who need skills for problem solving, interpersonal
relationships, and motivating colleagues and other personnel
in an organizational or group setting (VandenBos, 2007).
Expectancy model

A motivational model that suggests individuals are motivated
to perform or demonstrate different behaviors and levels of
effort when then believe significant rewards will be attained
because of the agreed upon action (Cummings & Worley,
2014).
Feedback

An information exchange involving the actual and/or
perceptions of performance, observation, or the results of the
activities of a system (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Can be
an exchange between individuals and/or groups.
Leadership The exercise of influence in the forms of organizational,
political, positional, psychological, and other means used to
stimulate, engage, satisfy and/or direct the motives or actions
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

16
of followers (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Influence by
leadership is ever present and productive use requires self-
awareness.
Leadership development Training and education interventions focused at improving the
competency and demonstrated performance of the
organization’s managers and executives (Cummings &
Worley, 2014).
Leadership training

A process that aims to improve knowledge, skills, attitudes,
and/or behaviors in a person to accomplish a specific job task
or goal. Training is often focused on business needs and
driven by time-critical business skills and knowledge, and its
goal is often to improve performance (Biech, 2008).
Mentoring

Involved the establishment of relationship between an
employee and an individual with greater experience. The
guidance provided by the mentor is often more directive and
illustrative in the direct transfer of skills, knowledge, and
experience (Cummings & Worley, 2014).
Organization culture A pattern of shared values, beliefs, basic assumptions that
organization members have learned in solving problems of
adaptation to external forces and internal integration, and
expectations by members of the organization. (Cummings &
Worley, 2014; Schein, 2010). These strongly held beliefs and
behavior patterns become the norm for how employees relate
to one another and to other key stakeholders, e.g., customers,
suppliers, public entities, and governmental agencies.
Performance management
system

A human resources management system that is designed to
provide feedback to individuals and groups on
accomplishments, progress, recognition of excellence, and
developmental opportunities (Cummings & Worley, 2014).
Stretch assignments

Assignments that are based on the attainment of a stretch goal.
Setting stretch goals and assignments suggests an increase of
the perceived challenge and level of effort required to achieve
the stated goal (Cummings & Worley, 2014).

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

17
Organization of the Dissertation
This research proposal is organized into five chapters. Each chapter has a specific
purpose and intent for the reader. Chapter 1 provides background on the problem of practice, the
importance of the problem, information about the organization under study and stakeholder
groups, purpose of the study, overview of the research methodology and gap analysis framework,
and key terminology. Chapter 2 provides a review of current literature on the topic of leadership
development, in addition to literature research and theory on knowledge, motivational, and
organizational considerations that influence leadership development outcomes. Chapter 3
reviews the assumed causes and methodology to assess knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences. Included in this chapter is the research framework and approach,
review of data collection methods, recruitment of study participants, data collection, and ethical
considerations to the rights and protections of human subject’s research. From the literature
review, a combination of 14 knowledge, motivation, and organization influences were identified.
The focus of Chapter 4 was to analyze the data collected to determine which of the 14 influences
were identified as gaps. For the purposes of this study, the term “validated” was used to identify
the gaps that must be addressed and closed in order to achieve the organization and stakeholder
goals. Chapter 5 presents the proposed solutions and an overview of the plan for
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, in addition to, the strengths and weaknesses of the
approach, limitations and delimitations, and future research.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

18
CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that examined the significant variables and
key factors underscoring the effective practice of developing executives for broader leadership
roles, higher-level positions of responsibility and complexity, and succession readiness and
achievement. This chapter contains three major sections. The first section presents a brief
overview of the current state of executive leadership development approaches and the theories
and models that underlie these practices. The second section reviews the research on how the
self-efficacy of executives exposes potential gaps or barriers in their readiness or capacity to
assume broader roles or higher positions of authority within organizations. The third section
investigates the organizational and cultural influences that can either prevent or encourage the
success of executive leadership development initiatives in organizations. Following this general
literature review, Chapter 2 turns to the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework and,
specifically, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the executives’ readiness
to successfully assume broader roles, higher positions of accountability, and succession within
their organization.
Developing Leaders
Executive leadership teams occupy the topmost hierarchical organizational level and are
positioned to provide vision, direction, engagement, and sound judgment to attain the goals,
purpose, and aspirations of the organizations they lead (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee,
2014). Each member of an executive leadership team is looked upon to demonstrate the
knowledge, capabilities, behaviors, and actions that promote and galvanize the vision, culture,
and ethical conduct of the organization (Banerjee & Erçetin, 2014).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

19
In a nine-year study conducted by Dikolli, Mayew, and Nanda (2014) of 1,725 U.S.
Firms, researchers suggest that the probability of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and members
of their leadership team being dismissed for poor performance declines over the length of the
CEO’s tenure. In addition, Board of Directors’ (BOD) oversight in monitoring the executive
leadership team and specifically the CEO remained robust in those cases where new or limited
experienced CEOs at the helm presented negative economic performance to the BOD.
Probability of dismissal between novice and experienced CEOs was 43% versus 9%, novice
versus experienced CEOs for a one quarter negative return and rose to 314% versus 38% for a
four-quarter miss in earnings (Dikolli, Mayew, & Nanda 2014). In those firms where healthy
financial performance was reported quarter over quarter, Boards of Directors tended to loosen
their oversight over the CEO and executive leadership team, thus tenure increased (Dikolli,
Mayew, & Nanda 2014). Researchers attributed these lower levels of monitoring and oversight
to a reduction in uncertainty of CEO and executive team performance, however, Dikolli, Mayew,
and Nanda (2014) believe that diminished BOD governance tends to weaken the performance
monitoring of the CEO and calls into question if long-tenured CEOs influence governance
oversight and firm decisions in a less than ideal manor and creating an absence of performance
feedback or development.
Researchers observe that organizations approach leadership development from different
vantage points. However, there are significant similarities (Cacioppe, 1998; Church, Rotolo,
Ginther, & Levine, 2015; Quinones & Leon, 2016). Church, Rotolo, Ginther, and Levine, (2015)
provide an in-depth review of over 111 companies with global operations; they found that over
80% of these used assessment tools and processes as a primary means to identify high potential
employees and in the development of senior executives. Cacioppe (1998) argues that an
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

20
integrated approach to effective leadership development must align with the strategic goals of the
organization, have a rigorous system for the identification and setting of development objectives,
select and implement an effective delivery and evaluation process, and integrate with internal
human resource systems. Lastly, Quinones and Leon (2016) found that while only 44% of the
350 corporations they studied had a formal process for identifying and developing leadership
talent for advancement and succession, all the organizations in their study stated that leadership
development and succession planning were critical to current and future business success.
Organizations that utilize assessment methods to identify and assess gaps in leadership
performance, have a systemic approach to leadership development, and continuously improve
their approach, are much better positioned to have leaders prepared for the future (Conger, 2014;
Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014).
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
Critical to improving organization performance is developing a sound understanding of
the disparity between the achievement of desired organization goals and current performance.
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is a structured methodology that provides
organizations and their stakeholders greater understanding and insight into the organization’s
performance as it is today in comparison to the desired goals it hopes to achieve. This science-
based approach developed by Clark and Estes (2008) focuses the researcher on how to improve
the effectiveness of people, facilitates the identification of actions that will have the greatest
impact, differentiates which actions or interventions are a best fit for the organization and its
culture, is data-based, and minimizes mistakes and unintended consequences. Central to this
analytic approach is to reveal and distinguish whether stakeholders have the requisite knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational support to successfully achieve the stated goals.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

21
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis approach focuses on three key factors that
contribute to potential gaps in knowledge, motivation, and barriers in organization culture; each
are key moderators of goal achievement. Knowledge is what individuals need to know and the
skills they need to possess to order carry out a specific task or function; motivation in
straightforward terms is described as the active commitment, persistence, and mental effort put
forth; lastly, organization barriers are the impediments, structures, or lack of resources that
prevent progress.
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis is a foundational framework and central to this
study. It was applied as an analytical and evaluative framework in examining the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors needed by the stakeholder group to achieve the
organization goal of developing the next generation of executive leaders by January 1, 2018.
Developing executive talent that is ready to assume higher-level roles and responsibilities, which
encompass broader and increasingly complex challenges, is a key factor in organizational growth
and sustained success (Cohn, Khurana, & Reeves, 2005).
Knowledge and Skills
This section of the literature review identified the prominent knowledge and skills needed
by the direct reports to successfully learn, develop, and master the necessary competencies to
increase their executive effectiveness and results.
Knowledge influences. Researchers described four types of knowledge: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956;
Krathwohl, 2002). Each of the following knowledge influences play a unique role in learning
and development. Factual knowledge describes the knowing of specific terminology and details.
Conceptual knowledge is represented in the form of theories, principles, and categorizations.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

22
Procedural knowledge includes techniques, skills, and instruction in how to complete tasks.
Metacognitive knowledge describes the level of self-awareness that one possesses (Krathwohl,
2002; Ross, Robinson, & Francis-Smythe, 2015). Of distinct interest in this study was to
evaluate how the conceptual and metacognitive knowledge dimensions affect the ability of the
direct reports to plan their development strategy and self-assess their learning and progress
throughout the implementation of their development goals. The assumed knowledge influences
suggested by the research literature are presented below.
Assumed declarative knowledge causes.
Direct reports need to know the competency goals for their performance. Latham and
Locke (1991) state that the basis of goal setting theory, in the most straightforward definition, is
that conscious human behavior is directed with intention and focus by the goals individuals set
and commit to. In a comprehensive literature review on leadership development practices,
researchers identified that positive outcomes of leadership development initiatives are enhanced
when individuals have intentional and specific developmental goals and work experiences (Day,
2001; Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014). In addition to intention, specificity, and
commitment, goal theory and effective leadership development is influenced by the intensity and
duration of the development goals and whether the completion dates are near- or long-term
(Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, Latham & Erez, 1988). Direct reports need to know what
competencies are expected of future leaders, the goals they are striving to accomplish in order to
focus their intention, and to direct their cognitive capabilities towards a purposeful outcome and
rational choice (Binswanger, 1991; Latham & Locke, 1991).
Direct reports need to know how their current performance measures against the
competency goals. Researchers agree that feedback on performance and progress toward goal
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

23
attainment has been determined to be a valuable source of information to individuals engaged in
development activities, however in the absence of clear goals there is the equal probability that
feedback can have either a negative or positive impact on individual performance (DeNisi &
Kluger, 2000; Kluger & DeNisi,1998). While it is a generally accepted management principle
that feedback is necessary to improve employee performance, DeNisi and Kluger (2000) found
that in more than one-third of the cases they researched, employee performance decreased
following the received feedback. Furthermore, in the 131 papers that DeNisi and Kluger (2000)
completed a meta-analysis on the impacts of feedback, they identified five conditions that can
improve the effectiveness of a feedback intervention. They are: focus on the task; present the
feedback in non-threatening manner; provide improvement options; align with goal-setting; and,
focus on performance improvements of the individual receiving the feedback, not on the
performance of others. DeRue and Wellman (2009) found that providing feedback to direct
reports engaged in pursuing challenging developmental goals with the potential for career
advancement into higher executive roles, were conditions where individuals could benefit the
most from feedback and learning where they stand in reference to their goal.
Assumed procedural knowledge causes.
Direct reports need to know the methodology for implementing a leadership development
plan. Researchers found that companies successful in developing executive talent have robust
development planning and infrastructure systems (Grant, Curtayne, & Burton, 2009; Haskins &
Shaffer; 2009). Executive development programs have continued to change and evolve over the
past 25 years (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Wuestewald, 2016). One of the
most notable changes in executive development programs was the shift from executives being
enrolled to complete degree programs at a university or concentrated executive or certificate
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

24
programs, to companies developing in-house programs with professors and educators in the role
of consultants collaborating in the development of tailored course content (Wuestewald, 2016).
This trend further reflects the way organizations have internalized the creation of goal setting and
planning systems, how skill acquisition is evaluated in context, and how formalized feedback
processes are designed and institutionalized as essential to leadership development (Day,
Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009).
Development planning and practices are considered procedural knowledge influences.
Researchers agreed that companies should design and promote methodologies that will support
the successful implementation of executive development planning (Day, Fleenor, Atwater,
Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009; Seibert, Hall, & Kram, 1995;
Wuestewald, 2016). Direct reports to the organization’s executive leadership team need to know
and understand how to effectively utilize the leadership planning tools and systems available to
them as they implement their development plans.
Assumed metacognitive knowledge causes.
Direct reports need to know how to self-reflect on their learning as they implement their
leadership development plans to improve their competency and resulting performance.
Metacognitive knowledge is the self-awareness of one's cognition (Krathwohl, 2002).
Researchers argue there are mixed results regarding the effectiveness of executive development
and education (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Muff, 2012; Ross, Robinson, &
Francis-Smythe, 2015). The variety of programs researchers described ranged from executive
development initiatives designed and implemented by learning and development professionals
within a company, to programs offered by external training vendors, to a specific executive
education course through a public or private educational institution, to an advanced degree such
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

25
as an MBA program. Wuestewald (2016) found in his research of executive development
programs in the United States since the 1920s reveals an evolution from a cognitive instructional
based design to the inclusion of reflective learning strategies in partnership with executive
coaching. Reflective learning strategies can include assignments based on self-reflection, 360
and peer evaluation, assessment tools and inventories, peer feedback and group dynamics, and
journal writing. In addition to these reflective learning strategies, feedback through coaching or
facilitation has shown to improve the effectiveness of leadership skill development during the
learning process (DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Mento & Jones 2013).
The literature suggests that executives identified for development tend to occupy
positions in which their current experience has proven highly valuable, however, to move into
broader and more complex roles they must examine their assumptions and past practices rather
than generalize prior experience as the single source of future "right answers" (Muff, 2012). A
study completed by Muff (2012) describes how executives at the start of a leadership
development program engaged in self-assessment with the help of a facilitator to identify factors
that might prevent them from the successful completion of their professional goals. As part of
the self-assessment and identification of factors that could prevent successes, each executive
developed different strategies in how to break limiting social and belief patterns, and identify
tools they could apply to improve their capability, performance, and goal achievement. Assisting
direct reports to complete a rigorous self-assessment provides individuals the opportunity to gain
insight into their values, beliefs, identity, and self-confidence; also, they assess workplace
dynamics and relationships, and more importantly, understand how to turn insight into actionable
strategies for performance improvement (Helsing & Howell, 2014; Muff, 2012).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

26
Researchers suggest that executive and leader development should start with a greater
focus on the interior development of the individual’s identity and belief systems rather than on
the external level of observable skills, actions, and behaviors (Helsing & Howell, 2014; Muff,
2012; Ross, 2014). Through rigorous self-assessment, Helsing and Howell (2014) and Muff
(2012) believe an accurate understanding of the direct report’s strengths and weaknesses will
result. Providing the individual with this valuable insight, identification, and understanding of
their development gaps will enable progress towards assuming broader roles and higher levels of
authority.
Ross, Robinson, and Francis-Smythe, (2015) found differences in the positive influence
of executive development education between novice and experienced executives. Researchers
identified that novice and inexperienced executives tended to apply new learning as procedural
steps to be followed, while experienced executives displayed confidence and utilized new
learning as confirmation of their current practice and minimized innovation (Krathwohl, 2002;
Ross, Robinson, & Francis-Smythe, 2015). Ross, Robinson, & Francis-Smythe (2015) found
that when experienced executives put into practice the discipline of internal dialogue and
reflection, they tend to synthesize new information and knowledge within the context of the
current conditions. Also, they applied what they learned from development programs either as
an enhancement to their current practice or as innovative applications when combined with their
extensive experience. The direct reports in this study will need to learn and develop the
metacognitive and reflective skills necessary to maximize the application of their development
experiences. The ability to self-assess is called "reciprocal determinism" and is the interplay
among three dimensions; the behavior an individual is exhibiting, the internal processes he or she
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

27
is experiencing, and the external or situational conditions present (Ross, 2014). It is this very
ability, to reflect and assess in the process of action, that direct reports need to know how to do.
On the following table, Table 4, four knowledge influences have been identified. In
addition, the corresponding knowledge types and suggested assessments are listed. Each of these
knowledge influences are key factors in determining the level of success in achieving the
stakeholder goal of all direct reports to the members of the executive leadership team having
successfully achieved the goals documented in their leadership development plans by January 1,
2019.
Table 4
Summary of Knowledge Influences on Leadership Development and Related Literature
Assumed Needs for Successful Leadership
Development
General Literature Knowledge Theory
Knowledge
Declarative Direct reports need to
know the competency
goals for their
performance.
(Binswanger, 1991; Day,
2001; Day, Fleenor,
Atwater, Sturm, & McKee,
2014; Helsing & Howell,
2014; Latham & Locke,
1991; Locke, Latham &
Erez, 1988; Muff, 2012;
Ross, 2014)

(Bloom, Engelhart,
Furst, Hill, &
Krathwohl, 1956;
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2002;
Ross, Robinson, &
Francis-Smythe,
2015)
Direct reports need to
know how their current
performance measures
against the competency
goals.
(DeNisi & Kluger, 2000;
DeRue & Wellman, 2009;
Kluger & DeNisi,1998)
Procedural Direct reports need to
know the methodology
for implementing a
leadership development
plan.
(Day, Fleenor, Atwater,
Sturm, & McKee, 2014;
Grant, Curtayne, & Burton,
2009; Haskins & Shaffer;
2009; Moss, Dowling, &
Callanan, 2009; Seibert,
Hall, & Kram, 1995;
Wuestewald, 2016)

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

28
Metacognitive Direct reports need to
know how to self-reflect
on their learning as they
implement their
leadership development
plans to improve their
competency and resulting
performance.

(Day, Fleenor, Atwater,
Sturm, & McKee, 2014;
DeRue & Wellman, 2009;
Helsing & Howell, 2014;
Krathwohl, 2002; Mento &
Jones 2013; Muff, 2012;
Ross, 2014; Ross, Robinson,
& Francis-Smythe, 2015;
Wuestewald, 2016)

Motivation
Efforts to close gaps in performance require both knowledge and motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) describe motivation as reflective of three key factors:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is about initiation and starting, not
just stating the intention to do so. Persistence is the continuation in the face of distractions or
competing challenges. Mental effort is the focus of acquiring new or additional knowledge, the
acceptance of mistakes, and continuing to push forward. Motivation can falter and performance
gaps result when there is a failure in one or more of these three key factors (Clark & Estes,
2008). Understanding the underlying theories of motivation and applying them to executive and
leadership development initiatives is critical. Direct reports that are optimistic in developing
their leadership skills and knowledge, and have high expectation for success, positively influence
their motivation to learn and develop (Pajares, 2006). Understanding this relationship and
interplay between motivation and knowledge will allow the possibility to identify solutions when
gaps in performance occur.
Self-Efficacy Theory. Self-efficacy is described as the personal beliefs and expectations
held by an individual about their capability and capacity to implement actions that will result in
the achievement or desired functioning at a determined level of performance (Bandura, 2000;
Pajares, 2006). Furthermore, Bandura (2000) describes that self-efficacy can be viewed as
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

29
collective, when groups or teams share common beliefs and expectations regarding their ability
to achieve or complete the desired level of performance or task accomplishment. Feedback and
modeling can positively increase self-efficacy; moreover, accurate feedback that addresses
weakness may be more critical to learning than only feedback regarding strengths (Pintrich,
2003). For direct reports to successfully implement their development plans, individually and
collectively, it is essential that direct reports hold positive expectancies for success and respond
optimistically to feedback (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006; Pintrich, 2003; Ross, 2014).
Assumed self-efficacy causes.
Direct reports believe they are capable of successfully implementing their leadership
development plans. Ross (2014) found that leaders who exhibit positive mental outlook tend to
exhibit more encouraging behavioral reactions, higher self-efficacy, and constructive social
interactions. Direct report self-efficacy is central to their development as leaders, their
willingness and ability to seek opportunities for growth and development, and is related to the
motivation to succeed (Ross, 2014). Executive and leadership development is a unique form of
development, in that it is unmistakably different from technical or other skill-based types of
development (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008). Direct report self-efficacy is critical to
the successful implementation of their individual development plans, precisely because of the
accountability and ethical responsibility to provide direction and leadership to all members of the
organizations they lead.
Direct reports are confident that engaging in the leadership development planning
process will benefit their career. Pajares (2006) describes how setting clear, concrete, and
challenging goals that provide the learner the opportunity to experience accomplishment and
success, enhances self-efficacy and motivation. Increasing direct report confidence for a positive
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

30
career outcome, is a function of well-designed development planning processes and enhanced
levels of positive affect, and encouraging the learner to demonstrate greater persistence and
higher levels of performance (Latham & Locke, 2007; Latham & Pinder, 2005). For direct
reports, having the knowledge and understanding of a sound development planning process can
set a foundation for increased confidence and self-efficacy.
Direct reports believe that the feedback they receive is accurate and that the performance
management system is fair. Latham and Locke (2007) describe that active feedback on
performance is a key mediator to affecting high employee performance. Feedback seeking
behavior (Ashford & Black, 1996) is described as having the key purposes of relationship
building, image management in how one guides how others view them, and instrumental towards
goal achievement and performance improvement. In organizations, the performance appraisal or
review system is often met with skepticism and a growing sense dissatisfaction where levels of
trust in management has declined (Mayer & Davis, 1999). In their research, Mayer and Davis
(1999) found that performance management and review systems were most effective when there
were confidence and trust in the ability, benevolence, and integrity in the individual conducting
and providing the performance feedback. Direct reports engaged in the process of learning and
development require accurate and trustworthy feedback so that effort, persistence, and
prioritization can be monitored and development outcomes achieved.
Goal Orientation Theory. Goal orientation theory provides a framework that
distinguishes goals into two primary categories, mastery goals and performance goals (Pintrich,
2000; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Mastery and performance goal orientations focus on the
learners’ motivation to achieve and self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2003). Mastery goals focus
the individual on learning and mastering the subject matter content or task to be completed and
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

31
are viewed as adaptive, whereas a performance goal orientation tends to direct the learner
towards improving performance in comparison to others and to avoid the embarrassment of
perceived incompetence (Pintrich, 2003). A performance goal orientation is viewed as less
adaptive than a mastery orientation. However further research by Pintrich (2003) suggests that
when the orientation of the learner is primarily mastery, adopting a performance orientation as a
secondary approach does not have detrimental or maladaptive consequences. For direct reports
to move beyond completing what is required and documented in their development plans, it is
vital to encourage and nurture direct reports to assume a mastery goal orientation.
Assumed goal orientation causes.
Direct reports want to accomplish more than only what is written in their leadership
development plans and drive beyond only completing what is documented. Researchers found
that executives who were engaged in executive development initiatives that focused on ability,
motivation, the opportunity to perform, and experienced active involvement of top executive
team members, resulted in higher participant performance and the motivation to exceed prior set
goals and expectations (Akrofi, 2016; Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Ross (2014) found a positive
correlation between confident self-perceptions and the desire on the part of executives to commit
to progressively challenging goals. Designing direct report development plans and strategies
must combine elements of positive self-perception, self-efficacy, and mastery goal orientation.
Only in this way will direct reports discover their executive and leadership potential, understand
how to use the authority and accountability that comes with leadership, and embrace the notion
that learning and development are a continual process supported by the fact that our
organizations and contexts constantly change.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

32
Attribution theory. Attribution theory states that individuals form a set of beliefs
regarding the reasons for success or failure with a given task, as well as, that level or amount of
control an individual has in determining the result (Rueda, 2011). Anderman and Anderman
(2006) state that motivation and learning are positively affected when individuals attribute the
success or failure with a given task to the effort applied and not as a function of ability. This
notion is critical when designing strategies and development initiatives to improve leadership
performance. By the very nature of their role, executives at the highest levels of an organization
must consistently learn from the ever-changing dynamics of the business, technological, social,
and political landscapes. If executives view success or failure as a function of effort, rather than
ability, learning and motivation are enhanced (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). In developing
leaders, it is critical that feedback on performance focus on learning and adaptation, that
sustained effort can overcome temporary setbacks, to accurately determine what is controllable
or not, and that learning and motivation enhance adaptation which is critical to achievement
(Pintrich, 2003; Weiner, 2005).
Assumed attribution causes.
Direct reports believe the most qualified candidates will be selected to fill open
leadership positions. Researchers agree that unexpected turnover of executive talent can have
detrimental effects on organization and financial performance (Knudson, 2014; Park & Shaw,
2013; Peters & Wagner, 2014). In addition to the potential impact of on operational and
financial performance, the loss of senior executive leaders can translate into a loss of technical
knowledge, business and industry experience, and cultural understanding. Williamson, Wachter,
and Harris (1975) described how some companies strategically balanced their options in
selecting internal candidates or external recruiting based up assumptions of firm-specific skills
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

33
and the transaction costs to hire or fill unique positions. Additional critical considerations when
a senior executive position becomes vacant, if firm-specific information, knowledge, and skills
impact the organization’s ability to find the best individual for the position; and, the effects of
promoting within and the possible unintended consequences to the motivations of others
(Bidwell & Keller; 2014). In their research, Packard and Jones (2015) found that positive
changes in self-efficacy were at their highest when learners in leadership development initiatives
experienced increases in role responsibility, increases in the output and quality of their
deliverables, and improved performance in their leadership and management effectiveness.
Direct reports will attribute equity in career advancement as a direct reflection of the effort they
put forth in their leadership development, the feedback they receive, demonstration of higher
performance and contribution, and their belief that selection for promotion will be offered to the
most qualified and best-fit candidate.
Direct reports believe that they, more than fate, are responsible for their career
path/success. Anderman and Anderman (2006) state when learners attribute their success or
failure in accomplishing a given task to the level of effort they put forth rather than ability,
learning and motivation are enhanced. Educational researchers Cauley & McMillan (2010)
explored this notion further on student achievement and found that when both the student and the
teacher focused on effort being the main determinate to success, the reinforcement of this
attribution led to future success. Pintrich (2003) describes that when the efforts of learners
receive support and encouragement, when feedback engages learners to push and deepen their
learning, and where control and choice are available - there is a greater likelihood of achieving
their desired goals and success than by chance alone.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

34
On the following table, Table 5, five motivation influences have been identified. In addition,
suggested assessments are listed. Each of these motivation influences is a key factor in
determining the level of success in achieving the stakeholder goal of all the direct reports to the
members of the executive leadership team successful achievement of the goals documented in
their leadership development plans by January 1, 2019.
Table 5
Summary of Motivational Influences on Leadership Development and Related Literature
Assumed Needs for Successful Leadership
Development
General Literature Motivation Theory
Motivation
Self-Efficacy Theory

Direct reports believe
they are capable of
successfully
implementing their
leadership development
plans.

(Ashford & Black,
1996; Hannah,
Avolio, Luthans, &
Harms, 2008;
Latham & Locke,
2007; Latham &
Pinder, 2005;
Mayer & Davis,
1999; Pajares, 2006
Ross, 2014)
(Bandura, 2000;
Pajares, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003;
Ross, 2014).

Direct reports are
confident that engaging
in the leadership
development planning
process will benefit
their career.

Direct reports believe
that the feedback they
receive is accurate and
that the performance
appraisal system is fair.

Goal Orientation
Theory

Direct reports want to
accomplish more than
only what is written in
their development
plans and drive beyond
only what is
documented.
(Akrofi, 2016;
Collings & Mellahi,
2009; Ross, 2014)
(Pintrich, 2000;
Pintrich, 2003;
Yough &
Anderman, 2006).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

35

Attribution Theory

Direct reports believe
the most qualified
candidates will be
selected to fill open
leadership positions.

(Bidwell & Keller,
2014; Knudson,
2014; Packard &
Jones, 2015; Park
& Shaw, 2013;
Peters & Wagner,
2014). Williamson,
Wachter, and
Harris, 1975)
(Anderman and
Anderman, 2006;
Cauley &
McMillan, 2010;
Pintrich, 2003)

(Anderman &
Anderman, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003;
Rueda, 2011;
Weiner, 2005)
Direct reports believe
that they, more than
fate, are responsible for
their career
path/success.

Organization
The culture of an organization is a powerful force that influences all facets of its
operational existence, internal functioning, goal attainment, interface with external entities, and
adaptation to its environment (Schein, 2010). Taken to an even greater level of interdependence,
Schein (2010) elaborates how entrepreneurial leaders initiate the creation of an organization's
culture, and once the culture has taken root, the existing culture governs the standards of who
will or will not progress as a leader. The culture of an organization provokes a level of influence
and guidance that directly impacts how future leaders are selected for development, how they are
developed, and what determines their success and longevity. In addition to the organization
element of culture, there are other characteristics of organizations such as structure, strategy, and
systems (Peters & Waterman, 1982) that specify the procurement and use of tangible assets for
task completion and goal attainment. These tangibles include resources such as equipment, time,
funding, work process and procedures, as well as the human capital that is experienced,
knowledgeable, and motivated toward task completion (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

36
Clark and Estes (2008) posit that when misalignment among an organization’s work processes,
policies, procedures, and culture, gaps in goal attainment and high-performance result.
Understanding these organization influences, the level of alignment or gaps that may exist, and
the implications of these influences or gaps on leadership development initiatives, will provide
additional data and information on the readiness of developing leaders for more complex
assignments and promotion. In this section of the literature review, the research explores
organization influences and their impact on the successful achievement of organization and
stakeholder goals.
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Schein (2010) views culture from an evolutionary perspective and is a result of social
learning. Viewing culture as a product of social learning and acknowledging that cultures can
and do evolve over time, positions Schein’s (2010) definition of culture as reflecting a pattern of
shared basic assumptions developed through group social learning. These shared assumptions
and beliefs become the foundation for approaching and solving the challenges and problems
faced by groups within the given culture. Furthermore, new entrants into the culture are
assimilated and taught these cultural norms so they can function effectively within the new
organization environment (Schein, 2010). The tested and valid norms are utilized in solving the
challenges that groups encounter, however, by way of social learning and the drive for survival,
these very same basic assumptions about reality are adaptive to changes in the external
environment (Gotcheva, Watts, & Oedewald, 2013; Schein, 2010). The case for assuring that
executive leaders are prepared to lead and solve future business challenges, requires constant
learning on the part of every leader. When senior executives are in conflict and disagreement on
external business threats or do not recognize the magnitude of environmental change, there is a
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

37
tendency to underinvest in leadership development initiatives and infrastructure that build the
bench strength and capability of future leaders (Conger, 2014; Schein, 2010).
To delve deeper into understanding how organization influences affect the attainment of
stakeholder goals requires an additional level of investigation beyond the definition of culture
discussed thus far. This next level of cultural and cultural process analysis is termed cultural
models and cultural settings (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Rudea, 2011).
Cultural models are the shared mental schema or governing beliefs about how the world
functions and behaves; they reflect the thinking and responses of a given community or group to
external challenges (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001). While cultural models are
considered tacit, they develop and evolve slowly over time, remaining in the unconscious
background to those who follow them, and illustrate what is considered normal and customary
(Rudea, 2011). Cultural settings are the stage in which we can visibly observe the social context
in which the tacit models are actively played out (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier,
2001; Rudea, 2011). The interplay between cultural models and settings is dynamic and
revealing. On one hand stakeholder goals reflect an explicit feature of the organization under
study; goal setting is an accepted norm and a stated requirement as part of the organization’s
cultural model. On the other, it is the cultural setting, the social context where observation and
the impact of organization influences impact the attainment of stakeholder goals.
Assumed cultural model causes.
There is support by members of the executive leadership team to formalizing leadership
competencies and a unified approach to leadership development. Researchers suggest that to
determine if a leadership development program is successful, it must meet two straight-forward
tests. To evaluate if the program achieved its learning and competency goals it much first be
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

38
well designed; and, second, implementation must include the right experiences, at the right time
to the right people to determine the effectiveness of its impact and improve the capability of
leaders (Collins & Holton, 2004; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). As
noted earlier, over the past 25 years’ leadership development programs have continued to evolve
and shift towards the design of internally developed and managed efforts (Day, Fleenor, Atwater,
Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Wuestewald, 2016). Collins and Holton (2004) further suggest that in
those organizations studied who did not implement a thorough executive development approach
and design were likely to report failing outcomes. Members of the executive team have set
organizational leadership goals for the development of their direct reports, yet they resist
providing guidance and a unified approach to how they will be developed.
The organization equally favors hiring practices that create a balance between placing
external candidates through recruitment, and internal candidates identified through the
succession planning process. Researchers posit that companies who strategically align efforts in
leadership development and succession planning processes achieve greater success in the
placement and promotion of executive leadership talent than those without well designed and
aligned efforts (Conger, 2014; Groves, 2007). Furthermore, Groves (2007) identified evidence
that organizations who created and implemented opportunities for incumbents to play active
roles in the development of future executive leaders contributed unique content and motivational
value to the emerging leader. In a study of over 4,500 leaders and 900 organizations (Bernthal &
Wellins, 2006) researchers found business performance significantly and positively influenced
by organizations with well-designed executive development and succession planning programs.
Bernthal and Wellins (2006) also identified key failings in organizations on succession planning
efforts that include the following: not fully utilizing the succession plans that are in place,
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

39
continuing to use a succession planning process that is believed to be ineffective, lack of active
involvement by the Chief Executive Officer and executive leadership team, and lack of shared
understanding of direct report performance and readiness for promotion. An additional variable
that influences recruiting externally for senior executive-level positions when they become
vacant is Board of Directors involvement in setting the tone and requirements for leadership
succession. Boards are the "supervisor" of an organization’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
However, BOD often misalign the skills and knowledge needed with the strategic needs of the
organization, they are often reticent to raise the issue of CEO succession with the incumbent, and
they fail to require and enforce succession development efforts among executives below the
CEO level (Hooijberg & Lane, 2016). Recruitment of external candidates for top leadership
positions during the early stages of the executive development and succession planning efforts
may be viewed as reasonable and justified, however, the persistence of external recruitment may
send mixed messages to those involved in the development and identification as potential
successors.
Assumed cultural setting causes.
Employees assume that when external candidates are hired for leadership positions, they
are justifiably more qualified than the internal candidate. Discussed earlier was the need for
direct reports to actively understand and engage in their development planning and
implementation. Furthermore, researchers suggest that organizations who provide and support
development planning tools increase the likelihood of development success on the part of the
learner (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009;
Wuestewald, 2016). Also, instilling the desire for direct reports to exceed the development goals
they set for themselves can be induced by forming development initiatives that resulted in their
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

40
ability, motivation and, the opportunity to demonstrate high performance (Akrofi, 2016; Collings
& Mellahi, 2009). Knowing that the research illustrates when organizations align development
efforts and succession outcomes, this roadmap provides learners with the motivation and
optimism for potential success (Conger, 2014; Groves, 2007). The confusion that direct reports
experience when they believe they have completed or surpassed their development goals, and see
that external candidates take positions they were competing for, creates the possibility for
unintended consequences and questions as to the goals leadership development as well as their
own.
The organization assures an effective process for providing timely and ongoing
performance feedback to employees that drives their success. Feedback on performance
provides critical information and guidance to executives and learners at all levels of an
organization (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, & Keller, (2006); Salas, Tannenbaum,
Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). Mutual trust between leaders and subordinates is instrumental
in developing an effective learning and development relationship (Ladegard & Gjerde, 2014).
Also, when trust has been broken or violated, recovering and repairing the trust relationship is
incumbent upon the leader to initiate constructive steps that visibly demonstrate earnest
acknowledgment and support (Grover, Hasel, Manville, & Serrano-Archimi, 2014). Gaps in the
accuracy and trust in the performance feedback received from members of the executive team
and Human Resources undermine the effectiveness of direct reports leadership development.
On the following table, Table 6, four organization influences have been identified and
suggested assessments proposed. Each of these organization influences is an important cultural
factor influencing the level of success in achieving the stakeholder goal of all direct reports to the
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

41
members of the executive leadership team will have successfully achieved the goals documented
in his or her leadership development plans by June 2018.
Table 6
Summary of Organizational Influences on Leadership Development and Related Literature
Assumed Needs for Successful Leadership
Development
General Literature Organization
Theory
Organizational
Cultural Models

There is support by
members of the
executive leadership
team to formalizing
leadership
competencies and a
unified approach to
leadership
development.

The organization
equally favors hiring
practices that create a
balance between
placing external
candidates through
recruitment, and
internal candidates
identified through the
succession planning
process.

(Bernthal &
Wellins, 2006;
Hooijberg & Lane,
2016; Collins &
Holton, 2004;
Conger, 2014; Day,
Fleenor, Atwater,
Sturm, & McKee,
2014; Groves,
2007; Salas,
Tannenbaum,
Kraiger, & Smith-
Jentsch, 2012;
Wuestewald, 2016).
(Clark & Estes,
2008; Conger,
2014; Goldenberg,
Gallimore, Reese,
& Garnier, 2001;
Gotcheva, Watts, &
Oedewald, 2013;
Peters &
Waterman, 1982;
Rueda, 2011;
Schein, 2010)

Cultural Settings

Employees assume
that when external
candidates are hired
for leadership
positions, they are
justifiably more
qualified than the
internal candidate.

The organization
assures an effective
process for providing
(Akrofi, 2016;
Berson, Nemanich,
Waldman, Galvin,
& Keller, (2006);
Collings & Mellahi,
2009; Conger,
2014; Day, Fleenor,
Atwater, Sturm, &
McKee, 2014;
Grover, Hasel,
Manville, &
Serrano-Archimi,
(Clark & Estes,
2008; Conger,
2014; Goldenberg,
Gallimore, Reese,
& Garnier, 2001;
Gotcheva, Watts, &
Oedewald, 2013;
Peters &
Waterman, 1982;
Rueda, 2011;
Schein, 2010)

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

42
timely and ongoing
performance feedback
to employees that
drives their success
2014; Groves,
2007; Ladegard &
Gjerde, 2014;
Moss, Dowling, &
Callanan, 2009;
Salas, Tannenbaum,
Kraiger, & Smith-
Jentsch, 2012)
Wuestewald, 2016)

Conceptual Framework
Each of the influences identified in the literature review pinpointed a distinct knowledge,
motivation, or organization area for research and study. The construct that provides coherence
and illustrates how the various influences impact the stakeholder group and each other is called
the study’s conceptual framework (Maxwell, 2012). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe how
the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often used interchangeably.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) take further steps and define theoretical frameworks as including
terms, concepts, models, notions, and direct references to known and specific theories; in
contrast, the authors describe methodological frameworks as focused on methodology and the
operational approach to data gathering and measurement that can be found in Chapter 3, and
descriptions of findings in Chapter 4. For the purposes of this study, the researcher distinguished
between the terms “conceptual framework” and “theoretical framework.”
First, a conceptual framework is constructed (Maxwell, 2012) by the researcher to
provide the overarching framework and structure for understanding the key influences and their
presumed relationships within the boundaries of the designed research. Conceptual frameworks
define research concepts, terminology, and models, and reference specific theories (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, the conceptual frameworks reveal the researcher’s perspectives and
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

43
vantage points in how they will approach and seek meaning through the studies they conduct
(Maxwell, 2012). Second, the theoretical framework is an outcome of the topical literature
review and is focused on the area of research. Through the process of the literature review, a
theoretical framework begins to form and it is in this formation process that the researcher
develops a set or composite of formal theories that provide understanding and insight into the
conceptual framework (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016). On the left-hand columns of tables 2, 3, and 4
are the theoretical framework constructs and assumed influences.
The conceptual framework for this study examined the knowledge, motivational, and
organization influences, the KMO Model (Clark and Estes, 2008), as they relate to the
achievement of the stakeholder goal of all direct reports to the executive leadership team will
have successfully accomplished all the development goals and identified competencies, as
documented in their leadership development plans, to prepare and ready them for the next step of
leadership in the organization by January 1, 2019.
Figure 5 is a graphical representation of the study’s conceptual framework, it illustrates
the relationship between and among the KMO influences concerning the direct report
stakeholder group. The cause-effect relationship between executive performance and
organization performance has been widely studied (Buoziute-Rafanaviciene, Pudziene, &
Turauskas, 2015; Martin & McConnell, 1991; Messersmith, Lee, Guthrie, & Ji, 2013). While
researchers are not in definitive agreement on the exact traits, qualities, attributes, competencies,
or style that executive leaders must possess and demonstrate, i.e., trait versus process, assigned
versus emergent, transformational, servant, or situational (Northouse, 2012) or the specific
organizational attributes that if evident will guarantee and result in high organizational
performance, researchers do agree there is a relationship (Schein, 2010).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

44
Figure 5. Conceptual framework for this study and the systemic interactions of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences

Conclusion
The research presented and discussed in this chapter identified various knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences that can support the successful achievement of improved
leadership competency, capability, and create a pool of leadership talent ready for succession and
promotion opportunities. Much of the literature highlighted the approach and accountabilities

Developed and ready to assume the next step of
leadership in the organization
Direct
Report
Stakeholder
Group
Knowledge
Influences
Motivational
Influences
Organization
Influences
Organization influences:
• Cultural Models
• Cultural Settings

Knowledge influences:
• Declarative
• Procedural
• Metacognitive

Motivational influences:
• Self-Efficacy
• Goal Orientation
• Attribution

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

45
that executives who are focused on developing their individual leadership capability and
effectiveness must address (Helsing & Howell, 2014; Krathwohl, 2002; Muff, 2012; Ross,
Robinson, & Francis-Smythe, 2015). Research also focused on the motivational aspects
individual development. This portion of the literature concentrated on the characteristics of
striving to excel beyond stated requirements, as well as developing the maturity to graciously
embrace the successful attainment of individual goals just as much as the individual setbacks
(Akrofi, 2016; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Pajares, 2006; Ross, 2014; Weiner, 2005). Lastly, the
literature review focused on the power of organization culture and its influence on all facets of
the organization as a complex living system (Schein, 2010). The cultural aspects of an
organization are reflected in how work is accomplished and the behavioral norms that individual
and groups tacitly follow (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Rudea, 2011). The
aim of this study was to evaluate and understand the approach and outcomes this organizational
system was implementing to successfully develop its next generation of leaders. The next
chapter is a presentation and review of the selected approach and research methodology designed
to address the study’s research questions.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

46
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study and Questions
Leaders are faced with and required to solve complex business problems, competitive
threats, and challenges to organizational growth and survival every day. A fundamental test to
organization relevance and sustainability is how to develop the future generations of leaders so
they are prepared to effectively navigate and successfully advance the functions, teams, and
individuals they lead. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the leadership development
strategies and efforts implemented by The Company to develop and prepare the next generation
of leaders for broader roles, responsibilities, in addition to being positioned as succession
candidates to executive leadership team members. Of significance to the systemic nature of this
study was to examine the knowledge and motivational influences of the individual learner in
addition to the organizational and programmatic leadership development strategies, designed,
and implemented by the organization. There were many stakeholders of interest in this study,
however the primary stakeholder of focus were the direct reports to members of the executive
leadership team. While documents were gathered from two other stakeholder groups, i.e.,
members of the executive leadership team and a subset of human resource professionals tasked
with leadership development program oversight, the focus and data analysis in this study was on
the direct report group. This chapter will highlight and discuss the following key elements of the
research approach: research design, participant selection, measures and measurement criteria,
validity, data collection methods, data analysis, and ethical considerations.
To provide clarity and intention in evaluating the strategies and efforts implemented to
develop and prepare future leaders, the following questions guided this study:
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

47
1. What knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization factors either supported or
served as barriers to direct reports successfully implementing their development plans to
achieve their leadership development goals and identified competencies?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organization solutions that can help the DRG
meet the stakeholder goal?
Organizations engaged in leadership development find there are many influences that
must be taken into consideration as they design their approach and strategies to building the
capability and competency of future leaders (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan,
2009: Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Dionne, et al., 2014). Historically, The
Company has stressed the importance of employee development and invested the time and
resources for employees to attend professional and technical development activities, as well as,
participation in industry conferences. Over the past three years The Company has tripled in size,
received numerous industry awards, been recognized as an industry leader and innovator, high
employee engagement, turnover less than 7 percent, and numerous rounds of venture funding to
fuel future success. However, what has been more challenging are the efforts in developing
future leaders that are primed and ready to take on the leadership responsibilities of
organizational growth and greater leadership complexity. Those next steps may include broader
and more complex, business and organizational roles, and potentially designated succession
candidates to members of the executive leadership team. The direct report stakeholder group
remains clearly at the center of this evaluative study (see Figure 1). Data collection and analysis
examined how the various knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences affected direct
report stakeholder group achievement of development goals and needed competencies, as well
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

48
as, and how these influences interacted with one another and collectively to generate additional
effects that contribute to the ability of direct report leadership development success.
Research delineates four types of knowledge and how each play a unique role in learning
and develop, they are: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Bloom, Engelhart,
Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge is defined as the knowing
of specific terminology and details. Conceptual knowledge is exemplified as a category of
thinking in the form of theories, principles, and categorizations. Procedural knowledge
encompasses process and skill, techniques and instruction implemented in a sequence of steps to
complete a given task. Self-awareness is the focus of metacognitive knowledge and interprets
the level of awareness one possesses about their actions and impact (Krathwohl, 2002; Ross,
Robinson, & Francis-Smythe, 2015). As Figure 1 illustrates, there are three knowledge
influences listed: declarative, procedural, and metacognitive. The declarative knowledge
influences address the need for direct reports to know the competency goals for their
performance (Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, Latham & Erez, 1988), in addition to, needing to
know how their current performance measures against the stated competency goals (DeNisi &
Kluger, 2000; Kluger & DeNisi,1998). Procedural knowledge addresses the perspective that
direct reports need to know the procedures, steps, and sequence of action to follow in order to
successfully implement their individual development plan (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, &
McKee, 2014; Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009; Seibert, Hall, & Kram, 1995; Wuestewald,
2016). Finally, the metacognitive knowledge area addresses the view that direct reports need to
know how to self-reflect and deliberate on their learning as they implement their development
plans to improve their performance (Helsing & Howell, 2014; Mento & Jones 2013; Muff, 2012;
Ross, 2014).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

49
Independently, knowledge and motivational influences effect the direct report stakeholder
group under study, in addition, they interact with and effect each another. Direct reports that
display optimism in developing their leadership skills and knowledge, and have confidence in
their competence and ability to achieve goals, develop higher expectations for success which
positively influences their motivation to learn and develop (Pajares, 2006). Understanding the
underlying theories of motivation and the interplay between motivation and knowledge open the
possibility to close gaps in performance when they occur.
The motivational influences identified in Figure 5 are self-efficacy, goal orientation, and
attribution. Self-efficacy is the personal belief and expectations that individuals have about their
capability and capacity to implement actions that will result in the achievement of their goals
and/or functioning at a desired level of performance (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). In this
study, the researcher examined three self-efficacy influences, a) the degree to which direct
reports exhibit a positive outlook and actively seek growth opportunities as they implement their
leadership development plans (Ross, 2014), b) that direct reports are confident that leadership
development and development planning will benefit their careers (Latham & Locke, 2007;
Latham & Pinder, 2005), and c) that direct reports trust that the feedback they receive is accurate
and fair (Ashford & Black, 1996; Latham & Locke, 2007; Mayer & Davis, 1999). Goal
orientation provides a framework that distinguishes goals into two principal types, mastery goals
and performance goals (Pintrich, 2000; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Mastery goals focus on
learning and mastering the subject matter or task to be completed and are viewed as adaptive, in
contrast, the performance goal orientation directs the learner towards improving performance in
comparison to others and to avoid the embarrassment of perceived incompetence (Pintrich,
2003). Researchers found that executives who were engaged in leadership development
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

50
initiatives to improve their capability and competency, and were supported through active
involvement and motivated senior leaders, resulted in higher learner performance and exhibited
the drive to excel beyond expectations and prior set goals (Akrofi, 2016; Collings & Mellahi,
2009). This study examined the degree to which direct reports wanted to accomplish more than
only what was written in their leadership development plans and drove beyond completing what
was documented (Ross, 2014). Lastly, attribution theory states that individuals form a set of
beliefs and reasons for success or failure, and the level or amount of control they have in
determining a result (Rueda, 2011). Two attribution influences were examined, a) the degree to
which direct reports believed that job openings were truly open and that the most qualified
candidate would be selected (Packard & Jones, 2015), and b) the degree that direct reports
believed they were responsible for their career success and could influence career outcomes
more than fate alone (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Thus far, two of the three influences have been discussed, knowledge and motivational,
and how each of these influences interact and affect the other. The third influence,
organizational, has a direct relationship and impact on both knowledge and motivational
influences. Organizational influences are described as cultural in nature. The cultural attributes
of an organization exert a powerful influence on all aspects of an organization’s functioning, its
relationship and interface with external entities, and the way the organization adapts to its
external environment (Schein, 2010). Organizational influences are described in terms of
cultural models and cultural settings (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Cultural models are
shared mental models or prevailing beliefs about how the world functions, behaves, and reflects
the thinking and reactions of a given group to external challenges (Goldenberg, Gallimore,
Reese, & Garnier, 2001). Cultural settings are the platform or exemplar situation where
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

51
observation of social interactions and tacit cultural norms can be witnessed (Goldenberg,
Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Rudea, 2011). The two cultural models examined in this
study were, a) that direct reports experienced a climate of support from members of the executive
leadership team to clarifying and formalizing leadership competencies, in addition to a cohesive
and understood approach to leadership development (Collins & Holton, 2004; Salas,
Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012), b) that direct reports believed hiring practices
were balanced between recruiting external candidates through recruitment and internal
candidates identified through the succession planning process (Conger, 2014; Groves, 2007;
Hooijberg & Lane, 2016). The first cultural setting influence examined the belief that direct
reports assume when external candidates were hired for leadership positions, they were
justifiably more qualified than the internal candidate. When organizations align leadership
development initiatives and succession planning, this can provide direct reports with the
motivation and optimism for potential success (Conger, 2014; Groves, 2007). In addition,
instilling the desire to exceed predetermined development goals could be viewed as a
demonstration of high motivation and achieved performance (Akrofi, 2016; Collings & Mellahi,
2009). The final cultural setting examined the degree to which the organization provided timely
and effective performance feedback to direct reports. Feedback on performance is critical to
developing leaders and learners at all levels of an organization (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman,
Galvin, & Keller, 2006; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). Taken together,
these two cultural setting influences are closely intertwined – acceptance of selection outcomes
and ongoing and trusted feedback create an environment of encouragement, support and mutual
respect (Ladegard & Gjerde, 2014).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

52
Methodological Framework
The organizing methodology utilized for this study was Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework. The ability to improve organization performance requires a clear
understanding between current organization performance and the disparity in achievement of
desired organization goals. The gap analysis framework, Figure 6, is a structured methodology
that can support organizations and their stakeholders’ in developing recommendations for change
and improvement. In addition, the gap analysis process can be used in post implementation
evaluation and provides insight into the effectiveness of strategies and actions taken to close
performance gaps and improve goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Figure 6. Clark and Estes gap analysis process

Knowledge Organization Motivation
GAP Analysis Process
Current
Achievement
Root Causes
Causes
Goals Gaps
Solutions Implement Evaluate
Source: Clark & Estes, (2008).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

53
Applying Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process requires the application of
multiple approaches to gathering, observing, and analyzing stakeholder and organizational data.
For the purposes of this study a convergent parallel mixed methods approach was utilized
(Creswell, 2014). Data instruments included a survey, individual interviews, and collection of
available historical documents and artifacts from the organization under study.
The research and data collection methodology was accomplished in three parallel phases.
Phase one was the implementation and analysis of a quantitative survey to gather baseline data
on previous leadership development initiatives, completeness, effectiveness, participant
experience, and results. Assessment of survey findings played a critical role in this evaluation
study. The baseline data can be utilized to measure the potential effectiveness of future changes
that result from the study findings. Phase two included direct report interviews designed to delve
deeper into the experience of participants involved in the leadership development programs and
activities. Interview questions solicited the following: evaluation and relevance of the content
provided, structure and design of the learning experiences, exposure and opportunity to apply
learning, guidance and mentorship by executive leadership team members, evaluation and
feedback in the process of learning, self-evaluation and changes in capability and effectiveness,
and evidence of promotion and succession. Phase three focused on gathering and analyzing
available historical documents and artifacts such as the following: succession planning and talent
review presentations, reports from succession planning discussions and meetings, executive and
leadership development strategies, turnover and career movement data, available individual
development plans and results, quarterly organization performance and financial reports, and any
past organization climate and engagement survey results. While these various documents and
reports offered a glimpse into past practices, strategies, expectations and outcomes, they also
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

54
provided a deeper level of understanding in how the organization learns and changes its approach
to leadership development when desired results were not being achieved. Conversely, document
analysis also identified organizational and cultural challenges that have prevented or may prevent
success in the future. Triangulating the three sources of data collected in this methodology,
survey, interview, and historical documents, led to additional insights that no one source could
have identified on its own.
Assessment of Performance Influences
This section reviews the approach the researcher followed in assessing the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences that are first summarized in Table 7 and explained in
greater detail in Tables 4, 5, and 6. In this study, the researcher utilized a researcher-designed
survey and interview protocols for each of the four knowledge areas (two declarative, one
procedural, and one metacognitive), the six motivational influences (three self-efficacy, one goal
orientation, and two attribution), and the organizational influences that include two cultural
models and two cultural settings. The survey and interview instruments were designed to
identify which of the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences (see Tables 4, 5, 6
and 7) were contributing factors that influenced the achievement of the stakeholder goal of all
direct reports successfully achieving all the development goals and identified competencies
needed to prepare them to assume the next step of leadership in the organization by January 1,
2019.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

55
Table 7
Summary of Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences

Assumed Influences on Performance
Sources Knowledge and Skills Motivation Organization
Learning,
Motivation,
and
Organization
Theory

Direct reports need to
know the competency
goals for their
performance.
(Declarative)

Direct reports need to
know how their current
performance measures
against the competency
goals. (Declarative)

Direct reports need to
know the methodology
for implementing a
leadership development
plan. (Procedural)

Direct reports need to
know how to self-reflect
on their learning as they
implement their
leadership development
plans to improve their
competency and resulting
performance.
(Metacognitive)

Direct reports believe
they are capable of
successfully
implementing their
leadership development
plans. (Self-Efficacy)

Direct reports are
confident that engaging
in the leadership
development planning
process will benefit their
career. (Self-Efficacy)

Direct reports believe
that the feedback they
receive is accurate and
that the performance
appraisal system is fair.
(Self-Efficacy)

Direct reports want to
accomplish more than
only what is written in
their leadership
development plans and
drive beyond only
completing what is
documented. (Goal
Orientation)

Direct reports believe the
most qualified candidates
will be selected to fill
open leadership
positions. (Attribution)

Direct reports believe
they, more than fate, are
There is support by
members of the executive
leadership team to
formalizing leadership
competencies and a
unified approach to
leadership development.
(Cultural Model)

The organization equally
favors hiring practices
that create a balance
between recruiting
external candidates
through recruitment, and
internal candidates
identified through the
succession planning
process. (Cultural
Model)

Employees assume that
when external candidates
are hired for leadership
positions, they are
justifiably more qualified
than the internal
candidate. (Cultural
Setting)

The organization assures
an effective process for
providing timely and
ongoing performance
feedback to employees
that drives their success.
(Cultural Setting)

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

56
responsible for their
career path/success.
(Attribution)

Knowledge Assessment
The review of literature identified four possible knowledge influences, as exhibited in Table 8.
Two of the knowledge influences were declarative; direct reports need to know the goal for their
performance, and direct reports need to know how their current performance measures against
the goal. These two declarative knowledge influences were assessed through interview and
survey questions. For example, during the interview process stakeholders were asked to state
what their development goals were, the competencies they need to develop, to describe the most
important features of their development plan to achieve their goals, their experience with the
performance appraisal system, their experience in receiving feedback, and the quality of
feedback they received. Survey questions addressed many of these same items and allowed for
the sharing of specific examples and interviewee experiences. The third influence was
procedural, direct reports need to know the methodology for implementing an individual
development plan. Just as with the prior knowledge influence, stakeholders were given the
opportunity to share their views through survey items which inquired about the level of
understanding stakeholders had about the development planning process at their company.
During individual interviews stakeholders were asked to share their perspectives to questions
about The Company’s approach to developing leaders, how the development planning process
worked, and in what ways members of the executive team were involved in developing future
leaders. The last knowledge influence was metacognitive, direct reports need to know how to
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

57
self-reflect on their learning as they implement their development plans to improve their
performance. Again, assessment was conducted using both interview and survey instruments.
Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences on Leadership Development and Assessment Strategies
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Influence Assessment

Declarative: Direct reports need
to know the competency goals
for their performance.

Interview:

What are your leadership development goals?

What are the competencies you believe you need to be able
to demonstrate if you are to succeed in the next level of
leadership?

Please give me an example of a time when you
demonstrated one of the competencies you described above.

Declarative: Direct reports
need to know how their current
performance measures against
the competency goals.

Interview:

What are the performance goals for your current role?

How do you know if you are achieving your performance
goals?

Procedural: Direct reports need
to know the methodology for
implementing a leadership
development plan.

Interview:

Describe how the leadership development process works
today.

How are executive leadership team members involved in
developing leaders?

What must a leadership development plan include to be
effective?

Tell me how you put together your most recent leadership
development plan? (if needed, what process did you go
through?)

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

58

Metacognitive: Direct reports
need to know how to self-reflect
on their learning as they
implement their leadership
development plans to improve
their competency and resulting
performance.

Interview:

How do you know you are on track while implementing
your leadership development plan?

If something isn’t going to plan, how do you know what
actions to take to get your plan back on track?

Describe if and how you reflect on your past performance
and how you might use your reflections?

Motivation Assessment
In the motivation assessment section, the literature suggested six possible motivation
influences related to leadership development, as exhibited in Table 9. Three of the motivational
influences were related to self-efficacy theory and were the following: direct reports believe they
are capable of successfully implementing their individual development plans; direct reports are
confident that engaging in the development planning process will benefit their career; and, direct
reports believe that the feedback they receive is accurate and that the performance appraisal
system is fair. In the remaining three motivational influences, one was focused on goal
orientation theory, direct reports want to accomplish more than only what is written in their
development plans and drive beyond only completing what is documented, and the last two were
on attribution theory, direct reports believe that all job openings are truly open and that the most
qualified candidate will be selected and direct reports believe that they, more than fate, are
responsible for their career path/success. As described in the knowledge influence category, the
assessment approach included both individual interviews and used a survey instrument.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

59
Table 9
Summary of Motivational Influences on Leadership Development and Assessment Strategies
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Influence Assessment

Self-Efficacy Theory: Direct
reports believe they are capable
of successfully implementing
their leadership development
plans.

Interview:

What obstacles do you imagine you might encounter as
you implement your leadership development plan?

What actions could you take to overcome those obstacles?

Survey:

I'm confident in my ability to implement my leadership
development plan.

I understand the leadership development planning process
at The Company.

I am confident in my ability to successfully demonstrate
The Company’s leadership competencies.

I am confident in my ability to achieve my performance
goals.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.

Self-Efficacy Theory: Direct
reports are confident that
engaging in the leadership
development planning process
will benefit their career.

Interview:

How has the leadership development planning process
helped your career?

Survey:

I understand the goals I need to achieve to demonstrate
high performance.

I am confident in my readiness for promotion.

I am confident that engaging in the development planning
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

60
process will benefit my career.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.

Self-Efficacy Theory: Direct
reports believe that the feedback
they receive is accurate and that
the performance management
system is fair.

Interview:

How do you receive feedback on your performance?

How often do you receive feedback?

How could the feedback you receive be more effective?

In what ways is the performance management system
effective?

In what ways could it be improved?

To what extent do you think the appraisal system is fair?

What does “fair” mean to you with respect to the appraisal
system?

Survey:

I understand how my current performance compares to the
performance goals for my current role.

The feedback I receive from my manager is accurate.

The feedback I receive from my manager is meaningful.

The performance management system at my company is
fair.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.

Goal Orientation Theory: Direct
reports want to accomplish more
than only what is written in their
leadership development plans and

Interview:

Describe the approaches people use at The Company to
advance in their careers?
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

61
drive beyond only completing
what is documented.

Describe the strategies you implement to make your
career goals a priority?

Some employees go above and beyond their development
plan. To what extent is going “above and beyond”
important to you, relative to other goals you have? If they
say important, ask them to give you an example of a time
recently when they went above and beyond.

Survey:

I focus on what is required to complete a goal.

Once I complete a goal I see no reason to give it
additional thought.

I finish what I start.

I move past obstacles to achieve my goals.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.

Attribution Theory: Direct
reports believe the most qualified
candidates will be selected to fill
open leadership positions.

Interview:

How do you learn when positions in The Company are
open?

What works or doesn’t work with this system?
Survey:

The Company posts all leadership job openings.

My company selects the best candidates to be placed into
open leadership positions.

Attribution Theory: Direct
reports believe they, more than
fate, are responsible for their
career path/success.

Interview:

To what extent are the most qualified people promoted
into executive level positions?

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

62
Can you describe a recent example?

What are you in control of and not in control of when it
comes to career advancement?

In what ways, if any, could you take greater control?

When people get promoted at this company, to what
extent do you think this is due to their abilities in the job
or to something else? If they say it’s more about
something else, ask them what that is.

Survey:

Career advancement is my responsibility.

I control my career advancement.

I understand my leadership strengths and weaknesses.

Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
The four assumed organizational influences related to leadership development practices
that impact direct report leadership performance is described in Table 10. Two of the
organizational influences were related to cultural models and are stated as follows: there is
general support by members of the executive team to formalizing a unified approach to
leadership development; and, the organization equally favors hiring practices that create a
balance between recruiting external candidates through recruitment, and internal candidates
identified through the succession planning process. The last two organizational influences were
identified as cultural settings and are described in the following manner: employees assume that
when external candidates are hired for leadership positions, they are justifiably more qualified
than the internal candidate; and, the organization assures an effective process for providing
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

63
timely and ongoing performance feedback to employees that drives their success. All four
organizational influences were assessed using a survey instrument, individual interviews, and
analysis of related documents and artifacts.
Table 10
Summary of Organizational Influences on Leadership Development and Assessment Strategies
Assumed Organization
Influence
Organization Influence Assessment

Cultural Model:

There is support by members
of the executive leadership
team to formalizing leadership
competencies and a unified
approach to leadership
development.

Interview:

To what extent are the expected leadership competencies
clearly stated?

What are the leadership competencies for direct reports to
executive leadership team members?

What are the leadership competencies for members of the
executive leadership team?

We’ve talked a great deal about development planning,
what’s one thing you believe would make the process more
effective for you?

Survey:

The Company has a clearly communicated approach to
developing leaders.

I understand the leadership competencies that leaders at The
Company must demonstrate.

The performance goals for my position are clear.

I have development goals to improve my performance.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

64

Cultural Model: The
organization equally favors
hiring practices that create a
balance between recruiting
external candidates through
recruitment, and internal
candidates identified through
the succession planning
process.

Interview:

What is your understanding of The Company’s practice
when deciding to internally promote or externally hire to fill
a leadership position?

What considerations are given when making the decision to
fill internally or externally?

What do members of the executive leadership team do to
develop future leaders?

Survey:

Hiring decisions at The Company favor external candidates
over internal candidates.

I’m confident if the right position became available, I would
be considered for promotion.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.

Cultural Setting: Employees
assume that when external
candidates are hired for
leadership positions, they are
justifiably more qualified than
the internal candidate.

Interview:

Please tell me about The Company’s internal promotion and
external hiring practices of executive leadership team
members?

What factors do you think are part of the decision making?

We’ve also discussed promotions and how they are filled
internally or externally. Should anything be done
differently?

Survey:

My company selects the best candidates to be placed into
open leadership positions.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

65

Cultural Setting: The
organization assures an
effective process for providing
timely and ongoing
performance feedback to
employees that drives their
success

Interview:

How do you receive feedback on your performance?

How often do you receive feedback?

We talked about receiving feedback on your performance,
are there changes or suggestions you would like to see made
so that feedback you receive is more effective for you?

In what ways is the performance appraisal system effective?

In what ways could it be improved?

Survey:

I receive timely performance feedback from my manager.

The feedback I receive from my manager helps me improve
my performance.

Historical documents:

Secondary research of past employee engagement survey.

Methodology
The central purpose of a data collection strategy is to design an approach and
methodology that will optimize the gathering of research data to answer the stated research
questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Figure 7 offers an illustration of the three data
gathering methods that were utilized in conducting the research for this study. Each method of
data and information gathering provides a unique vantage and access point to understanding the
organization, however, when triangulated these multiple streams of data offer a richer story than
one source of data alone could tell.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

66
Figure 7. Three data gathering methods

The research design for this study was a convergent parallel mixed methods approach
(Creswell, 2014) using a combination of data gathering techniques. Qualitative data was
gathered through individual interviews, a researcher-designed online survey instrument was
administered through Qualtrics to collect the quantitative data, and document and artifact
requests regarding past efforts regarding leadership development, succession planning, and other
context information were gathered (see Table 6) for analysis. The research followed a
convergent design conducting the survey and interview processes in parallel, in addition, the
request and collection of relevant documents and artifacts simultaneously (Creswell, 2013;
Creswell, 2014; Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Smith, 2011). As Patton (1990) suggests,
how the research is designed will affect the unit or units under analysis, the size of the sample,
and the choice of sampling approaches.

Research
Questions

Surveys

Interviews
Historical
Documents
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

67
Each stream of data was collected and analyzed separately, then brought together,
reviewed, and merged. The merging of these three data sources confirmed or disconfirmed the
findings of another data source. In either case, the richness of this approach allowed for the
construction of quantitative conclusions from the population of the direct report key stakeholder
group (Creswell, 2014), access to the individual experience, perspectives, and views through the
interview process (Patton, 1990), and review of the organization’s documented history and
artifacts with respect to leadership development strategies, outcomes, and impact at both the
individual and organization levels. Figure 8 provides a map of the convergent parallel mixed
methods approach followed in this study.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

68
Figure 8. Convergent parallel approach

To summarize, this mixed-methods approach allowed for in-depth collection and analysis
of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization factors that influence the development
of future leadership talent. Given the fixed duration of time available for data gathering, this
research specifically utilized a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews, and document and
artifact analysis of past leadership development strategies, approaches, and results were
identified, collected, and included in the analysis.

Quantitative Survey
Data Collection and
Analysis

Includes all members
of the Direct Report
group

Document and
Artifact Data
Collection and
Analysis
Qualitative Interview
Data Collection and
Analysis

Nested sample:
approximately 33%
of survey population
Merge Streams of Data Together: Analyze, Synthesize, and Triangulate

Interpretation

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

69
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The next step in designing research, once the problem of practice has been identified, is
to determine the study’s population and sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The primary
stakeholder population of focus in this study was the direct report group to each of the members
of the executive leadership team. The total direct report group was approximately 67 members
with the majority located in North America. From an organization structure and succession
planning perspective, members of the direct report group are considered one source of succession
candidates to replace the executive leader they report to. In addition, they could be considered a
source of leadership candidates for potential expansion into new business areas, leading cross-
functional teams assigned to important strategic initiatives, or perhaps leading the streamlining
or combination of different organization units. Nonetheless, this primary stakeholder group was
well situated to provide experience and perspective about the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational dynamics that influence leadership development and goal attainment.
Direct Report Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
A survey instrument was administered to the total population of key stakeholders who are
the primary focus of this study. This key stakeholder group was comprised of individuals who
are identified as direct reports to members of the executive leadership team and have
organizational accountability for functions that they manage. There are approximately 67
individuals in this population.
Criterion 1. Must be in a direct reporting relationship to a member of the executive
leadership team.
Criterion 2. Must be current full-time and employed for at least three months.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

70
Criterion 3. Have direct management and leadership responsibilities for other staff, or
have project responsibilities that span across business units and functional organizations.
Direct Report Survey Sampling Rationale
Direct reports to the members of the executive leadership team were the primary unit of
analysis. The sampling strategy for administration of the researcher-designed survey instrument
in this mixed methods approach followed two purposeful sampling methods aimed towards
achieving total (100%) direct report participation. Criterion and target population sampling
techniques was used. In this study, the researcher was given access to the total direct report
population by the executive leadership team and the human resources organization.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with a nested sample of the total direct report group
population (see Table 11). Patton (1990) describes three main reasons appropriate for this
evaluation research: consistency in the use and application of the same survey instrument,
interview is focused and time is used efficiently, and efficient recording, analysis, and
comparison of data gathered. Given the variables of the number of interviews to be conducted,
the busy schedules of participants, and the compressed duration of time to complete all
interviews, this interview structure was the most efficient and consistent approach.
Table 11
Direct Report Group Population and Proposed Sample by Data Source
Executive Leadership Team Members by
Organization Group
Direct Reports by Organization Group
1 ELT Engineering A 8
1 ELT Engineering B 18
1 ELT Engineering C 6
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

71
1 ELT Sales 10
1 ELT Marketing 8
1 ELT Services 2
4 EMT Support functions 15
Totals: 10 ELT members 67

Direct Report Interview Sampling Criteria
Criterion 1. Must be in a direct reporting relationship to a member of the executive
leadership team.
Criterion 2. Must be current full-time and employed for at least three months.
Criterion 3. Have direct management and leadership responsibilities for other staff, or
have project responsibilities that span across business units and functional organizations.
Direct Report Interview Sampling Rationale
Direct reports to the members of the executive leadership team were the primary unit of
analysis for the qualitative portion of this study. The nested sampling strategy for interview
selection will be followed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The approximately 67 direct reports to the
executive leadership team members are spread across three engineering product groups, sales,
services, and marketing organizations, and the general and administration (G&A) group, e.g.,
finance, operations, human resources, and legal. The purposeful and nested sampling approach
was aimed at selecting a nested sample of survey respondents, approximately half of the direct
reports in each of the seven groups listed above. In addition, this approach focused on the
identification and selection of individuals with the broadest range of experience and perspectives
regarding the questions this study is attempting to answer (Maxwell, 2012).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

72
Instrumentation
Survey
The survey contained questions related to leadership development, self-assessment, goal
setting, feedback, and career advancement. The 38-item questionnaire was designed to reflect
the following categories of influences on human performance: knowledge and skill,
motivational, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). The survey, itself, appears in
Appendix B.
The survey used in this research was developed by the researcher and, inherently, has
limitations. While there is no history of its use, survey items were developed within the specific
reference to conceptual framework of the study, Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework
and assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences, in addition to the study’s
research questions. To establish content validity of the survey, meaning that items are measuring
the knowledge, beliefs, and behavior of the respondent, and that survey is reliable and items are
internally consistent in measuring what they are targeted to measure, a pilot test was completed
to ensure clarity of item construction (Creswell, 2013; Fink, 2012).
Interview Protocol
Each interview followed a standardized open-ended interview format (see Appendix D)
and be scheduled for 45 minutes in length. The questions for the protocol were developed from
the review of the literature as illustrated in Tables 1, 2, and 3 above, and focused predominantly
on attempting to validate knowledge and skills factors. Clark and Estes (2008) note that the best
way to assess someone’s knowledge is through demonstration, and, in the absence of
demonstration, through descriptions of procedures and the provision of examples – all best
handled through an interview rather than a survey.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

73
Data Collection
Survey
The researcher utilized an online application, Qualtrics, for survey administration, data
collection, and analysis. This stakeholder population is highly familiar with the use of online
surveys and completing them in a US English language form. The following steps will be
followed in the fielding the survey:
1. Five days before the survey and interview data gathering activities begin, the direct report
population were sent a personalized email communication from the researcher detailing
background and intent of this University of Southern California research study,
describing the data gathering methods and process, how they can participate in the survey
process, how the survey process will be conducted, how data will be securely maintained,
that participation is voluntary, and that all data are held and reported to ensure that
confidentiality is strictly maintained.
2. On the date that the survey was available for participation, members of the direct report
stakeholder group received an email from the researcher with a connecting link to take
part in the survey. The email with the connecting link will restate that participation is
voluntary, secure maintenance of data, confidentiality, and when the data the link will be
closed.
3. Five business days before closing of the survey, members of the direct report stakeholder
group received a reminder email from the researcher requesting them to complete the
survey.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

74
4. Two business days after the survey is closed, members of the direct report stakeholder
group received a personalized email from the researcher thanking them for their
participation.
Given that a total population sampling technique will be utilized, maximizing response
rate is critical (Fink, 2012). Extra efforts were made in communicating the purpose,
intent, and rationale of the survey and how the results, along with the other data gathered,
will be used.
Interviews
The following steps were followed to collect interview data:
1. The researcher utilized survey participation to aid in selecting interview participants and
to create the nested sample. The last question in the survey asked participants that if they
wanted to participate in the one-on-one 45-minute interview, to type their email address
in a designated space.
2. Once the sample from the direct report stakeholder group was identified, ten business
days before the interview period a personalized email communication from the researcher
was sent inviting them to participate in the 45-minute interview process. This email
described how the interviews would be conducted, the two-week period that interviews
would be held, that interviews would be held using the Zoom online meeting application,
how data would be maintained, the voluntary nature of participation, that at any point
during the interview they could cease their participation, and that all data would be held
and reported in a manner so that confidentiality maintained. Lastly, interviewees
receiving this email were given a link to schedule their desirable interview time. For
purposes of confidentiality, individuals were assigned a code so that when they signed up
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

75
for their interview appointment on the link for the interview time, they only had to type in
their designated code.
3. Upon receipt of the interview confirmation, each participant received a personalized
email from the researcher confirming interview date, time, of their Zoom interview.
4. A reminder email from the researcher was sent to each interview participant two days
before the interview. Also as a reminder, the email summarized how data will be
maintained, that participation is voluntary, and that all data were held and reported in a
manner so that confidentiality maintained.
5. Lastly, once the interviews were completed a thank you note was sent to each participant
thanking them for the time they spent in the interview and the valuable information they
were willing to share.
Historical Documents
The value of historical documents in qualitative research is that they provide
chronological reference points and information. Historical documents offer an additional source
of insight and understanding relevant to the study’s research questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Table 12 lists the documents and their source that were provided to the researcher.
Table 12
Requested Documents by Source
Document Items Source
Reports on career movement, progression, promotion and
executive turnover
Human Resources
Reports on open executive positions and recruitment strategies Human Resources
Executive and leadership develop strategies Human Resources
Talent planning and review sessions Human Resources
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

76
Past employee engagement surveys Human Resources
Quarterly organization performance and financial reports Chief Financial Officer

Each of these documents is considered an extant document (Charmaz, 2014), meaning
that the researcher does not have a role in its construction. These documents provided an
additional window into the gap that is being investigated with respect to the research questions.
Document analysis provides a grounded source of data and information to determine if there is a
gap between what goals were set at the stakeholder and organization levels, what was
documented to be implemented, and what was achieved. Document and artifact analysis
provides an additional source of validity when combined and triangulated with survey and
interview sources of research information (Creswell, 2013).
Reliability and Validity
The concepts of reliability and validity were most elegantly summarized by Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) when the authors described that at the heart of research persists the task of
producing valid and reliable findings in an ethical fashion. The essential concern regarding
reliability in quantitative measurement is the trustworthiness and accuracy of measurement,
consistently, at different times, or in different conditions (Creswell, 2013). In qualitative
research, it is incumbent upon the researcher to ensure methodological rigor for the purposes of
dependability and logic in process design, and the ability to confirm trustworthiness of the
study’s findings back to their original sources (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity in quantitative research is focused on determining the degree to which the
instrument measures what it is intended to measure, the degree of inference between two or more
variables, and accuracy of interpretations or prediction that can be applied to other contexts or
groups (Kurpius & Stafford, 2005; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Survey implementation bias that
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

77
may result from participant selection will be avoided by inviting all members of the direct report
stakeholder group to participate in the online survey. The researcher conferred with experts in
the field of research and survey design, they provided extensive review of the survey instrument
for face validity, content validity, and construct validity. In addition to avoiding other possible
threats to internal validity, the survey was administered and interviews conducted to avoid month
or quarter end timeframes that are very demanding. These timeframes tend to be highly intense
work periods for both the sales and finance organizations. The survey instrument was pilot
tested with a like group of individuals, mimicking both the use of the online instrument, then
discussing the clarity and intent of questions, format, and utility of information (Fink, 2012).
Finally, for the researcher-designed survey and interview questions, both instruments proceeded
through an interactive review process with peers, faculty, and dissertation committee. This
interactive review process was informative and guiding, and produced changes in item quality,
quantity, and efficiency.
To summarize, the researcher utilized a triangulated approach to gathering and analyzing
data to ensure research reliability and validity. The data gathering methods used were a
researcher-designed survey and interview protocol. Both instruments were subject to peer
review and pilot testing. Pilot testing took place with a subset of managers at the study site, but
not part of the stakeholder group, in addition to a representative group of managers at a
comparable organization to support the element of variation. Nested sampling for selection for
interview participants was approximately 33% of the total stakeholder survey population.
Attempts were made to generate a representative cross section of direct report group interview
participation across all engineering product group units, sales, marketing, services, and non-
business unit functions, e.g., finance, information systems, legal, and human resources (Merriam
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

78
& Tisdell, 2016), through communications and endorsement by members of the executive
leadership team.
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data
To maximize the credibility and trustworthiness during the data collection, retention, and
analysis phase of this research study, the researcher employed four key research strategies. First,
confidentiality of data collected, identity traceable to the source, and confidentiality in reporting
data finding were strictly maintained throughout the course of the study. From a retention
standpoint, all data were kept in secure systems accessed by complex strong alphanumeric
passwords and changed weekly with the use of a random password generator for additional
security (Komanduri et al., 2011, May). Second, triangulation as a design architecture and
methodology was followed in this mixed-methods approach and integrated quantitative and
qualitative data sources in response to the questions posed in this research study (Creswell, 2014;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation of data sources, quantitative survey results with
qualitative interview data and historical documents, was cross checked and compared as a means
for improving internal validity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition to leveraging
triangulation as a means of comparing and cross-checking data sources for confirming views,
there was the opportunity to discover alternative ways to understand the dynamics of the
organization and experience of the direct report stakeholders as data were layered upon one
another (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016). The third strategy utilized was member checking as
described by Creswell (2013). The researcher followed the process suggestion as outlined by
Creswell (2013) by reviewing major findings and key themes with up to six participants for the
opportunity to record their reactions and comments on the study’s preliminary findings. Lastly,
the fourth strategy was the use of rich, thick description in portraying and illustrating the
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

79
research findings. This fourth strategy provided greater detail and description of the context, the
actors involved, the use of quotes and other forms of data supported the research findings to
provide a solid scaffold for comparison and transferability (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Role of Investigator
The researcher was not and is not a current or past employee, nor has any form of
ownership or equity holdings with the organization that is the subject of this research study. The
researcher was positioned and known to study participants as a researcher and graduate student
from the University of Southern California.
For over 30 years the researcher has provided consulting and advisory services to clients
and their organizations in the areas of strategy alignment, organization design, and leadership
effectiveness across a wide variety of industries, to organizations from 50 to 100,000 employees,
early-stage start-ups to mature companies, and in countries around the world. As a consultant
and advisor to leaders and their organizations, the researcher’s starting point is to learn,
appreciate, and understand the current state and situation of the client and organization. A core
assumption of the researcher is to meet the client where they are, and a secondary assumption is
that best practices are best from whence they came; there is always something to be learned and
context is everything. This evaluation study was meant to discover and more accurately
understand the potential actions this organization could take to close critically important gaps in
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008), and attainment of their organization goal of developing the
next generation of leaders. As stated earlier, to engender an open approach and foster mutual
respect, participants in this study were provided all background information and logistics, as well
as direct access to the researcher to ask any questions they might have (Glesne, 2015).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

80
Ethics
Conducting human subjects social behavioral research sets into motion a transaction of
information sharing between researcher and participant, thus a series of ethical considerations
were given thoughtful attention to ensure the validity and reliability of the study, but more
importantly, the assurances and protections critical for participant safety (Maxwell, 2012;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Glesene (2015) states that guidelines for ethical research must be
explicit and understandable to the participant so they are fully aware of the following: the notion
of informed consent so that participants can voluntarily make an informed decision to participate
or not participate in the study; at any point in the study they can withdraw without penalty from
the study; and, that all interview discussions are kept confidential and securely maintained. A
prior step that was required before any contact with study participants was to submit my study
for review and approval by the Intuitional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern
California. The IRB is chartered with the review and oversight of research protocols, rules, and
guidelines involving human participants and in agreement with federal regulation, state law, and
university policy. All rules and guidelines are for the specific purpose of protecting the rights,
safety, and welfare of the participants involved in this study. In addition to the IRB review, all
participants in the study were be provided with an informed consent form for their review and
provided full disclosure regarding the purpose and intent of the research, the types and forms of
the data to be gathered, examples of intended research and interview questions, the request for
permission to record individual and group conversations, the participant’s right to withdraw from
the study at any time without penalty, and the assurance that confidentiality would be maintained
throughout the study including how information would be stored, secured, and ultimately
destroyed if not an element of longitudinal research (Seidman, 2013; Yin, 2013).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

81
Participants for this study were the direct reports to each of the members the executive
leadership team that, in turn, report to the company’s chief executive officer. This direct report
group was the primary stakeholder group of this study. Two additional stakeholder groups were
identified, the executive leadership team including the CEO and the human resources
organization, each had an important role in conducting this study. The executive leadership team
including the chief executive officer authorized the study to take place in the organization and
the human resources organization provided most the documents and artifacts being requested.
The first step in launching the study was a thorough and complete communication to all
members of the three stakeholder groups. The communication document provided detailed
information regarding the purpose and intent of the study, review of the ethical considerations of
conducting the study (Glesene, 2015; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), data gathering
methods and process, timing and schedule, how data would be gathered and managed, measures
for data security, confidentiality, participant involvement, and disclosure of findings. The role of
the researcher is external to the organization. The researcher is and was not an employee of the
organization, was not be paid to perform this research, the research role in this study will be
described as an organization researcher and graduate student from the University of Southern
California (Glesne, 2015).

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

82
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Chapter 4 presents the results and key findings of the study. In Chapter 1 the stated
purpose of this study was to examine, evaluate, and learn the efforts of how a successful venture-
funded, high-growth organization approached the identification and development of its next
generation of leaders. Specifically, the methodology evaluated the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors related to achieving the stated organizational goal of having a succession
plan and the executive talent ready to assume key executive leadership team roles and new
executive positions identified for The Company’s long-term growth strategy by January 1, 2019.
As such, the questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What knowledge and skills, motivation and organization factors either supported or
served as barriers to direct reports successfully implementing their individual leadership
development plans?
2. What were the knowledge, motivation and organization solutions that could help the
DRG meet the goal?
To provide answerers to these questions, the research and data collection methodologies
included the use of a quantitative survey, individual qualitative interviews, and the review of
historical documents. At the time of the study, 67 individuals comprised the direct report
stakeholder group. An email invitation to all members describing the survey process in detail
was sent to the stakeholder group on October 20, 2017. Logistical information in the email
stated the timeframe for survey participation, October 20
th
through November 3
rd
, reaffirmed that
participation and responses would be kept anonymous, provided a link to access the online
survey, and included an Institutional Review Board (IRB) information sheet (see Appendix G).
Figure 9 shows the response rate of the DRG stakeholder participation. Out of the 67 individuals
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

83
that received the email invitation to participate, 46 completed the survey, for a response rate of
69%. Demographic information of the 46 direct reports who completed the survey included 67%
(31) males, 20% (9) female, and preferred not to answer was 13% (6) individuals (Figure 10).
The highest level of education completed by the direct report sample included the following: 9%
(4) Ph.D., J.D., or Ed.D.; 21% (9) Master’s degrees; 51% (21) Bachelor’s degree; and, 19% (8)
some college (Figure 11). The number of years participants had been employed at The Company
ranged from 24% (11) less than one year, 29% (13) one to three years, 23% (10) four to five
years, and 24% (11) over five years (Figure 12). Finally, the number of years participants had
been in the same industry as The Company was 2% (2) less than one year, 15% (7) one to four
years, 26% (12) five to ten years, 28% (13) 11-16 years, and 26% (12) more than 16 years
(Figure 13).
Figure 9. Survey participant demographics: direct report completion data

46.00, 69%
21.00, 31%
Direct Report Group Survey Completion Data
n=67
Surveys completed by DRG members Surveys not completed by DRG members
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

84
Figure 10. Survey participant demographics: gender

Figure 11. Survey participant demographics: level of education

Male, 31, 67%
Female, 9, 20%
Perfer not to answer, 6, 13%
Gender
n=46
Male Female Perfer not to answer
Some College, 8, 19%
Bachelor's degree, 22, 51%
Master's degree, 9,
21%
Ph.D., J.D., Ed. D., 4, 9%
Highest Level of Education Completed
n=43
Some College Bachelor's degree Master's degree Ph.D., J.D., Ed. D.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

85
Figure 12. Survey participant demographics: number of years at The Company

Figure 13. Survey participant demographics: number of years in the same industry

Less than one year,
11, 25%
One to three years,
13, 29%
Four to five years,
10, 22%
Over five years, 11,
24%
Number of years at The Company
Less than one year One to three years Four to five years Over five years
Less than one year, 2, 5%
One to four years, 7, 15%
Five to ten years, 12, 26%
11-16 years, 13,
28%
More that 16 years, 12, 26%
Number of years participants in the same industry
Less than one year One to four years Five to ten years 11-16 years More that 16 years
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

86
Twenty-two, 45-minute, interviews were conducted with direct reports. Interviews were
held online using a Zoom meeting space, sessions were recorded and transcribed, and
interviewer notes were taken, transcriptions were member checked, then coded and analyzed
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This chapter is organized to provide responses to the following: 1) insight on the status of
reaching the Direct Report Group (DRG) stakeholder goal, that direct reports to the executive
leadership team will have completed all development goals and identified competencies
documented in their individual leadership development plans in preparation to assume the next
level of leadership in the organization by January 1, 2019; 2) to answer the first research
question, what knowledge, motivation, and organization factors either supported or served as
barriers to direct reports successfully implementing their individual leadership development
plans; and, 3) provide a synthesis and summary of the study’s results and key findings at the end
of this chapter. In Chapter 5, the focus will turn to answering the second research question; what
knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions and recommendations can be implemented to
close the gaps towards achievement of the DRG stakeholder and stated organization goals.
Status of Direct Report Group Stakeholder Goal
To provide insight regarding the progress and status members of the DRG had made in
meeting the stakeholder goal of achieving the leadership development goals and identified
competencies needed for the next level of leadership by January 1, 2019, survey questions 4-A,
4-C, 4-E, and 6-A, when viewed as a composite of data, provided a clear answer. Question 4-A
(Figure 14) asked, “The Company had a clearly communicated its approach to developing
leaders.” Of the 45 responses, 24% (11) agreed and 76% (34) slightly to strongly disagreed.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

87

Figure 14. Survey responses to question 4-A

Respondents agreed that The Company did not provide a clearly communicated or understood
approach to developing leaders, however, survey questions 4-C and 6-A showed movement
towards higher levels of agreement in the belief that respondents understood The Company’s
expectations and competencies of leaders. Survey questions 4-C and 6-A, respectively, asked
respondents if they understood the leadership competencies leaders are expected to demonstrate,
and if they understood the performance expectations required of them in their current role.
Sixty-five percent (29) of the respondents agreed to strongly agreed versus 35% (16) slightly to
strongly disagreed to understanding the leadership competencies that company leaders must
demonstrate (Figure 15). Question 6-A asked respondents if the performance expectations for
their current role were clear. The percentage of affirmative responses for question 6-A increased
by 50% with respect to understanding their performance expectations, 82% (35) agreed to
Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0% 24% 0% 11% 42% 22%
𝑓 0 11 0 5 19 10
0
5
10
15
20
Frequency
Q4-A. The Company has a clearly communicated approach to
developing leaders.
(n=45)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

88
strongly agreed versus 18% (8) slightly to strongly disagreed (Figure 16), versus understanding
the leadership competencies that leaders are expected to perform (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Survey responses to question 4-C

Figure 16. Survey responses to question 6-A

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
18% 47% 0% 16% 16% 4%
𝑓 8 21 0 7 7 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
Frequency
Q4-C. I understand the leadership competencies that leaders at
The Company must demonstrate.
(n=45)
Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
19% 63% 0% 5% 12% 2%
𝑓 8 27 0 2 5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Q6-A. The performance expectations for my current role are
clear.
(n=43)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

89
Survey responses for questions 4-E (Figure 17) and 9 (Figure 18) provided a succinct
commentary on the extent that Direct Report Group (DRG) members are meeting the
performance goal. Of the 45 responses for question 4-E, 57% disagreed that they have
leadership development goals to improve their performance, while 43% agreed to strongly
agreed that they do. With 57% of the respondents in disagreement that they have leadership
development goals, attainment of the DRG stakeholder goal becomes a greater challenge.
An additional layer of challenge and risk to reaching the stated DRG stakeholder goal
was revealed in the survey responses to question 9. This question asked participants to respond
either yes or no to the following statement, “I have a leadership development plan.” The results
of question 9 (Figure 18) illustrated that out of a total of 45 responses, 11% (5) affirmed they
have a development plan and 89% (40) responded they do not.
Figure 17. Survey responses to question 4-E

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
7% 36% 0% 22% 22% 13%
𝑓 3 16 0 10 10 6
0
5
10
15
20
Frequency
Q4-E. I have leadership development goals to improve my
performance.
(n=45)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

90
Figure 18. Survey responses to question 9

Summary Status of Direct Report Group Stakeholder Goal
Survey responses, thus far, indicate the following: a) there is a lack of shared
understanding on what the process is for developing leaders; b) over half of the respondents
stated they do not have leadership development goals to improve their performance; and, c) that
89% of the respondents said they do not have a leadership develop plan in place at the time this
question was asked. Completion of this Direct Report Group stakeholder goal is approximately
one year away and the data highlights areas for further inquiry.
Results and Findings for Study Question 1: Results and Findings for Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organization Gaps
The data gathered are presented using the framework and structure of the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) and by relevant assessment
instrument listed in Table 13. In determining whether an influence gap was validated or not,
identified influences were categorized as validated if over 60% of the data established a
confirmed gap by one or more assessment instruments. A validated gap would clearly suggest
Yes, 5,
11%
No, 40,
89%
Q 9. I Have A Leadership Development Plan.
(n=45)
Yes
No
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

91
that The Company address and resolve the identified barrier to achieve the organization and
stakeholder goals. Where influences did not meet that threshold, they were identified as not
validated. However, non-validated or not validated gaps may be subject to further research in
those cases where data collection was limited or data were unavailable to confirm or disconfirm
a gap.
Table 13
Summary of Assumed KMO Influences
KMO Assumed Influence Assessment Instrument
Knowledge
1. Declarative Direct reports need to know the competency
goals for their performance.
Interviews
2. Declarative Direct reports need to know how their current
performance measures against the competency
goals.
Interviews
3. Procedural Direct reports need to know the methodology for
implementing a leadership development plan.
Interviews
4. Metacognitive Direct reports need to know how to self-reflect on
their learning as they implement their leadership
development plans to improve their competency
and resulting performance.
Interviews
Motivation
1. Self-Efficacy Direct reports believe they are capable of
successfully implementing their leadership
development plans.
Survey, interviews,
document analysis
2. Self-Efficacy Direct reports are confident that engaging in the
leadership development planning process will
benefit their career.
Survey, interviews,
document analysis
3. Self-Efficacy Direct reports believe that the feedback they
receive is accurate and that the performance
management system is fair.
Survey, interviews,
document analysis
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

92
4. Goal
Orientation
Direct reports want to accomplish more than only
what is written in their leadership development
plans and drive beyond only completing what is
documented.
Survey, interviews,
document analysis
5. Attribution
Theory
Direct reports believe the most qualified
candidates will be selected to fill open leadership
positions.

Survey and interviews
6. Attribution
Theory
Direct reports believe they, more than fate, are
responsible for their career path/success.
Survey and interviews
Organization
1. Cultural
Model
Support by members of the executive leadership
team to formalizing leadership competencies and
a unified approach to leadership development.
Survey and interviews
2. Cultural
Model
The organization equally favors hiring practices
that create a balance between recruiting external
candidates through recruitment and internal
candidates identified through the succession
planning process.
Survey and interviews
3. Cultural
Setting
Employees assume that when external candidates
are hired for leadership positions, they are
justifiably more qualified than the internal
candidate.
Survey and interviews
4. Cultural
Setting
The organization assures an effective process for
providing timely and ongoing performance
feedback to employees that drives their success.
Survey, interviews,
document analysis

Knowledge Validated and Non-Validated Gaps
Declarative knowledge. Interview data regarding the declarative knowledge influences
identified in the Chapter Two literature review were gathered and analyzed to determine whether
gaps in the knowledge influences were validated or not validated (Clark & Estes, 2008; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Knowledge Influence 1: Direct reports need to know the competency goals for their
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

93
performance. Gap validated. Interview data were reviewed and analyzed to determine the
presence of this knowledge influence gap.
Interview results. Twenty-two interviews were conducted and eighteen interviewees
stated they were unaware of the leadership competencies they needed to develop as leaders in the
organization. One direct report stated that, “You may be surprised, actually, I don’t think I’m
able to answer this question. I don’t really have any goals in this area.” In a similar vein,
another statement by a direct report detailed the following:
That's a good question. I think there are certainly things that I observe people who are
operating at the next step of the career ladder are doing that I know that I need to develop
more. Nobody has told me, ‘These are the expectations for advancement’.
Two others stated that, “For me, I think I would like to be less of leader. I would like to
go back to being more technical and doing less leadership.” A fourth interviewee stated, “My
manager has provided good recommendations and expectations for development, but I haven’t
participated in any formal leadership development programs at The Company.” Only four out of
the twenty-two individuals interviewed were able to describe development areas they would like
to focus on, e.g., cross functional and global collaboration, time management, prioritization,
executive presence, and conflict management. However, each of these stated development areas
were individually identified from their personal experience as leaders at The Company, not from
a confirmed list of stated and required leadership competencies.
The interview responses suggested a gap in awareness, understanding, or clarity of the
leadership competencies that current and future leaders need to learn at The Company. Eighty-
two percent of those interviewed verified this finding. The quotes listed above are pertinent to
this knowledge influence, as well as, the influences in the motivation influence section that will
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

94
be discussed later. Each of these responses presented a different view of an existing gap. One
comment said, “I have no goals in this [leadership] area,” another suggested they would like less
leadership responsibility, and a third suggested that their manager has offered “good
recommendations” but essentially no action has been taken. Clearly, from a declarative
knowledge standpoint, participants did not know the expected competencies. Furthermore, the
desire to know and develop leadership competency appeared low.
Knowledge Influence 2: Direct reports need to know how their current performance
measures against the competency goals. Gap not validated. Data from the interviews were
utilized to determine if the declarative knowledge gap of direct reports knowing how their
current performance measures against competency goals was present.
Interview results. Of the twenty-two direct report interviews conducted, nearly all
interviewed expressed high clarity and understanding on what the expectations and performance
goals were for their current roles. Direct reports explained that performance expectations were
predominantly determined in two ways: collaboratively developed and performance expectations
were developed by their manager and then handed down. The collaborative approach was
revealed through comments such as, “We’re actually all involved in creating the products and
driving the solutions to problems. We’re working together and taking charge of the opportunity,
that’s great.” The “handed down” approach was reflected in comments such as this one,
“Performance goals are clearly set for me and my team and transparently tracked.” The direct
report who made this last comment went on to say, “Measures on performance beyond the mere
fact that these goals are met or not met is minimal; however, there are occasions when feedback
on performance was viewed to be particularly good or bad.” The current success of this venture
funded five-year-old organization with a market cap at over one billion USD suggests that clarity
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

95
of company goals, high performance, and execution have been, to date, high and aligned.
However, there were statements of caution suggesting that multiple and un-prioritized
performance demands may have unintended consequences:
All Company employees wear many hats. Occasionally the expectations of the ‘role of
the moment’ conflicts with other roles you are expected to fill. There are times when I
struggle and wonder what is my focus today and wonder how our performance is affected
when one role is in conflict with another.
Summary. Review of interview data suggested that direct reports understand the goals for
their performance and to a large extent understand how their current performance measures
against goal expectations. This finding is further supported by data gathered on Motivation
Influence 3: Direct reports believe that the feedback they receive is accurate and that the
performance management system is fair. While this declarative knowledge influence gap is
currently not validated, the last quote stated and echoed by five additional interviewees should
give pause for consideration. Early-stage organizations that experience high market adoption
and rapid growth are viewed as market-wonders, however, if organization success is dependent
on the constant addition of multiple goals on top of existing and incomplete goals, leaders must
prioritize and plan to ensure a sustainable path forward.
Procedural knowledge. Interview data regarding the identified procedural knowledge
influence in the Chapter Two literature review were gathered and analyzed. On the following
pages are determinations if the knowledge influence was validated or not validated (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Knowledge Influence 3: Direct reports need to know the methodology for implementing
a leadership development plan. Gap validated. Interview transcripts were utilized to determine
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

96
if a procedural knowledge gap existed in direct report knowledge of the steps for implementing a
leadership development plan.
Interview results. All twenty-two interviewees stated they knew of no leadership
development planning process, had no knowledge of the existence of a leadership development
process, or believed there was such a process at The Company. Nine of the 22 individuals
interview had been with The Company four to six years. Many interviewees made the following
statements about leadership development planning: “Based on my own experience, there is no
official leadership development plan, process, or procedure in place,” “We don’t have a formal
leadership development program at The Company,” “There has not been any [leadership
development], leadership development doesn’t happen and in my opinion it could be because the
rate of company growth is too rapid,” and “Great idea and we should have a program, however
I’m not aware of any formal program.” Interview comments were numerous on this topic and
while interviewees agreed a methodology for implementing a leadership development plan did
not exist based upon their experience, there was high interest that such a process be put into
practice.
Summary. Data collection and analysis of interview responses demonstrate that direct
reports at The Company do not have knowledge of a leadership development planning process,
thus this procedural knowledge gap is validated. Furthermore, additional comments by
interviewees when discussing this topic would be important to keep in mind. While there were
many comments, three supported the need for leadership planning and development so that
individuals could be better prepared for the leadership roles they were thrust into, there were
counter narrative statements suggesting the reason leadership development has not been
implemented is, “because it [leadership development] takes time from actual work.” Closing this
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

97
procedural knowledge gap will likely need supporting systems and involvement of executive
leadership team and human resources stakeholders to achieve success.
Metacognitive knowledge. Interview data regarding this metacognitive knowledge
influence identified in the Chapter Two literature review were gathered and analyzed to
determine if the influence was validated or not validated (Clark & Estes, 2008; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Knowledge Influence 4: Direct reports need to know how to self-reflect on their
learning as they implement their leadership development plans to improve their competency
and resulting performance. Gap unable to determine if this gap is validated or not. Data
collected through interview transcripts were analyzed in determining that this metacognitive
knowledge influence gap was unable to be validated or not.
Interview results. Seven interviewees made specific comments on the nature of their
reflections in the following areas: during the process of working towards achieving set goals;
reflecting on their past actions or performance; and, observing how others respond and react to
their leadership actions. One direct report explained that when working with teams under
pressure and conflicts in priorities she described an example of how she would get the team to
stop and reflect, “Hey, it's certainly an idea, but at the moment we have these things going on. If
this is something of importance, we're going to need to shift the dynamic.” She went on to say
that her past approach would be just to tell her team what to do, “No, we’re doing this, not that.”
However, as she observed the dynamics of the team, the need to maintain momentum, and the
responsibility to achieve goals, a more productive route was to acknowledge the situation and
invite involvement as a team to think openly about what was taking place and develop plans
going forward. From a technical standpoint, one interviewee explained the use of a “scrum” in
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

98
Agile software development, stressing that one of the key points that was practiced by all
development teams was “sprint review and introspection.” He described how introspection was
critical to reflecting on progress and setbacks, and learning from both. Another interviewee
statement that was made captured the nature of reflection in action (Argyris, 1991), “I think I
would measure my success by how people react to the way that I say things or the way that I do
things in a progressive manner; have us stop and think about what we’re doing.”
Summary. Interviewees described how they utilized reflection in the process of
completing work, assignments, and specifically a feature in the Agile software development
process. They also described situations where in group settings, the direct report would
intentionally invite participants to reflect or suggest introspection to problem-solving next steps
to a difficult problem or dynamic. This metacognitive knowledge influence appears to inherently
or by learned means exist in the practice of software development. Reflection was described as
an essential aspect in software development and improvement, however, no mention of reflection
was connected to the process leadership development. Figure 14 showed that 89% of
respondents did not have leadership development plans. The application of reflection could be
applied to the implementation of leadership development plans, however, without plans it is not
known if this influence can be validated or not.
Summary of Knowledge Findings
The four knowledge influences identified through the literatures review in Chapter 2
established the focus of data gathering and analysis in evaluating The Company’s leadership
development practices. Interview data from DRG members illustrated they clearly understood
the performance measures and goals for their current performance, as well as, putting into
practice the application of reflective and self-regulation strategies to monitor and improve
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

99
performance. However, when it comes to DRG members understanding and having clarity on
the competency expectations of leaders or leadership development planning methods, there was
an absence of shared knowledge on both. The juxtaposition of high focus on current
performance and self-regulation versus future leadership competency needs and planning may be
due to the nature of this late-stage pre-IPO (Initial Public Offering) organization and the global
distribution of its workforce. Additionally, while only three individuals out of the 22 who were
interviewed stated they would like to be less of a leader and doing less leadership, there may be a
larger percentage of current DRG members holding a similar sentiment.
Results and Findings for Motivation Gaps
Motivation Validated and Non-Validated Gaps
Self-Efficacy. Survey and interview data, regarding the self-efficacy motivation
influences identified in the Chapter Two literature review, were gathered and analyzed to
determine whether gaps in the motivation influences were validated or not validated (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Motivation Influence 1: Direct reports believe they are capable of successfully
implementing their leadership development plans. Gap validated. Data collected through
survey questions and interview transcripts indicated this self-efficacy motivation gap is
validated.
Survey results. Two survey questions, 9 and 10-A were directly relevant to this
influence. Question 9 (Figure 18) asked survey respondents to respond to the following
statement, “I have a leadership development plan.” If the respondent answered yes, they would
proceed to question 10 and if no they would skip question ten and proceed to question 11. Of the
46 survey respondents, 11% (5) answered yes and 89% (40) responded no to question 9 and one
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

100
declined to respond. Question 10-A (Figure 19) asked survey respondents to state their level of
confidence on a one to ten scale, one being the lowest and ten being the highest, to the following
statement, “I'm confident in my ability to implement my leadership development plan.” Table
14 shows the descriptive statistics for the 11% who affirmed they have a leadership development
plan. Overall, the data from questions 9 and 10-A suggest that for direct reports who had a
development plan, their confidence level, with a mean of 6.2, was slightly above the midpoint in
being capable to successfully implement their leadership development plans
Figure 19. Survey responses to question 10-A

Table 14
Q10-A Descriptive Statistics
Q10-A Descriptive Statistics
Mean 6.2
Standard Deviation 2.2
Range 5
Minimum 4
Maximum 9
Count 5

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
𝑓 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0
Confidence level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
Frequency/Confidence level:
Low to High
Q10-A. I'm confident in my ability to implement my leadership
development plan.
(n=5)
𝑓 Confidence level
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

101
Interview results. Of the twenty-two interviews conducted, three interviewees provided
comments regarding their level of confidence in their ability to implement their leadership
development plan. One interviewee stated, “My vision of leadership and The Company’s view
of leadership only somewhat overlap; thus, my level of low confidence relates to these
differences.” Another individual stated that, “Some level of competency model would be great
to know [in addition to] what is expected of senior leadership to move up the ladder, beside who
your boss is.” Lastly, a final interview comment stated, “Ideally, with leadership development,
your manager should be highly involved in it and they are not.” The first two comments suggest
a gap in the shared belief of what leadership is or should be at The Company, and suggest that
what direct reports observe in how executive leadership team members exercise their leadership
is not what they would desire to emulate, i.e., “only somewhat overlap” and “beside who your
boss is.” The last comment suggests that to be successful in implementing your development
plan, one’s manager needs to be highly involved, engaged, and supportive. This comment
suggested a lack of involvement of one’s manager would undermine the confidence the
individual would need to successfully implement and complete a leadership development plan.
Document analysis. In August of 2016 The Company completed a second employee
engagement survey. The initial employee engagement survey was completed in February of
2016 and then re-administered in August; both surveys were identical. Data from the August
survey was provided by The Company and included comparisons with the first survey
administration and were used as a second source of survey data. When the August engagement
survey was administered, The Company had a total employee population of 420, and 379
employees completed the survey for a response rate of 90%. Review of the prior engagement
results and notes from an overview presentation given to the executive leadership team did not
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

102
specifically identify the topic of leadership development. Two questions from the first
engagement survey asked about learning and development. Respondents selected one of the five
options based on a Likert scale from strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree,
to strongly agree. On the first statement, “I am given opportunities to develop skills relevant to
my interests,” 66% agreed or strongly agreed, while 32% were neutral, and 12% disagreed.
Regarding the second statement, “I have access to the learning and development to do my job
well,” 65% agreed or strongly agreed, while 29% were neutral, and 16% disagreed. Data from
both questions suggest that development opportunities were available to employees across the
population of responses to this engagement survey. While the majority of employees agreed that
development opportunities were available, it did not provide information about where the
development opportunities were focused, e.g., technical, managerial, or leadership.
Summary. Recent survey and interview data indicated that direct reports had a low level
of confidence in their ability to implement their leadership development plans or to access
opportunities to learning and development. The historical document analysis suggested that
learning and development opportunities existed, however, current data showed that only 5% of
direct reports (Figure 14) had leadership develop plans and a confidence level of 60% in their
ability to achieve successful implementation of their plan (Figure 15).
Motivation Influence 2: Direct reports are confident that engaging in the leadership
development planning process will benefit their career. Gap validated. Data collected through
survey questions, interview transcripts, and document analysis indicated that this self-efficacy
motivation gap is validated.
Survey results. Question 10-D (Figure 20) asked respondents to state their level of
confidence on a one to ten scale, one being the lowest and ten being the highest, to the following
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

103
statement, “I'm confident that engaging in the leadership development process will benefit my
career.” Recall the explanation for question 9 (see Figure 18) in the discussion of Motivation
Influence: 1 where 11% of the respondents indicated they had a leadership development plan.
Out of the five survey respondents that indicated they had a development plan, four responded to
this question. Figure 20 shows the small number of responses form a bimodal distribution, two
responses at the low end and two at the high end of the confidence scale. This spread of
responses (Figure 20) suggests a wide disparity in the belief that engaging in the leadership
development process with benefit their career. Table 15 shows the descriptive statistics of the
four responses and the mean of 7, in this case, is a less informative statistic when compared to
the visual that displays the actual bimodal distribution of responses.
Figure 20. Survey responses to question 10-D

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
𝑓 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Confidence level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
Frequency/Confidence level:
Low to High
Q10-D. I'm confident that engaging in the leadership development process
will benefit my career.
(n=4)
𝑓 Confidence level
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

104
Table 15
Q10-D Descriptive Statistics
Q10-D Descriptive Statistics
Mean 7.00
Standard Deviation 3.24
Range 7
Minimum 3
Maximum 10
Count 5

Interview results. There were few interview comments regarding this influence, thus
mirroring the small number of survey responses regarding the career benefits of leadership
development. One interviewee stated that, “I have no idea what the criteria or expectations are
for me to be considered for promotion, or if a VP role opened up what I would need to do to
succeed in that role.”
Document analysis. The prior employee engagement survey that was conducted in
August of 2016 contained one question that provides additional insight, “I believe there are good
career opportunities for me at The Company.” The respondents to this question represented 90%
of the 420-person workforce,73% of the respondents agreed to strongly agreed, 18% were
neutral, and 9% disagreed. Further, the agree to strongly agree score was down 9% from a
previous engagement survey administered six months earlier.
Summary. Data collected and analyzed from survey, interview questions, and document
analysis suggest that the self-efficacy motivation gap is validated. The historical documentation
showed a decrease in the perception that good career opportunities exist at The Company
between the two survey administrations in 2016. The 11% of direct reports who had leadership
development plans (Figure14) and were engaged in leadership development, showed conflicting
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

105
level of confidence that the leadership development process would benefit their career (Figure
16). These data results determined that this motivation gap is validated.
Motivation Influence 3: Direct reports believe that the feedback they receive is accurate
and that the performance management system is fair. Gap not validated. Data collected
through survey questions and from interview transcripts were used to determine that this self-
efficacy motivation influence gap was not validated.
Survey results. Three survey questions applied to this motivation influence. Questions 6-
D, 6-E, and 6-F stated the following: “The feedback I receive from my manager is accurate;”
“The feedback I receive from my manager is meaningful;” and, “The performance management
process at my company is fair” respectively. The results for questions 6-D and 6-E were similar
in their pattern of responses. For question 6-D (Figure 21) 86% agreed to strongly agreed that
feedback from their manager was accurate, and for question 6-E (Figure 22), 91% of respondents
agreed to strongly agreed that the feedback received from their manager was meaningful to them.
Questions 6-D and 6-E reflected smaller percentages of respondents disagreeing, with 14% and
9% respectively. For question 6-F (Figure 23), “The performance management process at my
company is fair,” 72% agreed to strongly agreed, however, 28% of the respondents slightly
disagreed, disagreed, and strongly disagreed.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

106
Figure 21. Survey responses to question 6-D

Figure 22. Survey responses to question 6-E

Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
19% 67% 0% 2% 12% 0%
𝑓 8 29 0 1 5 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Q6-D. The feedback I receive from my manager is accurate.
(n=43)
Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
26% 65% 0% 5% 5% 0%
𝑓 11 28 0 2 2 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Q6-E. The feedback I receive from my manager is meaningful.
(n=43)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

107
Figure 23. Survey responses to question 6-F

Interview results. All direct report interviewees shared their opinions and experiences on
the topics of feedback and performance management at The Company. When discussing
feedback, interviewees described their experience of receiving feedback as, “ad hoc, informal,
rushed, inconsistent, over drinks, mostly focused on the negative or corrective, during casual
conversation, or feedback was received only when requested.” Taking the initiative to receive
feedback was suggested by many of the direct reports. For example, one interviewee stated his
intent to receive feedback clearly, “I’ll tell you, I'm not the kind of shy person that sits around
and waits for him to tell me what I'm doing right or wrong, so I ask him from time to time.”
Another direct report described how he received feedback from his manager, “The feedback he
has is both [positive and negative]. He’ll say, you did a good job here and you need to do a
better job there. He's good and he's fact-based. He's not super emotional and you normally
know what you're supposed to do more of or less of or differently, so I think that's pretty
positive.” Direct reports appear to have learned that if you want to know how you are doing the
unspoken expectation is that they should ask, and while feedback may often focus on the more
Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
12% 60% 0% 5% 16% 7%
𝑓 5 26 0 2 7 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Q6-F. The performance management process at my company is fair.
(n=43)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

108
corrective aspects of performance, it was accurate and helpful. Survey and interview data
suggest that 86% of direct reports agreed the feedback they received was accurate (Figure 21)
and 91% agreed that it was meaningful (Figure 22), thus supporting the determination that this
motivation influence gap in not validated. However, while interviews corroborate the value of
feedback when it is received, the process and methods of delivery are experienced as informal
and ad hoc.
Regarding performance management, ten interviewees stated that The Company does not
have a formal performance management system, “We don’t have a performance management
process and there’s not even any guidance.” Another interviewee stated, “There isn’t a
structured performance review that's universal across the company. That is my perception. It's
up to me to sit down with my employees and make sure that they understand how they're
performing to my expectations.” Recently, The Company has implemented a quarterly “check-
in” process that was designed to provide structure and consistency delivering performance
feedback to employees. One direct report stated the following, “This quarterly check-in template
thing, I'm actually about to do my first ones with this new formalized template tomorrow. As a
manager, I was kind of glad to have that, however a template's always kind of a two-edged sword
I feel like.” The recently implemented “quarterly check-in” process has been structured and
designed to provide feedback to direct reports on a quarterly cadence, replacing the ad hoc and
informal feedback event as described by interviewees.
Document analysis. Secondary research documentation from the prior employee
engagement survey contained no questions on the organization’s performance management
system, however it did contain four questions about feedback. The engagement survey was
administered in February of 2016 and then again in August of the same year. The composite
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

109
score for performance feedback had increased two percentage points from 66% to 68%,
suggesting a slightly higher level of agreement that The Company was doing a good job in
providing feedback on performance
Summary. Survey, interview, and historical document data collected and analyzed show
that the self-efficacy motivation gap is not validated. Data suggested that while feedback
processes appear informal, there is agreement that the process supports accuracy and
meaningfulness. The Company appears to be taking a step forward and implemented the new
performance management “check-in” system to more formally and consistently provide
employees feedback on performance, however, is too early to tell if this new system has had the
desired impact.
Goal Orientation Theory: Survey and interview data, regarding the goal orientation
motivation influence identified in the Chapter Two literature review, were gathered and analyzed
to determine whether this motivation influence was validated or not validated (Clark & Estes,
2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Motivation Influence 4: Direct reports want to accomplish more than only what is
written in their leadership development plans and drive beyond only completing what is
documented. Gap unable to validate or not validate. Data collected through survey questions
and interview transcripts were analyzed in determining that this goal orientation motivation gap
was unable to be validated or not validated.
Survey results. Four survey questions applied to this motivation influence. Direct report
responses for question 7-A (Figure 24) showed 87% agreed to strongly agreed with the
statement, “I understand the goals I need to achieve to demonstrate high performance.” On the
second question 7-B, “I move past any obstacle in order to achieve my goals,” the agreed to
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

110
strongly agreed response increased (Figure 25) to 97%. For the third question 7-E, “I finish what
I start,” the agreed to strongly agreed categories increased again to 98% (Figure 26). The high
response rates for “agreed” to “strongly agreed” for these three survey items illustrated that
direct reports clearly understand the goals they needed to achieve, that they move past and
overcome obstacles to achieve their goals, and that they executed on goals to completion. Given
the reputation of The Company for innovation, product quality, and market growth, these data
suggested a high focus on the achievement organization goals. The last survey question to
review under this motivation influence is 7-C, “Once I complete a goal, I see no reason to give it
additional thought” (Figure 27). Direct report responses show that 32% agreed with this
statement, however 68% slightly disagreed to strongly disagreed with the statement. Direct
report responses to question 7-F suggest that direct reports continued to give additional thought
to goals completed and go beyond what was expected and exceeded agreed upon goals.
Figure 24. Survey responses to question 7-A

Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
23% 64% 0% 7% 5% 2%
𝑓 10 28 0 3 2 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Q7-A. I understand the goals I need to achieve to demonstrate high
performance.
(n=44)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

111
Figure 25. Survey responses to question 7-B

Figure 26. Survey responses to question 7-E

Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
27% 70% 0% 2% 0% 0%
𝑓 12 31 0 1 0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frequency
Q7-B . I move past any obstacle in order to achieve my goals.
(n=44)
Strongly agree Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
36% 61% 0% 0% 2% 0%
𝑓 16 27 0 0 1 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Q7-E. I finish what I start.
(n=44)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

112
Figure 27. Survey responses to question 7-C

Interview results. Fourteen comments were gathered on this motivational influence, all
described the organization dynamics direct reports operated within and the seriousness of goal
attainment. One individual suggested the need to think beyond goal accomplishment in isolation
and stated, “Engineering goals at The Company can be multipart so once something is delivered
it's a part 1 and then we need to deliver part 2 or 3. This is why I slightly disagree with giving
goals no more thought after achieving them.” Another comment by a direct report group
member offered insight into the awareness and understanding of customer needs, “While no clear
goals are being set for me or my team. We exceed customer expectations continuously on the
goals we set.” Lastly, one individual stated, “I'm frequently iterating over what I've experienced,
mostly trying to learn from my mistakes and the valuable output from others.” These interview
comments suggested a sense of relentlessness for improvement, innovation, and the desire to
exceed customer expectations. Interview comments illustrated alignment and consistency with
the survey data for this influence.
Strongly agree Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0% 32% 0% 18% 39% 11%
𝑓 0 14 0 8 17 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Frequency
Q7-C. Once I complete a goal I see no reason to give it additional thought.
(n=44)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

113
Document analysis. Analysis of the prior employee engagement survey that was
conducted at The Company and discussion notes from a review session with the executive team
leadership highlighted one of the key engagement questions, “The Company motivates me to go
beyond what I would in a similar role elsewhere.” Respondents selected one of the five options
based on a Likert scale from strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, to
strongly agree. For this item, 83% of respondents agreed to strongly agreed with this statement,
providing an additional source of data supporting suggesting the influence that employees drive
beyond only completing what is required.
Summary. Survey, interview, and historical data analysis described a highly goal-
oriented and goal attainment-focused direct report group. Data analysis supported the notion that
employees at The Company move beyond and accomplish more that was required or
documented. The caveat for this discussion is that the motivation influence stated that direct
reports want to accomplish more than only what is written in their leadership development plans
and drive beyond only completing what is documented. No leadership development plans were
mentioned in interview comments and survey questions did not reference leadership
development goals or goal completion. This is an omission on the investigator’s part, thus this
motivational gap can neither be validated or not validated at this time.
Attribution Theory: Survey and interview data, regarding these attribution motivation
influences identified in the Chapter Two literature review, were gathered and analyzed to
determine whether the attribution influences were validated or not validated (Clark & Estes,
2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Motivation Influence 5: Direct reports believe the most qualified candidates will be
selected to fill open leadership positions. Gap not validated. Data collected through survey
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

114
questions and interview transcripts were analyzed in determining that this attribution motivation
gap is not validated.
Survey results. Two survey questions applied to this motivation influence, questions 8-A
(Figure 28) and 8-C (Figure 29). For question 8-A, 53% of respondents agreed with the
statement, “The Company posts all leadership position openings,” and for question 8-C 81% of
the respondents agreed to strongly agreed that, “The Company selects the best candidates to be
placed into open senior leadership positions.” Responses to each of the survey questions suggest
agreement with the statements, especially with question 8-C at 81% agreement. However,
further examination of question 8-A show that 47% of respondents disagreed to strongly
disagreed that The Company posted all leadership position openings. Interview data identified
additional perspective and considerations on this statistic.
Figure 28. Survey responses to question 8-A

Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
2% 51% 0% 24% 10% 12%
𝑓 1 21 0 10 4 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Frequency
Q8-A. The Company posts all leadership job openings.
(n=41)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

115
Figure 29. Survey responses to question 8-C

Interview results. Of the twenty-two interviews conducted with members of the direct
report group, six had comments on the topic of leadership job postings. Two interviewees
mentioned the existence and use of the “open job board to see what’s available” that is on The
Company’s external website and internal intranet. Other comments suggested that with the high
rate of organization growth and change, individuals learn of open leadership positions through
word-of-mouth or through direct contacts with individuals they knew in the recruiting
organization.
Summary. This motivation gap is not validated; however, it would appear that taking
steps to improve the system or speed in posting leadership job openings may eliminate or
decrease the level of disagreement with question 8-A. In addition, the recent events described
during one interview regarding the hiring and exiting of two executive leadership team members
within a one-year time frame caused concern. Even though data show that 86% of respondents
agreed that The Company selects the best candidates to be placed into open senior leadership
Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
5% 76% 0% 12% 5% 2%
𝑓 2 31 0 5 2 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frequency
Q8-C. The Company selects the best candidates to be placed into open
senior leadership positions.
(n=41)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

116
positions, the short tenure and sudden exit of two senior executives raised concerns about
investing time and effort to build relationships and trust with newly hired executive leadership.
Motivation Influence 6: Direct reports believe they, more than fate, are responsible for
their career path/success. Gap not validated. Data collected through survey questions and
interview transcripts were analyzed in determining that this attribution motivation gap is not
validated.
Survey results. Two survey questions applied to this motivation influence. The first
question 8-D (Figure 30) focused on personal responsibility and achieved 100% agreement with
the statement, “Career advancement is my responsibility.” The second survey question, 8-E
(Figure 31), showed that 91% of respondents agreed to strongly agreed with the following
statement, “I control my career advancement.” The level of high agreement for questions 8-D
and 8-E suggests that direct reports assume personal responsibility and attribute their success in
career advancement to their own efforts and accomplishments.
Figure 30. Survey responses to question 8-D

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
34% 66% 0% 0% 0% 0%
𝑓 15 29 0 0 0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frequency
Q8-D. Career advancement is my responsibility.
(n=44)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

117
Figure 31. Survey responses to question 8-E

Interview results. Of the twenty-two direct reports interviewed, 100% expressed that
they believed they were individually responsible for their career advancement and the ones who
controlled their career advancement. Sixty-six percent of the interviewees specifically stated that
career advancement was their responsibility, “I strongly believe that it is up to me to identify
opportunities and make my case for career advancement.” One interviewee stated that he
realized early on with The Company that taking career advancement into your own hands was
just the way things were done at The Company, “It's clear to me sort of on the flip side that
there's a culture of taking ownership of things in the company, and that was immediately
apparent to me from the beginning.” While interviewees clearly stated that career advancement
was their responsibility, many comments suggested the importance of collaboration, inclusion,
and partnership with their manager as they pursued their career advancement opportunities.
Specifically, one interviewee stated, “Though career development is largely my responsibility,
career advancement can be in the hands of my manager.” Another interviewee expressed a
larger partnership this way,
While the employee should drive the discussion, they need to convey their goals to their
Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
23% 68% 0% 9% 0% 0%
𝑓 10 30 0 4 0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frequency
Q8-E. I control my career advancement.
(n=44)
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

118
manager so they are on the same page about what is realistic and required. The company
needs to ensure that the resources and processes are in place to support employee
development and advancement. Career advancement is a shared responsibility between
the employee and the company.
A final comment during one of the interviews summarized the need for employee-
manager partnership in the following way, “So, I think ideally leadership development involving
your manager would be really be the right combination.” Interview comments clearly suggested
the high level of individual responsibility that direct reports were willing to assume with respect
to their career advancement, furthermore, many individuals realized the importance of
communication, partnership, and alignment with manager they report to.
Summary. Survey and interview data show that direct reports were willing to assume
responsibility for their career advancement. In addition, many direct reports stated that
involvement and support from their manager is an important partnership and critical in the
process of advancing one’s career. This attribution motivation gap is not validated.
Summary of Motivation Findings
Of the six motivation influences identified through the literature review completed in
Chapter 2, two motivation influences gaps were validated: Motivation Influence 1 Direct reports
believe they are capable of successfully implementing their leadership development plans; and,
Motivation Influence 2 Direct reports are confident that engaging in leadership development
planning process will benefit their career. While the remaining four motivation influences were
not validated as influence gaps, there are some issues to keep in mind. First, performance
feedback was viewed as accurate and meaningful to direct reports, however the newly
implemented performance management “quarterly check-in” process was too new to evaluate its
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

119
effectiveness. It is hoped that this system provides the timeliness, structure, and regularity that
many direct reports desire from a more consistent performance feedback system. Second, while
the “quarterly check-in” process was designed to provide structure and regularity to the feedback
process, it was also developed to become the performance management system for The
Company. Data presented showed that 72% agreed to strongly agreed that the current
performance management system was fair, perhaps with the new system, the 28% that disagreed
will shift towards agreement. Third, DRG members tended to assume high responsibility for
their career path and movement, in addition, to and high accountability for goal attainment and
exceeding expectations. Fourth, there appeared to be high confidence in the current executive
leadership team in the selection and placement of candidates for open leadership positions,
however, efforts could be made to better inform the organization when positions become open.
Last, direct reports questioned the connection between development planning and future career
benefits, as well as, their ability to implement a leadership development plan. Given that 89% of
the respondents stated they do not have a development plan, if this changed to 89% having
development plans and implementing them, the direct report experience between development
planning and career benefit may result in a different set of outcomes.
Results and Findings for Organization Gaps
Organization Validated and Non-Validated Gaps
Cultural model. Survey, interview, and historical document data regarding identified
cultural model organization influences in the Chapter Two literature review were gathered and
analyzed to determine whether the cultural model influences were validated or not validated
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

120
Organization Influence 1: Support by members of the executive leadership team to
formalizing leadership competencies and a unified approach to leadership development. Gap
validated. Data collected through survey questions and interview transcripts were used to
determine that this cultural model influence gap was validated.
Survey results. The following four survey questions applied to this organization
influence; 4-A, 4-C, 6-A, and 4-E. Question 4-A (see Figure 14) asked respondents their level of
agreement or disagreement with the following statement, “The Company has a clearly
communicated approach to developing leaders.” Survey responses for question 4-A show that
24% of the respondents agreed and the remaining 76% of direct report respondents disagreed.
To that that end, three quarters of direct reports stated there was no documentation, systematic
guidance, or communication of a leadership development approach. While the results for
question 4-C (see Figure 15), showed that 64% of survey respondents agreed to strongly agreed
with the statement “I understand the leadership competencies that leaders at The Company must
demonstrate,” however when asked what the leadership competencies were, direct reports were
not able to provide or refer to any documentation presenting leadership competencies.
Responses to question 6-A (see Figure 16), “The performance expectations for my current role
are clear” showed that 81% agreed to strongly agreed, while 19% slightly disagreed to disagreed.
The forth survey question for this influence, 4-E (see Figure 17), “I have leadership development
goals to improve my performance,” indicated that 42% agreed to strongly agreed, 58% slightly
disagreed to strongly disagreed. As a final statistical reference point from the earlier discussion
on procedural knowledge gaps, question 9 (see Figure 18) presented that 89% of the survey
respondents stated they did not have a leadership development plan. From an organization
infrastructure perspective, the majority of direct reports have stated that leadership development
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

121
systems, process, tools do not exist.
Interview results. Of the 22 direct reports interviewed, 17 responses stated they were
unaware of or believed The Company did not have an approach to leadership development.
Three separate comments indicated the following; “We don't have a leadership development
program at The Company,” “100% self-directed and I have not seen evidence of investing in
leadership training or direction,” and “If there is a leadership development program, I have never
heard anything about it.” In the following statement, one interview respondent stated a view that
six others underscored,
I think it's [leadership development] more along the lines, there's an inferred one.
Leadership itself is a competency. The ability to lead others. But there's also different
aspects or attributes or characteristics that's poured into that. Certainly, dependability,
reliability, are part of it. The ability to anticipate and be able to get in front of a problem
before it's truly a problem. These are part of the leadership responsibilities.
Summary. While survey responses indicated that direct reports believed they understood
the leadership competencies leadership must demonstrate and 81% agreed they have clear
performance expectations for their current role, 58% of the DRG disagreed with the statement, “I
have leadership develop goals to improve my performance.” The majority of interview
responses also agreed with the comment, “If there is a leadership development program, I have
never heard anything about it.” Stated earlier under the procedural knowledge influence, direct
reports need to know the methodology for implementing a leadership development plan, was an
interview comment that said the following, “because it [leadership development] takes time from
actual work.” The context given for this comment was that leadership planning and development
could better prepare individuals for leadership roles, rather than thrust individuals into a role
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

122
without preparation. The comment suggested that leaders may not view leadership development
as, “actual work.” To change this perception, executive leadership team members would need to
demonstrate a unified approach and visibly support the approach by making leadership
development a priority, protect time so that DRG members could participate in development
initiatives and activities, and make the accountability for development a required performance
management element. This organization influence gap is validated.
Organization Influence 2: The organization equally favors hiring practices that create
a balance between recruiting external candidates through recruitment and internal candidates
identified through the succession planning process. Gap validated. Data collected through
survey questions and interview transcripts were used to determine that this cultural model
influence gap was validated.
Survey results. The following three survey questions applied to this organization
influence; 8-B, 10-E, and 10-F. The results from question 8-B, “Hiring decisions at The
Company favor external over internal leadership candidates,” (Figure 32) indicate that 54% of
the direct reports slightly agreed to strongly disagreed with this statement, and 46% agreed.
Results from question 10-E (Figure 33), “I'm confident in my readiness for promotion,” showed
that of the five direct reports who had leadership development plans, confidence in readiness was
mid-range at 60%. Table 16 displays the descriptive statistics for Figure 33. The last survey
item, question 10-F (Figure 34), “I'm confident if the right position became available I would be
considered for promotion,” showed a 50% confidence level (Table 17) and widely dispersed
scores. Data suggests that direct reports viewed external candidates being favored for
promotional or career advancement positions they were competing for. In addition, for those had
development plans, confidence levels were mid-range.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

123
Figure 32. Survey responses to question 8-B

Figure 33. Survey responses to question 10-E

Strongly
agree
Agree Slightly agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0% 46% 0% 36% 15% 3%
𝑓 0 18 0 14 6 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency
Q8-B. Hiring decisions at The Company favor external over internal
leadership candidates.
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
𝑓 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
Confidence level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Frequency/Confidence level:
Low to High
Q10-E. I'm confident in my readiness for promotion.
(n=5)
𝑓 Confidence level
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

124
Table 16
Q10-E Descriptive Statistics
Q10-E Descriptive Statistics
Mean 6.20
Standard Deviation 1.10
Range 2
Minimum 5
Maximum 7
Count 5

Figure 34. Survey responses to question 10-F

Table 17
Q10-F Descriptive Statistics
Q10-F Descriptive Statistics
Mean 5.20
Standard Deviation 3.03
Range 7
Minimum 1
Maximum 8
Count 5

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
𝑓 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
Confidence level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
Frequency/Confidence level:
Low to High
Q10-F. I'm confident if the right position became available I
would be considered for promotion.
(n=5)
𝑓 Confidence level
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

125
Interview results. Out of the 15 comments noted during interviews, 11 stated their lack
of understanding about criteria for promotion selection or the leadership competencies they
would need to demonstrate. One interviewee said, “I have no idea what the criteria or
expectations are for me to be considered for promotion.” The same individual asked, “If a VP
type role opened up, what I would need to do to succeed in that role here?” One direct report
described his view of promotions and career advancement in the following way, “Senior
leadership hiring is maximally an opaque game of inside baseball, which is however normal in
my experience.”
Summary. Survey and interview results showed a gap in agreement as to whether the
organization has created a balance between recruiting external candidates and internal candidates
for leadership positions. This organization influence gap is validated.
Cultural Setting. Survey, interview, and historical document data regarding identified
cultural setting organization influences in the Chapter 2 literature review were gathered and
analyzed to determine whether the attribution influences were validated or not validated (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Organization Influence 3: Employees assume that when external candidates are hired
for leadership positions, they are justifiably more qualified than the internal candidate. \ Gap
validated. Data collected through survey questions and interview transcripts were used to
determine that this cultural setting influence gap was validated.
Survey results. One survey question applied to this topic. Question number 8-C asked,
“The Company selects the best candidates to be placed into open senior leadership positions.”
Survey results for this question (see Figure 29) indicated that 81% of the survey respondents
agreed that The Company selects and places the best candidates into senior leadership positions,
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

126
only 19% disagreed. This data would suggest that direct reports believe the executive leadership
team has placed the best and right individuals in open leadership positions.
Interview results. Nine interviewees offered their views regarding whether external
candidates were justifiably more qualified than internal candidates. One interviewee commented
that, “We [The Company] are hiring a lot of people into VP and above level roles with no clear
understanding of why and what they are expected to lead or build.” Another individual
commented that, “My experience is that that varies among sub-organizations. Engineering
organizations tend to foster leadership from inside, but less technical groups seem to hire
externally relatively more often. But that is just my impression.” A statement that summarized
many of the comments addressed this influence in the following way:
We [The Company] tend to always look externally. That the best of the best is
somewhere outside of The Company. Which, I find to be a complete oxymoron because
we always say that we hire the best of the best. If we took the time to nourish the
leadership system, they [the executive leadership team] would be pleasantly surprised
that we have the talent in house already. But, it's being willing to spend the time and
understanding the value of development.
Summary. Survey data from question 8-C (Figure 29) tends to support the statement that
when external candidates are hired for leadership positions, they are justifiably more qualified
than an internal candidate, however, interview results presented an opposing set of views, i.e.,
people are hired into VP roles with unclear mandates, varied operating beliefs among functions
on promoting from within versus hiring external, and if The Company hires the best then the best
is available to be developed. Given the differences between survey and interview data, this
organization influence gap is validated.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

127
Organization Influence 4: The organization assures an effective process for providing
timely and ongoing performance feedback to employees that drives their success. Gap
validated. Data collected through survey questions and interview transcripts were used to
determine that this cultural setting influence gap was validated.
Survey results. Three survey questions focused on the practice and experience of
feedback, 6-C, 6-C, and 6-E. Questions 6-B asked, “The feedback I receive from my manager
helps me improve my performance,” and the results from this question (Figure 35) indicated
80% agreed with the statement. Question 6-C asked, “I receive timely performance feedback
from my manager,” and here results (Figure 36) showed that 59% agreed while 41% disagreed
that feedback was timely. The last question (6-E) asked, “The feedback I receive from my
manager is meaningful,” and 91% of the respondents (see Figure 22) experienced the feedback
they received was meaningful. Survey data suggested that the feedback direct reports receive is
helpful to improving performance and meaningful, however timeliness indicated a lower level of
agreement.
Figure 35. Survey responses to question 6-B

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
14% 66% 0% 7% 11% 2%
𝑓 6 29 0 3 5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frequency
Q6-B. The feedback I receive from my manager helps me
improve my performance.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

128
Figure 36. Survey responses to question 6-C

Interview results. Stated earlier in the self-efficacy motivation influence discussion, all
direct report interviewees discussed their experience of feedback at The Company. Receiving
feedback was described as “ad hoc, informal, rushed, inconsistent, over drinks, mostly focused
on the negative or corrective, during casual conversation, or when it was requested by the direct
report.” There were 15 specific references to needing to take the initiative on the part of the
direct report to ask or request feedback from their manager. One interviewee offered the follow
summary, “I’ll tell you, I'm not the kind of shy person that sits around and waits for him to tell
me what I'm doing right or wrong, so I ask him from time to time.”
Document analysis. Analysis of the prior employee engagement survey conducted in
August of 2016 contained the question, “My manager gives me useful feedback on how well I
am performing.” Overall, 71% agreed with this statement, however the composite rating for
feedback was at a 68% level of agreement. At the time of this engagement survey, 12 functional
Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
9% 50% 0% 14% 18% 9%
𝑓 4 22 0 6 8 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
Frequency
Q6-C. I receive timely performance feedback from my
manager.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

129
groups represented in the employee population, four groups scored 80% or above, six groups
ranged between 63-70%, and the remaining four groups were 50% or below,
Summary. Survey, interview, and document analysis results determined that, while
improving, the organization is not yet assuring effective process is in place to provide timely and
ongoing performance feedback to employees. This organizational influence gap is validated.
Summary of Organization Findings
All four organization influence gaps were validated. Organizational practices, systems,
tools, and behaviors are at the center of this influence category. Direct reports communicated
through survey, interview, and historical document data that the approach to leadership
development is non-existent to most, feedback on performance could be more timely and
frequent, developing and promoting from within could be improved, and what is required and
expected of leaders as they rise in authority and placement could be more explicit and
documented. However, DRG members also suggest confidence in the executive leadership
team’s ability to bring in needed leadership talent, and find the feedback they do receive to be
valuable, accurate, meaningful, and motivating.
Summary
The literature review in Chapter 2 identified 14 knowledge, motivation, and organization
influences that could either prevent or support the achievement of the stakeholder goals of this
study (Clark & Estes, 2008). In Chapter 3, the focus was to design a research methodology,
employing a survey, individual interviews, review of available and relevant historical
documentation, that would generate the empirical evidence to determine if the identified gaps
could be validated or not. Gaps identified and validates for eight of the 14 original influences.
Table 18 provides a summary list of the gaps that now become the focus of Chapter 5. In
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

130
Chapter 5, recommended solutions for each of the eight validated gaps will be presented, as well
as, implementation and evaluation plans.
Table 18
Summary Table of Validated Gaps
Knowledge
Declarative Direct reports need to know the competency goals for their
performance.
Validated
Procedural Direct reports need to know the methodology for
implementing a leadership development plan.
Validated
Motivation
Self-Efficacy Direct reports believe they are capable of implementing their
leadership development plans.
Validated
Self-Efficacy Confident that engaging in the leadership development
planning will benefit their career.
Validated
Organization
Cultural
model.
Support by members of the executive leadership team to
formalizing leadership competencies and a unified approach to
leadership development.
Validated
Cultural
model
The organization equally favors hiring practices that create a
balance between recruiting external candidates through
recruitment and internal candidates identified through the
succession planning process.
Validated
Cultural
Setting
Employees assume that when external candidates are hired for
leadership positions, they are justifiably more qualified than
the internal candidate.
Validated
Cultural
Setting
The organization assures an effective process for providing
timely and ongoing performance feedback to employees that
drives their success.
Validated

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

131
CHAPTER 5: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION PLANS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which DRG stakeholders were
achieving their leadership development goals and identified competencies to ready them for the
next level of leadership by January 1, 2019. In Chapter 4, the results and analysis from the
collected data were reviewed in depth. The analysis of quantitative survey data, qualitative
interview information, and relevant organization documents lead to developing the response to
the status of the Direct Report Group (DRG) stakeholder goal and answers to Research Question
1. To what extent are the DRG members currently meeting the stakeholder goal of achieving all
the development goals and identified competencies needed to qualify them for the next level of
leadership by January 1, 2019? Results from data collection revealed that sufficient progress
towards achieving completion of the desired goal is at issue. Research Question 1 was, what
knowledge and skills, motivation and organization factors either support or serve as barriers to
direct reports successfully implementing their individual development plans? Initially, of the 14
influences for this study were identified through the literature review in Chapter 2; findings from
data analysis identified eight were validated as gaps that could potentially affect The Company’s
successful achievement of development and readiness of the next generation of leaders by
January 1, 2019.
Chapter 5 will address Research Question 2, what are the knowledge, motivation and
organization solutions that can help the DRG meet the goal? Each of the recommendations
presented in this chapter are grounded in the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and
organization framework as influences identified through literature review that impact leadership
development. Utilizing a mix methods research methodology (Creswell, 2014), each of the 14
influences were evaluated using an online survey tool, one-on-one interviews, and document
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

132
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 1990). Recommendations for closing the eight
validated gaps and evaluations strategies are the focus of this chapter.
The organization of this chapter will start by presenting the recommendations for each of
the validated by knowledge, motivation, and organization influences. Following the review of
recommendations, and integrated implementation and evaluation plan will be presented based
upon the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Clearly, the
frameworks of Clark and Estes (2008) and Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) are independently
critical, but more importantly, the synthesis of these two foundational frameworks provide a
comprehensive approach to evaluation research, identification of performance gaps, selection of
recommendations, development of implementation strategies, and monitoring and evaluation of
results. (Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell, 2013; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Validated through the analysis of collected data collection are the knowledge, motivation,
and organization gaps listed on Table 19. The three sections that follow, present the context-
specific recommendations for each validated influence in the ensuing order: knowledge,
motivation, and organization. Subsequent to the review of recommendations, is a discussion of
the integrated implementation and evaluation plan

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

133
Table 19
Validated of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Gaps
Knowledge
Declarative Direct reports need to know the competency goals for their
performance.
Validated
Procedural Direct reports need to know the methodology for
implementing a leadership development plan.
Validated
Motivation
Self-Efficacy Stakeholders believe they are capable of implementing their
leadership development plans.
Validated
Self-Efficacy Confident that engaging in the leadership development
planning will benefit their career.
Validated
Organization
Cultural
model.
Support by members of the executive leadership team to
formalizing leadership competencies and a unified approach to
leadership development.
Validated
Cultural
model
The organization equally favors hiring practices that create a
balance between recruiting external candidates through
recruitment and internal candidates identified through the
succession planning process.
Validated
Cultural
Setting
Employees assume that when external candidates are hired for
leadership positions, they are justifiably more qualified than
the internal candidate.
Validated
Cultural
Setting
The organization assures an effective process for providing
timely and ongoing performance feedback to employees that
drives their success.
Validated

Knowledge Recommendations
Researchers describe four types of knowledge: declarative factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956; Krathwohl,
2002). One declarative factual and one procedural knowledge gaps were validated as having
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

134
potential impact of the achievement of the stakeholder goal of readiness for the next level of
leadership. Factual knowledge describes the knowing of specific terminology and details.
Conceptual knowledge is represented in the form of theories, principles, and categorizations.
Factual and conceptual knowledge influences are often combined and referred to as
“declarative,” possessing or having knowledge of something. In contrast, procedural knowledge
includes techniques, skills, and instruction in how to complete tasks (Krathwohl, 2002; Ross,
Robinson, & Francis-Smythe, 2015). To close knowledge gaps, Clark and Estes (2008) offer
four distinct, yet increasingly complex, categories of solutions. These solutions are described as
information, job aids, training, and education. Information is giving people what they need to
know so that they can be successful on their own, job aids provide a form of instruction so that
individuals can follow a set of steps to complete a task, training combines information with job
aids when necessary and includes practice with feedback, and education is considered conceptual
and theoretical knowledge that arms the learner to think through and face the unexpected (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Table 20 describes the two knowledge influences, declarative factual and procedural, that
were identified in the literature review process and consequently validated through data
collection and data analysis. In addition to listing the two validated gaps under this knowledge
area, information on the theoretical principle underlying the knowledge area and context-specific
recommendation are listed. Following this table is a review of each context-specific
recommendation.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

135
Table 20
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Declarative
knowledge describes two types of knowledge areas, factual which is knowing specific
terminology and details, and conceptual which is represented in the form of theories, principles,
and categorizations (Clark & Estes, 2008). Direct reports need to know the leadership
competency goals for their performance. A clear understanding of the goals that the individual
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
type
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Direct reports
need to know
the leadership
competency
goals for their
performance.
Declarative
Factual
Conscious human behavior
is directed with intention
and focus by the goals
individuals set and commit
to achieving (Latham &
Locke, 1991).
Goals motivate and direct
learners (Pintrich, 2003).
Provide information on the
expected leadership
competencies.
Provide specific information
that aligns with the individual
leadership development goals
of the direct report, related to
the function they are leaders in,
and include definitions and
examples of the competencies.
Provide measurement and
evaluation criteria used to
determine level of competency
performance to all members of
the stakeholder group.
Direct reports
need to know
the
methodology
for
implementing a
leadership
development
plan.
Procedural Managing intrinsic load by
segmenting complex
material into simpler parts
and pre-training, among
other strategies, enables
learning to be enhanced
(Kirshner, Kirshner, &
Paas, 2006).
Provide direct reports with job
aid and training that can guide
them through the steps involved
to implement their leadership
development plan.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

136
needs to accomplish can motivate and provide direction for the learner (Pintrich, 2003). In
addition, Latham and Locke (1991) found that individuals will more consciously direct their
actions when they have set clear goals and have committed to achieving them. This would
suggest that providing the direct report learners with information and documentation on the
expected leadership competencies would support their learning. The recommendation for this
knowledge influence is to provide direct reports with written information that describes, defines,
and provides examples of each leadership competency, as well as, illustrations of the
competency when and how it is performed.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Direct reports
need to know the methodology for implementing a leadership development plan. Understanding
the components and individual steps of the leadership development process will support learners
in the successful implementation of their leadership development plan (Day, Fleenor, Atwater,
Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009; Seibert, Hall, & Kram, 1995;
Wuestewald, 2016). In addition, Kirshner, Kirshner, and Paas (2006) found that decomposing
complex strategies into manageable and simpler actions lowers intrinsic load and supports
enhanced learning. This suggests providing direct report learners with a step-by-step guide for
how to implement a leadership development plan, and how to simplify the implementation of
complex actions. The recommendation is to provide direct reports with a visual map of the steps
to implement their leadership development plan, and training that will provide them with practice
in how to breakdown complex actions into manageable steps, and how to identify and make
course corrective actions during the implementation process.
Researchers find that companies successful in developing executive talent have robust
development planning and the supportive infrastructures (Grant, Curtayne, & Burton, 2009;
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

137
Haskins & Shaffer; 2009). The current trend aligns organizational goal setting and planning
systems, skill acquisition and evaluation, consistent and actionable feedback, and ensuring
relevant context and skill application throughout the development process (Day, Fleenor,
Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009). Direct reports that are
participating in leadership development initiatives need to know the sequence of steps and
actions for implementing their development plan, in addition to understanding how to effectively
utilize the mechanisms and structures available to them as they implement their plans.
Motivation Recommendations
The three types of motivation influences evaluated in this study were self-efficacy, goal
orientation theory, and attribution theory. Of the six influences evaluated, two of the self-
efficacy motivation influences were validated (Table 21). Efforts to close gaps in performance
require both knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Direct reports that are optimistic
in developing their leadership skills and knowledge, and have high expectation for success,
positively influence their motivation to learn and develop (Pajares, 2006). Understanding this
relationship and interplay between motivation and knowledge will allow the possibility to
identify solutions when gaps in performance occur.
Table 21
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation
Influence
Motivation
Type
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Direct reports
believe they
are capable of
successfully
implementing
their
leadership
Self-
Efficacy
Pajares (2006) describes how
setting clear, concrete, and
challenging goals that provide
the learner the opportunity to
experience accomplishment and
success enhances self-efficacy
and motivation.
Provide training and
examples of successful
implementation, provide
practice situations or case
examples to apply what
was learned in training,
select an important but
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

138
development
plans.

Higher expectations for success
and perceptions of confidence
can positively influence
learning and motivation
(Eccles, 2006).
manageable development
goal for implementation
and provide learner with
oversight and coaching
during implementation.
Direct reports
are confident
that engaging
in the
leadership
development
planning
process will
benefit their
career.

Self-
Efficacy
Modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the
model is credible, similar (e.g.,
gender, culturally appropriate),
and the behavior has functional
value (Denler et al., 2009).
Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for
success (Pajares, 2006).
Provide examples and the
stories of individuals who
are recognized in industry
that displayed
commitment and
engagement in leadership
development, and were
ultimately successful
progressing in their
careers because of this
involvement and
engagement.

Self-Efficacy solutions, or description of needs or assets. Direct reports believe they
are capable of successfully implementing their leadership development plans. Pajares (2006)
describes how setting clear, concrete, and challenging goals that provide the learner the
opportunity to experience accomplishment and success enhances self-efficacy and motivation.
Higher expectations for success and perceptions of confidence can positively influence learning
and motivation (Eccles, 2006). The recommendation is to provide a variety of practical
approaches to successful implementation of leadership development plans.
Ross (2014) found that leaders who exhibit a positive mental outlook tend to exhibit more
encouraging behavioral reactions, higher self-efficacy, and constructive social interactions.
Direct report self-efficacy is central to their development as leaders, their willingness and ability
to seek opportunities for growth and development, and is related to the motivation to succeed
(Ross, 2014). Executive and leadership development is a unique form of development, in that it
is unmistakably different from technical or other skill-based types of development (Hannah,
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

139
Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008). Direct report self-efficacy is critical to the successful
implementation of their leadership development plans, precisely because of the ethical
responsibility and accountability for providing direction and leadership to all members of the
organizations they will lead.
Direct reports are confident that engaging in the leadership development planning process
will benefit their career. Denler et al., (2009) posit that modeled behavior is more likely to be
adopted if the model is credible, similar (e.g., gender, culturally appropriate), and the behavior
has functional value. In addition, learning and motivation are enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006). The recommendation is to provide case-study
examples of individuals who are recognized in the industry, demonstrated commitment to
implementing and completing their leadership development plans, and were ultimately
successful in advancing their careers.
Pajares (2006) describes how setting clear, concrete, and challenging goals that provide
the learner the opportunity to experience accomplishment and success enhances self-efficacy and
motivation. Increasing direct report confidence in the value and utility of leadership
development (Pintrich, 2003) will have positive career results, in addition, researchers suggest
that learners who create comprehensive leadership development plans and have high levels of
self-efficacy demonstrate greater persistence and higher levels of performance (Latham & Locke,
2007; Latham & Pinder, 2005). For direct reports, having the knowledge, tools, and assurance in
a sound leadership development planning process can set the foundation for increased
confidence, self-efficacy, and the achievement of career aspirations.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

140
Organization Recommendations
The culture of an organization is a powerful force that influences all facets of its
operational existence, internal functioning, goal attainment, interface with external entities, and
adaptation to its environment (Schein, 2010). Taken to an even greater level of interdependence,
Schein (2010) elaborates how entrepreneurial leaders initiate the creation of an organization's
culture, and once the culture has taken root, the existing culture governs the standards of who
will or will not progress as a leader. In addition to the organization element of culture, there are
other characteristics of organizations such as structure, strategy, and systems (Peters &
Waterman, 1982) that specify the procurement and use of tangible assets for task completion and
goal attainment. These tangibles include resources such as equipment, time, funding, effective
process, as well as human capital that is knowledgeable and motivated toward task completion
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) posit that when misalignment
among an organization’s work processes, policies, procedures, and culture exist, gaps in goal
attainment and high-performance result. Understanding these organization influences, the level
of alignment or gaps that may exist, and the implications of these influences or gaps on
leadership development initiatives, will provide additional data and information on the readiness
of developing leaders for more complex assignments and promotion.
Understanding how organizational influences affect the attainment of stakeholder goals
requires an additional level of investigation beyond the definition of culture discussed thus far.
This next level of cultural and cultural process analysis is termed cultural models and cultural
settings (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Rudea, 2011). Cultural models are the
shared mental schema or governing beliefs about how the world functions and behaves; they
reflect the thinking and responses of a given community or group to external challenges
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

141
(Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001). While cultural models are considered tacit,
they develop and evolve slowly over time, remaining in the unconscious background to those
who follow them, and illustrate what is considered normal and customary (Rudea, 2011).
Cultural settings are the stage in which we can visibly observe the social context in which the
tacit models are actively played out (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Rudea,
2011). The interplay between cultural models and settings is dynamic and revealing. On one
hand stakeholder goals reflect an explicit feature of the organization under study; goal setting is
an accepted norm and a stated requirement as part of the organization’s cultural model. On the
other, it is the cultural setting, the social context where observation and the impact of
organization influences impact the attainment of stakeholder goals. Table 22 summarizes the
organization influence recommendations for this study.
Table 22
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence
Organization
Type
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific Recommendation
There is
demonstrated
support by
members of the
executive
leadership team
to formalizing
leadership
competencies
and a unified
approach to
leadership
development.
Cultural
Model
Create an
environment that
fosters desirable
behaviors
(Tuckman, 2009).
To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
This is a three-pronged
recommendation. First, provide the
documentation on what the required
leadership competencies are and how
they align and support the desired
culture. Second, utilize the Quarterly
Business Review Offsite to arrange
open discussion sessions led by
members of the executive team to
present one or more of the
competencies, its application, and
their learning and experience. Third,
executive leadership members are
teamed up with a direct report
outside their function to provide
mentorship in competency
development. Provide an agreed
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

142
upon list of required leadership
competencies.
Articulate the “leadership
development approach” the
organization will implement to foster
development of critical competencies
in the stakeholder group. Leverage
the recommendation above to
reinforce the approach and to discuss
in an open environment.
The
organization
equally favors
hiring practices
that create a
balance
between
recruiting
external
candidates
through
recruitment,
and internal
candidates
identified
through the
succession
planning
process.

Cultural
Model
Systems of
accountability
should address
equity, diversity
and access in
various sectors
(Lim, Haddad &
Daugherty, 2013;
Trenerry &
Paradies, 2012)

A strong
organizational
culture controls
organizational
behavior and can
block an
organization from
making necessary
changes for
adapting to a
changing
environment
(Schein, 2004).
Design and implement a review
system that provides a semi-annual
review by executive leadership team
at one of their executive strategy
sessions to review and assess
progress in developing and placing
direct reports into higher leadership
roles and positions. Make the
development of direct reports an
activity that is part of their bonus
with added focus on those direct
reports who have goals to attain
higher positions in the organization.
Provide consistent company-wide
status reports on development
progress, achievements, and results.
Employees
assume that
when external
candidates are
hired for
leadership
positions, they
are justifiably
more qualified
than the
Cultural
Setting
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals
attribute success or
failures to effort
rather than ability.
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2009).
Provide opportunities for internal
candidates to apply for and take on
higher leadership positions. Ensure
those who were not selected for
advancement are provided with
complete and accurate feedback on
reasons for not advancing and
guidance on areas where future
efforts can be demonstrated.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

143
internal
candidate.

Motivation,
learning and
performance are
enhanced when the
participant
perceives that the
anticipated
outcome will be
positive and fair
(Vroom, 1964) .

The
organization
ensures an
effective
process for
providing
timely and
ongoing
performance
feedback to
employees that
drives their
success.
Cultural
Setting
Learning,
motivation and
performance will
be enhanced if
participants have
clear, current and
challenging goals.
For feedback to be
effective, it should
be timely, concrete
(task focused) and
goal-focused
(Kluger & DeNisi,
1996).
Feedback that is
private, specific,
and timely
enhances
performance
(Shute, 2008).

Provide job aids and coaching to
members of the executive leadership
team on the requirements, process,
and examples of effective feedback.
Include the practice and evaluation
of giving, receiving, the impact, and
the experience of feedback in a
section of the 360-performance
management process for ELT
members. Apply, where appropriate,
the experience of giving and
receiving feedback as part of the
evaluation form that is used in
evaluating meetings, for example,
the Quarterly Business Reviews and
the Executive Strategy Sessions. On
a biannual basis, debrief with the
ELT on how the team is doing with
respect to providing feedback to
others and discuss what is working
and what is not. Identify areas of
improvement from this discussion
and drive for commitment and
evaluation by team members.

Organization Models. Members of the executive leadership team demonstrate their
support of leadership development by formalizing leadership competencies and a unified
approach to developing future leaders. Clarifying and explicitly stating the competencies that
leaders must demonstrate can motivate and direct learners toward the achievement of specific
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

144
learning goals (Pintrich, 2003). In addition to explicitly stating the competencies desired of a
leader, it is incumbent that executive leadership team members create an organizational
environment that fosters and encourages the desired behaviors (Tuckman, 2009). A third aspect
of this influence, Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggests, is to encourage future executive
leaders to learn and develop mastery of these competencies, attain and demonstrate proficiency,
and develop the ability of learners to know when to utilize and apply the competencies they have
acquired. The recommendation for this influence is in two parts: a) provide an agreed upon list
of required leadership competencies and describe how each support the vision of the
organization; and, b) provide the leadership development approach the organization will
implement to foster development and application of the stated leadership competencies by the
stakeholder group.
Researchers suggest that to determine if a leadership development program is successful,
it must meet the following straight-forward tests (Collins & Holton, 2004). The first test is to
evaluate if the program design and comprehensiveness support the achievement of the learning
and competency goals; second, implementation must address if the right experiences were
provided at the right time to the right people; and third, to determine and measure improvements
in leadership capability and the effectiveness of its impact on leader performance (Collins &
Holton, 2004; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). Researchers found that
over the past 25 years, executive development programs have continued to evolve and shift
towards internally developed and managed program designs (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, &
McKee, 2014; Wuestewald, 2016). Collins and Holton (2004) further suggest that those
organizations who did not implement a thorough executive development approach and design
were likely to report failing outcomes. Members of the executive leadership team must set clear
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

145
leadership competency and performance expectations for their direct reports, as well as a
comprehensive approach and guidance that will increase the program and learner success.
The organization equally favors hiring practices that create a balance between recruiting
external candidates and internal candidates identified through the succession planning process.
Organizations that grow and adapt are responsive to external influences, thus the need to ensure
that systems of accountability address equity, diversity and access of internal and external
leadership talent is critical (Lim, Haddad & Daugherty, 2013; Trenerry & Paradies, 2012). If
there is a perceived problem of favoring the recruitment of external candidates for executive
leadership positions, Schein (2004) suggests the presence of a strong organizational culture that
is influencing the organizational behavior in ways that are limiting the organization’s ability to
adapt and change. Schein (2004) goes on to suggest that leaders are more apt and willing to be
held accountable to solving issues framed as business problems of what is not working, rather
than changing the organization culture of bias for recruiting external candidates. Accountability
to making changes that balance the external and internal executive leadership place, will require
a scorecard be used for community accountability and as a way of detecting inequalities and
bringing them to stakeholder attention (Bensimon, 2007). The recommendation is to provide
consistent company-wide status reports on a quarterly basis detailing the placement and filling of
open leadership positions, the sourcing of placements, the expectations of the position, and the
unique capabilities the placed individual brings to the position.
Research suggests that companies who strategically align efforts in leadership
development and succession planning processes achieve greater success in the placement and
promotion of executive leadership talent than those without well designed and aligned efforts
(Conger, 2014; Groves, 2007). Furthermore, Groves (2007) identified evidence that
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

146
organizations who created and implemented opportunities for incumbents to play active roles in
the development of future executive leaders contributed unique content and motivational value to
the emerging leader. In a study of over 4,500 leaders and 900 organizations, researchers found
business performance significantly and positively influenced by organizations with well-
designed executive development and succession planning programs (Bernthal & Wellins, 2006).
Bernthal and Wellins (2006) also identified key failings in organizations on succession planning
efforts. They include lack of use of the succession plans they have in place, continuing to use
succession planning processes that are believed to be ineffective, and lack of active involvement
of the Chief Executive Officer and their direct reports in knowing the performance and readiness
for promotion. An additional variable that influences recruiting externally for the top-most
executive positions when they become vacant is Board of Director involvement in setting the
tone and requirement for leadership succession. Recruitment of external candidates for top
leadership positions during the early stages of the executive development and succession
planning efforts may be viewed as reasonable and justified, however, the persistence of external
recruitment may send mixed messages to those involved in the development and identification of
potential successors.
Organization Settings. Employees assume that when external candidates are hired for
leadership positions, they are justifiably more qualified than the internal candidate. Anderman
and Anderman (2009) suggest that individual learning and motivation is enhanced when they
attribute success or failure to effort rather than ability. In addition, Vroom (1964) found that
motivation, learning and performance were enhanced when participants perceive that the
anticipated outcome will be positive and fair. Critical to maintaining the motivation and
engagement of internal candidates who were unsuccessful in attaining promotion or placement
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

147
into an executive leadership position would be to ensure they are provided with complete and
accurate feedback on reasons for not advancing and guidance on areas where future efforts can
be demonstrated. The recommendation is the internal candidates are provided with a
comprehensive assessment and analysis of reasons for not advancing at this time, in addition to
identification and strategies for closing the gaps that were identified.
The stakeholder organization has stated the desire for all direct reports to actively
understand and engage in their development planning and implementation. Researchers found
that organizations that provide and support development planning tools increase the likelihood of
development success on the part of the learner (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014;
Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009; Wuestewald, 2016). Instilling the desire for direct reports to
exceed the development goals they set for themselves can be induced by forming development
initiatives that resulted in their ability, motivation, and the opportunity to demonstrate high
performance (Akrofi, 2016; Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Knowing that the research illustrates
when organizations align development efforts and succession outcomes, this roadmap provides
learners with the motivation and optimism for potential success (Conger, 2014; Groves, 2007).
Leadership must remain aware of and address those instances when direct reports believe they
have completed or surpassed their development goals, yet an external candidate is placed in the
position the internal was vying for. Thus, to mitigate a loss of motivation or belief in the
outcomes of leadership development, executive leadership must provide internal candidates with
the necessary information and tools to continue their development efforts.
The organization ensures an effective process for providing timely and ongoing
performance feedback to direct report stakeholders that drives their success. Their learning,
motivation, and performance will be enhanced if direct report stakeholders have clear, relevant,
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

148
and challenging goals and receive accurate feedback on their performance and progress. Kluger
and DeNisi (1996) identified that for feedback to be effective, it needs be timely, concrete, task
specific, and goal focused. In addition to specific and timely feedback, Shute (2008) found that
is given in private settings where discussion can be focused and uninterrupted, enhances the
quality of understanding and resulting learner performance. The recommendation is to provide
accurate, consistent, and actionable feedback to direct report stakeholders in a way that can
maximize understanding and commitment to actions as a result of the feedback.
Feedback on performance provides critical information and guidance to executives and
learners at all levels of an organization (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, & Keller, (2006);
Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). Mutual trust and discretion between
members of the executive leadership team and direct reports when providing feedback is
instrumental in developing an effective learning and development relationship (Ladegard &
Gjerde, 2014). When trust or privacy has been broken or violated, recovering and repairing the
trust relationship is incumbent upon the leader to initiate constructive steps that visibly
demonstrate earnest acknowledgment and support (Grover, Hasel, Manville, & Serrano-Archimi,
2014). Gaps in the accuracy in the performance feedback received from members of the
executive leadership team and Human Resources undermine the trust and confidence in the
performance feedback received and can impede the success of direct report leadership
development.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The implementation and evaluation approach for this study draws heavily from the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) which is based on the original
Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation work (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). While the
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

149
original four evaluation levels followed the sequence of reaction, learning, behavior, and results,
updates to the Kirkpatrick Model now reverse the approach and place greater importance to
evaluating achievement of the desired results, followed by behavior, learning, and reaction
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To be clear, the model does not suggest measuring each level
sequentially and independently, rather that measurement and evaluation must be view as a
systematic and integrated approach. Each level of evaluation provides an essential aspect that
when brought together and viewed holistically, are critical to understanding how the
implementation of a change intervention can be maximized. The starting point for the New
World Kirkpatrick Model is Level 4, and is focused on evaluating the achievement of
organization results. This is accomplished through the selection, measurement and evaluation of
leading indicators that suggest that critical behaviors are having a positive impact and are
contributing to the desired organizational results. Level 3 is focused on the behavioral
application of what was learned, as well as, the drivers and systems that reinforce the desired
behavior, monitor, encourage, and reward behavior change on the job. Levels 2 and 1 remain
critical elements in the evaluation system. Level 3 is clearly the linchpin in determining if the
desired organizational results will be achieved. Utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick model and
collectively involving all key stakeholders in the process of implementation, measurement, and
evaluation creates positive opportunities to increase the probability of success, the achievement
of desired results, and deeper knowledge and appreciation for implementing change in complex
organizational environments.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, skills, and organizational
influences that impact direct report leadership development and executive readiness. Leadership
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

150
development of the DRG is viewed as an investment to grow and scale the organization, develop
the bench strength of succession candidates to ensure long-term sustainability, and fulfillment of
the company’s mission. This study was formed with the establishment of an organizational goal
and subsequent stakeholder goal for the specific desired outcome of readying future leaders. The
ensuing research through literature review, data collection and analysis, identified eight key
influences, where potential solutions are positioned for implementation to close the gaps (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 23 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for the company. If the
internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the leadership learning and development
initiatives, and organizational support for members of the direct report, then the external
outcomes should also be realized.
Table 23
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased customer
satisfaction.
Increase in Net Promoter
score
Increase in customer
satisfaction survey results.
Quarterly customer satisfaction
surveys.
Increased customer
retention.
Increase in customer
retention.
Monthly monitoring and review
of Salesforce customer
information database.
Increased Brand
strength and reputation.
Net Promoter score.
Increase in brand awareness.
Quarterly customer satisfaction
surveys.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

151
Annual Brand Awareness survey.
Internal Outcomes
Increased availability
of leadership
candidates for
executive leadership
positions.
Number of individuals ready
to fill key leadership positions
and roles.
Semi-annual succession planning
review.
Tracking by the Human
Resources on direct report
readiness, promotions and new
assignments.
Increased stability and
continuity of
leadership.
Reduced time to fill key
executive leadership team
positions.
Reduced time to fill key
leadership of strategic project
initiatives.
Tracking by the Human
Resources on the number of
senior leadership open positions,
strategic assignments open, days
open and time to fill.
Annual climate and employee
engagement survey.
Increased employee
confidence/satisfaction.
Increase in climate survey and
Net Promoter scores.
Annual climate and employee
engagement survey.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the direct reports to the executive
leadership team completing their leadership development plans. The first critical behavior is that
each direct report must develop and produce clear leadership development goals, and thorough
leadership development plan for goal achievement. The second critical behavior is that direct
reports routinely self-reflect on their performance, progress, and accomplishments throughout the
process of implementing their leadership development plan and make course corrections. The
third critical behavior is that direct reports strive beyond only completing the development goal
by demonstrating deeper understanding and exceeding expectations. The specific metrics,
methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 24.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

152
Table 24
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Direct Reports
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Direct reports
produce clear
leadership
development goals,
and thorough
leadership
development plan
for goal
achievement.
Documentation of
measurable
leadership
development goals,
and detailed plans
that describe
timelines, check-in
points, stakeholder
involvement,
resources required,
and measurement
and evaluation
methods.
The leadership
development goals and
implementation plans that
direct reports produce will
be reviewed by their
learning and development
staff and the direct
report’s manager for
completeness and
alignment with the
organization’s goals.
Constant review
during the goal
development and
implementation
planning phase.
2. Direct reports
routinely self-
reflect on their
performance,
progress, and
accomplishments
throughout the
process of
implementing their
leadership
development plan
and make course
corrections.
Number of
documented
occurrences of direct
report self-reflection.

Utilize pulse survey to ask
questions on progress,
self-reflective practice,
course corrections needed
and made, and use of
feedback from peers and
others.
Monthly pulse
survey will be sent
to each direct
report.

Number of
documented
occurrences of direct
report self-reflection
that resulted in an
implementation
course correction.

Learning and
development staff will
utilize survey information
and meet with and
interview direct reports to
review progress, inquire,
and note the self-
reflective practices of
direct reports.
Constant review
with direct reports
throughout the
implementation of
their leadership
development
plans.
Number of
documented insights
produced as a result
of direct report self-
reflection.
Direct reports will be
required to maintain a
journal that will ask them
to document their
thoughts, learnings, and
reflections during the
implementation process.
Constant review
with direct reports
throughout the
implementation of
their leadership
development
plans.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

153
3. Direct reports
strive beyond only
completing the
development goal
by demonstrating
deeper
understanding and
exceeding
expectations.
Number of
documented
occurrences where
direct reports went
beyond goal
accomplishment and
exceeded
expectations.
Learning and
development staff and the
direct reports manager
will track and evaluate
occurrences where goal
attainment has surpassed
expectations.
Review and
evaluation at the
end of each
leadership
development goal
completed by
direct reports.

Required drivers. Direct reports will require the active support of additional
stakeholders to achieve their leadership development goals. Direct report managers, executive
leadership team members, learning and development staff, peers, and the organization play a
critical role by actively reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring the progress of each
direct report in learning and the demonstrating the critical behaviors. Highlighting the
behavioral mechanisms of reinforcement, encouragement, and monitoring are vital to
maintaining the motivation, drive, cultivation, and application of the critical behaviors. Table 25
shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of direct reports.
Table 25
Required Drivers to Support Direct Reports’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Training, examples, and job aids in
goal setting, measurement, evaluation,
and project and implementation
planning.
Initial session when
leadership development
goals and implementation
plans are developed.
Ongoing check-ins as
necessary.

1, 2, 3
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

154
Training and job aids in the practice of
reflection.
Initial session. 1, 2, 3
Job aids and checklists for monitoring
implementation planning.
Initial session. 1, 2, 3
Assigned peer “buddy system” for
ongoing feedback and support.
Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Peer group meetings to review
progress and provide feedback.
Monthly. 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Peer group review and collaboration
meetings to provide feedback, support,
and encouragement during the
implementation of their leadership
development goals.
Monthly. 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from manager. Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from learning
and development staff.
Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Performance incentive when error rate
decreases and time to complete
decreases.
Quarterly, or project-based. 1, 2, 3
Public acknowledgement at potential
forums such as Executive Leadership
staff meetings, All-Hands meetings,
OBRs, when key or all leadership
development goals have been
achieved.
Quarterly. 1, 2, 3

Monitoring
Learning and development staff
tracking progress to plan.
Quarterly. 1, 2, 3
Direct report and manager have one-
on-one to review implementation
progress, learnings, course corrections,
and needed support.
Monthly. 1, 2, 3
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

155
Direct report and learning and
development staff review
documentation from reflection job aid
and identify any changes or
adjustments to plan, approach, and/or
self-efficacy.
Monthly or as needed. 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. For direct reports to successfully complete their leadership
development plan and be ready to take on higher level roles and responsibilities, the company
will need to implement and monitor the drivers described and in the frequency stated in Table
25. The Executive Leadership Team meets every eight weeks for a five-hour Executive Strategy
Meeting (ESM). This meeting focuses on the review of key metrics and strategic initiatives
designed to improve the functioning and performance of the organization. It is recommended
that the drivers identified in Table 25 be formatted into a metrics dashboard for progress review,
discussion, and implementation planning of course corrections identified. Utilizing and
including this dashboard as part of the metrics and strategic initiatives review is familiar and
consistent with current operating practices of ESMs and supports Levels 3 and 4 of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, direct reports will
be able to do the following:
1. Describe the leadership competencies for their role, (Declarative).
2. Articulate the leadership development goals they will complete to close their
performance competency gaps, (Declarative).
3. Describe the phases and key steps they will follow in their leadership development
plan and when they will complete step one, (Procedural).
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

156
4. Plan and monitor their work and progress in improving the leadership competencies
and resulting performance, (Motivation).
5. Indicate confidence that they can successfully implement and achieve the outcomes
of their leadership development plans, (Confidence).
6. Know how to use feedback as a valuable source of information and how to use it as
guidance, (Motivation, Formative Feedback, Goal Setting).
7. Recognize their role and responsibility in developing their promotion or succession
readiness, and how to develop their capabilities beyond expectations,
(Accountability).
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section, will be achieved through a
leadership development program designed as a blended model of synchronous and asynchronous
learning, assessment, job aids, application exercises via online and in-person instruction.
The program will be comprised of three distinct, yet complementary, tracks. Track one
will focus on the direct report learning, track two is the development of organization
infrastructure processes and tools that support leadership development initiatives, and track three
focusing on the role and responsibilities of executive leadership team members in supporting and
motivating the leadership capabilities of their direct reports.
The direct report learning track, track one, will utilize a blended model of asynchronous
and synchronous learning and will include the following topical areas: assessment of current
knowledge areas; articulation of professional and career goals; identification of career and
promotional options; a gap analysis completed by the direct report with feedback assessment
from key stakeholders; general learning regarding core leadership competencies; individualized
research and development of specific knowledge areas, project and implementation planning;
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

157
stakeholder support; measurement and evaluation; early warning systems and planning; and,
reward and celebration. This track will consist of topic focused online development sessions
approximately 90 minutes in length, additional webinars and job aids available to support
learning and application, and individualized follow up sessions of approximately 30 minutes
with learning and development staff, and peers for use as sounding boards, peer review, and
problem solving.
Track two includes the development of the infrastructure processes of communication
and/or articulation of leadership competencies, the leadership development framework,
communication of position and strategic assignment openings, and performance feedback
systems. Changes and improvements in this area will require the involvement of key functional
stakeholders, e.g., information technology, human resources, staffing, and the executive
leadership team to determine the goals and objectives of these various tools and systems, the
expectations and design requirements for the tools and systems, timelines, and funding and
resources needed to launch development and implementation activities.
Track three is focused on the responsibilities and desired behaviors of executive
leadership team members in support of the development efforts of their direct reports. Much like
track one, learning and development initiatives for the executive leadership team will follow a
similar model of a blended model of asynchronous and synchronous learning and will include the
following topical areas: how to monitor progress and completing check-ins with direct report
learners; coaching and feedback skills; motivation and reinforcement strategies; and rewards and
recognition.
Components of learning. An important aspect of a leadership development plan is to
have in place a designed approach that verifies that the desired learning occurred. The
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

158
components of Level 2 include the evaluation of knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evaluating declarative knowledge requires
learners to understand program content, while procedural skill requires the learner to
demonstrate not just the knowledge of program content but how to put their new knowledge into
practice; to apply what was learned. Evaluating attitude is often accomplished through
observation and discussion, and determined if the learner values that they have learned enough
and are willing to apply back on the job. Evaluating the level of confidence and commitment is
determining the degree to which the learner is prepared, ready, and steadfast in their commitment
to applying what they have learned into their work environment. Confidence and commitment
requires practice, feedback, and preparation on the learner's part, so that risk and uncertainty are
reduced, and that achievement of desired outcomes is increased. Level 2 evaluation is formative
in nature and allows for the constant sensing and assessment of information and interactions so
that adjustments and corrections can be made before, during, and after instruction. Table 26 lists
the evaluation methods, timing and frequency for each component.
Table 26
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. In the asynchronous portions of
the session during and after video
demonstrations or lectures.
Knowledge checks using group polling and
discussion.
In the asynchronous portions of
the session during and after video
demonstrations or lectures.
Knowledge checks through discussions, individual
and small group activities.
Periodically during the
asynchronous portions of the
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

159
session and documented using
observation notes.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the asynchronous portions of the session
using scenarios with multiple-choice items.
In the asynchronous portions of a
session at the end of each
module/lesson/course.
During the asynchronous portions of the session
using scenarios or case study situations using group
polling and discussion.
In the asynchronous portions of a
session at the end of each
module/lesson/course.
Demonstration in groups and individually of using
the job aids to successfully perform the skills.
During the sessions.
Quality and clarity of feedback from peers during
group sharing.
During the sessions.
Individual application of the skills with the planning
and implementation aspects of their development
plans.
During and at the end of the
course.
Reflection pre- and post-assessment survey asking
participants about their level of proficiency before
and after the course.
At the end of the workshop.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’ statements
and actions demonstrating that they see the benefit of
what they are learning and its application on the job.
During the course.
Group discussions of the value of what they are
learning, how application can help them as leaders, as
peers in support of each other, and as an organization.
Second half of the course.
Reflection pre- and post-assessment survey asking
participants about their level of proficiency before
and after the course.
At the end of the course.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using scaled items. Following each
module/lesson/course in the
asynchronous portions of the
course.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

160
Discussions following practice and feedback. Throughout the course.
Retrospective pre- and post-assessment item. After the course.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the course.
Create and/or integrate into individual leadership
development plan.
During the course.
Follow up with direct reports, track application
learning.
Monthly.

Level 1: Reaction
The last level of measurement and evaluation focuses on the reaction of participants
during the learning process and if their experience during the course is satisfying, engaging, and
relevant to the work they do in the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the New
World Kirkpatrick Model, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) that Level 1 evaluation can and
should be completed efficiently and frequently to ensure that instruction and delivery are well
received and on track. Formative evaluation allows for correction during course through pulse
checks and debriefs, and shared observations. Summative evaluations are an additional means to
gather reaction information, however they are usually in the form of surveys completed at the
end of a course and may not be as immediately beneficial to the current learner as formative
information. Efficient use of Level 1 evaluation of participant engagement, the relevance and
utility of the information, and participant satisfaction is highly useful in making adjustments in
content and process delivery, and is critical in setting the right tone and environment for
participant knowledge and skill acquisition. Table 27 illustrates the methods and frequency of
measuring Level 1 reactions.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

161
Table 27
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Check-in by instructor/facilitator. Ongoing at the beginning, during, and at
the end of each session. Use strategically.
Completion of online modules/lessons/units. Ongoing during asynchronous portion of
the course.
Completion of assignments individual/group Ongoing during asynchronous portion of
the course.
Observation by instructor/facilitator. During the workshop.
Observation by key stakeholders. During the workshop.
Attendance. During the workshop.
Participation. During the workshop.
Data analytics in the learning management
system.
Ongoing during asynchronous portion of
the course.
Course evaluation. Two weeks after the course.
Relevance
Brief pulse check-in with participants using
questions and polling.
Periodically throughout synchronous
learning.
Course application and evaluation. Two weeks after the course.
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse check-in with participants to
identify any concerns, issues, or suggestions
to improve content, environment, and
satisfaction.
Ongoing at the beginning, during, and at
the end of each session. Use strategically.

Course evaluation with specific “customer
satisfaction” related questions.
Two weeks after the course.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

162
Evaluation Tools
Continuous assessment will be an oversight feature of this leadership development
program. Participant progress tracking will be managed through the learning management
system (LMS). Analytic data will be collected to track data regarding the start, duration, and
completion of modules and units by the participants throughout the asynchronous elements of the
program. Data through this tracking and analysis process will be used to determine Level 1
participant engagement and progress through completion of course material. Upon completion
of asynchronous modules, participants will have the opportunity to complete an online post-
training evaluation questionnaire. These Level 1 questionnaires are designed to solicit
participant experience of the relevance of course materials and instruction to their current
positions, engagement and interest in program content, and overall satisfaction with the online
learning experience. Level 2 learning will be assessed during the process of instruction and
learning through group chat forums and observation, in addition to post-training evaluations.
Evaluations conducted upon completion of modules will attempt to measure acquisition of
content knowledge and skills, participant attitude regarding the value and utility of what was
learned, their beliefs of the proficiency and competency they have gained, and their level of
confidence and commitment to taking what they have learned and applying it back on the job.
Synchronous online sessions offer the opportunity for direct engagement with
participants. During synchronous sessions, the instructor can monitor and note attendance,
observe the involvement and engagement of participants, and interact in ways to inquire whether
the content is relevant to the learners, barriers to learning, modifications that should be made,
and the level of satisfaction participants are experiencing. In addition, Level 2 assessment can be
made directly with participants to gain insight into their level of knowledge, skill, and procedural
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

163
learning through discussion, question and answer, activities, and post-session reviews or surveys.
Critical to Level 2 assessment is understanding the attitudes learners possess and demonstrate, to
understand their perception of value of what they are learning. The window to better
understanding the participants attitude can be accomplished through observing their actions, and
listening closely to participant statements and descriptions of perceived value of the training.
Lastly, participant confidence in having the capability to apply what they have learned, and their
level of commitment to put their new knowledge and skills into practice back on the job will be
evaluated in discussion with participants following practice scenarios and peer feedback. As
with Level 1, Level 2 will also be a part of all post-session reviews or surveys. Appendix F is an
example of possible Level 1 and 2 review and survey items that can be included in post
asynchronous or synchronous session assessments.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The current thinking for the
design of the leadership development program is comprised of three distinct tracks. Six calendar
weeks after the completion of a given track, the Learning and Development function will
administer a survey to all participants in that track a follow-up survey to complete. Participants
will know of the upcoming schedule well ahead of time so there will be no surprises. The survey
will contain scaled and open-ended items following the Kirkpatrick Blended Evaluation
approach (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To gain further retrospective understanding the
impact of the training, the survey will be administered a second time, three months after the first
survey, to learn participants’ views on training relevance and satisfaction (Level 1), durability of
the knowledge and skills learned (Level 2), application of the knowledge and skills learned into
their work environments (Level 3), and the degree to which application of what they learned has
influenced the achievement of stakeholder outcomes and supported the achievement of
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

164
organizational goals. Appendix F is an example of the Blended Evaluation instrument that can
be used to assess movement of all four Kirkpatrick levels. This evaluation instrument attempts
to connect and tie back to the leading indicators, required drivers and critical behaviors listed in
previous Tables 25, 26, and 27.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Maintaining momentum of implementation will require progress updates and engagement
of the company’s executive leadership team. The executive leadership team has demonstrated
the discipline to monitor, review, and develop corrective actions to company performance on a
quarterly basis, thus, including a leadership development initiative performance dashboard that
provides a summary of Level 4 leading indicators and Level 3 critical behaviors will be
developed. The dashboard will provide information on the status, progress, and
accomplishments on a quarterly basis, as well as, opportunities for executive leadership team
discussion on strategies to drive accountability, reward achievement, and potential refinements to
continuously improve and fine tune the initiative. Examples of possible performance indicators
that can be included in the leadership development dashboard are shown on Table 28 below.
Table 28
Example of Possible Leadership Development Dashboard Performance Indicators
Performance
Indicator
Metric(s)
Frequency Dashboard
Representation
Customer
satisfaction.
Increase in Net
Promoter score.
Increase in customer
satisfaction survey
items.
Quarterly customer
satisfaction surveys.
Graph of quarter over
quarter and show
comparisons.
Leadership Number of Quarterly tracking on Graph of quarter over
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

165
candidates ready
for promotion
and/or broader
strategic initiative
responsibilities.
individuals ready to
fill key leadership
positions and/or
assume broader
strategic initiative
responsibilities.
direct report readiness
for promotion and
strategic assignments.
quarter and show
comparisons.
Employee
confidence/
satisfaction.
Increase in employee
confidence/
satisfaction climate
survey items.

Increase in Net
Promoter scores.
A. Annual climate
and employee
engagement
survey.

B. Quarterly
employee net
promoter and
satisfaction pulse-
checks.
A. Graph of year
over year results.

B. Graph of quarter
over quarter and
show
comparisons.
Direct reports
achievement
and/or exceeding
expectations
beyond stated
development goal.
Number of
documented
occurrences where
direct reports went
beyond goal
accomplishment and
exceeded
expectations.
Quarterly tracking and
evaluation of
occurrences where
goal attainment has
surpassed
expectations.
Graph of quarter
over quarter and
show comparisons.

Graphical examples (Figure 47) of possible Level 4 metrics for external and internal
outcomes can be used to monitor changes in performance indicators and expected results.
Similar graphs and data for Levels 3, 2, and 1 can be added to the executive leadership team
quarterly review dashboard. Graphical and numerical dashboards as a tool rarely provide direct
answers as to why measures go up or down, however they do suggest areas for discussion and
exploration. Quarterly data reporting and graphical representations such as the examples above
can provide executive leadership team members targeted areas for review, monitoring, and
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

166
focused discussion on possible actions that can be taken to maintain steady progress and/or
develop potential solutions to lagging indicators.
Figure 47. Examples of possible Level 4 metrics of external and internal outcome

Chapter Summary
The framework and approach for developing this study’s recommended solutions,
implementation strategies, measurement approach, and evaluation plan was Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s’ (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model. The organizational outcome focus of the
New World Kirkpatrick Model places the emphasis on achievement of organizational goals front
and center, however, there remains three Levels of evaluation – behavioral application, learning,
and satisfaction. These remain important evaluation points from a systemic, systematic, and
integrative approach to measurement and evaluation. Implementation of strategic and complex
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

167
initiatives that are focused to improve organizational performance and functioning require this
type of holistic approach to evaluation; in addition, it requires the flexibility for changes and
course corrections along that way which are best identified through ongoing formative data
collection during and post implementation. The leadership development learning requisite by the
stakeholders of focus of this study will benefit from thoughtful implementation and from the
real-time learning and course correction that can be harvested using the New World Kirkpatrick
Model, and ultimately be known as an organization improvement that exceeded expectations.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Foundational to this evaluation study were Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis
Framework and the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model. The Gap Analysis
approach provided a level of discipline throughout the study, from conducting the literature
review, designing the data gathering methodology, analyzing the results, to identifying the gaps
for improvement and change. Without the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, the stakeholder
goal could have been viewed as straight forward, however, through the examination lens of
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences, the problem at hand became clearly
understood and with that, a heightened appreciation for the complexity of change. The strength
of gap analysis model is the systematic approach to reveal root causes through a sequence of
data-driven analysis, the development of evidence to determine influence gaps, and ultimately
solutions. However, a weakness in this approach may be a reluctance to implement changes and
solutions that are often called, “low hanging fruit” in deference to the completion of the study.
The New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided an excellent segue
from validated gap to recommendation development, implementation and evaluation. Similar to
the Gap Analysis Framework, the New World Model is systematic and disciplined in the steps to
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

168
be completed and the levels of evaluation to be addressed. The strength of this approach lies in
the comprehensiveness of the model and the attention to detail in implementation and evaluation.
The weakness may be the level of comprehensiveness, the number of actions to be taken, the
visual complexity of implementation and evaluation plans may suggest an expenditure of time
that could overwhelm decision makers in a complex organization system.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with nearly all forms of research, there are limitations in this study the researcher
would like to describe. The first limitation to clarify were that the measurement tools developed
for this study, interview protocol and survey design, were developed specifically for this study.
While both instruments were pilot tested with a comparable sample before administering them to
the sample population in the organization under study, neither instrument had been rigorously
field tested. Furthermore, administration of these two data gathering instruments were used only
once in this study, thus there were no longitudinal comparisons that could be claimed. The
second limitation to highlight was that all interview and survey data were self-reported data.
There could possibility have been cases of selective memory, attribution, and/or exaggeration of
experiences or outcomes that could contain these sources of potential bias.
In addition to the limitations described above, this research study has a few delimitations.
Considering the uniqueness and niche of this organization and the high-tech industry segment it
is a member of, generalizability to other high-tech organizations may not be achievable. This
same generalizability issue may exist if attempts were made to compare or apply findings to
comparable stakeholder groups in other organizations where titles or hierarchal positions would
appear to be commensurate. The researcher may be creating an additional delimitation in the
study’s findings with the focus on only one stakeholder group being the primary target of
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

169
investigation in evaluating efforts to develop the next generation of organization leaders. There
may be other stakeholder groups that could provide additional information and relevant
experience, however, by design, they are viewed as outside the scope of this current study.
Future Research
Expanding the discussion on this study’s research limitations, opens the door to several
opportunities for future research. Efforts and initiatives in leadership development have long
been studied and no one approach, program, or method has resulted in one solution answer to
this problem of practice. While it is unlikely that one way or method will prove to be the most
successful approach or become the recognized gold standard to leadership development, there is
additional research, from this investigator’s perspective, that may yield beneficial hints to
successfully develop future leaders. Maintaining the current study focus of direct report group to
the executive team development as a source of the next generation of leaders, there are three
possible options of future research that may provide useful and beneficial insight into the
practice of leadership development.
Option One
For the advantage of the current organization, The Company, and stakeholder group of
this study, there may be potential benefits to the research on leadership development from a
systems theory perspective (Senge, 1990). Meaning, including additional stakeholders into the
data gathering and problem-solving process by, “getting the whole system in the room”
(Weisbord, Weisbord, & Janoff, 2000). This current study focused on the direct involvement
and data gathering from one stakeholder group, the direct report group to the executive
leadership team. However, a more complete picture of the challenges and potential solutions in
terms of developing the next generation of leaders for this organization by including other vested
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

170
stakeholders, e.g., executive team members, learning and development staff, Human Resources,
and the direct reports to the stakeholder direct reports. The goals of the study could remain
constant, however, interview protocols, survey questions, documentation would change to tease
out the various stakeholder perspective and experience.
Option Two
Using the same stakeholder designation and maintaining the focus of leadership
development to develop the next generation of leaders, but completing the research at multiple
sites. The same general approach, methodology, and data gathering tools could be used to
complete this study across multiple high-tech organizations. Maintaining the same general
approach and keeping study sites within the same industry may add appeal to potential
participant sites, as well as, the potential for transferability. There are numerous possible study
sites in the California high technology community, and variety in types of high-tech companies
could be selected from the following: software development, hardware development and
manufacturing, semiconductor, social media, consumer, enterprise, services, or entertainment.
Other categorizations may include the number of years in existence, market position, publically
traded, private, private equity funded, venture-funded, market capitalization, revenue, size of
organization in terms of employee count, degree of globalization, and so forth. While is
approach does not address the larger systems view described in Option One, this option does
broaden the pool of data and potential insight across multiple organizations in the high-tech
industry and may identify leadership development challenges and opportunities specific to the
cadre of direct report stakeholder groups.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

171
Option Three
This option would combine options one and two. The focus would remain direct reports
to executive team members as a primary stakeholder group, however the study would broaden to
include stakeholder participant groups as described in option one, and broaden comparison high-
tech industry groups as described in option two. This option would by far be the most complex
and demanding in terms of resources, personnel, and cost. However, the findings could prove
highly insightful and valuable to organizations in development of future leaders.
Option Four
Option four holds particular interest to the researcher due to a segment of client
engagements where the leader of the venture or private equity funded organization is a first-time
CEO. Oftentimes, these first-time CEOs are the founders of a new product or technology and
demonstrate the ability to secure financial support, not only because of the ideas they possess,
but also because of the passion they exhibit. In these cases where the venture investment
community provides an initial funding round to founders who have no or limited experience in
managing, leading, or building fully functioning complex organizations, these new “CEOs” are
on a parallel path of learning and developing, while developing the individuals and organizations
they are now accountable to lead. The focus of this research option would specifically examine
the learning and development path of first-time CEOs in venture funded technology companies,
identify recommendations that would accelerate their organizational and leadership capabilities,
while at the same time building a high-performance organization and leadership efficacy of those
they now lead.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

172
Option Five
This fifth research option would focus specifically on how high technology organizations
develop women into executive leadership positions. Researchers have found positive impacts on
the performance of an organization where there is increased gender diversity in the composition
of the company’s Board of Directors (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Terjesen, Couto, &
Francisco, 2016). However, researchers have also found that challenges for women entering
science and technology careers, as well as, progressing into executive leadership positions
(Clark-Blickenstaff, 2005; Hill, Corbett, & St Rose, 2010). The speed of organization growth
and development of venture-funded organizations provides parallel opportunities for the
development of women to fill needed and critical executive leadership roles. The focus of this
last research option would examine how venture funded technology companies recruit and
develop women to assume executive leadership positions, identify current practices in the field
that are producing positive results, and develop recommendations that will improve and advance
gender diversity of executive technology and engineering leadership roles.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand how one fast growing pre-IPO high-tech company
was tackling the task of developing its future leaders. This organization was founded and is
currently led by two of the most admired innovators in its industry, and with all the industry,
product, market, and financial success, they are faced with the dilemma of organizational growth
outpacing the availability of existing and ready leadership talent. While the need, desire, and
responsibility for developing leaders that are prepared and ready to take on larger roles,
positions, and responsibilities at higher and more complex organizational levels is not a new
challenge, it was for this organization and its founders. Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

173
Framework was essential to developing a greater and more precise understanding of three
significant narratives about this unique organization: one, the strengths that have propelled this
organization into high performance; two, the magnitude of the organization and leadership
challenges it will need to confront continues to grow; and, three, solving the gaps now named
that are preventing the attainment of desired goals. On narrative one, The Company has hired
and continues to hire extraordinarily talented and capable individuals. The development focus
has thus far been focused on the intense development of products, services, and sales; all
outward facing with the customer and market in mind. Not all the direct reports to the executive
team aspire to grow and expand their leadership roles, however for those that do, it is critical to
focus inward to place as much value on developing the needed leadership talent to support the
continued growth and success of the organization. Furthermore, this process has opened a
dialogue on understanding the work experience of being a Direct Report stakeholder and for
those who have no aspiration for a continued or expanded leadership role, thoughtful
consideration is required on how to stabilize or modify current roles. On narrative two, the
magnitude of the challenges expands at a logarithmic rate. There is a term in software
development termed, “Technical debt”. This term was first coined by Ward Cunningham, a
software developer who is known for developing the first wiki. He described technical debt in
the following way:
Shipping first-time code is like going into debt. A little debt speeds development so long
as it is paid back promptly with a rewrite. Objects make the cost of this transaction
tolerable. The danger occurs when the debt is not repaid. Every minute spent on not-
quite-right code counts as interest on that debt. Entire engineering organizations can be
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

174
brought to a stand-still under the debt load of an unconsolidated implementation, object-
oriented or otherwise (Rubin, 2012).
The critical tech debt that The Company is accumulating is leadership. On narrative three, the
executive leadership team and company founders now have a series of recommended solutions
for their consideration and implementation. These recommended solutions can begin to reduce
the leadership tech debt and create the structure for developing and producing leaders to guide
and inspire continued success.

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

175
References
2016 Training Industry Report. (2017, February 03). Retrieved May 05, 2017, from
https://trainingmag.com/trgmag-article/2o16-training-industry-report
Akrofi, S. (2016). Evaluating the effects of executive learning and development on
organisational performance: implications for developing senior manager and executive
capabilities. International Journal of Training and Development.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard business review, 69(3).
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire
for control. Journal of Applied psychology, 81(2), 199.
Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-
analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental
studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764-784.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Banerjee, S., & Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (Eds.). (2014). Chaos, complexity and leadership 2012. Springer.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ... &
Kern, J. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.
Bersin, J. (2014, June 09). Spending on Corporate Training Soars: Employee Capabilities Now A
Priority. Retrieved May 05, 2017, from
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

176
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/02/04/the-recovery-arrives-corporate-
training-spend-skyrockets/
Bernthal, P., & Wellins, R. (2006). Trends in leader development and succession. People and
Strategy, 29(2), 31.
Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006).
Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(6), 577-594. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.003
Bidwell, M., & Keller, J. R. (2014). Within or without? How firms combine internal and external
labor markets to fill jobs. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1035-1055.
Biech, E. (2008). ASTD handbook for workplace learning professionals. American Society for
Training and Development.
Binswanger, H. (1991). Volition as cognitive self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 154-178.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Handbook
I, cognitive domain. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of
educational goals.
Buoziute-Rafanaviciene, S., Pudziene, A., & Turauskas, L. (2015). Relation between the
attributes of executive successor and organizational performance. Engineering
Economics, 62(2). Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Cacioppe, R. (1998) ‘An integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership
development programs’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(1), pp.
44–53. doi: 10.1108/01437739810368820.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

177
Calori, R., Johnson, G., & Sarnin, P. (1994). Ceos’ cognitive maps and the scope of the
organization. Strategic Management Journal, 15(6), 437–457.
http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150603
Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial
performance. Journal of business ethics, 83(3), 435-451.
Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student
motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1-6.
Charan, R., Carey, D., & Useem, M. (2014). Boards that lead. The European Business Review
(April 1, 2014). Available at: http://www.europeanbusinessreview. com.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Church, A. H., Rotolo, C. T., Ginther, N. M., & Levine, R. (2015). How are top companies
designing and managing their high-potential programs? A follow-up talent management
benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67(1), 17.
Clarke, T. (2014). Dangerous frontiers in corporate governance. Journal of Management and
Organization, 20(3), 268.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clark Blickenstaff*, J. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender
filter? Gender and education, 17(4), 369-386.
Cohan, J. A. (2002). " I didn't know" and" I was only doing my job": Has corporate governance
careened out of control? A case study of Enron's information myopia. Journal of
Business Ethics, 40(3), 275-299.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

178
Cohn, J. M., Khurana, R., & Reeves, L. (2005). Growing talent as if your business depended on
it. Harvard business review, 83(10), 62.
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313.
Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development
programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human resource development
quarterly, 15(2), 217-248.
Conger, J. A. (2014). Addressing the organizational barriers to developing global leadership
talent. Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), 198-204.
Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies develop the
next generation.
Conger, J. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline. Harvard business
review, 81(12), 76-85.
Conger, J. A., & Nadler, D. A. (2004). When CEOs step up to fail. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 45(3), 50.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. (2011). Best practices for
mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda (Maryland): National Institutes
of Health, 2094-2103.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Cengage
learning.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

179
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the "new" organizational forms?
An editorial essay. Organization science, i-vi.
Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360-373.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: can 360-degree appraisals be
improved? The Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129-139.
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: the role of
developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859.
Dikolli, S. S., Mayew, W. J., & Nanda, D. (2014). CEO tenure and the performance-turnover
relation. Review of Accounting Studies, 19(1), 281-327.
Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., ... & Yammarino, F.
J. (2014). A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 6-35.
Drucker, P. F. (1997). Toward the new organization. Leader to Leader, 1997(3), 6-8.
Drucker, P. F. (2004). What Makes an Effective Executive. Harvard business review, 1.
Eccles, J. (2009). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

180
Favaro, K., Karlsson, P., & Neilson, G. (2011). CEO succession report: 12th annual global CEO
succession study. Booz & Company.
Favaro, K., Karlsson, P., & Neilson, G. L. (2011). CEO succession 2010: The four types of
CEOs. Strategy+ Business, 63, 39-50.
Fink, A. (2012). How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide: A Step-by-Step Guide. Sage
Publications.
George, B., & McLean, A. (2007). Why leaders lose their way. Strategy & leadership, 35(3), 4-
11.
Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard business review, 82(1), 82-91.
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A longitudinal
study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and expectations, and their children's
school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547-582.
Gotcheva, N., Watts, G., & Oedewald, P. (2013). Developing smart and safe organizations: an
evolutionary approach. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(1), 83-97.
Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching enhances goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being: A randomised controlled study. The journal of
positive psychology, 4(5), 396-407.
Grover, S. L., Hasel, M. C., Manville, C., & Serrano-Archimi, C. (2014). Follower reactions to
leader trust violations: A grounded theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and
recovery process. European Management Journal, 32(5), 689-702.
Groves, K. S. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best
practices. Journal of management development, 26(3), 239-260.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

181
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.007
Haskins, M. E., & Shaffer, G. R. (2009). Executive development: Planning for "key
experiences". Development and Learning in Organizations: An International
Journal, 23(3), 9-13. doi:10.1108/14777280910951540
Helsing, D., & Howell, A. (2014). Understanding leadership from the inside out: Assessing
leadership potential using constructive-developmental theory. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 23(2), 186-204. doi:10.1177/1056492613500717
Henderson, A. D., Miller, D., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). How quickly do CEOs become
obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 27(5), 447–460. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.524
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women. 1111
Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness
and personality. American psychologist, 49(6), 493.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of general
psychology, 9(2), 169.
Hooijberg, R., & Lane, N. (2016). How Boards Botch CEO Succession. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 57(4), 14.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

182
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (1958). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels (Rev. ed. 2006). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a
double-edged sword. Current directions in psychological science, 7(3), 67-72.
Knudson, L. (2014). Developing internal talent necessary to fill perioperative leadership roles.
Komanduri, S., Shay, R., Kelley, P. G., Mazurek, M. L., Bauer, L., Christin, N., ... & Egelman,
S. (2011, May). Of passwords and people: measuring the effect of password-composition
policies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 2595-2604). ACM.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kurpius, S. E. R., & Stafford, M. E. (2005). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly guide.
Sage.
Ladegard, G., & Gjerde, S. (2014). Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in
subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership
development tool. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 631-646.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 212-247.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting
research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290-300.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

183
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 485-516.
Lease, D. R. (2006). From Great to Ghastly: How Toxic Organizational Cultures Poison
Companies, The Rise and Fall of Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, and Tyco
International. Academy of Business Education, April, 6(7).
Leskiw, S. L., & Singh, P. (2007). Leadership development: learning from best
practices. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 444-464.
Lim, N., Haddad, A., & Daugherty, L. (2013). Implementation of the DOD diversity and
inclusion strategic plan: A framework for change through accountability. RAND
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INST SANTA MONICA CA.
Lint, J. R. (2017, April 30). United Airlines Incident Provides Management Case Studies for
Business Schools. Retrieved May 08, 2017, from
https://www.lintcenter.org/2017/04/united-airlines/
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal
commitment. Academy of management review, 13(1), 23-39.
Martin, K. J., & McConnell, J. J. (1991). Corporate performance, corporate takeovers, and
management turnover. The Journal of Finance, 46(2), 671-687.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of applied psychology, 84(1), 123.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Sage.
Mento, A. J., & Jones, R. M. (2013). Facilitating executive learning: Development and
application of a conceptual model. Journal of Executive Education, 1(2), 5.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

184
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Messersmith, J. G., Lee, J. Y., Guthrie, J. P., & Ji, Y. Y. (2013). Turnover at the top: Executive
team departures and firm performance. Organization Science, 25(3), 776-793.
Moss, S. A., Dowling, N., & Callanan, J. (2009). Towards an integrated model of leadership and
self-regulation. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 162-176.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.005
Muff, K. (2012). Are business schools doing their job? Journal of Management Development,
31(7), 648-662.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage.
Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership
model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4),
533-547.
Packard, T., & Jones, L. (2015). An outcomes evaluation of a leadership development
initiative. Journal of Management Development, 34(2), 153-168.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3),
176-194.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Park, T. Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 268.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

185
Peters, F. S., & Wagner, A. F. (2014). The executive turnover risk premium. The Journal of
Finance, 69(4), 1529-1563.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run
Companies, Harper & Row. New York.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/6
14359562?accountid=14749
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Quinones, D., & Leon, A. (2016). What are the Factors that Most Impact an Organization's
Effectiveness in Identifying, Developing, and Utilizing Successors for Leadership
Positions?
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide
research. Sage Publications.
Ross, C. M., Robinson, L., & Francis-Smythe, J. (2015). The contribution of academic
scholarship to management development. Journal of Management Development, 34(3),
286-298.
Ross, S. (2014). A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership
development and action-steps to promote personal leadership development. Journal of
Management Development, 33(4), 299-323. doi:10.1108/JMD-11-2012-0147
Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular Agile process.
Addison-Wesley.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

186
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training
and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological science in the
public interest, 13(2), 74-101.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Seibert, K. W., Hall, D. T., & Kram, K. E. (1995). Strengthening the weak link in strategic
executive development: integrating individual development and global business
strategy. Human Resource Management, 34(4), 549.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. Teachers college press.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New
York: Currency Doubleday.
Shute, Valerie J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1),
153-189.
Spillane, J. P. (2005, June). Distributed leadership. In The educational forum (Vol. 69, No. 2, pp.
143-150). Taylor & Francis Group.
Sridharan, U. V., Dickes, L., & Royce Caines, W. (2002). The social impact of business failure:
Enron. American Journal of Business, 17(2), 11-22.
Stoddard, N., & Wyckoff, C. (2008). The costs of CEO failure. Chief Executive, 237, 66-70.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

187
Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological bulletin, 47(1),
1.
Terjesen, S., Couto, E. B., & Francisco, P. M. (2016). Does the presence of independent and
female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board
diversity. Journal of Management & Governance, 20(3), 447-483.
Thomas, C. W. (2002). The rise and fall of Enron. Journal of Accountancy, 193(4), 41.
Trenerry, B., & Paradies, Y. (2012). Organizational assessment: an overlooked approach to
managing diversity and addressing racism in the workplace. Journal of Diversity
Management (Online), 7(1), 11.
VandenBos, G. R. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. Handbook of Competence and Motivation, 73-84.
Weisbord, M. R., Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2000). Future search: An action guide to finding
common ground in organizations and communities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Williamson, O. E., Wachter, M. L., & Harris, J. E. 1975. Understanding the employment
relation: The analysis of idiosyncratic exchange. Bell Journal of Economics, 6: 250–278.
Wuestewald, T., PhD. (2016). Adult learning in executive development programs. Adult
Learning, 27(2), 68-75.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/1045159515602256
Yardibi, N. (2014). Ethics and leadership. Chaos, complexity and leadership 2012 (pp. 333-337)
Springer.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

188
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

189
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT PROTOCOL
Dear ___________:
Thank you for expressing your willingness to participate in sharing your experience and
views on the topic of leadership development at ___________. My name is Laurence Akiyoshi
and I am conducting research into how organizations develop their next generation of leaders
under the guidance and direction of Dr. Melora Sundt from the Rossier School of Education at
University of Southern California. This research study is foundational to my dissertation in
exploring how organizations approach leadership development and the how individuals involved
experience the development process.
If you agree to participate in this research study, please complete the online survey found
on the following link: _____. Please understand that all information will be maintained on an
confidential basis. All information obtained during this study will be securely maintained to
assure confidentiality and anonymity, and upon completion of this study all data will be
destroyed. Analysis and reporting of any data will be done so in such a way that the identity of
study participants cannot and will not be identifiable. Participation in this study is voluntary and
at any time you can withdraw your involvement.
For any questions or concerns that you might have, please call me directly at ###.###.###
or email me at lakiyosh@usc.edu at the University of Southern California.
If you have no additional questions and would like to proceed in completing the online
survey, please begin on the following link listed above.
Thank you for your participation.
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

190
APPENDIX B
SURVEY ITEMS
The Company Survey on Leadership Development
Welcome to the Leadership Development at The Company research study!

In advance, thank you for being willing to share your experience and views on the topic of
leadership development at The Company. As part of my dissertation research at the Rossier
School of Education at University of Southern California, this survey is meant to better
understand how organizations develop and scale their next generation of executive leaders.

You will be presented with a series of questions about leadership development and asked to
provide your response to each of the questions. The survey should take you approximately 10
minutes to complete. Please be assured that all your responses will remain anonymous and that
analysis of individual data into summary reports will prevent any individual responses from
being traced to an individual respondent. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You
have the right to withdraw at any point during the survey, for any reason, and without prejudice.
If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have concerns or
suggestions and want to talk to someone other than the researchers about the study, please call
the University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board at: 213-821-
5272 or email upirb@usc.edu and reference IRB #UP-17-00470.

By clicking the "consent" button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is
voluntary and that you are aware you may choose to end your participation in this survey at any
time and for any reason.

Lastly, as part of this research process, I will also be conducting individual interviews to gain a
deeper level of understanding and insight about your views on leadership development, your
experience, and what you would like to see The Company do to help you achieve your leadership
aspirations. The last question in this survey will ask if you would like to participate in a one-on-
one interview. Again, all survey and interview data will remain anonymous.

Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer. Some
features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device.

Thank you!

❍ I consent and let's begin the survey
❍ I do not consent and do not wish to participate

Skip To: End of Survey If Welcome to the Leadership Development at The Company research study! In advance,
thank you for... = I do not consent and do not wish to participate
End of Block: Block 1
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

191

Start of Block: Block 2

1. Number of years I've been in the same industry as The Company.

▼ Less than one year ... 16 or more years

2. Total years with The Company.

▼ Less than one year ... 5 years or more

3. Number of years in current position.

▼ Less than one year ... 5 years or more

End of Block: Block 2

Start of Block: Block 3

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

192
4. What is your level of agreement with the following statements about leadership development
at The Company?

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
A. The
Company has a
clearly
communicated
approach to
developing
leaders.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
B. I understand
the leadership
development
process at The
Company.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
C. I understand
the leadership
competencies
that leaders at
The Company
must
demonstrate.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
D. I know which
leadership
competencies I
need to develop
more fully.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
E. I have
leadership
development
goals to improve
my
performance.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
F. I understand
my leadership
strengths and
weaknesses.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

193
5. Please identify the types of leadership development experiences you've participated in at The
Company and how valuable they were to you.

Which
experiences
have you
participated
in?
How valuable were these experiences to you?

Check all
that apply
Extremely
Valuable
Very
Valuable
Moderately
Valuable
Slightly
Valuable
Not at all
Valuable
A. Internal
leadership
development
training.

▢
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
B. External
leadership
development
training, e.g.,
university or
vendor offered.

▢
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
C. Job
assignment
with specific
leadership
development
focus.

▢
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
D. Executive
coaching.

▢
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
E. Mentoring.
▢
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
F. 360-degree
feedback.

▢
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

What additional thoughts do you have about your leadership development experience at The
Company?
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Block 3

Start of Block: Block 4
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

194

6. What is your experience with performance expectations and feedback at The Company?

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
A. The performance
expectations for my
current role are clear.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
B. The feedback I
receive from my
manager helps me
improve my
performance.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
C. I receive timely
performance feedback
from my manager.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
D. The feedback I
receive from my
manager is accurate.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
E. The feedback I receive
from my manager is
meaningful.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
F. The performance
management process at
my company is fair.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
G. I understand how my
current performance
compares to the
performance goals for
my current role.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

What additional thoughts do you have about performance expectations and feedback at The
Company?
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Block 4

Start of Block: Block 5
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

195

7. What is your level of agreement with the following statements about goal setting and goal
achievement?

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
A. I understand the
goals I need to
achieve to
demonstrate high
performance.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
B. I move past any
obstacle to achieve
my goals.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
C. Once I complete
a goal I see no
reason to give it
additional thought.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
D. I ask myself
frequently if I am
achieving my
goals.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
E. I finish what I
start.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
F. I reflect on my
past actions to
continuously
improve my
leadership
performance.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

What additional thoughts do you have about goal setting and goal achievement at The Company?
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Block 5

Start of Block: Block 6
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

196
8. In thinking about leadership positions at your level and above, what is your experience of job
openings and career advancement at The Company?

Strongly
agree
Agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
A. The
Company
posts all
leadership job
openings.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
B. Hiring
decisions at
The Company
favor external
over internal
leadership
candidates.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
C. The
Company
selects the
best
candidates to
be placed into
open senior
leadership
positions.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
D. Career
advancement
is my
responsibility.

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
E. I control
my career
advancement.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

What additional thoughts do you have about job openings and career advancement at The
Company?
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Block 6

Start of Block: Block 7

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

197
9. I have a leadership development plan.

❍ If Yes, continue to Q10
❍ If No, skip Q10 and go to Q11

Skip To: End of Block If I have a leadership development plan. = If No, skip Q10 and go to Q11

10. On a 0-to-10 scale, what is your level of confidence in the following leadership development
statements?
A. I'm confident in my ability to implement my
leadership development plan.

B. I'm confident in my ability to successfully
demonstrate The Company's leadership
competencies.

C. I'm confident in my ability to overcome all
obstacles to achieve my performance goals.

D. I'm confident in that engaging in the leadership
development process will benefit my career.

E. I'm confident in my readiness for promotion.

F. I'm confident if the right position became
available I would be considered for promotion.

What additional comments or suggestions do you have that would increase your confidence even
more?
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Block 7

Start of Block: Block 8

11. Have you been given a position promotion since starting at The Company?

❍ Yes
❍ No

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

198
12. Highest level of education completed.

❍ Some college
❍ Bachelor's degree
❍ Master's degree
❍ Ph.D., J.D., Ed. D.

13. Gender.

❍ Male
❍ Female
❍ Prefer not to answer

End of Block: Block 8

Start of Block: Block 9

14. I would like to participate in the confidential interview to further share my views,
experience, feedback, and more importantly, my suggestions on how to enhance, improve, and/or
change how leadership development is provided at The Company.

Please note: Your email address entered below will not be linked or connected in any way with
your survey answers. Be assured that all your survey responses remain anonymous and
confidential.
❍ Yes, I would like to participate in a confidential interview about leadership development. Please
enter your email address below to schedule a confidential interview.
________________________________________________
❍ No, I do not wish to participate in the interview process.

Skip To: End of Survey If I would like to participate in the confidential interview to further share my views,
experience. = No, I do not wish to participate in the interview process.
End of Block: Block 9

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

199
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Before we start, I want to thank you for setting aside this time to meet and speak with me
about leadership development. I’m a doctoral student at the University of Southern California
and studying how organizations develop their next generation of leaders. Your experience and
responses to the questions during this hour will help your [organization name] understand more
about its efforts in developing future leaders.
All information you that you share during the interview will remain confidential. You
will not be identified in any way thus your comments will not be attributed to you by name or
traceable back to you. You can choose to skip any question and may end the interview at any
time. We are scheduled for one hour, however there is usually 10 minutes at the end for follow
up or any questions that you might have.
Lastly, I would like your permission to record our interview. Doing so allows me to give
my complete focus and attention to you and your responses. I would also like to give you
complete assurance there are not multiple copies of recorded interviews and upon completion of
the study, all recordings are destroyed. May I record our interview? Before we begin, what
questions do you have of me?

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

200
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Knowledge influence questions
Declarative:
1. What are your development goals?
2. What are the competencies you believe you need to be able to exhibit if you are to succeed in
the next level of leadership here?
2.1. Give me an example of a time when you … (demonstrated competence in X area) ….
3. What are the top three performance goals for your current role?
4. How do you know if you are achieving your performance goals?
Procedural:
5. Describe how the development process works today.
6. How are executive leadership team members involved in developing leaders?
7. What must an individual development plan include to be effective?
8. Tell me how you put together your most recent leadership development plan? (if needed,
what process did you go through?)
Metacognitive:
9. How do you know your development plan is on track?
10. If something isn’t going to plan, how do you know what actions to take to get your plan back
on track?
11. Describe if and how you reflect on your past performance and how you might use your
reflections?

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

201
Motivation influence questions
Self-Efficacy:
1. What obstacles do you imagine you will encounter in as you implemented your development
plan?
1.1. How will you overcome those obstacles?
2. How has the leadership development planning process helped your career?
3. How do you receive feedback on your performance?
3.1. How often do you receive feedback?
3.2. How could the feedback you receive be more effective?
4. In what ways is the performance management system effective?
4.1. In what ways could it be improved?
5. To what extent do you think the management system is fair? What does “fair” mean to you
with respect to the management system?
Goal orientation:
6. Describe the approaches people use at The Company to advance in their careers?
7. Describe the strategies you implement to make your career goals a priority?
8. Some employees go above and beyond their development plan. To what extent is going
“above and beyond” important to you, relative to other goals you have? (If they say
important, ask them to give you an example of a time recently when they went above and
beyond.)
Attribution:
9. How do you learn when positions in The Company are open?
9.1. What works or doesn’t work with this system?
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

202
10. To what extent are the most qualified people promoted into executive level positions?
10.1. Can you describe a recent example?
11. What are you in control of and not in control of when it comes to career advancement?
11.1. In what ways, if any, could you take greater control?
12. When people get promoted at The Company, to what extent do you think this is due to their
abilities in the job or to something else? (if they say it’s more about something else, ask them
what that is)
Organizational questions
Cultural model:
1. To what extent are the expected leadership competencies clearly stated?
1.1. What are the leadership competencies for direct reports to executive leadership team
members?
1.2. What are the leadership competencies for members of the executive leadership team?
2. We’ve talked a great deal about leadership development planning, what’s one thing you
believe would make the process more effective for you?
3. What is your understanding of The Company’s practice when deciding to internally promote
or externally hire to fill a leadership position?
3.1. What considerations are given when making the decision to fill internally or externally?
4. What do members of the executive leadership team do to develop future leaders?
Cultural setting:
5. Please tell me about The Company’s internal promotion and external hiring practices of
executive team members?
5.1. What factors do you think are part of the decision making?
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

203
6. We’ve discussed promotions and how they are filled internally or externally. Should
anything that should be done differently?
7. How do you receive feedback on your performance?
8. How often do you receive feedback?
9. We talked about receiving feedback on your performance, are there changes or suggestions
you would like to see made so that feedback you receive is more effective to you?
10. In what ways is the performance appraisal system effective?
11. In what ways could it be improved?

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

204
APPENDIX E
DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Document Source Date Requested Date Received
Reports on career
movement, progression,
and promotion
Human Resources October 10, 2017 Not available
Reports on open
executive positions and
recruitment strategies
Human Resources October 10, 2017 Not available
Talent planning and
review presentations
Human Resources October 10, 2017 Not available
Past employee
engagement surveys
Human Resources October 10, 2017 October 24, 2017
“Great Places to Work”
survey results
Human Resources October 10, 2017 Not available
Quarterly financial
reports
Chief Financial
Officer
October 10, 2017 November 14, 2017

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

205
APPENDIX F
EXAMPLE OF BLENDED EVALUATION OF KIRKPATRICK FOR LEVELS 1, 2, 3, AND 4
Example Blended Evaluation items that address all four Kirkpatrick Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4
1. I am making progress in developing my leadership effectiveness as a result of applying
what I learned. (Level 4 Results) Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
2. My manager encourages me to apply what I learned. (Required Drivers -
Encouraging) Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
3. I have successfully applied what I learned in the workshop to my development. (Level 3
Transfer) Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
4. What additional help or support could increase your success in applying what you
learned? (Level 3 Transfer)
5. What tools or job aids supported your effectiveness in applying the skills you practiced?
(Level 2 Knowledge, Skills)
6. How has your confidence using what you learned changed since the workshop? (Level 2
Confidence)
7. The information I learned during the workshop has been pertinent to my work. (Level 1
Relevance) Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
8. What information from the workshop was most relevant to you? (Level 1 Relevance)
9. What information from the workshop was least relevant to you? (Level 1 Relevance)
10. What information, if added, would increase the workshop’s relevance to leaders at The
Company? (Level 1 Relevance)

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

206
APPENDIX G
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFORMATION SHEET FOR RESEARCH
Developing the Next Generation of Organization Leaders: A Gap Analysis

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Laurence F. Akiyoshi at the
University of Southern California. This study is being completed on an unpaid basis as part of
the researcher’s dissertation. The Company has agreed to only fund expenses incurred to
complete the research. Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have
before deciding whether or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand how organizations develop their next generation of
executive leaders.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey and/or participate
in an interview. The survey is online utilizing a Qualtrics survey design platform. The online
survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Interviews will be held online utilizing
the Zoom online meeting platform. Interviews will last approximately 45 minutes and be audio
recorded for transcription purposes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want
to, and may terminate or withdrawal participation at any time.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants in this research will not receive additional compensation, payments, and/or gifts for
their participation in the survey and/or interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Summary data
analysis and tables may be used for future research studies. If you do not want your individual
data summarized and used in future studies, you should not participate.

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified summarized
data may be used for future research studies. All individual survey data and interview recordings
will be destroyed upon completion of the study. If you do not want your data used in future
studies, you should not participate.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION

207
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Laurence F.
Akiyoshi at lakiyosh@usc.edu or 214.435.6997.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This research study utilized the gap analysis framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008) as foundational scaffolding to understand how a highly successful pre-IPO technology company is addressing the development of its next generation of executive leaders. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and barriers influencing the ability of direct reports to the executive leadership team to develop the critical leadership competencies needed to advance into executive leadership positions, or to assume more complex leadership roles as the organization continues to grow in size and scale. The design of this study drew from four principle data sources to understand and evaluate the current practices of leadership development

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study

PDF

Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

Attracting younger generations to the local church: Deep roots, selective seeds, and preparing a new soil

PDF

The role of the public child welfare leaders in reducing undesired employee turnover and promoting wellbeing: a gap analysis

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

An examination of supervisors’ perspectives of teamwork in a federal agency: promising practices and challenges using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

PDF

Profiles of successful persistence for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

PDF

Eliminating the technology equity gap for students through parent support at home: an evaluation study

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Effective communication during organizational change: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Akiyoshi, Laurence Francesco (author)

Core Title Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/07/2018

Defense Date 01/16/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag gap analysis,knowledge influences,leadership,leadership competency,leadership development,leadership succession,motivation influences,next generation of leaders,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization influences,pre-IPO executive leadership

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Cummings, Thomas (committee member), MacCalla, Nicole (committee member)

Creator Email lakiyosh@usc.edu,laurenceakiyoshi@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-470667

Unique identifier UC11265706

Identifier etd-AkiyoshiLa-6005.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-470667 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AkiyoshiLa-6005.pdf

Dmrecord 470667

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Akiyoshi, Laurence Francesco

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA