Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study
(USC Thesis Other)
Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Early to Mid-Career Employee Development: An Exploratory Study
by
Andrew Choi
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2021
© Copyright by Andrew Choi 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Andrew Choi certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Alexandra Wilcox
Helena Seli
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Cultivating a pipeline of future talent is a growing concern for businesses in the 21st century.
The 21st century workforce is more mobile, meaning they are less likely to remain with an
organization their entire career which increases turnover costs. Adding to the complexity of
retaining employees are the challenges with recruitment, retention, and development of multi-
generational, high potential employees; employees who have identified as having a greater set of
skills and potential for promotion into leadership roles. To mitigate the possibility of increasing
employee turnover of these high potential employees, organizations have launched leadership
development programs aimed at providing the necessary knowledge to serve in a future
leadership capacity. To be effective, development programs need to address the evolving
learning styles of a generationally diverse workforce balanced against the future business needs
of the organization. Key findings noted gaps in knowledge and motivation related to the process
towards promotion, skills to be learned, and expected outcomes from completion of the program.
Although the organizational influences noted assets in creating a culture to develop managerial
functions, gaps in structured opportunities and preparing stakeholders for future promotion were
noted. Based upon the findings, recommendations on improving transparency and
communication on objectives as well as purposefully redesigning the program to achieve leader
and leadership development are provided.
v
Dedication
To my wife Annie and my son Ethan, the both of you provide me the foundation that allowed me
to achieve this moment, but your love for me is what allows me to accomplish anything. I love
you both.
vi
Acknowledgements
My aspiration to pursue a doctoral degree and ultimately the completion of this
dissertation is with gratitude to a multitude of people that have provided me unwavering support
in that endeavor. First, I want to thank Dr. Jennifer Phillips, my dissertation chair, for her
guidance as I navigated the dissertation process to completion as well as her mentorship as I
continued my development journey in new career horizons. I would also like to thank my
committee members, Dr. Helena Seli and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox. Dr. Seli continually provided
insight and guidance to the dissertation process so that I always felt accomplished and capable.
Dr. Wilcox’s perspectives provided insights on how to strengthen my problem of practice and
my approach to research. Thank you.
Also, the support from my wife Annie and my son Ethan, as I spent countless hours being
lost in my own world of academics and dissertation work, was invaluable. With Annie’s
continual words of encouragement and Ethan’s understanding and admiration, even at such a
young age, as I went through the dissertation process, was the motivation I needed to accomplish
this goal.
To my mother, my family, and friends who always drove me to be the best version of
myself in the work that I do. To the participants of the research study for your willingness to
share your experiences with me. Finally, I would like to thank my classmates, my friends, and
my brothers Lucas, Chandler, and Jaime. It has been a privilege to have been on this journey
with you. Congratulations and Thank you.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 4
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 5
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Group for the Study ...................................................................................... 10
Purpose of the Study and Questions ................................................................................. 11
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 12
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Changing Workforce Demographics ................................................................................ 15
The 21st Century Workforce ............................................................................................ 20
The Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’
Framework .................................................................................................................. 31
NCL Graduates’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ....................... 34
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 52
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 55
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 56
viii
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 56
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 56
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan ....................................................... 59
Ethics and Role of Researcher ......................................................................................... 64
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 66
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 66
Documents and Artificats ................................................................................................. 69
What Knowledge and Skills Do NCL Graduates Gain From the Program Related to
Advancing to Management Levels?............................................................................ 71
What is the Motivation of the NCL Graduates? ............................................................... 86
How do the Organizational Culture and Other External Influences Impact NCL
Graduate’s Capacity to Advance to Management Levels? ....................................... 109
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 132
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 139
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 139
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 148
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 153
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 156
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 158
References ................................................................................................................................... 160
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 181
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 185
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 187
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Goal, and Stakeholder Group’s Goal 11
Table 2: Generation Names and Associated Birthdate Ranges 16
Table 3: Knowledge Influences 40
Table 4: Motivation Influences 47
Table 5: Organizational Influences 52
Table 6: Data Sources 58
Table 7: Participant Information 68
Table 8: Documents and Artifacts 70
Table 9: Program Time Requirements 88
Table 10: NCL Program Value Statements 89
Table 11: Participant Comments on NCL Program Prestige Value 91
Table 12: Knowledge Influence Determination 134
Table 13: Motivational Influences Determination 136
Table 14: Organizational Influence Determination 138
Table A1: Interview Questions 182
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Leadership Development 54
Figure 2: Leadership Development Competencies and Behaviors 119
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Cultivating a pipeline of future talent is a growing concern for businesses in the 21st
century (Akar & Sharma, 2018; Chavez, 2011; McKnight, 2016). In 2017, organizations spent
nearly $90 billion on employee development, engagement, and retention programs with a
continued upward trajectory to ensure a future pipeline of talent to maintain the business
(Carucci, 2018; Charan et al. 2010; Juhdi et al., 2012). Organizations invest in programs with a
focus on critical thinking to increase diversity of talent, innovation, and growth (Laddha et al.,
2012; Martins & Martins, 2011). Even with the level of investment into development,
engagement, and retention programs, a significant gap remains in the efficacy of those programs
to prevent loss of talent outside the organization. Many organizations have established programs
to develop and retain employees, but they lack the efficacy, transparency in objectives, and
purpose of outcomes needed to retain High Potential (“HiPo”) Early to Mid-Career Employees
(“EMCE”) (Brack & Kelly, 2012; Chavez, 2011; Gallardo et al., 2013).
Surveys show that nearly a quarter to half of all employees are seeking opportunities
outside an organization (Lee et al., 2018). Most employees are EMCEs for whom engagement
and retention programs are targeted. Adding to retention and capability concerns, census data
shows the rate of retirement increasing at a higher level than the number of employees entering
the workforce (Lee et al., 2018). In 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projected a deficit of
more than 10 million open positions by 2010; positions which EMCEs would have filled (Dotsey
et al., 2017). In 2018, the updated projections have a greater divide showing a significantly
greater decline in participation by the workforce (Baker, 2018; Engle, 2014).
2
This study focused on an evaluation of the effectiveness of the development programs for
EMCEs intended to increase engagement, reduce turnover, and improve the transparency in
intent towards promotions in the organization.
Background of the Problem
The 21st century workforce is changing from the traditional baby boomer workforce that
placed value on loyalty and longevity to a generation focused less on monetary values and more
on work-life balance and experiences (Mamun & Hasan, 2017; Campione, 2015; Priyadarshi,
2011). Additionally, the 21st century workforce, the majority of which are labeled as
“Millennials” and the subsequent generations, tend to be more mobile, searching for purpose and
meaning in the work they do and the organizations with which they align (Pantouvakis &
Karakasnaki, 2019). For the purposes of this study and based upon general characterization and
statistics, the Millennial workforce and the subsequent generations make up the majority of the
EMCEs. The Millennial workforce is also associated with high levels of confidence and
motivation, which compounds the challenge of engaging and retaining them with traditional
programs and initiatives (Gilbert, 2011).
The exit mobility of the workforce, often referred to as “turnover,” has been researched
extensively, launching a renewed focus on Human Resource Management (“HRM”) programs to
address the high turnover rates (Ballot et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2011). Organizations have
implemented HRM programs to improve employee engagement and increase retention,
mitigating organizational costs of turnover which ranges from 30% to 400% for early career to
specialized employees respectively (Hester, 2013; Laddha et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2018;
McConnell, 2011).
3
The challenge for organizations is balancing the investment in curating engagement and
retention programs that address the needs of the entire organization while also addressing key
employee demographics and specific business needs (Liu & Wang, 2006). However,
organizations cannot afford to focus only on specific demographics; they need to consider the
entire workforce (Martin & Martins, 2011). For example, many organizations have focused their
efforts on programs addressing a specific employee demographic, namely the HiPos, which tend
to be EMCEs, to cultivate their knowledge and capabilities. The HiPo employees, having been
identified as having suitable traits and abilities as well as the aptitude to become future leaders of
the organization, are the focus of the organization (Juhdi et al., 2012). Focusing on target
programs for HiPos serves the purpose of not only adding to their knowledge but also
engendering a sense of commitment to the organization (Sinatra, 2015).
Therefore, narrowing the focus of programs designed with HiPo employees as the target
audience, many programs provide training that addresses traditional skills and capabilities such
as finance, accounting and program management but fails to address gaps in non-traditional areas
such as communication and decision making (Campione, 2015). Recent research indicates that
programs should be less about training foundational skills, but more about providing an
experience and connecting the learning to the mission of the organization while being purposeful
to motivate and ultimately generate feelings of commitment to the organization (Singh &
Sanjeev, 2017). The alignment and motivation to the organization’s mission strengthens the
experiential learning and acts as a form of remuneration that includes intangibles such as
recognition and opportunities for promotion (Campione, 2015; Fung & Filback, 2017; Lee et al.,
2018; McGregor, 2010).
4
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of having employee engagement and retention programs that lack efficacy,
transparent objectives, targeted focus, and specific individual outcomes can have a negative
effect on High Potential (“HiPo”) employees (; Burke, 1997; Mamun & Hasan, 2017). Literature
has shown that HiPos tend to participate in development programs out of personal motivation as
opposed to receiving remuneration (Gladwell, 2010). However, if HiPos work on programs that
lack interest or purpose, they may begin to exhibit greater complacency or disengage from the
work. If the disengagement from the work is not addressed, it may lead to an inflection point
where employees begin actively seeking external opportunities (Cloutier et al., 2015).
Lee et al. (2018) refer to the metacognitive state where employees disengage from the
organization as “withdrawal cognition” (p. 89). Withdrawal cognition can lead to various states
of decreased employee performance. As an example, when an employee exhibits withdrawal
cognition, it can manifest itself in various forms including increased absenteeism, sub-par quality
of work, and possibly leading to the employee seeking other employment (Liu & Wang, 2006).
Additionally, their focus shifts to completion of task as opposed to quality of deliverables; akin
to complacency (Lee et al., 2018). Complacency has a downstream impact on other employees
who may be waiting for the complacent employee to complete their portion of the work
(Kollmann et al., 2020). At this point, the employee is fully disengaged, the quality of the work
may suffer, resulting in rework, or additional effort by other employees (Morrell & Abston,
2018). A probable outcome is that the employee leaves and the uncompleted work will become
the responsibility of others, leading to an increase in workload across the organization. Overall,
the organization’s efficiency and productivity are impacted, resulting in a direct impact to
tangible and intangible financial performance (Miller, 2018).
5
Organizational Context and Mission
Century Company Limited (CCL, a pseudonym) is a Fortune 50 company that was
established in the early 1900s. Century Company Limited has a diversified portfolio providing
manufacturing and services across various public and government sectors. Having been in
business over a century, CCL has had loyal employees that have served on average more than 20
years at the senior management levels. However, the duality of having a stable workforce with
significant subject matter expertise has allowed the organization to thrive, but also drives a
concern when the senior employees retire leaving a knowledge gap (Coleman et al., 2006).
Although CCL has thrived through the century, they are not immune to concerns
regarding retirement, retention, and recruitment. To address these concerns, CCL has curated
programs that are intended to triage the area of greatest concern, retention. Many of the programs
have been in place for over 5 years and their efficacy are being questioned. More importantly,
CCL is working to determine the longevity of impact as well as if the root cause of retention is
being addressed.
Cultivating a pipeline of new talent with their Early to Mid-Career Employees (EMCE)
and ensuring EMCEs are engaged has been a key focus by CCL. They provide multiple
development programs for EMCEs for the purposes of up-skilling and engagement to create a
pipeline of talent to mitigate the future knowledge loss from retirements. Having thrived with
over a generation of workforce, CCL is facing the challenge of fighting for talent by competing
organizations in the same industry as well as adjacent industries. High tech, software companies,
and other unrelated industries are offering attractive employment opportunities (Rasca, 2018).
Although CCL invests heavily in engagement across the entire employee population
towards developing employees, one program called Next Century Leadership (NCL, a
6
pseudonym) is directed at HiPo EMCE employees to promote their leadership development
through a 2-year, experience-based program. The program is a relatively new program having
only four cohorts graduated with a fifth currently in their final year and a sixth in the initial
stages. This program has received significant focus from senior level executives in the
organization as a program to accelerate the development process of future senior level managers
and executives. For reference, CCL has roughly 1,800 executives in the organization with nearly
70% coming to retirement age in the next 5 years. Having a ready pipeline of future leaders is
imperative to CCL’s continued success.
Next Century Leadership is a competitive program with more than 2,000 HiPo EMCE
applicants per annum and an acceptance rate of roughly 10%. The ratio of individuals accepted
into the program against the total number of eligible employees represents 0.4% of the
population. For reference, the 0.4% metric is used as a talking point during promotional events
and cited throughout various marketing materials. Applicants not selected for the program are
provided a message of gratitude for applying to the program and no further engagement occurs
other than stating they are welcome to apply again in the future. There is no appeal process in the
event applicants are not selected for the program. Individuals may seek further information or
feedback regarding their application, but that is the extent of the engagement.
All NCL applicants go through a rigorous selection process akin to a combination of
applying to a top tier university and interviewing with major consulting firms. Selected
applicants enter a program which is founded on experiential learning and assessments, and a
capstone project for skills and knowledge development. During the program, NCL applicants are
sponsored and supported by peers, group coaches, and executive mentors. Graduates of the
program stated through surveys that the NCL program has positioned them for future promotion
7
opportunities on the presumption that they have the requisite skills to perform in a leadership
capacity.
The NCL program had two intended outcomes. The first outcome is the intrinsic benefit
that graduates would feel appreciated and recognized for their achievement as well as the
prestige of being a graduate. The second intended outcome is the assumption that graduates
would feel recommitted to the organization due to the investment and focus on the graduates.
Although only 10% of the graduates have been promoted to leadership within six months of
graduation, the assumption is that the balance of graduates will continue with the organization
until future opportunities present themselves for promotion.
Maintaining the engagement with graduates who were not successful in being promoted
has been a continued point of discussion in CCL. Ideas surrounding identification of graduates to
provide advanced consideration for promotional opportunities prior to the opportunities being
made public emerged. However, to maintain principles of equal opportunity for all employees,
this approach was not implemented. Currently, CCL’s only mechanism to maintain specific
engagement with NCL graduates is through an alumni association of all NCL graduates as a
mechanism to network and provide early awareness of opportunities as they come available.
Based upon post program survey implements and current alumni feedback, graduates are
appreciative to have this network, but continue to seek other ways to differentiate and promote
NCL graduates.
Organizational Goal
During NCL’s inception, CCL did not have defined metrics or goals outlining what
success in the program looked like. Although Likert scales to assess the program were used to
gather the participant perceptions of the program, other meaningful metrics identifying a causal
8
relationship between graduating from the program to accelerating promotion to management was
an afterthought. Post completion surveys reflected a 10% promotion rate for graduates moving
from an individual contributor into management. In general, CCL acknowledges that the 10%
success rate reflects the quality of the graduates from the program and is not a reflection of
whether the program itself provides graduates what they need to be competitive for promotion.
Although CCL would like to achieve a 100% promotion rate for NCL graduates within
six months of graduation of the program, it is unrealistic to assume there will be an equal number
of managerial openings to graduates of the NCL program. Equally idealistic is the belief that
there is a direct alignment of capabilities of the NCL graduates to organizational vacancies in
management. However, to remain impactful and aspirational for future NCL candidates, CCL’s
goal is that by graduation of the sixth cohort in January of 2022, 20% of NCL graduates will be
promoted to management.
The goal of 20% is driven by projected organizational needs and corroborated by various
Human Resource leaders across the organization. As previously mentioned, nearly 70% of the
executive ranks are eligible for retirement and a doubling of the promotion rate will be
significant towards filling the talent pipeline. Additionally, increasing the number of promotions
to management will also be visible to the entire employment community as metrics will show
more individuals being promoted have participated in the NCL program, inspiring other
employees to join the program. Ultimately, it will be important for CCL to be able to determine,
based upon the increased opportunity for promotion, as to whether the NCL program is
achieving the intended outcomes in motivation and commitment as reflected in number of
applicants and turnover rates.
9
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Achieving CCL’s goals with the NCL program has a contributory benefit with each
stakeholder group involved, ultimately supporting the continued growth and success of CCL.
The following stakeholders will be discussed in relation to achieving the goal of 20% of NCL
graduates attaining a promotion by January 2022: EMCE HiPos as aspiring NCL candidates,
NCL graduates, managers of NCL graduates. Like other companies, CCL is projecting nearly 70
to 75% of its workforce will be Millennials and the following generation by 2025 (Omilion-
Hodges & Sugg, 2019). With a workforce of over 150,000 employees in the entire organization,
by 2025, nearly 113,000 will be made up by Millennials and the following generation. Of the
113,000 employees, approximately 5% or 5,650 employees are likely to be EMCE HiPos
(Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2017).
The EMCE HiPos in CCL have a combination of attributes and credentials. Most of the
EMCE HiPos are graduates from top tier universities as identified by U.S. News and World
Report (Morse et al., 2019). Based upon profile surveys, EMCE HiPos have held multiple roles
from a combination of previous companies as well as within CCL. However, the most common
component of EMCE HiPos in CCL are that each of one of them have completed a high-profile
project that has led to a significant impact on company performance. These individuals make up
the majority of NCL applicants and future graduates.
First, the NCL graduates, already identified as EMCE HiPos, enter the program knowing
that historical metrics show that 10% of NCL graduates have been promoted within six months
of graduation from the program. A 10% promotion potential has the impact of increasing the
level of their engagement as well as the quality of their work during their time in the program.
10
The manager of the NCL graduate(s) may leverage them in multiple capacities. Managers
may believe they have an employee better prepared for work challenges and capable of
supporting key activities and projects based upon the knowledge gained in the program. For
business continuity purposes, the manager may have the NCL perform temporary management
duties in their absence relying upon NCL graduate’s leadership experience in the program.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
To achieve a 20% promotion rate of NCL graduates, it is essential that all the
stakeholders remain committed to the program and outcomes. However, it is incumbent upon the
NCL graduate to demonstrate their capabilities, display growth in knowledge, and integrate their
learnings from the program into higher levels of performance. Therefore, the focus of this study
was on the NCL graduates to determine the mindset, the level of motivation in successful
completion of the programs, and the continued demonstration of their commitment to a higher
level of performance and to the organization upon graduation. Without the NCL graduates’
commitment to performance, enhancing their capabilities, and filling the gaps in knowledge,
there will be a disconnect between promotional opportunities and fulfillment into the roles. Table
1 identifies the organizational mission, the performance goal, and the goal of the NCL graduates.
11
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Goal and Stakeholder Group’s Goal
Organizational mission
The mission of the Century Company Limited (CCL) is to develop the best team, cultivate the
right talent, and promote the future leaders of the organization.
Organizational performance goal
By January 2022, CCL will promote 20% of the Next Century Learning (NCL) program
graduates.
Next century leadership (NCL) graduate goal
By June 2021, 100% of NCL graduates will implement best practices from the NCL program
in their daily activities to position themselves to be selected for promotion to management.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this project was to explore the degree to which CCL can meet its goal of
promoting 20% of the NCL program graduates to management by January 2022. A complete
evaluation project would focus on the associations and influences amongst all the stakeholders,
but for practical purposes, the stakeholders focused on in this analysis are NCL graduates. The
analysis focused on NCL graduates’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
related to developing the capabilities and associative learning aligned to skills necessary to
perform in a managerial capacity.
The questions that guide this study are as follows:
12
1. What knowledge and skills do NCL graduates gain from the program related to
advancing to management levels?
2. What is the motivation of NCL graduates?
3. How does CCL’s organizational culture and other external influences impact NCL
graduate’s capacity to advance to management levels?
4. What are knowledge, motivational and organizational recommendations to
strengthen the NCL program and support NCL graduate advancement to
management levels?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Deciphering unspoken and subjective expectations as to what knowledge is necessary for
promotion into management has a relationship to the motivation of NCL graduates towards
achieving their goal of promoting to management levels. To better understand the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that impact the achievement of the stakeholder goal, the
structured methods of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis were applied to this study. Clark and
Estes’ gap analysis provides for a systematic, analytical method that helps to delineate and
qualify organizational goals. Additionally, it identified the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences, as an exploratory model in the conceptual framework. Assumed
influences on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact NCL graduates’
ability to develop the knowledge necessary for promotion was generated based on both context-
specific research as well as general learning and motivation theory. The methodological
framework applied is a qualitative case study, consisting of individual interviews of NCL
graduates and document and artifact analysis.
13
Definitions
• Baby Boomers (Boomers): A term used to describe individuals born roughly between
1943 to 1960 (Gladwell et al., 2010).
• Early to Mid-Career Employee (EMCE): A term used to describe millennial employees
with five to seven consecutive years of tenure with the organization.
• Executive: A general term describing a leader of a functional unit who has been selected
and vetted by the Board of Directors of CCL.
• Generation X (GenX): A term describing individuals born roughly between 1961 to 1981
(Gladwell et al., 2010).
• High Potential (HiPo): A term describing individual in the organization that have been
identified by their managers and their manager’s peers as demonstrating higher levels of
job performance, collaboration, and cognition in the performance of their duties.
• Manager: A general term describing a first level or senior manager of a functional team
• Millennials and Beyond (GenYZ): A term describing a demographic born roughly after
1982.
• Next Century Leadership (NCL): A term describing a 2-year engagement program for
selected EMCE HiPo employees.
• Veterans (aka Traditionalist): A term describing individuals born roughly between 1925
to 1942 (Gladwell et al., 2010).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized in a five-chapter format. The first chapter provides the reader
with the purpose of the study, the problem needing to be addressed along with the background of
the situation. Additionally, key concepts, definitions, and framework associated with the
14
organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders are addressed. Chapter 2 provides a review of
current literature surrounding key issues associated with employee development, engagement,
and retention. Also included in Chapter 2 are reviews of literature on related theories and NCL
graduate’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact their goal of
achieving promotion to management levels. Chapter 3 details the methodology regarding the
determination of how interview participants were selected, the data collection process, and
analysis procedures of the subsequent data. Chapter 4 details the assessed and analyzed data.
Finally, Chapter 5 provides limitations in the study, recommendations for practice, and areas for
future research.
15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Century Company Limited’s (CCL, a pseudonym) workforce has evolved as a byproduct
of the changing economy. From the early 1900s, when CCL was first formed, the economy was
focused on manufacturing and product output like many corporations in that period (Beyers et
al., 2013; Burrus et al., 2013). Over time, the economy shifted to a service-based economy
leveraging disruptors like the evolution of technology and the advent of the global economy
(Gladwell et al., 2010; Kaifi et al., 2012; Treuren & Anderson, 2010). During this
transformation, CCL had to balance the demands of the global economy and the changing
demographics of the workforce while maintaining alignment to corporate objectives and
financial measures. This section will review literature on workforce demographics and the
challenges of meeting the needs of a multi-generational workforce. Reviewing existing literature
on the evolution of workforce, parallels to that of CCL’s workforce development. Additionally, a
review of literature regarding the transformation of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
principles will be explored to highlight comparisons to CCL’s workforce transformation.
Changing Workforce Demographics
Significant events in history, such the Great Depression, World War I, World War II, and
the recession of 2008 helped shape economic priorities and associated workforce dynamics. The
workforce during this period of economic transition were categorized as Traditionalists, Baby
Boomers (“Boomers”), Generation X (“GenX”), and Millennials and beyond (“GenYZ”) (Cox et
al., 2016; Gladwell et al., 2010). Each demographic is associated with various periods of birth
dates, with generally agreed upon ranges for each (Gladwell et al., 2010). Table 2 denotes the
generation name and the associated birth dates. Although each generation is represented in the
workforce today, the associated characterization of their working styles, values, and motivation
16
have defined the organizational structure to maximize performance of each (Brack & Kelly,
2012; Reiser et al., 2019; Treuren & Anderson, 2010).
Table 2
Generation Names and Associated Birthdate Ranges
Generation name
Birth date range
Traditionalists
1925 – 1942
Baby Boomers (“Boomers”) 1943 – 1960
Generation X (“GenX”) 1961 – 1981
Millennials and beyond (“GenYZ”) 1982 – onwards
17
Post-Industrial Revolution Organization and Workforce
The post-industrial revolution marked a period of economic growth driven by large
industrial manufacturing needs. During the post-industrial revolution, organizations including
CCL manufactured tanks, airplanes, and other transport related products that were in high
demand and high volume at that time (Hobsbawm, 1963). To meet the level of demand,
businesses in this space utilized a factory system of manufacturing where products produced
were identical in form, fit, and function at high volumes (Wolfe, 2016). Therefore, the threshold
for the level of knowledge for employees on the factory line was low, requiring only basic
education (Sterns, 2018). The associated workforce was considered unskilled, blue-collar
workers that performed repetitive tasks driven by a manufacturing process (Esping-Andersen,
1993; Hartwell, 1971). Although the workforce was skilled with respect to manual labor, the
manufacturing processes were considered blueprints or instructions for anyone to follow to
achieve results (Hopkins, 1982). Blue-collar workers were a fungible workforce commodity
meaning anyone with a basic level of education was able to perform repetitive tasks, following a
set of instructions. There was little need for the average blue-collar workforce to have an
entrepreneurial mindset or be driven to innovate; they were required to perform tasks (Hartwell,
1971). The knowledge expectation of the blue-collar workforce was reinforced during this time
by assessments (aka performance reviews) of employees through a direct binary assessment of
whether they met the required level of output (Sterns, 2018; Wolfe, 2016). Simply stated, either
they produced the prescribed number of units a day or they did not. If they did not meet the
output requirements, they were replaced by someone who could. Performance expectations
directly impacted motivation of the employees to achieve set output levels else be replaced
(Esping-Andersen, 1993). The idea that workers were a commodity is important as this skews the
18
power dynamics in favor of the company. The concept of power dynamics plays a critical role
for the subsequent generations and will be covered later.
Toward the latter half of the 20th century, the service and electronic economy began to
overtake the manufacturing economy in the United States (Harvard, 2010; Lawrence & Edward,
2013). CCL’s business followed this trend entering advanced digital electronics, information-
based services, and significant investment into advanced material sciences. The shift to the new
economy had a different set of knowledge requirements with respect to skills as jobs were
specialized and involved less repetitive manual labor (Koenig, 2011). The blue-collar manual
labor worker was overtaken by thought leaders that developed specific subject matter expertise
(Beyers et al., 2013; Coleman et al., 2006). Thought leaders during this period were considered
the white-collar Boomer generation.
Although Boomers were more knowledge driven, they were influenced by the previous
generation and adopted working styles that still included putting in long hours at companies with
rigid organizational structures (Gilbert, 2011; Reiser et al., 2019). Additionally, in part due to
what their predecessors had endured, Boomers valued and were motivated by security and
structure linked to long tenures with one organization (Brack & Kelly, 2012; Reiser et al., 2019).
Different from the previous generation, the Boomers became integral parts of an organization
with specialized skills that differentiated individuals, another shift towards a knowledge-based
economy (Harvard, 2010).
Boomers accumulated knowledge from their breadth of experiences and
accomplishments that motivated them to remain in the workforce longer than previous
generations (Murray, 2016). Contributing to their elongated tenure was the association of their
job title to their identity and persona; work was their life (Cox et al., 2016). As the economy
19
prospered and the Boomers remained in the workforce longer, they occupied nearly 66% of all
the leadership roles (Chavez, 2011; Roberts et al., 2008). This proved problematic for
organizations because from 2011 nearly 10,000 Boomers a day were turning retirement age
which meant nearly 40% could retire leaving organizations with a significant loss of knowledge
(Chavez, 2011).
Therefore, it was imperative that the next generation be prepared to assume leadership
roles through succession planning. To avoid the tacit knowledge loss and incur the potential 50%
to 200% cost of turnover, more concerted efforts were established to ensure continuity in
business through the development of the workforce (Cloutier et al., 2015; Coleman et al., 2006).
The Fourth Industrial Revolution Organization and Workforce
As the potential retirement of Boomers loomed over the economy beginning in 2011, the
next generation became the bulk of the workforce; GenX. The GenX workforce embodied
similar traits of Boomers, but they were byproducts of a different set of upbringings that moved
away from ideals of a “nuclear family” to those with single or interracial parents and the advent
of the term “latchkey kids” (Reiser et al., 2019). The GenX workforce brought knowledge that
was more technologically advanced, were considered critical thinkers, and entrepreneurial
(Roberts et al., 2008). Koenig (2011) summarized five common skills associated with the GenX
workforce, including their adaptability to situations, prowess in communication, ability to
problem solve, strength in curating their own development, and applying systems level thinking.
Although different, GenX and Boomers have many similarities. They are both considered
loyal, resourceful, and independent (Niles, 2011; Reiser et al., 2019). Additionally, both are
optimistic and proud of their contributions and accomplishments (Reiser et al., 2019; Roberts et
al., 2008). Regarding loyalty, GenX are skeptical and cautious as they had seen the adversity the
20
Boomers faced and are likely to explore changes in careers to seek stability and security (Cole,
1999; Reiser et al., 2019).
Roberts et al. (2008) coined GenX as the “Baby Busters,” a reference to taking over the
Boomer generation and bringing a different but complementing set of skills that substituted
college education for wealth of experience. Leveraging their knowledge and experience, GenX is
motivated by achievement through teaming, learning, and balancing work and personal life
(Roberts et al., 2008). The ability to apply these skills in proper context is what Finkelstein et al.
(2013) postulated in their study denoting GenX as the “baseline standard” of performance for
today’s multigenerational workforce (p. 635).
The 21st Century Workforce
The GenX quickly gave way to the subsequent generation, one shaped by immersive
technologies in the virtual world with an infinite amount of access to information; GenYZ. By
2025, GenYZ will overtake GenX as the predominant workforce with nearly 75% making up the
workforce (Omilion-Hodges, 2019). Much like GenX, their family dynamics, external influences
from changes in the economy, and the proliferation of technology into everyday life has
influenced the working style of GenYZ (Brack & Kelly, 2012; Niles, 2011; Shatto & Erwin,
2016). Their attitude, how their roles are defined and developed, and the expectations in the
workplace are disparate from previous generations (Campione, 2015; Casey & Vogel, 2019; Cox
et al., 2016). As CCL’s second century future is dependent on the GenYZ workforce, a
significant amount of consideration is put into development and engagement programs for these
employees.
21
Next Generation Workforce
In the next 5 years, GenYZ are projected to overtake both the Boomers and GenX,
growing from 46% in 2020 to 75% of the workforce (Brack & Kelly, 2012; Lynch, 2008;
Omilion-Hodges & Sugg, 2019). Although drawing similar characterizations to previous
generations, such as being highly educated, GenYZ differs greatly in motivation and reward as
altruistic work is valued equally as prestige and salary (Gilbert, 2011; Kuron et al., 2015; Martin,
2015). Altruism translates into belief in the mission and vision of the organization as well as the
performance and focus of leadership acting as custodians of the GenYZ’s growth and
development (Casey & Vogel, 2019; Kuron et al., 2015; Zaharee et al., 2018). If an
organization’s mission differs from that of the GenYZ employee, the leadership fails to act in
good faith towards its people or the industry, or more befitting opportunities externally are
available, it is reflected in the excess of 60% of GenYZ’s that are planning to seek external job
opportunities (Morell & Abston, 2018). Additionally, GenYZ are seeking different types of
experiences as well as accelerating their advancement through different organizations (Kaifi et
al., 2012; Miller, 2018; Reiser et al., 2019). Opportunities for advancement into leadership are
limited for GenYZ as Boomers are remaining in leadership roles longer and traditional lines of
succession is based upon tenure with organizations meaning GenX would be given preference
over GenYZ (Miller, 2018; Murray, 2016; Roberts et al., 2008).
The turnover of GenYZs is problematic as projections of the cost of turnover due to their
mobility are as high as $30 Billion per annum (Morrell & Abston, 2018). Therefore, it is
imperative for organizations to consider and incorporate the working styles and preferences of
this generation into engagement and development programs to increase retention. Programs such
22
as NCL are intended to incorporate GenYZ preferences, but the efficacy of such programs need
further review to ensure they are achieving the organizational goals.
Expanded Roles and Responsibilities
Research suggests it is imperative that organizations consider how they structure
activities that can engage GenYZ in differing ways to provide tailored experiences in their work
and professional development. It has been noted that GenYZ are engaged when the work
involves a variety of activities as opposed to projects involving a repetition of similar work
(Puckett, 2018). Although overly prescriptive, research by Shatto and Erwin (2016) indicated
that the average attention span for GenYZ is between 8 to 12 seconds. Expanding on the notion
of attention span and the impact to employee turnover, multiple reviews involving longitudinal
human resources studies on employee turnover have been conducted. The consensus in the
various studies generalized the short attention span as contributing to a GenYZ need to seek out
work that captured their attention, had purposeful meaning, and contributed to social justice and
equity (Casey & Vogel, 2019; Lee et al., 2018; Zaharee et al., 2018).
Task oriented roles and responsibilities lack the level of intrigue and engagement
necessary for GenYZ, who have been noted to have high self-efficacy and confidence (Cox et al.,
2016; Rebeťák & Farkašová, 2015; Treuren & Anderson, 2010). As a result, simply providing
new task-based experiences and projects may be insufficient to capture the attention of GenYZ
as they need guidance and structured mentorship (Caraher, 2014; Fung & Filback, 2017).
Meaningful work, mentoring, and developing their self-efficacy through timely and constructive
feedback rounds out their learning (Casey & Vogel, 2019; Kuron et al., 2015).
23
Infinite Access to Information and Information Absorption
The importance of mentorship in GenYZ career development is to differentiate and
expound on the information that is readily available to them on the internet (Carlin et al., 2018;
Shatto & Erwin, 2016). Utilizing prevalent search engines, GenYZ can find answers in an instant
on the internet, but they need validation from those with relevant experiences as to which answer
is applicable to the situation (Shatto & Erwin, 2016). As GenYZ is a product of the information
economy, sourcing information quickly along with learning online has always been readily
available (Nijs et al., 2014; Rios et al., 2020).
As discussed in a 2010 Harvard University study, balancing GenYZ’s tendency of
quickly seeking answers on the internet to expedite acting is typical of GenYZ over seeking
wisdom or knowledge from an authoritative figure. Literature denotes GenYZ as perceiving their
elders as being authoritative and controlling, and the generation maintains a sense of distrust that
motivates them to source knowledge elsewhere (Niles, 2011). Although perceived as
collaborators, as discussed in Brack and Kelly (2012), GenYZ’s high self-efficacy and optimism
makes them believe they can achieve results and find answers on their own.
The rate of consumption of information can be overwhelming given the amount available
on the internet, but GenYZ has demonstrated prowess in this area (Considine et al., 2009;
Holman, 2011; Niles, 2011). Due in part to being born into the information economy, GenYZ are
adept in use of technology and can multi-task in the consumption of information (Mitchell &
Watstein, 2007). Abrams (2007) noted GenYZ will explore and research multiple, disparate
ideas seeking associative answers. The searching style and prowess of GenYZ has already had a
material impact on systems of categorizing information in academic libraries and repositories to
address these “hypertext learners” who can source information from a multitude of sources
24
(Holman, 2011, p. 20). This is of importance, as previously discussed from the Niles (2011)
article, as GenYZ has a general distrust of institutions. Distrust of institutions extends into the
need to source information from multiple sources to triangulate answers to the “why” questions
they are seeking to resolve (Payment, 2008).
Expectations in the Workplace
Incentives have evolved from what Quinn (1973) identified as deficiencies in having a
safe working environment, fringe benefits, and low pay structures. In the 21st century, health and
safety are a given, and fringe benefits and market driven salaries are a standard in most industries
(Zaharee et al., 2018). However, the 21st century workforce has higher expectations in the
workplace that transcends typical monetary forms of remuneration or benefits (Lee et al., 2017).
GenYZ naturally expect a good salary, but they also expect to work on interesting projects as
well as projects that accelerate their promotion to management and garner them recognition and
intrinsic reward (Kuron et al., 2015).
Motivation and Supervision
Motivation has evolved from retaining a job like in the early blue-collar post-industrial
revolution to a more modern perspective of personal development and intrinsic satisfaction
(Kuron et al., 2015). Performance and satisfaction are strong factors in retention initiatives (Akar
& Sharma, 2018; Kollmann et al., 2020; Priyadarshi, 2011). Motivation theories such as
Frederick Herzberg’s hygiene theory explicates a conflict in duality between achievement and
recognition (motivation) against policy and supervision (hygiene) (Miner, 2005). The former,
achievement and recognition, are motivating factors associated with greater job performance and
satisfaction (Mamun & Hasan, 2017; McGregor, 2010; Reiser et al., 2019). The latter, policy and
supervision, are the constructs in which an employee must work within to achieve job
25
performance and satisfaction (Casey & Vogel, 2019; Hewlett et al., 2009; Roberts et al., 2008).
These process and rule-based guidelines are contrary to GenYZ’s preference for more flexibility,
autonomy, and opportunity to innovate (Brack & Kelly, 2012; Engle, 2014; Hewlett et al., 2009).
Focusing on flexibility, Rubery et al. (2016) conducted a study in the United Kingdom
(UK) exploring the merits and costs of policies written to address work-life balance. In the study,
policies such as allowance for varying work hours were written with positive intent, but they
ultimately led to lower productivity and high turnover (Rubery et al., 2016). Although the study
had some confounding variable considerations associated with the specific labor market
dynamics in the United Kingdom, there were causal relationships observed with both positive
and negative merits of flexible work arrangements. Therefore, leveraging flexible work
schedules and work arrangements require judicious application.
Mobility within the Company
Mobility, as used in this section, refers to advancement in the organization, whether it is
being recognized and trusted to lead important projects or a promotion to a higher level or rank
in the organization. The corollary to mobility tends to lead to turnover in the organization
(Mamun & Hasan, 2017; Miller, 2018). To address turnover, retention, and mobility, Human
Resource Management (HRM) and Talent Resource Management (TRM) have become
important functions with an organization (Puckett, 2018; Roberts et al., 2008). Multiple studies
in the areas of HRM and TRM have emerged over the years to specifically address the area of
mobility.
As previously stated, select research has found that GenYZ have tendencies to exhibit
higher levels of self-efficacy and confidence. As a result, they feel capable and entitled for
increased responsibilities (Reiser et al., 2019; Treuren & Anderson, 2010). Mamun and Hasan
26
(2017) identified several drivers to ensure GenYZs are engaged, including ensuring career
opportunities for advancement, recognition for performance, and learning opportunities to
develop new skills. However, organizations have the challenge of determining who should be
provided mobility opportunities, as merely being a part of the GenYZ workforce is not a rational
nor equitable way to delineate potential. At minimum, as noted in Patterson (2016), employees
had to have demonstrated expertise in past accomplishments as well as demonstrate command in
relationship management, strategic thinking, and being able to associate data to action. Charan et
al. (2010) had noted similar traits required in an earlier review discussing how individuals
progress in their development through various stages of promotion. Both Patterson (2016) and
Charan et al. (2010) introduced the key concept of potential as a means of differentiating high
performance and those deserving of recognition and reward.
Recognition and Reward
Beyond the salary, such as fringe benefits and merits provided as part of a job, more
intrinsic recognition and reward drivers motivate the GenYZ workforce (Abrams, 2007; Gilbert,
2011; Kuron et al., 2015). One non-monetary form of recognition is the designation or
identification of being a High Potential (“HiPo”) employee. Multiple studies have been
performed to determine how an employee is assessed to receive the HiPo designation. In the late
1990s, Burke (1997) published an article identifying steps to create a HiPo program, which
included assessments and outlines for proper engagement. Lederman (2017) published a more
recent study focused on identification of HiPos and the “3 Rs of employee engagement; Respect,
Relevance and Relationship” (p. 2). Both Burke (1997) and Lederman (2017) came to similar
conclusions that accomplishments determine eligibility, but the intangible skills of connectivity
27
to people, ability to inspire, and portraying corporate behaviors are more important determinants
of future success.
Therefore, to be identified as a HiPo, the individual must demonstrate the ability to
complete tasks in addition to being able to collaborate with others and inspire them to rally under
a unified mission; all traits associated with the GenYZ workforce (Abram, 2007; Kuron et al.,
2015; Reiser et al., 2019). Arguably, these traits are prevalent in Boomers and the GenX
workforce, but these traits were observed to be more significant amongst the GenYZ workforce
as noted in the Finkelstein et al. (2013) study on “metastereotypes” across generations (p. 634).
As organizations navigate the unique needs of their multi-generational workforce,
managing the needs of GenYZ will be important as they develop engagement programs.
Specifically, engagement and development programs need to address the unique attributes and
skills necessary for promotion while maintaining their motivation in the process. The next
section will review the framework of this study and the associated influences impacting it.
Benchmarking Other Organizations’ Approaches to Workforce Development
Recognizing the unique learning and development needs of HiPos and emerging GenYZ
workforce, studies have been conducted comparing the outcomes of various organizational
programs. Focused on reducing expenses associated with turnover of employees, Letchmiah and
Thomas (2017) succinctly states the importance of retention as the “ability to hold onto those
employees you want to keep, for longer than your competitors” (p. 34). Therefore, organizations
have been leveraging development opportunities for promotion as a means of retention (Carucci,
2018; Charan et al. 2010; Juhdi et al., 2013).
28
Individualized and Focused Development Plans
In line with previous character representations of HiPos and aligned to an organization’s
talent gaps, HiPo development is focused on leveraging their unique cognitive diversity and
agility (Winiarska-Januszewicz & Winiarski, 2014). A recurring approach to HiPo development
is the “70-20-10 rule,” which emphasizes job-based experiences (70%), education (20%), and
coaching-mentoring (10%) respectively (Riddle, 2012, p. 2). The 70-20-10 rule is an outcome of
theoretical reviews on leadership characteristics and capabilities and the associated activities that
had contributed to leadership development. Roupnel et al. (2019) expanded on the application of
the 70-20-10 approach in their theoretical review of leadership by focusing on learning as a
dynamic set of purposeful actions with the appropriate funding, resources, and outcomes
measured beyond the immediate outcomes associated with program completion.
The job-based experiences encompass temporary or special assignments outside of
HiPos’ current demonstrated skills and capabilities (Fernández-Aráoz et al., 2017). By engaging
HiPos through rotations and roles outside of their normal course of duties, it allows the
individuals to associate their experiences and knowledge in different ways. In the Fernández-
Aráoz et al. study (2017), this approach proved advantageous when applied to the new leadership
program with a Japanese tobacco company and Prudential PLC, a multinational insurance
company. As an outcome of the new approach to leadership development, both the Japanese
tobacco company and Prudential PLC were able to fill leadership roles through internal
applicants as opposed to seeking external candidates (Fernández-Aráoz et al., 2017).
In addition to providing opportunities to serve in different capacities and challenge
HiPos, job-based experiences provide HiPos with greater visibility and exposure to different
aspects of an organization that they may not have experienced before. Molson Coors, a
29
multinational beverage company, used this approach for their HiPo development program for 20
participants to expand their awareness on the organization’s products, services, and markets
served (Winiarska-Januszewicz & Winiarski, 2014). An important aspect to job-based
experiences is to ensure that HiPos can transfer the scaffolded knowledge and experiences to
future roles (Dries & Pepermans, 2012).
Although job-based experiences represent most of the focus of the 70-20-10 rule,
education and coaching-mentoring are important elements in the development process.
Education is represented as the capacity to grow knowledge and competencies as opposed to
formalized rote learning (Fernández-Aráoz, 2017; Holt et al., 2018). Petrie (2011) inferred
learning, or education in this context, as a cognitive association of information to a particular
purpose. Therefore, HiPos are challenged to transform evidential information to more evocative
relationships. King and Nesbit (2015) highlighted a case study where LEGCO, a pseudonym for
an Australian government organization, utilized formal classroom settings and technical
capabilities along with capabilities associated with heightened emotional intelligence (e.g.,
leadership, communication, relationship building). In the LEGCO case, utilizing various
evaluation paradigms, the resultant was that individuals in the program felt successful and
confident in being a better leader (King & Nesbit, 2015).
The final component of the 70-20-10 approach is coaching-mentoring. Coupled with an
elevated desire to expand roles and responsibilities, constructing programs aligning talent
development to future organizational needs is imperative (Fernández-Aráoz et al., 2017).
Alignment begins with ensuring the HiPo is connected to appropriate coach that will provide
guidance, help the HiPo expand on their capabilities, and aid in the HiPo’s ability to increase
competency and productivity (Roupnel et al., 2019). Coupled with coaching, but explicitly
30
different, is mentoring. Mentoring is over a longer time frame and for the primary purpose of
transferring developed knowledge from the mentor to the HiPo (Omilion-Hodges & Sugg, 2019;
Pandya, 2017; Roupnel et al., 2019). The use of coaching-mentoring is a key element of a
successful leadership development. Development is not a standalone process, is contextual, and
is influenced by changing circumstances with a significant focus on proper succession planning
(Holt et al., 2018).
Leadership Development Versus Leader Development
An important distinction in establishing development programs is to distinguish between
leader development and leadership development. The former is associated with individual
competencies and capabilities while the latter is a distributed approach on learning throughout
the network to increase the capacity of the organization (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Petrie, 2011).
This distinction delineates the development of individual employee knowledge capital compared
to socializing and distributing learning across a network of stakeholders (Moldoveanu &
Narayandas, 2019). Leadership development involves individuals continually making
connections across the enterprise for the purpose of catalyzing organizational learning capability
through teamwork and collaboration (Holt et al., 2018; Ready et al., 2010; Wallace et al., 2021).
Leadership development, in this context, is more difficult to measure empirically and
requires a more longitudinal approach to evaluation (Couch & Citrin, 2018; Sørensen, 2017;
Wallace et al., 2021). Ready et al. (2010) acknowledged that mastery or expertise of capabilities
involved delivering on results as an individual contributor (a more readably measurable
outcome) but quickly transitioning to a role of a teacher (more subjective in measurement).
Under the auspices of the 70-20-10 approach, Couch and Citrin (2018) concluded that a
“cadence” of leadership development was constantly evolving and required frequent modifying
31
interventions leading to programs spanning at least 2 years or longer to see impactful results.
Federal Express (FedEx) exemplifies a more long-term investment approach to leadership
development which has resulted in nearly 82% of their frontline managers being developed and
promoted from within the organization (Winiarska-Januszewicz & Winiarski, 2014). Therefore,
through purposely curated programs, ensuring enough resources are allocated, and evaluations
based upon long term intrinsic returns on investments, leadership development programs can
achieve intended results (Holt et al., 2018; Roupnel et al., 2019).
The Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’
Framework
Clark and Estes developed a framework that aligned knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences into a performance ecosystem that helps identify actions and correlated
results (Clark & Estes, 2008). In consideration of the EMCE HiPos at CCL, the organization has
implemented learning and training initiatives like the NCL program to address assumed
knowledge gaps required for attaining leadership roles. Per Clark and Estes (2008), the gap in
knowledge has a direct correlation to performance. However, knowledge is a generic definition
and when applied to the knowledge needed for employee development, it has individual
considerations and needs context. Although a set of foundational knowledge is assumed as part
of employees performing in their roles, the imprecise definition of what constitutes leadership
skills and how to develop them proves challenging for employees to gain that knowledge.
Addressing knowledge gaps in areas such as leadership and management are not an objective set
of skills that can necessarily be learned through traditional training (Flores et al., 2012).
As the workforce dynamics and needs of individual employees span a multi-generational
spectrum, multiple factors regarding knowledge, motivation and organizational influences play a
32
significant part in employee development towards their growth into a leadership role. The NCL
graduates need to develop depth and breadth of attributes and skills necessary for promotion into
management beyond the foundational skills as defined by CCL. The importance of the previous
statement is that CCL’s outline of the requisite skills is paramount as that provides NCL
graduates a clearer understanding of the requirements. At this juncture, NCL graduates can
leverage various avenues of developing the necessary skills but must believe that by doing so
they will be provided an opportunity for promotion. Hence, the NCL graduates must have the
self-motivation to invest time and effort to develop those skills and gather experiences while
continuing to perform their daily duties. To align outcomes, CCL must provide for the
opportunity to achieve the NCL graduate’s goal of being promoted into leadership or else the
system fails to have an impact on motivation and subsequently the potential for turnover.
Knowledge, motivation, and organization must work in unison.
Compounding the knowledge issue is the interconnection with motivation. Clark and
Estes (2008) associated motivation to performance by considering the way individuals perform
their duties with the level of knowledge they have as opposed to the type of work performed.
This is a significant point as studies have noted that past performance is not an indicator of future
success, but the way employees achieved results were indicative of their commitment and
motivation (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002; Burke, 1997; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2017; Rebeťák &
Farkašová, 2015). The idea that knowledge and motivation are integral was also a result from the
Nijs et al. (2014) study where the definition of talent was a function of invested time and energy
and not intelligence quotient (IQ) as an indicator of performance. This last point proves
challenging for CCL as performance is measured through annual assessments while motivation
remains a notional and subjective measure. The importance of Clark and Estes’ (2008)
33
framework is that motivation can be measured and provides indicators on how it can be
addressed.
The individual’s need for knowledge and motivation is intended to be addressed by
programs developed through a function of CCL’s human resource management organization.
Human Resource Management’s (HRM) objective is to ensure the employees have access to
programs that provide the relevant knowledge to indirectly influence outcomes and continue to
drive performance. Except, HRM’s work process is a function of the culture of the organization.
The amount of authority or available resources along with organizational processes and
procedures are the organizational influences identified by Clark and Estes (2008) as
consideration for addressing the performance gap. For example, in the case of NCL graduates,
they have been identified as HiPos, were motivated enough to participate and graduate from the
program, but perhaps organizational constructs may be preventing their career aspirations for
management. Therefore, all three factors of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences are integral to address this problem.
Century Company Limited (CCL) has an objective of improving promotion of NCL
graduates into management to 20% by January 2022. To achieve this goal, CCL must take into
consideration the knowledge and motivation of the NCL graduates, this study’s main stakeholder
group. Leveraging Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework and literature review, this section
will identify the assumed influences on the stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation.
Additionally, this section will finish with a review of organizational influences associated with
NCL graduate development.
34
NCL Graduates’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The NCL graduates aspire to attain roles in leadership. From the perspective of the
organization, they have demonstrated self-motivation by investing their time and effort to gain
the requisite leadership skills and develop attributes through completing the immersive NCL
program experience. The organization has established the NCL program with the intent to
provide the experiential learning associated with leadership roles within the organization, yet
there remains a gap between the number of EMCE HiPos graduating from the NCL program and
those selected for promotion to leadership. This section will review the various influences across
the dimensions of knowledge, motivation, and the organization.
Knowledge-Related Influences
Perceptions on the level of knowledge needed is a function of the complexity of the task
(Flores et al., 2012). For example, the level of knowledge to solve complex math problems, such
as differential equations, are significantly different from designing the surface of an airplane
wing to achieve optimal aerodynamic flow. This knowledge is not the rote aspect of learning, but
the ability to associate and apply the information (Burbach et al., 2004; Flores et al., 2012;
Werner & Bleich, 2017). As university graduates enter the workforce, the rote knowledge they
bring is the foundation upon which associative knowledge is scaffolded towards their
development (Byrne & Lees, 2018).
Krathwohl’s (2002) revised taxonomy assists in the understanding by articulating the four
types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. He described factual
knowledge as discrete or explicit, for example, understanding the specific components in
constructing an income statement. Factual knowledge is associated with the type of knowledge
gained from completing a university degree. Continuing with the income statement example and
35
applying Krathwohl’s (2002) description of procedural knowledge, this meant one knew how to
take the discrete elements (factual knowledge) and sequence them to construct a complete
statement in a normative format.
Factual knowledge allows a new employee to at least perform in their roles with respect
to completing tasks associated with their educational studies. It extends beyond the employees’
technical knowledge associated with their course of education study. Technical knowledge
associated with fundamentals of finance, accounting, and program management are presumed to
be factual knowledge within CCL.
The other types of knowledge needed are procedural, conceptual, and metacogntive.
Procedural knowledge, in context of this study, is the understanding of what processes, policies,
and procedures exist in the leadership development process towards promotion to management.
Individuals aspiring to achieve promotion need to understand what steps are necessary in the
development process to achieve promotion.
Conceptual knowledge, as defined by Krathwohl (2002), is an undeclared set of skills and
capabilities upon which individuals are measured against. Typically, the conceptual knowledge
is the ability to apply foundational knowledge beyond rote demonstration of skills; it is applying
the foundational knowledge to find associations (critical thinking) and identifying and solving
problems (Bratianu & Vatamanescu, 2017; He, 2015; Rebeťák & Farkašová, 2015).
Metacognitive knowledge refers to expanding the static foundational knowledge and
experiences to a more kinesthetic learning approach to make associations to cause and effect
relationships and develop critical thinking to anticipate and predict outcomes (Flores et al.,
2012). Additionally, CCL expects employees to have skills, gained through experience, that are
36
less defined and subjective such as collaboration, communication, and decision-making (Burke,
2015; Souba & Souba, 2018).
Within CCL, many of the GenYZs enter as the most highly educated and technologically
savvy generation (Cox et al., 2016). The majority, if not all, have a university degree with the
inferred association of being intelligent, capable of learning, and having high work ethics
amongst other traits (Horowitz, 2018). Once in the organization, GenYZs start their career
learning to associate the factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge gained within the
organization towards continuation in the performance of their role. The following sections
further illustrate the types of knowledge needed for NCL graduates to achieve promotion to
management within CCL.
Factual Knowledge Associated with Individual Contributors
A university degree or equivalent is a minimum requirement for employment in CCL. In
concurrence, Bills (1988), in an early study, noted that graduating from a university provides an
individual greater likelihood of getting a job. Flores et al. (2012) acknowledged in their study
that graduating from university was becoming a “currency,” which had the greatest value when
applying for a job position (p. 212). In a more recent study, Chan (2016) concurred completion
of a university degree, with the evolving pedagogy of learning that is being incorporated into
curriculums, are better preparing individuals as they enter the workforce further reinforcing the
expectation. Overall, there is a unified premise that having a university degree means the
individual has the subject matter expertise to perform in their role (Eisner, 2010).
Beyond the assumed subject matter knowledge inferred by a university degree that the
individual can perform in their role, CCL looks for individuals who have exhibited what they
have defined as technical skills in accounting, finance, and project management (collectively
37
basic business acumen) when identifying promotion potential. This is consistent with many
organizations when seeking leaders, as the ability to understand the basic elements of financial
statements and manage projects and programs are central elements to success (Anderson et al.,
2018; David & David, 2016). As leaders are responsible for setting direction and achieving
group performance, a consensus amongst industries is that a significant portion of the process
involves understanding cost elements, evaluating returns on investments, and prioritization of
efforts and resources. (Anderson et al., 2018; David & David, 2016; Richtermeyer, 2017).
Having subject matter knowledge gained from attaining a university degree, along with
knowledge in the areas of accounting, finance and project management, individuals have the
prescribed foundational knowledge necessary for consideration into management within CCL.
Those with subject matter expertise from their studies are perceived to have an advantage given
their grasp of the foundational knowledge but translating and applying the skills at a higher level
is a differentiator (Byrne & Lees, 2018). The next step in their development is expounding on
capabilities through application and association as they gain experience in their duties.
Procedural Knowledge Required to Navigate Career Progression
As previously stated, to be considered for future leadership roles, NCL graduates are
placed in different categories of performance; those that have the demonstrated the most
potential are deemed to be HiPos. This designation is not readily communicated broadly to NCL
graduates, but CCL infers the concept during performance management practices where
development plans highlight potential and actions associated with developing mentor
relationships and executive sponsorship for extended assignments. Within CCL, employees are
designated as HiPos by a committee of management. However, like many organizations, the
individuals are unaware they have been explicitly identified as one (Burke, 1997; Church &
38
Rotolo., 2013; Downs, 2015; Tormala et al., 2012). The importance of this designation is that
HiPo candidates benefit from added attention from management, given favorable or desirable
projects, and offered more opportunities for development (Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Silzer &
Dowell, 2010).
All NCL graduates have been identified by CCL as a HiPo are based upon their
development of procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is akin to muscle memory, where
the actions or associative thinking is a function of repetitive experience with similar situations,
meaning the NCL graduate has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated successful performance
in completion of tasks (Hansen et al., 2012). The procedural knowledge is a function of
integrating the foundational and conceptual knowledge and leveraging it to perform in more
complex tasks and stretch assignments; all of which are afforded to those with the designation of
HiPo (Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Silzer & Dowell, 2010).
Progression and mastery of procedural knowledge is not innate, but a function of trial and
error and associated feedback. As NCL graduates extend themselves beyond their given role in
the organization by taking on additional, complex assignments, they develop the procedural
knowledge by performing tasks and conducting after action reviews which includes feedback
from mentors and managers (Gilbert, 2011; Kuron et al., 2015; Rebeťák & Farkašová, 2015).
The process is iterative and relies on the NCL graduate to be resilient, to embrace and internalize
the feedback, and take corrective action as necessary (Silzer & Dowell, 2010; Singh & Sanjeev,
2017).
Metacognition and the Transition to Management
Garnering experiential knowledge and scaffolding metacognitive knowledge involves
more than just outcome-based activities, it requires leveraging a variety of non-technical skills
39
such as collaborating, communicating, and engaging (Burke, 2015; Souba & Souba, 2018).
Accordingly, Burke (2015) also noted that the shift to the information economy and the ubiquity
of technology requires navigating the unknown landscape, but also the agility and adaptability
needed to manage it. The ability to manage and mitigate the unknown and reframing issues into
actionable problem statements has been recognized as critical thinking; a common quality
amongst leaders (Dries & Pepermans, 2012; Flores et al., 2012; Souba & Souba, 2018). Effective
leaders apply critical thinking to assess situations given the information available and make
decisions with varying levels of consequences amongst a variety of stakeholders (Werner et al.,
2017).
Critical thinking is neither instinctive nor an inherent predisposition associated with a
university or major of study; it is a function of metacognition or the ability to continually assess
and associate information (Krathwohl, 2002). As an individual contributor in an organization
looks to transition to management, they must take into consideration the experiences in the past,
relate it to the present situation, and apply it in different contexts, to continue the learning
(Ambrose et al., 2010). Incidentally, many studies have been conducted where critical thinking
has been shown to be a learned behavior and taught through various methods with most
leveraging experiential modalities (Burbach et al., 2004; Jenkins & Andenoro, 2016). As NCL
graduates continue their learning development journey and progress towards management, their
learning agility to source relevant information, assess mitigating factors, and determine the
appropriate course of action is a unique quality that demonstrates leadership potential (Church &
Rotolo, 2013; Elliot et al., 2017; Pigza, 2015).
Table 3 provides an overview of the knowledge influences that will be assessed in this
study, type of knowledge and the assessments that impact the stakeholder’s aspirations.
40
Table 3
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge type
Assumed knowledge influence
Conceptual
NCL graduates need an understanding of foundational
business acumen (e.g., accounting, finance, and
project management).
Procedural
NCL graduates need to know how to navigate the
promotion process and requirements to transition
towards management.
Metacognitive
NCL graduates need to develop learning agility to
further their cognitive skills and capabilities needed to
lead at the management level.
Motivational Influences
The NCL graduates, like many HiPos and EMCEs in the workforce, are at an inflection
point where many are contemplating their future opportunities within and outside the
organization (Church & Rotolo, 2013). The “war for talent”, a phrase first coined by McKinsey
consultants, noted that companies were competing for retention and attraction of top talent
through a combination of compensation and developmental opportunities (Chambers et al.,
1998). In more recent literature, the war for talent for high performing GenYZs is less about
compensation and more so in engagement and promotional opportunities (Hewlett et al., 2009;
McDonnell, 2011; Singh & Sanjeev, 2017). Similarly, NCL graduates must weigh the various
options for progression and determine which path has the most utility, total incentive, and one
41
that will accelerate their promotion to management which may include leaving their current
organization.
As part of their development, NCL graduates need to attain the requisite knowledge.
Additionally, they, like others similar in career progression, need to believe that they are capable
of learning new skills and understand when and how to apply them to demonstrate higher levels
of performance (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2017; De Meuse et al., 2010). The belief that
employees are capable relies heavily on the level of self-efficacy and the desire to continue their
personal development towards promotion which is a function of motivation. Grossman and
Salas’ (2011) study connected knowledge attainment to the belief in learning, associating the
material to be learned, and the constant development of the learned capability towards a
particular goal. Similarly, Ambrose et al. (2010) noted that learning happens when “transfer,” or
cognition of the behavior, is linked to a positive or desired performance outcome; in the case of
EMCEs it is achieving a leadership role. In both studies, the determinant factor of success was
motivation with respect to the value of participation, the expected outcomes, and persistence and
attribution to achievement (Ambrose et al., 2010; Grossman & Salas, 2011). The following
sections will explore EMCE’s motivational influences from participating in, the expected
outcomes from, and the attributions associated with the NCL program towards promotion to
management.
Task Value
Organizations have allocated significant funds towards employee development and
engagement programs (Carucci, 2018; Juhdi et al., 2012; Puckett, 2018). The programs are
intended to address turnover, retention, and development of future leaders in the organization
(Akar & Sharma, 2018; Charan et al., 2010; Laddha et al., 2012; Martins & Martins, 2011;
42
McConnell, 2011). Within CCL, multiple development and engagement programs are available
for employees at various performance levels including skills rotation programs, specialized
subject matter programs (e.g., factual knowledge programs like accounting), and a multitude of
leadership development programs. For EMCE employees, the challenge is for them to assess
which program or programs is best suited to address their knowledge gaps as well as accelerate
their progression to management. Eccles’ expectancy value theory describes this process of
weighing and selecting options as an extrinsic task value, which associates participation to future
attainment (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Task value is important to acknowledge as a motivational framework given that
individuals only have so much time and effort they can allocate. Therefore, the program they do
choose to participate in has to maximize the utility of those limited resources. In the case of
EMCEs at CCL, task value theories may explain the motivation behind their selecting to
participate in the NCL program over others available. The hypothesis of this study was that NCL
graduates value participating in the NCL program as an important step towards accelerating their
attainment of a management role. Given the level of investment by CCL into the program, with
nearly 200 candidates per annum, extensive travel, and a commitment of time by executives in
the organization, the NCL program may be viewed as a necessity for promotion.
Expectancy Outcome
The immersive, extensive, and focused investment of time and resources differentiates
the NCL program from other programs within CCL. The selection process is competitive and
selective. The program is intensive requiring commitment to perform in existing duties while
accomplishing the tasks required for graduation within a 2-year period. Completion is dependent
43
on the NCL graduates prioritizing and allocating time and resources, requiring a significant
personal investment and sacrifice.
During the NCL program, the candidates are provided mentoring from various leaders in
the organizations as well as from their peers. Through a Socratic style of training, leaders within
CCL present to NCL candidates during the program to discuss their personal success and failures
and the learnings associated with it. By providing opportunities to learn vicariously through
narratives from successful, tenured leaders in CCL, NCL candidates are provided opportunities
to associate the leaders’ stories and consider modeling their development accordingly.
Mentoring, a key element of the NCL program, provides NCL candidates feedback from
successful leaders on their performance, progress in the program, ideas for development, as well
as providing them a sounding board for ideas. Mentoring has been identified as a key attribute to
development and engagement programs, and more importantly, it has been noted as a common
process as part of leadership development amongst a multitude of organizations (Bajer, 2016;
Brack & Kelly, 2012; Byerly, 2012; Omilion-Hodges & Sugg, 2019; Rebeťák & Farkašová,
2015). Successful engagement in focused mentorship from senior leaders in CCL during the 2-
year program is a requisite for graduation.
During the 2-year period, assignments including rotations with different organizations
and functional skills are required to address gaps in the NCL graduates’ competencies and
develop new experiences. Placing the individuals into functions outside their expertise forces
them to learn new skills while drawing on their previous experiences and knowledge, therefore
providing broader learning opportunities (Silzer & Dowell, 2010). Rotations into new roles have
been a common practice in leadership development and a way to nurture emerging talent (Burke,
2015; Chavez, 2011; Kollmann et al., 2020).
44
Upon completion of the program, NCL graduates have demonstrated gaining the requisite
knowledge through completed projects, increased their depth and breadth of organizational
knowledge through rotations, and accomplished the leadership development goals established at
the launch of the program. Having been selected for and achieving the outcomes identified at the
launch of the NCL program, an expectation may exist that the process for promotion is complete.
Self-Efficacy
The NCL graduates, having chosen to participate in the NCL program, go through a
vetting process as previously outlined. Once selected into the program, a potential part of their
expectation for promotion upon completion is associated with their high level of self-efficacy.
Albert Bandura (1977) identified self-efficacy to describe the type of motivation where one
maintains a positive outlook on their future performance and ability to achieve at the highest
level.
In general, GenYZ have been found to be self-confident and assertive (Campione, 2015;
Zaharee et al., 2018). The majority if not all NCL graduates are from the GenYZ generation. As
a result, it is expected they carry with them the same self-induced drive for achievement
(Abrams, 2007). Self-efficacy is developed differently with everyone, but training programs
engender a deeper sense of self-efficacy through reinforcement (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Thus,
for NCL graduates, self-efficacy would correlate to the belief in one’s strength of knowledge and
performance to achieve a promotion to leadership once they have been selected into the program.
Additionally, NCL graduates, upon completion of the program outcomes, have
demonstrated the breadth and depth of knowledge outlined in their leadership development plans
identified at the launch of the program that were approved by their mentors and managers.
Having completed those requirements and fulfilled the program requirements, NCL graduates
45
may associate their past experiences to be able to perform in a leadership capacity. With the
experience of hearing from successful leaders in CCL, receiving feedback from mentors and
coaches, and graduating from the program, they may infer that they have all the leadership
competencies for promotion.
Attribution
The previous sections regarding task value, expectancy, and self-efficacy are focused on
motivation in direct control of the NCL graduate. However, the promotional process, in real
terms, may include decisions or influences outside the individual’s control and may influence
their actions. Therefore, to align the idea of control and causality, attribution theory aids in the
understanding.
Weiner (1972) introduced attribution theory to associate achievement and motivation
around the level of effort by the individual juxtaposed against the ability to perform.
Competency, as noted by Weiner (2005), which he considered to be more psychological (or
motivational) which allowed individuals to adapt their performance to varying situations. Harvey
and Martinko (2009) furthered the application of attribution as a “locus of causality” to account
for influences endogenous and exogenous to the development process.
In the case of NCL graduates, the fact that they were accepted into the program and have
graduated reflects their capabilities, sustained effort, and is an indicator of competence, which
again is internal to the NCL graduate’s control. The controlling of outcomes, although internal to
the NCL candidate, has a direct impact on their level of motivation. Perry and Hamm (2017)
framed the causal relationship where the outcome is a linear function preceded by performance
and motivation.
46
However, control is not only a function of internal factors as external factors outside the
control of the individual is important for consideration. Harvey and Martinko (2009) broadened
the aperture of influence by considering the external influences such as laws and organizational
policies defined as “external stable” and “external unstable” respectively. Essentially, regardless
the actions of the individuals and the level of self-efficacy, the final determinant for promotion
may be attributed to external causes and uncontrollable. In the case of NCL graduates, although
CCL is the final determinant of whether a promotion is offered, the NCL graduates need to
believe they have some level of control in creating an opportunity, through their actions, for
promotion to sustain motivation. Table 4 provides the motivation construction and the associated
influences for the NCL candidates.
47
Table 4
Motivation Influences
Motivation construct
Motivation influence
Task Value
NCL graduates need to value the skills learned through
participating in the NCL program for accelerating their
attainment of a leadership role.
Outcome Expectancy NCL graduates need to believe by participating in the
program they will gain the necessary knowledge and fulfill
the requisite requirements for attaining a promotion.
Self-Efficacy NCL graduates need to be confident in their ability to
perform in a management capacity.
Attribution NCL graduates need to see creating opportunity for
promotion as within their control.
Organizational Influences
Organizations recognize to maximize enterprise level performance while continuing to
innovate in preparation for the future that engagement and retention are important issues to
address (Akar & Sharma, 2018; Lee et al., 2018; McConnell, 2011). Studies have shown that
engaged employees achieve higher sustained levels of performance in addition to feeling a
greater sense of commitment to the organization (Gladwell et al., 2010; McGregor, 2010;
Morrell & Abston, 2018; Shuck et al., 2011). Human Resource Management (HRM) functions
within CCL have incorporated various rotation and development programs that have showed
promise in retaining EMCEs. However, typical of programs like these, they lack longevity of
impact as they are only impactful during the program (Lederman, 2017).
48
To gain a better understanding of the organizational influences, this study used the frame
of cultural models and settings to establish the conditions before, during, and after the NCL
program. The term models, in this context, is associated with Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001)
research which assumed social constructs, normative behaviors, and outcomes from cause-and-
effect relationships are assumed. Settings are more readily understood as they are associated as
events occurring when more people are engaged with a joint intent to accomplish a task
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Both cultural models and settings are contextual to a situation,
an organization, a purpose, and are influenced by internal and external confounding factors. The
following sections will discuss cultural models and settings, defined as continuing individualized
development programs and specific programs in place for opportunities for promotion post the
NCL program to support the stakeholder goal of 20% of NCL graduates attaining a promotion.
Structuring Leadership Development
The NCL program is a leadership development program designed for HiPo candidates
with expectations with regards to level of participation, specific in-person activities and
engagements, as well as required elements of a capstone project. Supplementing the individual
activities and leveraging the candidate’s current skills and capabilities are team and group-based
activities. The activities are based upon a multitude of studies that advocated components of
programs needing experiential learning that includes rotation programs, challenging and
interesting projects, and a mentor and network support structure (McCall, 2010; Pandya, 2017;
Silzer & Dowell, 2010).
The program incorporates team building exercises and group-based activities which has
been determined in studies to be critical elements for growth and development (Brack & Kelly,
2012; Burke, 2015; Burrus et al., 2013; Reiser et al., 2019). However, the NCL graduates
49
seeking promotion to leadership will be working as managers of a team and will need to assess
situations by gathering information they deem pertinent and ultimately make final decisions as
the leader (Charan et al., 2010). Additionally, the potential for facing new situations completely
outside of their experience may lead to further challenges in the performance of their duties in a
leadership role.
Therefore, in addition to the knowledge gained, developing a broader set of skills
including the development of social capital and testing the mental and emotional fortitude of the
individual is equally important (Hezlett, 2016, Khoreva et al., 2017; Schiemann & Seibert,
2013). The social capital aspect of learning is an important element in the passage from an
individual contributor to a leadership role as noted in Charan et al. (2010). Charan et al. noted
that being able to transition through various stages of development required scaffolding
foundational and procedural knowledge and the associative knowledge with regards to
application. As NCL graduates are building upon their foundational knowledge, their ability to
associate and apply their past performances to future ones in an innovative way is essential to a
leadership mindset (Cox et al., 2016).
Leadership Development Environment
The NCL graduates were afforded the opportunity to apply these skills in a controlled
environment, and per the program structure, they received feedback along the way. However,
outside the program and in a general organizational setting, the outcomes are not constrained to a
controlled environment; the consequences of decision making have personal accountability and
responsibility. Furthermore, the gaps in capabilities of the NCL graduates, as identified in the
leadership development assessments during the program, are presumed to be addressed in the
50
controlled environment of the program. The learned skills have yet to be applied in a normal
business setting.
Developing Leadership Capabilities
To ensure continued development and movement towards the stakeholder goal of
achieving a promotion, an individualized program focusing on the specific needs and gaps in
knowledge and experience are needed post-graduation. The intent would be to identify a specific
promotional opportunity and support the NCL graduate with the explicit needs of the new
leadership role during their transition. During this transition, support would be a balance of on-
the-job training, continued mentorship, and formal education aligned to the role, a model used by
other organizations (Hezlett et al., 2016). Performance feedback, as the NCL graduate performs
in the leadership role, would be associated with performance in a leadership role as opposed to
addressing leadership skills associated with increased emotional intelligence. As noted in various
studies, performance feedback, tied to formalized and continued development programs provide
for more positive outcomes (Casey & Vogel, 2019; Goldberg, 2012; Schiemann & Seibert, 2013;
Schumacher, 2012).
Communicate Value and Purpose of the NCL Program
The organization’s mission and vision statement states that the workforce represents the
best team, the best talent, and the development of the best leaders for the future. Much like many
organizations managing a multi-generational workforce, CCL touts the culture is built around the
principle of equity, diversity and inclusion which is intended to unify the workforce (Kollmann
et al., 2020; Northouse, 2016; Schiemann & Seibert, 2013). However, equal allocation of
resources for workforce development across the entire workforce is impractical. The
51
organization recognizes to achieve its continued performance in the marketplace, there needs to
be mechanisms that will allow for differentiation and selection.
Studies (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2017; Finkelstein et al., 2018; Tormala et al., 2012)
reveal that organizations that host leader development programs, like NCL, must recognize and
communicate that such programs exist, are targeted for specific individuals via assessments, and
that it is for the purpose of developing the next generation of leadership. Through assessments,
individuals can be categorized into various development streams where the ones with the most
potential are labeled and notified of their status as being a HiPo (Church & Rotolo, 2013; De
Meuse et al., 2010; Tormala et al., 2012).
By having managers communicate to employees their HiPo designation, candid
conversations on joint development of a growth plan can lead to increased motivation, and
increase the efficacy of targeted programs (Downs, 2015; Goldberg, 2012). This supports the
idea that purposefully articulating the specific intent of the NCL program as preparing NCL
graduates for future roles in leadership aids in maintaining alignment to the organizational goals.
Studies have shown that managers play a key role in the assessment, identification, and
development of the program and need to stay involved throughout to enhance engagement and
retention (Brack & Kelly, 2012; Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Schiemann & Seibert, 2013). Equally
important is for the organization to maintain the level of engagement and support after
completing programs to continue the development journey (Kopelman et al., 2008; Schiemann &
Seibert, 2013).
Table 5 summarizes the organizational influences in CCL towards the development of
their future leaders.
52
Table 5
Organizational Influences
Organizational influence
category
Organizational influences
Setting
CCL needs to have programs in place that offer structured
opportunities for promotion into
management roles.
Setting The goals of the NCL program with respect to preparing NCL
graduates for management positions need to be clearly
articulated to participants.
Model CCL needs to have a culture of transparency regarding the NCL
program as a space for developing the needed competencies
to perform at a managerial level.
Setting The NCL program needs to be structured in a manner that
develops participants to perform management functions.
Conceptual Framework
To achieve higher levels of performance, individuals need to demonstrate depth and
breadth of skills and capabilities as well as the motivation to achieve it (Shoaib & Kohli, 2017).
Just understanding what knowledge is required is inadequate without the motivation to learn
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Also, the environment or the organization, completes the notion of
“triadic reciprocity” where knowledge, motivation, and organization are tightly integrated
(Bandura, 1984; Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, to understand the impact of the NCL program
with respect to EMCE’s ability to gain the specific knowledge associated with leadership and
remain motivated to do so, it is important to understand the underlying conceptual framework
influencing this research.
53
Within CCL, the NCL graduates have proactively chosen to participate in the NCL
program with the expectation that they will develop the necessary skills to progress in their
career. The NCL program has an assessment and selection criteria reinforcing that the
individuals in the program represent the HiPos who have demonstrated past high performance
and learning agility to progress towards leadership roles. Finally, the organization recognizes
through the program that of these individuals, there is an expectation that 20% of the NLC
graduates should warrant a promotion. Figure 1 depicts the triadic reciprocity of leadership
development within CCL.
54
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for Leadership Development
Note. The prerequisite for entry into the NCL program includes past performance in current role,
variety of demonstrated experience working on projects, expressed motivation, and general
attitude as assessed through performance evaluations. Entering as an “individual contributor” to
the program, participants progress upwards by building on foundational and procedural
knowledge which includes basic business acumen like accounting finance, and project
management. As participants engage in activities in the program, they transition through
conceptual knowledge development moving towards a metacognitive state of leadership
55
development. Persistence in the effort is driven by theories such as Task-Value, Expectancy
Outcomes, and Self-Efficacy.
Summary
In this chapter, as noted in Figure 1, a prerequisite for entry into the NCL program
requires individuals to demonstrate high levels of performance, associate their experiences, be
motivated, and have an attitude for achievement. Once EMCEs have demonstrated to their
managers and be selected into the NCL program, they begin their leadership development
journey of developing their leadership skills. The scaffolding of knowledge from factual and
procedural to a metacognitive level is a function of their motivational factors such as task value
and expectancy outcomes. The organization structures programs to ensure the type of knowledge
gained drives towards objectives aligned to leadership traits. As individuals progress through this
learning pyramid, the knowledge is not linear, and it must be associated in a way that they can
transition their mindset to harness the capabilities of an organization.
56
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of the study was to explore the degree to which CCL can meet its goal of
promotion NCL graduates to leadership by understanding and identifying the NCL graduate’s
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The NCL graduates are EMCEs who have
been designated as HiPos by CCL and have completed the NCL program. This chapter will
overview the methodology inclusive of the guiding research questions, data collection methods,
and associated instrumentation used for data analysis. This chapter will conclude with an
overview of positionality, in relation to ethics, validity, and reliability as they are important
constructs when conducting research.
Research Questions
The research questions that formed the basis of the framework of this study are as
follows:
1. What knowledge and skills do NCL graduates gain from the program related to
advancing to management levels?
2. What is the motivation of NCL graduates?
3. How does CCL’s organizational culture and other external influences impact NCL
graduate’s capacity to advance to management levels?
4. What are knowledge, motivational and organizational recommendations to
strengthen the NCL program and support NCL graduate advancement to
management levels?
Overview of Methodology
As noted in the prevailing literature, there is a consensus on foundational knowledge that
is based upon rote learning (Burbach et al., 2004; Flores et al., 2012; Werner & Bleich, 2017).
57
However, the consensus is aggregated and is not representative of every organization or
individual (Dries & Pepermans, 2012). Therefore, to assess a belief that knowledge is assumed to
be known (epistemology) and to assess the variations amongst individuals (ontology), this
research used a qualitative method of inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Using a qualitative
method allows for the stakeholders to provide in their own narrative the knowledge they had
prior to, learned during, and developed upon completion of the NCL program. Additionally, the
same narrative allowed for the collection of insights on the participant’s motivation beginning
from the application process through to graduation.
For further understanding, the qualitative research method with this study is influenced
and parallels to the philosophy paradigms associated with pragmatic constructivism. Creswell
and Creswell (2014) define various philosophies of research where a pragmatic constructivist
believes that a solution can be found by exploring the confounding influences and identifying
measures to explain the results. Leveraging information gained from interviews with
stakeholders, the intent was to find commonalities in narrative or emoted experiences that may
provide directions for change to the employee engagement and development programs.
Although the methodology is a qualitative study, during inception, some consideration
was given to using a quantitative or a mixed method approach using survey instruments and
experiments. However, given the duration and the structure of the NCL program, the
complexities of designing a manageable experiment proved untenable. Specifically, the
longitudinal nature of personal development could not be assessed without the potential of
confounding influences such as knowledge maturation. Therefore, using a qualitative approach
allowed for greater depth of information from the perspective of the stakeholder. Table 6
identifies the research questions and the associated methods used in the data collection process.
58
Table 6
Data Sources
Research questions
Interview
Document and
artifact analysis
What knowledge and skills do NCL graduates
gain from the program related to advancing
to management levels?
Structured
Interview
Document review
What is the motivation of NCL graduates? Structured
Interview
Document review
How does CCL’s organizational culture and
other external influences impact NCL
graduate’s capacity to advance to
management levels?
Structured
Interview
Document review
What are knowledge, motivational and
organizational recommendations to
strengthen the NCL program and support
NCL graduate advancement to management
levels?
Structured
Interview
Document review
59
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan
To collect the depth of information that NCL graduates experience through their career
development journey, two qualitative methods were used, which included personal interviews
and review of documentation. The methods used in the study follows below.
Method 1: Interviews
The first method used was a semi-structured, qualitative interview with two NCL
graduate groups. The first group were NCL graduates who have been promoted within six
months upon completion of the program. The second group were NCL graduates who have not
been promoted within six months upon completion of the program. As the NCL graduate is
seeking to achieve a future promotion by gaining knowledge through the NCL program, it is
important to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
promotional opportunities of both the successful and unsuccessful graduates.
Participating Stakeholders
With an annual cohort of 200 candidates and the program having gone through five
iterations, there is a population of nearly 1,000 NCL graduates as potential participant
stakeholders. The overall goal of this study was to interview 10-20 NCL graduates stratified
between those who are “successful” and “unsuccessful.” Of the 1000 NCL graduates, the focus
was on NCL graduates who have been promoted within six months of their graduation from the
program.
The “successful” NCL graduates represent roughly 10% of the entire NCL graduate
population. Of the successful NCL graduates, the target was to interview a minimum of five but
no more than 10 individuals or until information saturation was achieved. This purposeful
sampling of participating stakeholders represented the proposed stakeholder outcome of
60
participating in the NCL program. Having the insights and narrated experiences from this
participating stakeholder group provided insight on areas that were identified as contributing to
the NCL graduates experience with respect to knowledge, motivation, and organizational
support.
To juxtapose the experience of successful NCL graduates, the experiences of NCL
graduates who were “unsuccessful” in achieving a promotion were interviewed. To identify areas
for change to the program to achieve the organizational goal of 20% promotion, a purposeful
sample of five to 10 unsuccessful NCL graduates was pursued. The unsuccessful NCL graduates
represent roughly 90% of the entire NCL graduate population. Like the successful NCL
graduates, having the insights and narrated experiences from this participating stakeholder group
provided direction on areas for change to engagement programs or suggested actions for future
stakeholders to improve their chances for success to promotion.
Given the large population of potential stakeholders and the selection criteria to identify
the target sample, it was important to coordinate with the current program manager of the NCL
program to get access to the alumni list. The NCL program manager had metrics identifying
which candidates had achieved promotion within six months of graduating from the program as
well as those that did not. Through a collaboration with the NCL program manager, an invitation
to participate in the study with an overview of this research was sent to the successful and
unsuccessful NCL graduates. Based upon the responses received, the first five to 10 of each
group were selected for the interview process.
Instrumentation
As part of a qualitative method of study, a rigorous and systematic interview protocol
was used to collect data. Using an interview protocol ensures there is consistency as well as
61
minimizing any biases from variations in the way questions are asked (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Considering the development of knowledge and sustainment of motivation is part of the
research study, the 19-question interview, as noted in Appendix A, was structured using a
chronological format. Therefore, the structure of the interview began with questions seeking
inputs on each graduate’s level of knowledge and motivation prior to joining the program, during
the program, and upon completion. The structure of the questions aligns to Patton’s (2002) six
categories of questions less the demographics as they were superfluous to this research.
Data Collection Procedures
The 19 open-ended question interviews took approximately 1 hour of time. Per the
research protocols in place at the time of the study, all interviews were held virtually via Zoom, a
web-based communication medium to minimize any physical contact. To maintain both an audio
and visual connection with the interviewee, the interviews were conducted using a web camera
and microphone. All interviews were recorded using the features on Zoom that lend itself to
record the audio and visual.
To mitigate any failures in the Zoom recording, I used an additional audio recording
device to capture the conversation. Having the Zoom recording along with an audio recording
ensured completeness of information gathered as well as ensure a flow of conversation during
the interview process without having to transcribe the conversation during the interview.
Additionally, field notes were captured during the interviews for clarity and thoughts for
correlation and review.
Data Analysis
Upon completion of each interview, the recordings were transcribed using a computer
program and compared to the audio recording to ensure the transcription is valid. The transcribed
62
interview, correlated with field notes, ensured alignment of all the notes to the specific questions
asked. As noted in Bogdan and Biklen (2007), it was imperative to ensure there is structure and
alignment in the collection of data to ensure interpretations or narratives are not taken out of
context. Additionally, having the transcribed interview along with the integrated field notes, the
potential to identify commonalities or themes became more apparent that were not recognized
during the interview (Weiss, 1994).
Beyond the correlation of field notes to interview responses, a three-fold approach to data
analysis was used. The main set of a priori codes segmented and associated common themes
aligned to knowledge, motivation and organizational influences based upon chosen words by the
interviewee as well as identified in field notes during the interview process. The second set of
coding, within the main a priori coding, are associated with specific aspects of the group. For
example, within the main a priori code of knowledge, a secondary coding delineated if the data
aligns to foundational, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive knowledge. A similar approach
was used for motivation and organizational influences. The third approach to the data analysis
aligned frequency of the coding to identify any thematic patterns in the responses.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As previously noted, the pragmatic constructivist presumes a solution can be found that
may lead to beginning with an assumption of a hypothesis (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Then,
through the data analysis, responses were noted as to whether aspects correlating to the
hypothesis were observed or not. Therefore, it was imperative to ensure any bias and subjectivity
associated with the analysis was minimized.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) identified various methods to minimize bias through
strategies such as triangulation and member checking. Triangulation requires fact checking or
63
verifying the information captured during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). One method
of triangulation is to verify the information received during the interview by approaching the
interviewee’s colleagues or manager, but this would have potentially ‘harmed’ the individual as
confidentiality and anonymity could not be maintained. Alternatively, aligning the code data and
information to the document and artifact analysis allowed for further corroboration of the
information.
Finally, the analysis is only as credible and trustworthy as the data collected during the
interview process. With the differences in perception between the successful and unsuccessful
NCL graduates, consideration was given to any potential bias or intent in the responses received.
As part of the analysis, outliers in the data, with regards to frequency or patterns in the coding, it
was important to earmark specific data for follow-up with the interviewee to seek additional
validation and clarification.
Method 2: Document and Artifact Analysis
The second method used was a review of documentation associated with the NCL
program and metrics captured from all five cohorts having gone through the program. Each
cohort of the NCL program is required to complete the following: end of program surveys
describing basic opinions on the efficacy of the program, Likert scale surveys on activities
completed during the program, and general comments provided for future consideration to
improve the program. These three types of documents were used to provide insight into the
knowledge of motivation of the NCL graduates as well as the organizational influences
impacting their goal attainment.
In addition to NCL graduate program survey information, documentation on program
history, program reviews, promotional brochures, and newsletters generated by NCL program
64
management were reviewed. These documents provided insights on program performance,
program focus areas, and program highlights.
Instrumentation
Reviewing existing documentation, or secondary data, assisted in identifying common
themes as an aggregate amongst all the NCL graduates. Additionally, the documents reviewed
aided in the further refinement of the priori coding in the data analysis. Also, the document
analysis corroborated findings from interviews providing an isolated version of triangulation
without having to forfeit interviewee confidentiality and anonymity as previously mentioned.
Data Analysis
Leveraging a priori coding, key elements from the documentation were identified
including common words associated with proposed knowledge to be gained from the program,
words associated with motivation, and program performance objectives. Alignment of narrative
data to verbiage in the documents and artifacts were used to identify and evaluate discrepancies
or disparities. Additionally, qualitative and quantitative metrics associated with stakeholders
inclusive of years of services with the company, development pathways (whether managerial or
technical), number of roles and functions with the organization, and tenure with the organization
were reviewed. This information was used as a comparison to the narrative data for insights into
potential influences on the basis of the participant’s responses.
Ethics and Role of Researcher
The researcher’s role in deriving a problem of practice, structuring the research
methodologies, and collecting and analyzing data have inherent positionality and power in the
research they conduct; therefore, it is also the responsibility of the researcher to ensure research
was done ethically and responsibly (Creswell & Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In
65
establishing the research protocol, processes, and procedures, researchers must abide by a
systematic approach to research under guiding ethical standards as outlined by their respective
Institutional Review Board (IRB). As part of this research, the IRB at the University of Southern
California (USC) was the guiding organization to ensure proper protocols and procedures are in
place so that stakeholders willingly participating in the research are protected from harm during
and after the research is concluded (Glesne, 2011).
As part of the structured process in the USC IRB process, which includes training to be
certified under the CITI Program to collect data from human participants, an accountability
binary with each participant was established to protect participants from undue harm or
unnecessary risk. This accountability binary was established through a form of consent that
identifies to the participant the purpose study, use of recording mediums, use of information
collected, and a commitment to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of data and personal
information as presented in Appendix B. Also, given the current conditions with regards to social
distancing and other safety measures, interviews were conducted virtually allowing the
stakeholders to select a suitable location for being interviewed.
66
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this research study was to explore the degree to which CCL can meet its
goal of promoting 20% of the NCL program graduates to management by January 2022.
Identifying the gaps in NCL graduate knowledge and motivation and organizational influences in
leadership development is imperative for CCL to achieve its goals. The research and analysis
were centered around the experiences of NCL graduates before, during, and after completion of
the program. Although capturing the narrative of the entire CCL employee population that has
gone through various development programs is preferred, focusing on the NCL program
graduates was more relevant and practical to this study. The following research questions
provided the framework and guidance in the study:
1. What knowledge and skills do NCL graduates gain from the program related to
advancing to management levels?
2. What is the motivation of NCL graduates?
3. How does CCL’s organizational culture and other external influences impact NCL
graduate’s capacity to advance to management levels?
4. What are knowledge, motivational and organizational recommendations to
strengthen the NCL program and support NCL graduate advancement to
management levels?
Participants
A qualitative research approach was used to capture the depth and richness of the
narrative. The participants for this study focused on graduates from the NCL program stratified
into those that were promoted to management (MIPO) and those that were not promoted (HIPO)
within six months upon graduation. During the identification and selection process, NCL
67
graduates were invited to volunteer for the study by the NCL program manager. A total of 12
interviews were conducted: 10 HIPOs and two MIPOs.
The first five HIPOs of the available pool were invited to be interviewed. Of the first five
MIPOs invited, only two agreed to participate in the study after initial planning and scheduling
conversations. The other three MIPO volunteers who originally opted to participate in the study
subsequently declined to participate, citing concerns with sharing proprietary information or
having the information being identifiable to them. After sharing questions in advance, providing
reassurances of the purpose of the study, that proprietary information would not be shared, and
that all information was to be de-identified to protect the individual and the organization, these
MIPOs still declined to participate.
In efforts to identify and collect narratives from additional MIPO participants, I reached
out to a wider pool of individuals who had participated in the program and were in a leadership
role. Unfortunately, they also elected not to participate. After nearly a month of trying to find
MIPO candidates to participate, I expanded the search criteria and opened participation to all
graduates of the program, whether promoted to management or not. At the end of the search, an
additional five HIPO participant volunteers were invited to participate in the study for a total of
10 HIPO interviews, but no additional MIPO candidates participated.
To help in the identification process while maintaining the anonymity of the individuals,
the NCL graduates were categorized as either MIPOs or HIPOs to represent those that were
promoted to management and those that were not, respectively. MIPOs and HIPOs were
assigned numerical designators by the order in which they were interviewed in that category.
Additionally, relevant information regarding their previous experiences and tenure were noted as
notable factors in analyzing the data. Some participants had previous managerial experience and
68
every participant identified as either being on a technical or managerial pathway. “Years of
Service” relates to the length of employment in CCL. “Number of Roles in Organization” is the
number of distinct job titles held during the participant’s tenure in CCL. Of the HIPO
participants, there were four females and six males. For the two MIPO participants, one was
female and the other male. Interviews were conducted beginning December of 2020 through the
first week of January 2021. Table 7 categorizes and displays the relevant information.
Table 7
Participant Information
Identifier Previous
manager
experience
Technical (T)
Managerial (M)
pathway
Years of service Number of roles
in organization
HIPO 1 Yes M 1-5 2
HIPO 2 Yes M 6-10 3
HIPO 3 Yes T 6-10 1
HIPO 4 Yes M 6-10 2
HIPO 5 No T >10 3
HIPO 6 No M 1-5 4
HIPO 7 No M 6-10 3
HIPO 8 No M >10 3
HIPO 9 No M 6-10 4
HIPO 10 No M 1-5 2
MIPO 1 No T >10 4
MIPO 2 No T 6-10 7
69
Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured approach spanning 19 questions with
potential probing questions. All interviews were conducted virtually using the Zoom online
meeting platform or via telephone. Additionally, interviews were recorded and transcribed where
possible. Due to varying technical issues, interviews with HIPO 6, HIPO 8, and HIPO 10 were
either not recorded, or the recordings were of a quality that made transcription difficult. These
interviews were captured through field notes taken during the conversation. To ensure the
reliability of the information, HIPO 6, HIPO 8, and HIPO 10 were asked to review the partial
transcriptions and field notes for correctness and provided additional insights that may have been
missed or misconstrued.
Documents and Artifacts
To supplement interviews, non-proprietary documents and artifacts were reviewed for
additional information. Documents included marketing materials used in association with the
promotion of the NCL program, such as duration, objectives, competencies to be introduced, and
program structure. Additional documents reflecting aggregated data on participant
demographics, prevailing performance evaluation level within the organization, and statistical
information on promotion rate were reviewed. Deidentified and aggregated course completion
Likert surveys on beliefs of participants on program efficacy, value, and general opinions were
reviewed to correlate and find associations to the coded information from the interviews. Table 8
identifies the documents and artifacts reviewed, including a summary of content and whether
each item informed the analysis or not.
70
Table 8
Documents and Artifacts
Document
number
Document name
Document summary
Informed
analysis
DOC 1 NCL Program History
Overview for management Yes
DOC 2 NCL Program Mid-year Review Bi-annual assessment and metrics Yes
DOC 3 NCL Program Brochure Marketing brochure Yes
DOC 4
NCL Quarterly Newsletters
Quarterly program highlights
Yes
The NCL Program History (DOC 1) is a presentation that is meant to brief executive
leadership on the NCL program. It includes key facts about the program, a summary timeline
from when the program was initially launched, and a page that includes CCL’s organizational
values and guiding principles. This document is “static,” meaning the content is not maintained.
The NCL Program Mid-year Review (DOC 2) is a presentation generated two times per
year for executive sponsors, CCL’s human resources advisory board, executives that provide
support to the program, and the NCL program management team. This document provides
metrics such as participant demographics, selection process, and promotion rates of graduates. It
also includes highlights on activities of the current cohort in the NCL program and program
operations performance to business plans.
The NCL Program Brochure is a one-page document generated by an internal media and
graphics design group of CCL. The target audience of the brochure is prospective candidates of
the NCL program, which includes instructions on how to apply for the program. This document
71
is distributed electronically on an annual basis to all eligible employees via email. This document
is also distributed during the NCL Program “roadshows”; in-person and virtual meetings with
prospective candidates.
The NCL Quarterly Newsletter (DOC 4) is available to executive sponsors, CCL’s
human resources advisory board, executives supporting the program, the NCL program
management team, and all NCL current and alumni participants. The NCL Quarterly Newsletter
includes leadership perspectives and opinions on the progress of the program and an overview of
the current business environment conditions influencing CCL. The information in quarterly
newsletters varies depending on the current state of CCL’s business. Consistent amongst the
newsletters are updates to activities across the different regions. Regions are broken into four
domestic U.S. regions, labeled Region 1, Region 2, Region 3, and Region 4, and one for the
entire international cohorts.
What Knowledge and Skills Do NCL Graduates Gain From the Program Related to
Advancing to Management Levels?
Themes emerged through the analysis associated with the foundational knowledge
needed to perform as a manager, awareness surrounding the development process towards
promotion, and learning agility. The interview questions were designed to seek each participant’s
definition of knowledge associated with promotion to management. In the case of foundational
knowledge, it was imperative that questions did not bias the participant and defined it based on
their experiences. The questions addressing the participant’s knowledge about the process
towards promotion were structured to allow participants to outline the skills and capabilities they
had before joining the program and those gained during the program. Finally, to identify if
learning agility was present, questions were designed to determine if the sum of the development
72
process inclusive of the NCL program is associated in a way that leads to promotion to
management. The subsequent sections detail findings that emerged from the analysis.
NCL Graduates Did Not Identify Business Acumen Concepts as Foundational Knowledge
Needed for Managerial Success
Alignment on foundational knowledge needed for promotion into management was a key
focus area of the study. The specific questions during the interview addressed whether
participants possessed the assumed knowledge needed for progression to management. As noted
in Chapter 2, foundational knowledge concepts included subject matter knowledge inferred by
their past education and technical skills in accounting, finance, and project management as
grounded in Anderson et al. (2018) and David and David (2016).
The main interview questions were open-ended and did not name specific terms, such as
finance, accounting, or program management, to avoid potential bias or influence the response to
align to specific terms. In addition to the main interview questions, based upon initial responses,
subsequent probing questions sought further clarification or sought explicit information
associated with foundational knowledge. Additionally, the documents and artifacts noted in
Table 8 depict a comparison of responses from participants. Comparing participant responses
against documents and artifacts was important to determine if the responses reflected the
participants’ beliefs or a reiteration of promotional brochures or program information.
Interview Findings
The initial analysis of the data showed very minimal belief that basic business acumen
such as finance, accounting, and program management was an asset for leadership capacity
among interviewees. Half of the participants had mentioned their role during their time in the
NCL program involved managing a particular activity and cited using some level of finance,
73
accounting, or project management (collectively business acumen). HIPO 9 inferred she utilized
her program management skills when she stated she, “took a leadership position in the program
on the member advocate [team].” Similarly, MIPO 1 volunteered to take on a leadership role in
the program and emphasized the reasoning by stating, “the act of having to run the program, and
be involved with the decisions of in the leadership team was where I feel like I got the most
benefit out of the out of the program.” HIPO 3 stated “one of the biggest things that's important
in terms of progressing as a leader, I think business acumen is really, really important, I think, I
know at least for me” when discussing their role in leading a design center operation. Probing
further into the statement, HIPO 3 specifically associated business acumen to “risk management”
associated with execution of projects. Interestingly, later in the conversation, HIPO 3 also
referred to business acumen as “having more awareness of all the different avenues that the
company has to offer” referring to differing roles and positions given the global presence of the
organization.
Both HIPO 6 and HIPO 7 reported working in finance roles and did not specifically refer
to finance or accounting acumen, but they did express the need to utilize their past skills.
Specifically, HIPO 6 stated, “I have been on the leadership team and fully immersed myself in
running parts of the program.” Similarly, HIPO 7 stated, they used their previous experience in
putting together a business plan to launch a new project and “if the project looked okay and that
turns into a project…like I did for [a division of CCL]” based upon their strength of proposal.
Although both HIPO 6 and HIPO 7 utilized their past knowledge of business acumen, neither
had stated that it was necessary for progression.
One participant was close to acknowledging the explicit benefits of basic business
acumen during his tenure in a leadership role in the NCL program. In his statement, HIPO 5
74
stated, “the program gave me some exposure to the finance side of the enterprise. I learned a lot
from there, and it gave me an appetite to understand more about the financial operations of the
company.” This experience was unique to HIPO 5 as other participants did not reference basic
business acumen as knowledge already learned or to be learned.
Six out of 12 participants completely moved away from or did not even discuss business
acumen. HIPO 1 stated wanting to gain an “understanding more about the business aspects of the
company” referring to daily business operations. Likewise, MIPO 2 talked about performing the
duties as if it were a given skill that he had comfort with and should have developed prior to the
program. MIPO 2 stated, “but I definitely thought before going into [the NCL Program], you
know, commodity knowledge is, you know, is extremely important else it’s really hard to be a
manager.” Regarding the statement from MIPO 2, the reference to “commodity knowledge”
involved basic business acumen, but also included what he referred to as specific knowledge
associated with the role such as technical knowledge or subject matter expertise with the roles
and responsibilities of the position.
Alternatively, the knowledge that was identified as needed to be gained or to be
developed from the program involved more conceptual as opposed to technical competencies
surrounding business acumen. The perspective on conceptual competencies came from HIPO 9
when she stated, “I haven't picked up a lot of knowledge, but I have picked up a lot of skill.” She
continued to elaborate around the unique skill she gained by stating, “I think that's really helpful
in becoming a leader at the company and being a leader is addressing a person like a person, not
just as my manager or an employee or colleague” referring to interpersonal skills and
communications.
75
There was a shared belief amongst all 12 of the participants in the need for non-technical
skills for success, with each having cited the words “networking,” “greater awareness of the
enterprise,” and “communications” as skills needed for leadership development in the data.
MIPO 1 grouped these skills into “three main pillars” about “being a talent leader and the culture
shaper and I think it's enterprise leaders.” The skill of networking, greater exposure to the
enterprise, and communication were consistently cited as the type of knowledge needed to be an
effective leader. MIPO 2 corroborated MIPO 1’s belief that the value of the program is the
awareness and exposure to the enterprise by expressing, “It’ll give me an enterprise view. And
it's you know, helping me develop for the future really. Letting me utilize my abilities to practice
leadership and my strategy skills.”
HIPO 3 shared the same belief that having exposure to enterprise level activities is
important through his statement about having “awareness about things from a global perspective,
not just considered the things that we're doing over here in the [United] States but you know
around the globe.” In a remarkably similar statement, HIPO 5 cited the skill to be gained was “to
expand my network and my knowledge across the whole enterprise rather than only the small
local organization that I'd been participating in up to that time.” As a further indication of how
pervasive this perspective is, HIPO 6 stated “networking, increased exposure to global parts of
the business, access to [Senior Leadership] and [Executive Council], community support,
improving my leadership competencies” was the knowledge he gained through the program.
HIPO 10 had the shortest employment history in the organization but expressed one of
the strongest set of opinions regarding the need for skills in networking and communication. She
stated, “if you don’t have a network then you’re not on anyone’s radar. Plus, if you can’t
communicate effectively to even build a network then you won’t ever be a manager.” HIPO 7
76
reinforced HIPO 10’s statement when he said, “if you’re interested in a different function, [and]
you want to be a manager there, be leadership there, then starting networking in that space.”
HIPO 8 recognized the value of the network to gain awareness by stating, “building a network of
people that have the same aspirations as you and to broaden your reach in the company without
having to take different positions.”
MIPO 1 further corroborated the perception of having networking and communication
skills as important to promotion by stating, “I certainly had more visibility, so, If I had an interest
in moving up or for changing organizations, I certainly had more people I could reach out to,
who were already supportive of me and familiar with me.” MIPO 2 spoke volumes about
networking and communicating across organizations, which is paraphrased in the statement,
“great to network [with] individuals across the enterprise, great partnerships, ‘til this day…gave
me a lot of tools to be a better manager, a better leader for my team.”
Summary
As Anderson et al. (2018) and David and David (2016) suggested, following the onset of
the research, basic business acumen was thought to be the foundational knowledge needed for
promotion to management. Although two of 12 participants explicitly acknowledged finance as a
knowledge component to perform tasks, participants did not state this as a requirement for a
promotion. Even though one participant inferred that basic business acumen was a “commodity
skill” to succeed in management, the narrative data did not reflect that business acumen was a
need for promotion. Therefore, there was a significant disconnect and lack of corroboration with
the definition of foundational knowledge as identified by Anderson et al. (2018). The disconnect
between literature and participants’ belief on the need for basic business acumen will be further
explored in Chapter 5.
77
The resultant data did indicate the knowledge gained by participants included skills
associated with networking, awareness of the enterprise, and communication. Every participant
cited specific terms like “networking,” “communication,” “awareness,” and “collaboration”
across the enterprise as important skills and capabilities “learned” through activities. These
subjectively measured skills associated with emotional intelligence competencies influence the
next section associated with knowledge.
NCL Graduates Unable to Navigate the Development Process Towards Promotion
The NCL program is designed to be participant-led and driven, as noted in the program
overview. The messaging conveyed in the NCL program promotional materials is that
developing the knowledge, skills, and competencies to perform in a leadership function is not
meant to be prescriptive within CCL and participant-driven to address the individuals’ self-
identified learning needs. In compliance with federal regulations on equitable employment, there
are processes associated with recruitment, selection, and determination of attaining a new role
through the Human Resources (HR) policies and procedures. However, the HR policies and
procedures are for purposes of compliance and equity in opportunity and are not explicit to
promotion to leadership. As previously discussed, the NCL program provides experiential
learning to develop leadership skills, but the knowledge associated with the procedure to achieve
promotion is undefined.
The interview questions were developed to determine participants’ understanding of the
process towards promotion having completed the program. As an extension of questions related
to knowledge, the intent of the relevant interview questions was meant to address what
knowledge participants gained through their activities and engagements that would define the
development process towards promotion.
78
Interview Findings
None of the 12 participants, including the two who had attained management positions,
could articulate how to navigate the development process towards achieving promotion within
CCL. Through engagements in the NCL program, they gained experiential knowledge, but they
did not identify the steps needed to promote promotion. There was a consistent consensus
amongst all the participants that the pathway towards promotion to leadership was neither
defined nor articulated so that they understood what steps were necessary.
MIPO 2 expressed, “I feel like that we, [CCL], have been doing [leadership development]
for so long, the steps, the intentional steps of management should be taken in team development,
it's been kind of like, put to the side for too long” when speaking about leadership development.
The sentiment from MIPO 2, given he served in a management role and yet still expresses the
lack of understanding of the promotional process, is indicative of the knowledge gap.
MIPO 1 attempted to articulate her perspective on the promotional process stating, “to
progress into, just to get into management, I think it's a lot about relationship development, and
try not to burn bridges.” Probing into the term “relationship development,” MIPO 1 clarified
with, “a lot of the political relationship building to make sure that the right people who are going
to do those promotions are an ally.” The idea of building a network and managing the politics
associated with it was a consistent opinion of MIPO 1.
The idea of relationship development extended into statements from HIPO 8 in
referencing his opinion on how political networks drive outcomes. HIPO 8 was emphatic in the
statement, “Relationships are equally, if not more, important than knowledge, skills, and
motivation.” HIPO 4 colorfully illustrated this notion:
79
The leaders coming down from the top to grab someone else to bring up with them. You
can be the best person at the job and if you're an asshole, they're not going to work for
you. And you can be the worst person on the job but if you really know how to build
those relationships with people, they will give 110% for you.
HIPO 4 was illustrating an extreme with regards to performance and promotion. However, HIPO
4 stated it purposefully to express the importance of building a political network, ensuring the
connection is meaningful, and knowing how to leverage it. As a follow-on to the statement,
HIPO 4 stated that he “got to glean a lot of expertise from participating in manager’s interviews,
seeing what they were looking for” when referring to promoting managers.
Reverting to the idea of networks, HIPO 7 first acknowledged, “I wouldn’t say I have
control over that” when asked about whether he could shape opportunities for future promotion.
He emphasized that the program “really built up your brand” and that it “builds upon your areas
of experience and allows you to network.” However, when it comes to the actual understanding
and control of the process towards promotion, he was unable to identify explicitly what the
process entails. HIPO 7’s lack of explicit process knowledge towards promotion was evident in
multiple comments which were vague such as “it was a lot of different factors.” Like all the
participants, he cited the importance of networks but added general inferences that exogenous
factors had a greater influence on the process.
HIPO 3’s comments differed slightly from HIPO 7. HIPO 3 felt the program
“empower[ed] me to feel like I have more control over my own destiny, you know, within the
company and where I wanted to go.” This idea that there was some sense of “control” may infer
he was understanding of the process to promotion, but after continued discussion the
conversation reverted back to “leveraging some of the you know, I’m saying like something that
80
works that I developed some of the leaders that I got to touch” referring to how relationships and
networks continue to play a role.
With a softer inference to the concept of control, HIPO 5 thought, “I had some influence
over, you know, receiving in line promotions in the current organization,” but from the
perspective of having “the opportunity to search for job req[uisitions] and apply for things.”
HIPO 5 did not express knowing any other process towards promotion and did not attribute
gaining knowledge from the program towards that effort. However, he did express the awareness
of actions he must take through the statement, “So I felt like the responsibility was pretty much
on me and that I have to make the case…as to why I should get, you know, get the new job that
I’m apply for or get a promotion.” HIPO 5’s approach to attaining a promotion is similar for
anyone applying for a role in having to justify why they are deserving of promotion and is
irrespective of their participation in the NCL program.
Other participants expressed a myriad of responses based upon marketing material
associated with the NCL program, which included statements from HIPO 6 expressing a lack of
a “clear link between management positions in the company and pulling future leaders from the
NCL program.” The operative word is “pulling,” inferring that NCL graduates did not have
control over or understand the process. HIPO 1 believed part of the process required “that they
have to have to complete the program, which really requires a job code change” with “job code
change” referring to change in role or promotion. HIPO 1 also stated, “control the promotion is
probably a little bit strong; I don't know that I ever think I have the opportunity [to] control much
of anything.”
HIPO 10 summed up the experience from the program noting, “I learned a lot, met a lot
of people, connected with leaders, but I still don’t know what [CCL] is looking for when
81
promotions come around, but I’ll keep putting in the time.” Finally, HIPO 2 profoundly stated,
“understanding how CCL raised leaders was an important thing that I wanted to do. I'm an avid
reader, I read a lot of leadership, but I think I found out quickly that CCL does things CCL’s
way.”
Summary
From the narrative data, it is evident that there is a gap in the participants’ process
knowledge towards promotion. The process towards promotion was ambiguous for the
participants, even for those who attended the NCL program and achieved promotion. The
responses expressed components of knowledge needed for progression, experiences that
provided insights to activities associated with management, and activities surrounding
relationship development for future promotion. However, the participants' collective narrative
did not indicate that there was a common and explicit consensus on steps necessary for the
promotional process.
Although key activities like networking were a recurring and predominant activity in the
narrative associated with the promotion process, it is anecdotal as the two MIPOs could not
confirm it was unequivocally necessary for promotion. Even for those that have expressed
having developed a strong network, it has not yielded a promotional outcome to date. Even
though all participants' overwhelming concurrence that performance without a strong network is
insufficient to progress into management, this is a theme needing further research as it is outside
the scope of this current research.
82
NCL Graduates Demonstrate Learning Agility Despite the Lack of Knowledge Needed to
Advance Towards Promotion
The process of scaffolding knowledge through experiential learning and associating and
applying the learning in new contexts is a form of learning agility (De Meuse et al., 2010).
Learning agility can manifest through observed behaviors, working on various projects, and
adapting the experiences to drive performance results (Dries & Pepermans, 2012). Extending
from learning agility is the process of revisiting, reflecting, and repurposing the learning that
occurred through conversations with their peers and quads. This process of introspection and
making sense of the activities and their performance is the metacognition needed to perform in a
future managerial capacity.
The experiences during the NCL program required participants to increase their learning
agility through building new experiences, being challenged with complex problems, and
reconciling their performance through after-action reviews. Through a continual process of
introspection and reflection on their performance, the participants made meaningful connections
to learning that would serve them in a future capacity to perform at a managerial level.
Interview Findings
Learning agility was abundantly evident as expressed through the descriptions of
participants’ experiences. By associating the multitude of activities in the NCL program, all the
participants expressed belief that they have gained the ability to expand on existing and develop
new competencies to perform in a management role. This developed “asset” of learning agility
created a sense of empowerment and confidence in their abilities. Yet, the challenge remains for
the participants to leverage this asset and apply it to their promotion aspirations.
83
As previously discussed, leadership involves leveraging various non-technical skills such
as collaborating, communicating, and engaging. All the participants articulated engaging in
various activities that helped scaffold knowledge that would serve them in a future capacity as a
manager. An example of developing and associating new skills was from HIPO 9, as she
developed skills associated with relationship building in the form of coaching and stated with a
sense of satisfaction that “I do I think I'm a better coach and I've become more empathetic.”
Recognizing the need to continue developing her empathy skills, she stated, “I took on a
leadership position in the program as a member advocate, so people come to me with their
problems, So I've taken that [role].”
HIPO 2 added on to the idea of translating the experiences from the NCL program by
stating, “it's like, how do you nurture and help your people and also have the pressure of, you're
the first line management responsibility as well, so that was kind of insightful.” Regarding
“management responsibility,” HIPO 2 referred to the task-oriented activities associated with
“hiring, firing, and performance management” but recognized it extends beyond administrative
tasks. Although HIPO 2 had previous experience performing in a management capacity at a
different organization, he realized the scope and depth at CCL is quite different and may involve
requiring different skills; nuanced skills gained from the NCL program. He stated that he
“probably have more responsibility and probably leading more people in CCL than I was at my
old job,” inferring that the capabilities to manage in an organization of CCL’s require different
and expanded competencies.
Supporting increased metacognition, all participants found the engagement with leaders
in the program aided in making meaningful connections and understanding of leadership
requirements within CCL. HIPO 8 was able to compare his leadership style as noted in the
84
statement, “I was able to view my leadership style against many other leadership styles and
reflect on the leader I am and the leader I want to become.” Likewise, MIPO 2 stated, “the
program which would force us to go outside of our local home organization, discussing problems
and hear [from] senior leaders talk about problems” to gain an enterprise-level of awareness
impacting the business.
Beyond the leadership engagement, MIPO 2 appreciated the “exposure to those type of
large-scale problems, or situations or accomplishments” and recognized that “is really what helps
us grow to be the future leaders at a higher level in the company.” MIPO 2 drew significant
value from the opportunity to observe, learn by examining modeled behavior and actions, and
associate them to different situations. MIPO 2 finalized this thought by stressing that “because
you don’t get to see that all the time in your home organization and you're getting those different
perspectives, really makes it apparent that your views and values that you’re attributing because
of that knowledge.”
The concept of modeling behaviors and folding in those approaches to business was
resonated in HIPO 3’s statement, “I think having a different outlook on what it means to be an
innovator.” HIPO 3 associated the learning of having been through the NCL program to “take a
step back and say okay yeah I'm doing my job but how can I make this better and how can I
contribute something new and different to the organization.” The previous statement by HIPO 3
strengthens the notion that metacognition was present in the program.
Some participants in the program had leaders or peers help them identify their “blind
spots” or gaps in their competencies or areas where they needed to grow in capabilities. HIPO 4
stated, “One of my failings that I've heard multiple people tell me is that I'm not necessarily
aware of what I can achieve. I usually need that push to take that extra step and go.” Having
85
leaders and peers identify the self-imposed barriers for continued development allowed HIPO 4
to stretch himself to achieve increased performance.
Leveraging peer networks was a common theme amongst all the participants as a new
experience to increase learning agility. HIPO 5 expressed the notion behind developing an
information network in his statement where he started “learning about people and gaining more
confidence in my ability to network and communicate with people.” Recognizing that the
diversity in experience that HIPO 5 brings is what allows the network to grow in shared
knowledge and more readily exchange ideas because “people are willing to listen to you and talk
with you and engage with you because they want to know what's going on too.” This process of
sharing information within the network is a form of transferring learning.
The NCL program is considered “a business within CCL, [where] we have customers,
and you have to run your session, your section of the business for us to be successful” as noted
by HIPO 1. Participants are tasked with applying their previous knowledge, developing new
knowledge, and adapting it to achieve project outcomes. Therefore, the success of the program
and individual development was a function of the effort to associate the experiences, the rote
knowledge gained during the program, and the modeled experiences into meaningful experiences
that enable leadership development.
Summary
The diversity of experience of the participants varies widely concerning those that have
previous managerial experience, years of tenure with the organization, and whether they were on
a managerial or technical pathway. Given that four out of 12 participants had performed in a
management capacity in the past and nine of 12 participants had more than 5 years of tenure with
the organization, there was consistent evidence of strong learning agility. Additionally, although
86
four of the 12 participants on the technical pathway had expressed disappointment that the
program was designed less for technical and more for a management pathway, the same four
participants valued the nuanced experiences and made meaningful associations for their learning
development.
A commonly cited set of experiences included exposure to more enterprise levels of the
businesses in CCL, engaging in various activities, and adapting them into meaningful learning
for future application in a managerial capacity. Through the narrative data, it was evident that the
NCL program allowed every participant to leverage the asset of learning agility to develop new
cognitive skills and capabilities that would serve them in a future managerial role within CCL.
Although HIPO 2 recognized, “I'm well aware that you can get into management without it and
it's not a must, for doing that [the NCL program] and other people have different experiences” all
participants felt “advantaged” in being able to develop their learning agility through the program.
What is the Motivation of the NCL Graduates?
Participants must consciously decide the value of selecting amongst the various
leadership development courses available at CCL given they have a finite amount of time and
effort to dedicate. Part of the selection process includes evaluating the program's outcomes and
how it aligns with their expectations. In conjunction with expectancy alignment, the concept of
attribution and how activities in the program contribute to increasing promotional opportunities
are within their control is necessary. Finally, and arguably one of the key components of
motivation, is self-efficacy (Wilson et al., 2013). The participants must believe they can
complete the program, achieve all the program's objectives, and strive for future promotional
opportunities.
87
NCL Graduates Value Participation in NCL Program for Promotion
Participants’ determination of where time and effort are to be invested is critical. The
NCL program involves a significant commitment as the participant's responsibility is to continue
in their regular work duties while incorporating the requirements of the NCL program. The NCL
program is a 2-year commitment, with quarterly meetings, monthly deliverables, and a capstone
business project. As the commitment of time and effort and the additional deliverables are
communicated to prospective candidates before application into the program, the participants had
to assess the value of participation. From the narrative data, all the NCL graduates expressed
value in participating in the NCL program as contributing to development opportunities despite
the time and effort commitment.
All participants acknowledged the program provided them opportunities and access to
developing skills and capabilities that would have taken more time or effort to curate had it not
been for the program. Other factors included the value of graduating from the program and the
mere fact that they were selected to participate in the program. The following narrative data
analysis explores some of these key findings surrounding the associative value in the time
commitment, the prestige associated with the program, and perceived pathways to promotion as
contributing factors in the value assessment of the program.
Interview Findings
Value of Time Commitment. As previously stated, the NCL program is a 2-year
commitment. The time commitment necessary to complete the program was criticized by 10 out
of the 12 participants as being excessive. Participants cited the marketing material, and the stated
allocation of time in addition to the participant’s regular duties was expected to be about 15% of
their total time. Numerically that represents 6 hours per week or 1 day a week towards NCL
88
program activities. Ten out of 12 participants referenced the 15% allocation of time, but three of
the participants expressed the strongest sentiments surrounding the impact of the time
commitment. Table 9 summarizes the thoughts of three participants who expressed the strongest
opinions regarding the time commitment.
Table 9
Program Time Requirements
Participant
Initial perception on program time
requirements
Post perception on program time
requirements
HIPO 2
The illusion that they were gonna set
aside time for your leadership
[development] and like say 15% of
your time would be, you know,
like... I personally never got my
statement of work reduced when I
got accepted in the program, that
whole mythical 15% thing.
This program forced me to invest in
myself, so all this extra time, I felt
like was way worth it, 'cause I was
investing in my leadership and my
growth, so I was never like
discouraged that I was...that I didn't
get my statement of work reduced or
that I was having to work more than
40 hours.
HIPO 4 Even though you had that
understanding or agreement with
your manager that hey, this is going
to be 15% of my time. Sometimes,
it took way more than that.
And so, you still had to balance
everything you know to get your day-
to-day job done as well. And so, I
think I was a big factor in that,
because I was continuously getting
pushed, and then seeing the results of
that. And that's really fueled the fire
to keep going.
HIPO 10 Supporting multiple [operation] sites
which can take up to 6 hours of
commute time, trying to
accommodate an additional 15%
into the schedule meant I had to get
creative.
I definitely spent more than 15% of my
time working on [NCL] stuff, but it
was giving me insight to management
because you can’t expect a 40 hour
[work] week.
89
The statements regarding the 15% of allocated time to the NCL program as unreasonable
was tempered by their post-perception statements recognizing the value of the effort. The post-
program statements were expressed enthusiastically, inferring a significant return on their
invested time in the program. Supporting the value associated with the time commitment is the
belief that the program provides the knowledge needed for promotion. Table 10 lists comments
from the same three participants regarding value statements of participating in the program.
Table 10
NCL Program Value Statements
Participant
Comment
HIPO 2
I had heard that this is kind of like a little [Century Company Limited’s]
MBA. I just kinda saw the advertisements coming across. I wanted to
grow in my leadership and become management.
HIPO 4 More than just what your daily job was. [NCL] offer[ed] that opportunity
to look outside, that global sphere of influence and be exposed to a bunch
of different kinds of organizations a bunch of different kinds of leaders.
HIPO 10 NCL is the program to be in. One person I know applied since the program
launched and didn’t get in but I got in so I knew it was something
special.
90
Despite the comments regarding the additional workload from the NCL program, the prestige
and exposure to the business had significant value to the participants. Sharing a similar
association, MIPO 2 stated, “I also was considering going and getting either an executive
leadership certificate or an executive MBA from [Local University] just because another
progression would be collaborating closely with leaders from outside of CCL.” However, MIPO
2 saw greater value in the NCL program supporting his development endeavors and opted not to
pursue a traditional MBA program.
Prestige Associated With the Program. All participants cited the prestige factor of
being part of an “elite” group of people. The status of being the 200 selected from over a pool of
thousands of applicants carries cache for participants. Table 11 denotes some of the related
quotes.
91
Table 11
Participant Comments on NCL Program Prestige Value
Participant
Comment
HIPO 3
It was exciting; it was new; it was fresh. There were a lot of, you know,
young individuals, and as you know, LX has a mixture right. There's a
lot of young individuals that are excited about the company and, you
know, the contribution that they can make towards helping the company
achieve its goals, and so it was something that was exciting that I
wanted to be a part of.
HIPO 7 It's a collective of individuals that was industry best, company best, and
that I wanted to be there at the forefront, and I wanted to engage.” “You
are the 0.04 percent of the entire company that's sitting in this room.
You are the best of the best, you were chosen out of a pool of, you
know, whatever. And it definitely makes you feel special. It definitely
makes you feel like wow.
HIPO 9 Yeah, because I still like you're talking 1000, 2000 people against
130,000 [total] CCL employees. So it's when you get into the program
to get in is hard. When you're in it, they're like oh you're part of the top
0.4%.
The NCL program is considered an exclusive program which carries the perception that
you are graduating from a “talent pipeline for management” program as stated by both HIPO 2
and HIPO 8.
Pathways to Promotion. A unique set of comments was from MIPO 1 and MIPO 2, the
two participants who had attained management positions, noting a different and significantly
compelling reason for joining the NCL program. MIPO 2 believed “it was both for management
and technical, that is what hooked me in.” MIPO 1 also understood that “NCL touts itself as both
a management and technical leadership program.” MIPO 1 is following a technical path to
92
leadership and felt that joining a program “broadened horizons to new leadership styles” and
supplemented their technical competencies. Like MIPO 1, HIPO 5 shares technical solid
competencies and affiliates with the technical aspects of leadership development. HIPO 5 also
noticed “that they're trying to develop technical leaders as well as managerial leaders” and found
value in that association. This point regarding technical development is discussed in a later
section for additional clarity.
Summary
The overarching consensus is that participating in the program yielded an intrinsic and
tangible value. Tangible value came in the form of developing experiences and awareness of
leadership capabilities for serving in a leadership capacity. Participants cited the prestige of
being associated with the NCL program as having significant intrinsic value in their selection of
the program.
All participants had purposely chosen this program instead of other leadership
development opportunities, including traditional external programs like an MBA. Within the
context of task value, the participants valued the prestige associated with being part of the
program, as highlighted. Notwithstanding the 15% allocation of time was “insufficient,” the
prestige of being associated with the program outweighed the burden of time. Others found
multiple benefits, including the ability to supplement their technical competencies with
managerial and leadership competencies as applied into a technical pathway. The analysis
determined this influence to be an asset.
93
NCL Graduates Have High Expectancies About the NCL Program Increasing Promotion
Opportunities
Graduating from the program represented a significant milestone, according to the
participants. From the program's onset, the perception was consistent amongst all the participants
that the NCL program is a pipeline for leadership development. Bolstering that expectation is the
exclusive selection process, the significant commitment of finite resources like time, and
forgoing other development opportunities. Furthermore, the notion that a promotion was an
outcome from the program is driven by the investment of time by the participant along with the
investment of resource by the organization. However, the promotion rate upon completion of the
program is not 100%, as noted in promotional materials provided to candidates during
information seminars. Therefore, the participants expected that promotional opportunities would
be and should be provided to them as part of their completion of the program, although there is
contradictory information to their expected outcome.
In recognition that promotion for all graduates is impractical, the expectation for all but
one participant shifted away from expecting a promotion over time. One participant had
maintained an expectation of promotion, but this participant tempered that expectation
acknowledging that timing is a factor in the promotion process. The remaining participants’
expectations changed from promotion as a function of graduation to being afforded future
opportunities that will contribute to their development. These opportunities do not specifically
involve promotion.
Interview Findings
Evidence in the narrative data aligns with participants' initial expectation of promotion
once participants have graduated from the program. However, once participants entered the
94
program, engaged in various activities, and discussed exposure to the experiential learning in the
program, the data shows a divergence of mindset and expectations. By the end of the program,
most participants expressed that they held differing expectations. Recognizing promotion upon
graduation was unrealistic; their expectations evolved into more intrinsic returns. Three
participants expressed they would be content with some type of recognition from being in the
program and expressed hope that future opportunities would be forthcoming. Eight participants
sought “stretch” assignments outside of their daily activities or just appreciative of having
developed leadership skills. One participant continued to hold to an expectation that promotion
was an expectation at graduation.
Expectation of Promotion. During the interviews, only one of 12 participants
maintained an expectation of being promoted. HIPO 6 expressed disappointment that he had not
been promoted since graduating from the program. He stated, “I am still not in a management
position, which was one of my initial objectives of being on the [NCL] program” when reflecting
on his expectations when entering the program. HIPO 6 stated that he had gained a significant
amount of knowledge with respect to his beliefs on what constitutes management capabilities in
the following statement:
I am now more conscious about how I communicate with people, particularly in a
mentoring capacity. I feel I have improved my emotional intelligence skills as well as
how I communicate with senior leadership, as this was previously a weakness of mine.
The program has proven to be very effective!
He also stated that he continues to seek out opportunities for promotion and believes that having
graduated from the NCL program would have “advanced” him into a management role.
However, given that he has yet to be promoted, he expressed frustration that he believed there
95
should or “would be a clear link between management positions in the company and pulling
future leaders from the NCL program.” Like HIPO 6, four other participants had referred to their
initial expectation of being promoted to management. However, unlike HIPO 6, they were quick
to note that they had received different messaging that changed their expectation for promotion
at the end of the program.
Tempering Expectations for Promotion. Four out of 12 participants had referenced
being “pragmatic” and “realistic” about the process or promotional materials and other
messaging that would question how HIPO 6 could maintain the expectation of promotion. HIPO
3 stated that “I don't think we should feel entitled just because we came out of that program that
we should have that spot.” In fact, HIPO 3 is more aligned with the thought that “it's created a
pool of really competent individuals” based upon the knowledge gained from the program but
tempered by the belief “that [the NCL program is] providing a lot of competition for those spots”
but not necessarily an automatic promotion.
MIPO 1 presented a measured response and stated, “I didn't have a direct expectation like
one of you owe me a management job.” However, MIPO 1 believes attaining a management job
was a foregone conclusion for participants as noted by the balance of the statement:
I think that was likely, where I was headed, regardless of the program. And I think that's
probably true of most of the participants, like these are people who have been identified
as high performers already so if management is what they're interested in, they're almost
certainly going to be making that step, whether they are in the program, or not. So, I
would say, I don't, I don't think they owed it to me.
An important aspect of MIPO 1’s statement is associated with the timing of promotion. All
participants emphasized an expectation of promotion to management, but when the promotion is
96
presumed to happen is noteworthy. HIPO 6 expected an immediate promotion, although that
expectation has changed since he has yet to receive one. The rest of the participants expected a
greater opportunity for promotion, having developed additional experiences during the program
but not explicitly at the time of promotion. However, akin to MIPO 1’s statement, the
participants expressed confidence that promotion is eventually inevitable.
HIPO 8 shared MIPO 1’s initial sentiment through their opinion that “you cannot expect
to automatically be put in a management role following graduation from the program.” However,
HIPO 8 did express disappointment that “there aren’t proactive actions taken by respective HR
reps in NCL member’s home organizations to ensure they are considered for opportunities.
Should get priority when it comes to open management opportunities.”
In direct contradiction that an NCL graduate should expect a promotion at the end of the
program, MIPO 2 stated that the “Program did a good job making it clear that this isn’t a
guarantee for first-line manager position. We’re not training you for a first-line manager
anyways, we’re training you for growth to prepare yourself to be Strategic leader,” Interestingly,
this perspective was not explicitly raised by other participants as having been communicated to
them.
Document and Artifact Analysis
In the document and artifacts, there is a key disconnect in expectation that emerges
among promotional material that provides insight into the participants’ comments with regard to
expected outcomes in the program. As previously noted, all the participants have an expectation
that promotion occurs post-graduation, but the exact timing of how long after graduation was to
be determined. However, even after attending promotional seminars and having access to
marketing materials, such as NCL Program Brochure (DOC 3) and the NCL Quarterly
97
Newsletter (DOC 4), HIPO 6 still maintained an expectation of promotion immediately upon
graduation.
DOC 3 states that the purpose is to “develop high potential individual contributors into
leaders” with respect to capabilities. In the middle of the document is a section advocating why
individuals should consider the NCL program, emphasizing “learning experiences” and
“networking engagements.” It continues with statements about how “to learn to be enterprise
leaders, talent leaders, and culture-shaping change leaders” but no explicit reference that
promotion is given at completion. The highlights of the program identified in DOC 3 corroborate
the changing expectations of all the participants except that of HIPO 6.
An anecdotal belief from HIPO 1, “let's say 50% of the people who come in, say, I am a
leader. And now I'm going to get a leadership position,” expressed an expectation of promotion
from participation in the program. Surprisingly, the belief a promotion was forthcoming, once
they graduate from the program, was counter to the information contained in the NCL Program
Mid-year Review (DOC 2). DOC 2 shows historical metrics reflecting a promotion rate of
approximately 10%. The promotion rate of NCL graduates is not explicitly communicated to the
NCL graduates, but the difference between the actual and the anecdotal range of 50% per HIPO
1 is a material difference. This is a significant point as although the actual promotion rate is not
communicated openly, MIPO 2 had stated that leadership reinforces that participants should not
expect a promotion at the completion of the program. The fact that no other participant had
conveyed that they heard this same type of message is worthy of note.
Summary
Every participant was found to expect that graduating from the NCL program accelerates
their path to promotion in one form or another. Although it may not be a foregone conclusion
98
that a management role is inevitable, as MIPO 1 stated, the participants expect some form of
differentiation, based upon the insight and knowledge gained, to be afforded to graduates upon
graduation from the program. Due to the rigorous selection process and the consistent messaging
that participants represented the “0.4%” of the employee population, there is an expectation
among participants of a tangible outcome to participating. Given that two participants had chosen
the NCL program in lieu of enrolling in a traditional MBA degree program, there exists an
expectancy of the knowledge gained during the NCL program would yield a tangible benefit
from participation. As noted, an expectation ranging from immediate promotion to sharing their
knowledge in their current capacity emerged. Yet, there was an underlying expectation that on
graduating from the NCL program, they expected promotion in the future, although the timing
was undetermined.
Initially, the participants entered the program expecting that promotion was forthcoming
given the unique opportunity to gain knowledge specific to leadership capabilities and attributes.
This expectation was influential to the motivation of the NCL graduates to participate in the
program. During participation in the NCL program, the initial expectation evolved where all but
one participant believed the knowledge gained was for self-enrichment and development of skills
and not directly tied to a promotion. This influence remains a gap as the program provides
experiences to perform in a managerial capacity, as expressed by the participants, but it did not
align with their expectation of increasing promotional opportunities.
NCL Graduates Have Confidence in Their Ability to Lead as Managers
Confidence, as manifested through self-efficacy, is an important aspect of motivation.
Whether to consider starting, continuing, or completing a task, the level of persistence is
influenced by maintaining a positive outlook on their future performance and ability to achieve at
99
the highest level. As they participate in activities, they need to gain the requisite knowledge for
promotion to management and maintain their confidence in being able to perform in a future
management capacity by associating all the information and experiences in a meaningful way.
Essentially, participants must believe that the appropriate supporting resources and their
continual effort will lead to future promotion.
One main interview question was meant to identify their confidence level prior to
entering the program and determine how activities influenced graduates’ confidence in the
program. In the process of conducting interviews, it was evident that each participant entered the
program “confident,” having been selected and representing the top “0.4%” of the high potential
employees.
Additionally, the narrative data reflected the confidence of all participants that they could
achieve all the objectives in the program and develop the needed capabilities to lead as a future
manager. Although all participants entered with high self-efficacy as manifested in their
confidence, there were two participants with extreme perspectives. One participant had a vastly
different perspective on confidence developed in the program, and the other had expressed an
unintended outcome from being selected to the program and how their self-efficacy within the
company changed as a result of it.
Interview Findings
All but one participant attributed their increase in confidence, a significant impact on
self-efficacy, to the knowledge gained through the program. During the program, participants
valued the development of a network, gaining a better understanding of the global enterprise, and
enhancing their communication skills, as noted in HIPO 5’s statement, “I think it did improve. I
gained a lot of knowledge about CCL specifically, and so that gave me a good foundation for
100
conversations with people across the enterprise, because I learned what all the business units
were.” HIPO 10 responded with a resounding “Oh yes” regarding how her confidence changed
due to “lots of exposure to different parts and different people. Being more knowledgeable about
the organization.” In concurrence, a notable comment came from HIPO 1, who voiced her
“confidence is higher today than when I came into the program. I think it was pretty solid when I
came in, but you know when you're new, you never know what you don't know.” Finally, HIPO
3 inferred a feeling of extreme confidence in the statement, “never felt like I wasn’t capable of
doing certain things within the company…like I didn't feel like there were like any boundaries.”
The entire set of activities in the NCL program were referenced or cited in the narrative
data but placed a significant emphasis on developing their confidence by enhancing their
communication skills. HIPO 4 expressed building confidence by enhancing communication by
learning to “sell yourself” from being your own advocate. In essence, HIPO 4 identified that
advancing his communication skills allowed him to express his belief that he could perform in a
managerial role by vocalizing his strengths to serve in a managerial capacity. Likewise, HIPO 7
felt “it's definitely gotten better before NCL, I would always doubt myself [about] speaking up.”
HIPO 7 noted that being “present and participating” in meetings and large forums meant having
the confidence to not “be afraid to speak up,” to present what may be perceived as “stupid
ideas,” and ask questions without fear of repercussion.
The comments from HIPO 4 and HIPO 7 regarding enhancing communications are
examples of how self-efficacy manifested through the NCL program. As noted from literature,
self-efficacy is a function of participants engaging in activities, such as developing
competencies, that they believe will serve a future outcome (Bandura, 1977). The development
and application of those skills, such as communication competencies, serve to fulfill a future
101
outcome of promotion to management in this case. It was evident from the data that participants’
purposeful engagement in activities contributed to the belief that they could achieve success in
the program and performing in a management capacity. Although the consensus amongst all
participants was that they had increased capabilities in communication and other managerial
competencies that allowed them to be successful in the program, there were two outliers.
There were two extreme responses from the interviews. One expressed no confidence
gained at all from activities in the program. The other gained an abundance of confidence, which
impacted their career trajectory. It was clear in their initial statements there was high confidence
and strong belief in their capabilities to achieve successful outcomes in performance of tasks.
HIPO 3 noted, “I don't think I was, there was anything, I never felt like I, I wasn't, wasn't capable
of doing certain things within the company.” However, their self-efficacy manifested in different
ways. HIPO 9 had overall confidence as an employee but low self-efficacy about receiving
promotion.
HIPO 9 expressed no confidence gain, not because of lack of empowerment or perceived
value in the program. It would be appropriate to characterize her statement as hubris, as she
stated it with great affirmation. HIPO 9’s complete response was, “I mean, but I can see how it
has worked for some people; it's just not for me. No.” Probing into the response, it was clear that
HIPO 9 remained optimistic about having participated in the program but did not attribute
activities in the program as improving their self-efficacy towards promotion. While addressing a
different question, HIPO 9 stated that she felt like “it’s just been really enlightening,” giving the
impression that she has greater awareness and some form of learning occurred. It would be
premature to presume the learning equates to confidence, but the concept of attribution and
specifically HIPO 9’s response will be examined in a subsequent section on attribution.
102
The other end of the spectrum was HIPO 3’s response that began with a resounding, “yes,
it boosted a lot.” Although in alignment with all the other 10 participants that acknowledged a
high level of confidence, it can be argued that HIPO 3 initially had low self-efficacy. HIPO 3
was contemplating leaving CCL before joining the NCL program. He stated, “I didn’t know if
the company was for me anymore but getting into the program shifted it.” Prior to being
accepted in the NCL program, HIPO 3 had high self-efficacy concerning his abilities to perform
in any capacity, as reflected in his statement, “I didn’t feel like there were like any boundaries.”
Even with his belief in his own capabilities, he still felt impacted by the “lack of support by
managers,” which influenced his belief in performing at a managerial level. These comments are
indicative of low self-efficacy. Nevertheless, having been selected into the NCL program and
being part of this select group, his perception changed. The shift in his self-efficacy as a function
of being in the NCL program had unintentional retention within the company. Although isolated
to one individual amongst a group of 200 high potential employees, it is a noteworthy outcome.
Summary
The data clearly demonstrated that all participants had high self-efficacy concerning their
ability to serve in a management capacity. High self-efficacy in personal performance serves as
an asset in their development and their ability to serve in future leadership roles. Self-efficacy
and how it impacted their confidence towards performing in a leadership capacity was evident
before and after the NCL program. All but one participant was resolute in their acknowledgment
that the program had increased their confidence through exposure to leaders and participating in
the program's activities; this was something they would not have had access had it not been for
the program.
103
The elevated self-efficacy had a material impact on one participant, given they were
contemplating leaving the organization had it not been for being in the NCL program. It was a
function of the prestige of having been selected and completing the program and exposure to
people and ideas not afforded to everyone. Conversely, a participant expressed a high level of
self-efficacy that did not change from participating in the program. Still, negative intonations
associated with confidence that the activities in the program lead to future outcomes were
questionable and necessary to explore in subsequent sections.
As a point of reflection, the high self-efficacy amongst the participants has some detailed
nuances worth noting. The narrative data suggests two components are contributing to high self-
efficacy. One is the belief they can do anything well, and the second is that they can do it better
than others. Although not explored in this study, a question arises as to the varying degree of
self-efficacy and whether there is a minimum ‘level’ of motivation that enables them to perform
in leadership. Alternatively, is there an incremental level of increase intended or needed for
future performance in a management role?
NCL Graduates Do Not Believe That Promotion Results From Their Level of Effort
Having been chosen into the NCL program and representing 0.04% of the employee
population, the participants entered the program with high self-efficacy and believed they
possessed a high ability to perform in a future leadership capacity. With the internal belief of
being highly competent, interview data also found the participants entered the program with a
presumption of a positive correlation between their level of effort to the probability of future
promotion. Therefore, this study found they believed the greater level of engagement and effort
above the purported 15% of time need for the program, the greater likelihood of future
promotion. However, from the narrative data, it is evident that the participants initially attributed
104
their investment of effort to create opportunities for a future promotion coming into the program,
but their perspectives changed while in the program.
As the NCL graduates need to see creating opportunities for promotion as being within
their control, participants first determined where to focus their effort concerning projects and
activities to engage in and the level of effort of their choosing. Their determination of how much
effort to exert, where to focus that effort, and the associated outcome is where Weiner’s theory
on attribution helps frame the analysis (1977). The following analysis explores the internal and
external influences from the perspective of the motivation theory of attribution by focusing on
controllability and stability (Elliot et al., 2017).
Interview Findings
A consistent theme surrounding the perception of a cause-and-effect relationship was
evident in the narrative data. The level of effort exerted by the participant is perceived as entirely
controllable by all the participants and has significant relevance since the program is
“participant-led,” as noted by MIPO 2. Therefore, it is the function of the participants to
determine which projects they will work on, which activities they will engage in, and how much
effort they will spend on tasks that will create opportunities for promotion.
External and Controllable. There were varying levels of engagement by participants in
the program. Although all the participants in this research study stated, they exerted maximum
effort, like HIPO 10, who stated she “aggressively engaged in as many program activities to
learn anything and everything,” believing their effort controlled the outcome of opportunities for
future promotion. However, there were reported behaviors from the participants about others
outside this study that had a material impact on the participants’ perceptions of controllability
regarding their own effort leading to promotion.
105
HIPO 4 stated that “some people that didn’t get anything out of it…didn’t really apply
themselves as much…checking the box and not learning from it” when referencing others that
were focused only on accomplishing tasks for graduation. The NCL participants that were not
engaged were considered “ghosters,” a derogatory term for those who would accomplish the
minimum to graduate and avoid optional events. HIPO 4 continued by stating that these
“ghosters” just “knew how to play the game” and referenced one who was being considered for a
senior manager role even though they were not actively engaged in the program. The tone of
HIPO 4’s response appeared very deflated and dejected. It was evident that hearing of “ghosters”
progressing impacted his motivation when considering the extra effort he had put in and yet was
not currently in consideration for promotion.
In the case of HIPO 4, in comparison to the “ghoster” that is under consideration for
promotion, there is a case of two individuals that are presumed to have high ability, both have
graduated from the program, although HIPO 4 noted they believed they had exerted significantly
more effort during the program. Furthermore, the individual referenced by HIPO 4 was being
considered for a promotion while HIPO 4 was not. Per Weiner’s theory (1977) regarding locus,
HIPO 4’s initial perception is attributed to an internal influence but shift to external. As modeled
by the observed individual that did not put in extra effort, HIPO 4 is likely to exhibit what
Harvey and Martinko (2009) noted in their study as “learned helplessness” (p. 150). In
association with attribution, learned helplessness is the belief that effort is futile as it does not
directly tie to future outcomes, or in the case of the NCL program, a future promotion. This sense
of learned helplessness was noted by HIPO 2 in his statement, “I would say one of the
disheartening things is, is there are some people that get in, and then they don't take advantage of
it” yet they still achieve the same outcome of graduation.”
106
Similarly, MIPO 2 expressed they invested a significant amount of time as well into the
program but stated that “I feel like I just did all this extra work, and I don't know what it means.
So that was a little bit of a shock to me” when asked about outcomes. This had a material impact
on their motivation, leading to questioning “like why am I doing what I'm doing?” in thinking
about the return on the additional effort spent in the program as there was no direct connection to
an outcome of the promotion. It is important to note that MIPO 2 is a manager and has been
promoted, but during the program, he was not a manager and could not directly attribute his
promotion outcome to his effort while in the program.
One participant subconsciously recognized the shift in controllability to an external
influence and adjusted his approach accordingly. HIPO 8 tempered his approach to exerting
effort by reconciling the “fine line between busy work and opportunities to lead projects within
the program” as a determinant of his level of effort. By purposefully selecting projects to engage
or lead, HIPO 8 determined which activities would support his ambition for promotion and
exerted effort accordingly. Although pragmatic in approach, there is a disconnect between his
exerted effort to the future outcome, which is a function of external influences he perceived to be
entirely out of his control.
External and Stable. Another example from the narrative data outside of the
participant’s direct control is the opinion of their managers and the support infrastructure, such
as their Human Resources or Talent Management focals. Regardless of the level of effort
exerted, HIPO 3 recognized that “there are some leaders who just don't, I don't think they get it,
or I don't think they see the value” in the NCL program, putting into question what the return is
for HIPO 3 allocating more time than necessary other than to graduate.
107
HIPO 9 shared her opinions regarding management perspective through the statement, “I
do more than my peers by doing this program and my job.” yet she was quick to acknowledge
her management does not recognize the value of their participation. Therefore, HIPO 9 drew the
association that her extended efforts to participate in the program were irrelevant and would not
lead to a promotion, given that her management does not value the program.
External and Unstable. External unstable attributions are conditions in which the
participants had little to no control (Weiner, 1977). An example would be exogenous factors that
had a direct impact on participants’ ability to engage or participate or what Elliot et al. (2017)
referred to as “bad luck” (p. 63). During the period the participants of this research study were in
the NCL program, they experienced two material events that can be attributed to circumstances
out of their control. One event was associated with some specific business-related issues at CCL
impacting available resources, specifically capital for discretionary expenses such as travel.
Another, and the most significant, was the global pandemic due to Coronavirus of 2019
(COVID19).
All the participants had been in the program or were graduating between the 2019-2020
time frame. Most of the participants had noted some external conditions that had a material
impact on the experience and limited the ability to engage in all the program activities. During
that time, a global pandemic occurred; COVID19 halted all in-person travel engagements and
had a detrimental impact on the global economy, exacerbating the organization's financial
difficulties.
As the NCL program is touted as an immersive and experiential program with marquee
activities such as program launch, mid-year in-person workshops, and international trips, the
cancellation of these events due to COVID19 did have an impact on the level of participation.
108
MIPO 1 noted that in “order to do this program well you have to, there has to be a pretty
significant financial investment in each individual, and I don't think the company is in a place to
do that right now.” HIPO 2 recognized this as well in the statement, “I was really excited for the
whole global experience that we were supposed to do. That was one thing that really excited me
that unfortunately, we didn't get to do because of the business climate.”
Despite the adverse financial and business climate, HIPO 9 believed that participants
needed to remain agile and accept that “horrible thing that happened to you in 2020, because we
have to be real, like, I know it sucks so not to whine about like something you can't control.” The
statement from HIPO 9 is reflective of adaptive attribution to the circumstances that are external,
unstable, and specific to an outcome (Elliot et al., 2017). HIPO 1 also demonstrated adaptive
attribution when she launched a project with another division within CCL as part of their
immersive experience. Still, due to COVID19 and the travel restrictions, they were not able to
travel. However, HIPO 1 was able to “build a remote partnership” without the in-person
conversations because she was motivated and “wanted to learn more” for their “own personal
interest” despite the travel restrictions. Her motivation to succeed and to be fully engaged in
succeeding in activities was not impacted by the pandemic, as noted in her statement, “I’m going
to show up every day and give 300% every single day.”
Summary
All the participants in this research expressed exerting significant effort, valuing the
learning returned from that effort, and having a strong support structure. Even with the impact
associated with COVID19, the participants maintained their level of effort. However, most of the
participants also noted an equal, if not more, number of participants who did not participate
beyond the “minimum” for varying reasons and yet achieved the same outcome of graduating
109
from the program. Even more disconcerting for one participant was recognizing one of their
cohort peers did little to nothing while in the program yet was being considered for promotion to
senior management. Undeterred, the participants continued to engage in the NCL program, but as
previously noted, it was evident that all but one NCL graduate did not believe their effort leads to
future promotion.
Being part of the select 0.4% of the employee population reinforces their belief in their
high abilities to achieve success. Coupled with their high levels of motivation to exert maximum
effort into tasks, the participants recognized that although they could control their level of effort,
the outcomes were a result of external influences such as manager opinion and the current
business environment. Regardless, there was not a clear linkage between the level of controllable
effort to the outcome of promotion for most participants.
How do the Organizational Culture and Other External Influences Impact NCL
Graduate’s Capacity to Advance to Management Levels?
Organizational culture is pervasive, although not explicitly stated. It manifests through
actions by employees, the precedence of previous cause and effect relationships, and perceived
normative expectations of employee behaviors. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that culture
precedes and even dictates performance within organizations. In the context of the NCL
program, CCL has invested resources into establishing and maintaining a program that offers
structured opportunities for promotion to management. For development programs to be
effective, the goal of the established program must be communicated and understood by the
participants. As part of the NCL program development, CCL has established a model where
NCL graduates have time over a 2-year period to develop associated competencies to perform at
a leadership level. The NCL program is touted in marketing literature as a “safe” environment
110
for participants to practice leadership competencies. Finally, CCL has established curated
activities in the NCL program to hone those competencies to perform in a leadership capacity.
However, as noted from the participants' perspective, the organizational culture
surrounding how the NCL program leads to a formal promotion remains divided. Contributing to
the mixed perception is the lack of clear and transparent communication regarding the
promotional process and the specific competencies required for promotion. As each participant
curates their own development pathway within the framework of the NCL program, there is a
lack of alignment on the specific achievable outcomes, which contributes to the misalignment.
The following sections represent the analyzed narrative data that provide insights on the assumed
cultural model and settings introduced in Chapter 2.
NCL Graduates Have Mixed Perception of the NCL Program as Offering Structured
Pathways to Promotion
According to interview data, marketing and “advertising” associated with the NCL
program and the expected outcomes have resulted in mixed perceptions by the participants. From
the analysis of the narrative data regarding motivation and expectancy outcomes, coupled with
the lack of procedural knowledge for promotion, there is a lack of definitive evidence that the
NCL program offers a structured pathway to promotion. A dominant theme that emerged
regarding the participants' perception is that leadership skills and competencies form during their
time in the program, but ambiguity exists in how they lead to a future promotion.
Interview Findings
The participants entered the program expecting various outcomes. One of the 12
participants expected an immediate promotion upon graduation, four were content with
recognition, and the remaining were looking for stretch assignments or appreciative of the
111
experience. When analyzing the narrative data regarding whether participants perceive that the
NCL program offers a structured pathway to promotion, it is evident that some of the participants
believe it has provided some insight. Still, the program does not explicitly make clear how the
program leads to promotion. Others held an opposite opinion that the program is not a pathway
to promotion but an opportunity to develop leadership skills.
HIPO 1, in a seemingly very calm and pragmatic demeanor, said, “I don't expect anything
I don't expect continued employment, I don't expect promotion; I don't expect anything.” when
asked about how the program leads to future promotion. She continued by expressing some
notional insight into the pathway that someone at a “high level, which either you're related to, or
they're going to take you under their wing, and they're going to promote you regardless” was
typical of the process for promotion. Her lack of reference to the NCL program as being the
mechanism for a structured opportunity for promotion and citing an alternative and notional
process further reinforces the gap in this organizational influence.
In contrast to HIPO 1, HIPO 2 “believed that I would, like, have a management position”
because of how the program was marketed. Adding to his belief, he discussed how “most people
have become managers” when referring to his cohort, although the program data does not
corroborate his opinion. He further expressed, “I would have thought that as I was done or a year
after the program that I would have had opportunities for management.” Despite believing a
promotion would be provided to him, he is actively identifying promotional opportunities, but
that is not different from everyone else, including those who had not participated in the NCL
program.
HIPO 9 referred to the marketing material noting, “it’s marketed as this like we develop
[CCL] leaders like we create [CCL] leaders.” Additionally, in contrast to HIPO 2, HIPO 9
112
recognized that “people expect it to be, like, we teach you to be a leader, so because you're going
to become one, and the reality is, like, just because you're in the program doesn't mean you're
going to become a leader.” A mixed perception of the NCL program offering a structured
pathway to promotion was common with all participants. Eleven of the 12 participants believed
the program provided development of leadership capabilities, while one participant maintained
the belief that it leads directly to a promotion.
HIPO 5 shared, “I know what they would say. [It] is they're looking to identify and
develop leaders, but it never really felt to me like there was a lot of follow-through” when
discussing the organization’s expectations. In making the statement, he was expressing his
confusion about the next steps or how a promotion occurs. He emphasized this through his
follow-up statement, “I guess, so I'm not exactly sure what they were looking for; I don't know
how successful they would say that it is.” He also questioned whether the organization was clear
as to expectations as noted in his statement, “I don't know if the senior executives think that the
program is wildly successful or a dismal failure, or if they're even aware of it or think about it.”
Entering the program HIPO 8 believed that the program was an “accelerated path” to
leadership opportunities. His belief was that once he graduated from the program that his
“organization would be more proactive in assigning special projects or figuring out a way for
[him] to lead a project to show the growth that [he] gained” but none of that happened. Given his
connection with the program and his sharing the learning throughout, an opportunity for
promotion did not materialize. His engagement with the program and the significant amount of
effort he exerted was based upon his belief that graduating from the NCL program was the
“capstone” to demonstrate his leadership capabilities. However, given the lack of promotion, he
relegated himself to the notion that “other than expecting me to continue performing at a high
113
level, I didn’t notice any different expectations than before I started the program.” He stated he
remains engaged and “hopeful” but still unclear on his future trajectory towards promotion or the
next steps to achieve one.
Two of the participants in the study were promoted from the NCL program. However,
during the interview, MIPO 1 expressed that she “had more people I could reach out to, who
were already supportive of me and familiar with me” but did not attribute promotion to
participating in the NCL program. She added that she “relied a lot on my experience in the
leadership team” where she would interact with leaders while serving in an individual
contributor role to help make connections. However, at no point during the interview did MIPO
1 state that she believed the NCL program provided a structured pathway to the promotion and
that she “curated” her own path to get a promotion outside of the program.
Like MIPO 1, MIPO 2 also perceived the NCL program as less of a pathway to
promotion and more so an opportunity to develop leadership competencies. He stated that “the
messaging at the beginning was good enough to keep me realistic about how this isn’t training to
be a [first line manager].” He continues this belief through the very explicit statement that, “I
know this is not like tomorrow [CCL] is going to say “oh, he finished the program now [so
here’s] a senior management type of position or here’s your [executive] position” that doesn’t
happen.” For MIPO 2, it was clear to him that the NCL program did not lay out a clear pathway
to future promotion for graduates.
Summary
It was evident from the narrative data that 50% of the participants believed that the NCL
program would provide structured opportunities for promotion, albeit that some of the belief was
based upon consequential data or hearsay. However, even for those outspoken to their home
114
organization about their expectations about the specific intent of being promoted or leading in a
future capacity upon graduation, their leadership has yet to provide an opportunity.
It is apparent from the participant interviews the program does not provide a pathway to
promotion. However, the participants may have developed skills and competencies associated
with performing in a leadership capacity. Only two of the 12 participants are serving in a
managerial role after having graduated from the program. However, the two MIPOs were
explicit in believing that the NCL program did not provide a structured pathway to promotion.
Given the mixed perception of the NCL program leading to an immediate promotion upon
graduation, it creates confusion and animosity amongst the graduates, as noted in the narrative
data. For CCL to achieve its organizational goals, it will be imperative that the organization
consider how to communicate with greater transparency about leadership development programs
like NCL and explicitly and repeatedly reinforce its intended outcomes.
NCL Program Does Not Effectively Communicate the Organization’s Required
Management Competencies for Promotion
An abundance of literature exists on leadership competencies, as noted in Chapter 2 of
this research. Competencies to serve in a management capacity have been generalized across
organizations to address the need to have business acumen, human relationships, and
communication skills to serve in a management capacity (Anderson et al., 2018; Burke, 2015;
Rios et al., 2020; Souba & Souba, 2018). Yet, the competencies necessary to perform in a
management capacity are contextual to an organization; it is important to ensure consistent
messaging with regards to necessary skills (Dries & Pepermans, 2012; Harvard, 2010). In
analyzing the narrative data from participants, anecdotal perceptions from participants on the
necessary competencies associated with networking, enterprise awareness, and communication
115
were vital for promotion and were consistent amongst all the participants. Although the
participants arrived at a consensus on their opinion on management competencies, the perception
of interviewees of what skills were necessary for promotion was inconsistent compared to
messaging from the organization.
Beyond the messaging contained in promotional materials, as noted in the analyzed
documents and artifacts in Table 8, the participants could not explicitly articulate the
organization’s expected competencies for promotion to management. The lack of explicit
outcome may be by design considering the program does not “guarantee” promotion, but
anecdotal evidence and perception by participants give the impression to the contrary. To assess
the difference in perception on promotion competencies, the participants' narrative data below is
juxtaposed against the prevailing document and artifacts noted in Table 8.
Interview Findings
Multiple participants cited aspects of promotional materials and information from
seminars on the program that touted the program as both a “management and technical
leadership” pathway. The promotion as a “management and technical leadership” pathway
attracted many into the program that was traditionally focused on the technical leadership
pathway. For example, HIPO 3 and HIPO 5 “explicitly chose this program” because they
incorporated technical leadership development. HIPO 10, having a technical background but on
the management pathway, “saw it as a way to combine both ways of thinking,” which would
“round out” her leadership capabilities. Exploring further into their statements regarding
“leadership capabilities,” although recognized as a personal benefit, these three HIPOs could not
validate there was alignment to the organization’s requirements to be a future leader in either the
management or technical pathway.
116
MIPO 1 stated how “NCL touts itself as both a management and a technical leadership
path,” yet in hindsight felt that it did “the worst job” when it came to developing “technical
leadership folk.” Opinion aside, MIPO 1’s assessment of the program's efficacy through her
statement of doing “the worst job” is based upon a lack of clarity on what specific competencies
are associated with technical as opposed to management pathways. The organization stating it is
for both management and technical leadership without detailed information on how and what
competencies are developed contributed to MIPO 1’s opinion on the program.
MIPO 1 recognized the value, like HIPO 10, to “providing a similar path or similar
development opportunities” but felt the program left her wanting as all the material was “pointed
at management” leaving her “really unimpressed.” HIPO 1 noted the same disappointment
amongst the technical pathway participants that the program missed the mark because “technical
folks within the program who were not really interested in management positions, but they are
interested in technical leadership.” MIPO 2 solidified this sentiment when he stated, “there
wasn't really the right focus on technical leadership that there needed to be to make sure that our
critical pipeline was being provided” referring to the need to develop technical competencies.
This consistent sentiment amongst these four participants is that the NCL program spoke of
competencies in “generalities” and left interpretation to the individual. Furthermore, considering
the program was “participant led,” the competencies developed were individualized and did not
necessarily align to communicated outcomes of the program.
Reviewing the narrative data, none of the participants could articulate specifics of
program competencies required for promotion. All the participants expressed their beliefs of
what competencies were required, but it was specific to the participant. However, all but one
117
participant cited the promotional materials associated with the NCL program forming some basis
of their perception on competencies to be developed in the program.
Document and Artifact Analysis
As part of the recruitment process, the NCL program brochure (DOC 3) markets the
program by highlighting that it is a “self-nomination program that develops leaders who inspire
excellence in others and shape a culture that values development and engagement.” Throughout
DOC 3 is imagery showing top leadership from the organization seemingly endorsing the
program and others, which could give the impression that NCL is the definitive leadership
program.
Adding to the ambiguity are the various marketing and program update materials. The
NCL Quarterly Newsletter (DOC 4) highlights participants’ activities across the four regions,
updates on the program status concerning milestones, and spotlights capstone projects that
participants had led. In highlighting the capstone projects, the focus is on recognizing the
achievements of the participants of having completed the project, and more so, praising
participants’ leadership in bringing the project to fruition. In celebrating participants’ successes,
the newsletter provides recognition and may serve to motivate the participant, but it may have an
unintended consequence that successful completion of the project is the goal instead of specific
competencies to be learned. It leaves participants to interpret what competencies were developed
and how it ties to the learning within the NCL program. Organizations such as the military have
been using after-action reviews or post-project assessments to determine the efficacy of learning
outcomes to help reduce the ambiguity associated with individual interpretation (Villado &
Arthur, 2013).
118
The reference to periodicals and benchmarking reports from leading development
organizations reinforce the prestige and belief it is structured leveraging the best information
available. Although, in reviewing the marketing material, which includes the proposed
competency areas of focus for this study, a few items could be reflective of interview
participants’ perceived confusion on the program's outcome. For example, on the NCL Program
brochure (DOC 3), one tagline reads, “Future leaders are made here.” By no means is there any
explicit statement that by completing the program that promotion is inevitable. However, the
subsequent language where it states that participants “learn” to be “leaders” may give the
impression that all the capabilities culminate in promotion, which five of the 12 participants
expressed. Based on narrative data, some participants appeared to interpret these statements as
contributing to an expectation of promotion. However, given the participants' mixed expectations
revealed through the narrative data, the message is too ambiguous and lends itself for varying
interpretations, potentially leading to unfulfilled outcomes.
Delving further into the “competency areas” to be developed by the NCL program, the
NCL Program Mid-year Review (DOC 2) depicts a matrix of 20 competencies, across five
horizontal dimensions, with five vertical components encompassed within a rectangular border
of leadership values and attributes. Figure 2 depicts the basic structure of the competency areas
as depicted in the NCL Program Mid-year Review (DOC 2).
119
Figure 2
Leadership Development Competencies and Behaviors
Note. Adapted from NCL Program Mid-year Review (DOC 2). Modified to protect the
organization’s identity.
The matrixed competencies are noted as “behaviors,” and the format in which it is shown
is the same format and the content in the organization’s mission and vision statement
surrounding leadership attributes. Utilizing the organization’s mission and vision and translating
them into behaviors lends itself to the consistency of messaging. However, the behaviors are not
aligned to specific competencies to be developed. Interpretation of the meaning behind the
behaviors is left to individuals on how to demonstrate expertise in that dimension. For example,
under the “Culture” dimension, as noted in Figure 2, the behavior of “Encourage Healthy
Debate” is noted as one of leadership competencies. Encouraging healthy debate is a relatively
120
straightforward statement, but what it looks like to demonstrate or articulate the level of mastery
of this competency is ambiguous.
Participants like HIPO 1 cited using and reflecting “on those [competencies] and measure
our progress through each of those competencies on a quarterly basis” noted in DOC 2 as a
benchmark. These self-evaluations, done jointly within their quads, assume that by progressing
on those dimensions, they are “satisfying” the course outcomes towards leadership development
and subsequent promotion. Although the competencies identified in the materials were not
intended to be the basis of performance metrics, the perception exists among the interviewees
and adds to the ambiguity in expectations.
Summary
The data identify ambiguities in communication as to competencies need to perform at a
management level. The documents and artifacts are consistent about duration, basic activities,
and high-level statements associated with experiential learning surrounding behaviors. However,
these items are inconsistent in providing clear and purposeful messaging on how those
experiences are associated with developed competencies towards promotion.
All the participants were optimistic about developing leadership experiences and
enhancing their capabilities, but they were unclear how those experiences manifested into
developed competencies defined by the organization for promotion. The variation in
communication, the participant-led curation of activities, and open-ended measures of success
add to the lack of clarity of competencies necessary. Further compounding the issue is how
competencies are used interchangeably with behaviors in organizational messaging leading to
subjective measures of assessments.
121
NCL Program Fosters a Safe Learning Environment to Develop Managerial Competencies
Organizational culture has a significant impact on learning outcomes. This study sought
to explore the extent to which the organization created an environment, a learning culture per se,
that allows for participants to develop their leadership skills in a structured way. Per the NCL
Program Brochure (DOC 3) and the NCL Program Mid-year Review (DOC 2), the program is
intended to separate the participants’ daily activities that allow for experiential learning, direct
peer coaching, and executive mentorship. Additionally, the program allocates the budget towards
resources such as a book, external speakers, assessments, and discretionary spending, such as
travel allowances, according to DOC 2.
Interview Findings
Analysis of the narrative data reveals the participants identified the NCL program as
provided in a safe learning environment where participants could practice and “hone” their
developed skills. Participants also expressed having access to resources that were exclusively
available to them that helped foster their personal development. Finally, the participants
especially prized the access to executive mentors to help guide them in their development
journey. The sections to follow highlighted narrative data regarding the learning environment,
leadership commitment, and access to resources.
Learning Environment. As part of creating an experiential learning environment, five
participants considered the NCL program as a “safe environment” where participants could
practice their leadership skills. MIPO 2 recalled an instance where participants worked on a
project “setting up opportunities” that “crossed into the swim lanes” of other teams. In those
instances, MIPO 2 recalled when this occurred that “leaders gave NCL members phone calls
saying ‘hey can you help me understand why you’re doing this and that the [leader’s team] was
122
supposed to be doing this” but in a way that it allowed them to “practice what happens when you
get out in the real world.” MIPO 2 characterized the time in the program as “it was pretty clear
[in] NCL that allowed us to play in a sandbox, where we were able to build things.”
HIPO 7 appreciated the ability to “create an area which it is a forum for me to get better
to step outside my day-to-day job into focus on those and being intentional in those spaces.”
Additionally, the ability “to break out and feel safe to talk amongst your peers, to be transparent
to talk about stuff that’s going on in your personal life or work life” was an important aspect of
the program. The ability to share and seek feedback was an essential component of the program.
HIPO 2 expressed it as:
I felt that it was a safe space, and any time we ran into challenges or things, we had the
ample support and encouragement with people being like, “no, you guys are doing the
best here, and anything I can do to help or do”, so I would say there was good support
and a safe environment for that.
HIPO 1 reaffirmed the same sentiment through their experience when things did not go as
planned and received a message from the NCL program manager that emphasized that “this is a
safe space to learn and to fail. This is a safe space to learn. Yeah, so that's a that's a pretty
common mantra.”
Leadership Commitment. As part of the selection process, participants are required to
get approval from their manager and an executive sponsor. Beyond the physical task of getting
approval from the manager and the executive sponsor, the participant needs to ensure there is
active and continued engagement by the leaders if selected. HIPO 1 approached the conversation
candidly with their leadership by asking, “Can I count on your passionate support for this,
because it's one thing, and I see it all the time, right, I see people like, ‘sure I'll support that’ but
123
it means nothing.” The importance of HIPO 1’s conversation is that it sets an expectation that
she will be committing to activities outside of her daily activities. It also sets an expectation that
her manager is active and engaged in her development process by achieving the program's
outcomes.
HIPO 3 was aware that he was considered a “high potential talent” by his direct
leadership and wanted him to explore leadership development opportunities. HIPO 3 was
introduced to the program by their leadership, and in fact, their director facilitated the process as
noted in their response, “my director set up, you know, all the meetings with my executive
sponsor and all that type of stuff, so there wasn't, it was easy.” Beyond the ease of facilitating the
administration process for application, being supported by his leadership to continue his
development reinforced the learning culture. In a similar situation, HIPO 5 could not recall
having to seek executive sponsorship and believed “it’s possible that my manager just
coordinated that, and I didn’t have to do anything,” which reflects a support structure for
learning development.
Although more related to self-confidence, HIPO 10 felt they were too “junior” to join the
program or, as they believe, “I didn’t have a chance” but had a manager who told them, “This is
the perfect program. This is what you need. I’ll back you a 100%.” The commitment from
leadership and belief that HIPO 10 was capable and ready to progress in her career engenders
what she referred to as “comfort” and “security,” knowing your “manager has your back” when
referring to her continued development.
There was a consistent finding that the participants’ managers were supportive or
directive. Half of the participants’ managers were bringing the option of participating in the NCL
program to them. This reflects all the participant’s managers who were vested in the
124
development of their employees and provided an avenue for their continued development of
managerial competencies through the NCL program. MIPO 1 was also suggested to participate in
the program, and they believed it was because their manager “was one of those kind of leaders
who is just so focused on your development and what you need, and he was just fantastic in that
way.” Having that leadership focus on the participant’s development provided motivation and an
environment that fostered learning.
Leadership commitment extends beyond the initial application. According to participants,
a “quad” is created upon being selected to the program that includes the participant, the
supporting manager, typically the executive sponsor, and an individual in the organization whom
they believe would provide mentorship and guidance. The quad convenes at an interval that
ranged from monthly to every other month, depending on the participant's needs. The quad holds
the participant accountable for their progression through a “reflective evaluation.” HIPO 1
described it as, “We have to reflect on those and measure our progress through each of those
competencies on a quarterly basis. Then we take that our reflective score and take that before our
quads, to justify our movement through that process.” HIPO 4 described how the quad, in their
case the executive sponsor in the quad, was “pushing and pulling by creating opportunities” to
develop leadership skills. HIPO 7 stated that “they, [the quad], was not passive” and “drove you
to keep trying new things” during meetings. Based upon the statements expressed, the quads
serve as the main form of leadership commitment by providing mentorship, establishing goals,
and assessing performance.
Access to Resources. Transparency through access to resources also played a significant
role in creating the learning culture. As the NCL program is meant to be “immersive and
engaging” according to the NCL Promotional Brochure (DOC 3), there is a commitment by the
125
organization to support regional workshops, quarterly “all participant” in-person meeting,
attendance to training sessions, and at least one international “all participant” meeting. As
previously discussed, there were extenuating circumstances with COVID19 and the current
financial conditions of the organization that prevented some of these activities from occurring for
some of the participants.
The first activity described involves a kick-off to the program where all the participants
gather for a week to launch the program. During that time, executives of CCL come to speak
about their experiences, their leadership journey, and their aspirations for the participants over
the 2-year period. MIPO 1 recalled having the “[Chief Human Resources Officer] speak to us at
kickoff”. However, MIPO 1 believed it to be a “canned leadership speech,” they were still
appreciative of their attendance and commitment of time given “they probably had more
important things to do.”
HIPO 4 recalled the kick-off where resources such as books on leadership are distributed
to participants. Although readily available for purchase, one of the books, “Find Your Why”
(Sinek et al., 2017), was accompanied by a representative of the authors to provide greater
insight into the contents. HIPO 4 stated, “The fact that they would even focus on something like
this was like, this is amazing. You know they actually spent a lot of money, I'm sure, to bring an
actual representative of the [author].” HIPO 4 was so enamored with the experience that he
sought out a mentor to explore their “why” and shared the experience with their teams.
Another opportunity was access to “on hours” learning programs at the organization’s
learning center, typically reserved for current managers and executive leadership or by special
invitation. Being part of the NCL program meant participants had a preference in attending
learning programs at the organization’s learning center, where they are sequestered for a week at
126
a time going through programs. HIPO 7 recognized the value of this program, “getting you
exposure into those CCL’s courses and TED Talks [where] they have leaders come talk to us,”
which are activities not readily available to all employees. HIPO 2 also recognized the value in
their statement that “got me exposed to some of the things at CCL as well that I wouldn't have
been exposed to as part of my day-to-day responsibility.”
Summary
It was evident from the narrative data that the construct of the NCL program was an asset
to participants as it established a learning culture that was rooted in opportunities to test out new
skills, “fail” in the process, and then learn from the process. All the participants’ responses in
addressing the questions surrounding the learning culture were incredibly positive and
appreciative.
Although all the participants alluded to the monetary cost of running the program, all the
participants were also quick to highlight that the learning environment allowed them to develop
practical and experiential knowledge. Along with the access to leadership, mentors, and a
support group of peers and cohort members, participants felt confident and capable to develop
knowledge that would serve them in future leadership opportunities.
NCL Program is Structured to Develop Graduates to Perform Management Functions
According to participants of this study, CCL has created an organizational environment
that promotes the development of leadership competencies. Through the NCL program,
participants are to have associated the experiential learning through immersive activities within
the program. As noted in the knowledge findings, the knowledge gained did not align in areas
such as foundational and procedural. However, as determined by the narrative data, the
127
knowledge gained did reflect that participants had developed specific competencies such as
networking, developing a greater awareness of the enterprise, and communications.
All the participants referenced the application of these developed competencies as
important for performing as a manager. The competencies surrounding networking, greater
awareness of the enterprise, and communication skills do not lend themselves to be measured
objectively. According to the participants, progression in the ability to network, increasing
awareness, and communication skills were assessed through conversations with their quads and
peer feedback. Therefore, as part of the data analysis, key themes surrounding mentoring,
collaborating, and leading represent the data supporting the recognition that the NCL program is
structured to develop graduates to perform management functions.
Interview Findings
Mentoring. Acting in a leadership capacity involves various skills and responsibilities,
but a significant component of leadership is developing others by sharing knowledge and
experiences (Casey & Vogel, 2019; Kuron et al., 2015). All the participants had referred to
working on or participating in activities outside their normal duties, but notable comments came
from three participants that stated they were “challenged” with tasks. The three participants
expressed that they were taken out of their “comfort zone” that helped in their development
process and cited how mentoring others was a crucial component in the process. HIPO 7 shared
their experience in “stepping into a management role, doing something different that they've
never done before” but making an impact by sharing the experiential knowledge gained
regardless of their background. HIPO 7 further noted that “you don't have to be the smartest, but
can you coach and mentor people” when referring to expectations of serving in a management
capacity in the future.
128
HIPO 2 voiced the concept of sharing knowledge through the statement that “you need to
share what you learn with others and your team,” recognizing the knowledge gained was meant
to advantage the entire organization and not for their benefit alone. HIPO 4 acknowledged the
concept of sharing knowledge and experiences while “running the leadership development
program for the future leaders, as well as existing managers.” HIPO 4 found it “gratifying and
made me feel like I was actually contributing and making a difference on a much bigger scale
because now I was impacting how all kinds of leaders, both new and existing, were able to do
their job” through the information shared.
Mentoring involves sharing rote technical or business knowledge, providing guidance
and support, and sharing experiences efficaciously, leading to deeper, more meaningful
connections (Chavez, 2011; Pandya, 2017). HIPO 4 believed it to be a “valuable skill” to
“interact with people successfully. It’s a leadership skill.” HIPO 9 expressed that she developed a
sense of “empathy” during the program that led to her “[taking] on a leadership position in the
program as the member advocate, so people come to me with their problems” so she could guide
them and provide inputs for reflection and resolution. MIPO 1 labeled the duty of leadership to
develop an “emotional support network” for mentees. MIPO 2 connected these thoughts by
sharing an extraordinarily strong belief that “the big thing for me is that leadership is a gift you
give. It's not necessarily a gift for you. And I was able to give, you know, a lot of the leadership I
learned to my team.”
Collaborating. Teaming, partnering, and collaborating are common words associated
with a collective leveraging of the knowledge and capabilities beyond that of one individual
(Bajer, 2016; Burke, 2015; Schiemann & Seibert, 2013). Ten out of the 12 participants
specifically referred to developing awareness of the “global enterprise” or gaining access to
129
knowledge and capabilities across an entire organization. Reviewing the analyzed data, terms,
and phrases like “teaming,” “partnering,” and “working together” were consistently used
amongst all the participants, which collectively infer that collaboration was an essential aspect of
their development. Entering the program, HIPO 9 believed that “[she’ll] be really knowledgeable
compared to other people” when having an awareness of the global enterprise and collaborating
accordingly, but recognized “that's not the case, it hasn't been the case at all” and appreciated the
opportunity for development.
Recognizing the value of being able to collaborate across the enterprise, HIPO 4 stated,
“[they are] really doing a great job in terms of promoting that visibility of the program so that the
entire enterprise does get to benefit from it.” Having that global awareness and knowing where
information could be found was influential in the development process, as noted by HIPO 4. “I
think [it] is a big part of leadership is not knowing everything but knowing who to go to or how
to build the team that gets it done.” HIPO 1 summed up the value of collaboration as a key driver
for managerial performance by stating that leaders must have “global competency, global
community, and global development” mindset.
Collaboration can happen across teams or within the team itself. Studies have emphasized
that developing skills to manage the team’s intrapersonal dynamics and leveraging the team's
capabilities is part of the leadership development process (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019;
Roupnel et al., 2019). HIPO 2, in working with other HiPos recognized the value of
collaborating based on “trust.” He stated that “I grew significantly in that area because, again, I
had other high-potential people that I knew were gonna deliver as well. So it actually increased
my willingness to trust other people and thus be able to delegate stuff.” MIPO 1 acknowledged
the value of collaboration when she “realize[d] that I have to let go, sometimes I don't get to
130
control everything.” She went on to express that leadership is “probably learning to rely on
others.”
HIPO 5 had an “a-ha” moment while working with cross-functional organizations on
information sharing. He stated, “Well, I think it was really, what I learned that was most valuable
wasn't pulling specific [information], it was learning about people and gaining more confidence
in my ability to network and communicate with people.” Likewise, HIPO 9, during her time with
steering team, discussed how she gained the experience by “putting [herself] out there” to be part
of multiple teams to make connections. Actively engaging with teams unrelated to her home
organization allowed her to “practice leadership by kind of talking to leaders and being that
middle person between the programs.”
Leading. The final competency is the act of leading. Demonstrating the ability to build
teams, drive projects, and achieve results is critical in performing in a leadership capacity
(Sørensen, 2017; Winiarska-Januszewicz & Winiarski, 2014). Ten out of the 12 participants had
led projects during their time in the NCL program and recognized the value in the activity. As
previously noted, although HIPO 2 purposely chose not to lead a project during the program, he
did recognize the value of leading projects. Eventually, HIPO 2 did join the alumni leadership
upon graduation.
Valuing his time serving in a leadership capacity, HIPO 4 recalled his team planning a
domestic trip for the cohort and how it “took me right outside of that comfort zone” having to
plan the entire event. He expressed his inexperience in event planning was tempered by his
“desire to learn, that willingness to find out what can we do to make this better” that led to a
successful event. His leading activity outside of his previous experience base, managing the
131
ambiguity in the process but still achieving results, exemplifies the opportunity to develop his
leadership competencies.
During her time in the program, MIPO 1 joined the leadership team for the NCL
program. She found “the act of having to run the program and be involved with the decisions of
[being] in the leadership team was where I feel like I got the most benefit out of the out of the
program” helped reaffirm her leadership style. HIPO 10 led process reengineering and cost
improvement programs where she leveraged her background to “drive value stream mapping
exercises across a number of sites” and having senior leadership seeking direction from the “least
experienced person on the team by decades. It was empowering!”
HIPO 10’s experience reflects the “influence” that leadership has on people and projects.
HIPO 1 was the outreach leadership sub-team lead and her role in coaching executives and
“having an opportunity to influence them a little bit” on “what does it mean to be an executive
leader for this company.” The influence she had in crafting the message that executives would be
sharing with the employees was immeasurable. She appreciated being “involved in something
where you're leading, you’re leading in some way, and it could be that you're leading through
influence.”
MIPO 2 was able to influence an outcome when he “saw that gap, went in there and
communicated the gap, and then I was given the opportunity to lead the technical leadership
development team.” He recognized an issue and offered a suggestion, which turned into “the
opportunity to do something about it” resulting in his developing his leadership competencies.
Summary
Leveraging the knowledge gained during the NCL program, the participants unanimously
expressed having this asset of leveraging the NCL program to develop abilities to perform in a
132
leadership capacity. Although only 10 out of 12 participants stated they explicitly led initiatives
during the NCL program, all the participants recognized the value of developing managerial
competencies through engagement in various activities and supporting projects.
All the participants discussed collaborating with different functions or teams to work on
projects, and all of them expressed developing mentor-mentee relationships. The consensus from
the narrative data is that NCL graduates can perform in future leadership capacities because of
their participation in the program. They have demonstrated through their engagement in the
program that they can associate experiential learning from interactions with a diverse set of
functional teams into actions.
Summary
The results from the qualitative research reflect the nuances of messaging, the importance
of managing expectations and outcomes, and ensuring infrastructure is in place to support
leadership development. Referring to the dimensions of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on the participants in the NCL program to future promotion, the
narrative data and supporting documents and artifacts reflect a mixed outcome as to whether an
influence was an asset or a need.
Knowledge Influences
It was clear from the narrative data that participants gained knowledge associated with
performing in a leadership capacity. The narrative data identified foundational knowledge as
competencies more aligned to emotional intelligence such as mentoring, collaborating, and
leading and less around technical business acumen as previous literature had suggested. It is
reasonable to presume that in leading projects or driving outcomes, awareness and some ability
around basic business acumen like accounting, finance, and program management are needed but
133
not explicitly identified as competencies for promotion. However, given the conceptual
knowledge influence was defined as basic business acumen, there remains a gap and a need for
this influence.
As participants expanded their individual knowledge surrounding networking, enterprise
awareness, and communication skills, there remained a gap in the procedural knowledge needed
to progress into management. All the participants expressed a lack of specific understanding of
the process towards promotion. However, 33% suggested some of their limited insight, although
speculative, regarding the process involving needing to have a network or leader advocate to
support the promotion. Irrespective of their opinion, it was clear that the NCL program did not
provide the procedural knowledge associated with promotion to management.
Beyond gaining experience and developing knowledge, the ability to associate the
knowledge and use them in meaningful ways was thought to be important for future promotion
by 92% of the participants. The learning agility to develop metacognitive knowledge was
apparent in the narrative data as a key element in their progress towards promotion. Table 12
summarizes the knowledge influences and denotes whether the influence was a need (a gap) or
an asset.
134
Table 12
Knowledge Influence Determination
Knowledge
category
Knowledge influence
Asset
Need
Conceptual
NCL graduates need an understanding of foundational
business acumen (e.g., accounting, finance, and
project management).
X
Procedural NCL graduates need to know how to navigate the
promotion process and requirements to transition
towards management.
X
Metacognitive
NCL graduates need to develop learning agility to
further their cognitive skills and capabilities needed to
lead at the management level.
X
Motivation Influence Summary
Entering the NCL program, all the participants self-identified as having a high ability,
high confidence, and strong motivation to succeed. Although each participant had varying
motivations for participating in the NCL program, there were strong associations with how they
determined to join and the resulting outcomes.
The participants were motivated by the task value of selecting to participate in the NCL
program. Two participants compared the program to an MBA degree, a recognized and readily
accepted credential. Yet, they chose the NCL program instead, which does not provide a tangible
certificate or recognized degree. Assessing various programs, participants saw learning
opportunities they believed would serve them in their career development towards promotion and
leadership.
135
Having selected the NCL program over other learning opportunities, all the participants
entered with expectancy of the potential of a future promotion upon completion of the program.
Once in the program, the expectancy changed as pragmatism and reality of the situation set in.
Twenty-five percent of the participants changed from expecting an immediate promotion to
gaining recognition and hopes of accelerated opportunities to be promoted. Another 67%, or
eight of 12 of the participants, were seeking more intrinsic opportunities in the form of
recognition and continued development opportunities. At the end of the program, only one
participant maintained the expectation of promotion.
Although the expected outcome of the program remained a gap, the program did provide
participants opportunities to increase their confidence in performing in a management capacity.
Eleven of 12 participants, approximately 92%, of participants resoundingly confirmed that their
self-efficacy had increased from leading programs or achieving successful outcomes in support
of projects. One participant was less explicit about acknowledging an increase in confidence
when asked the question directly, but it was clear they had increased their self-efficacy in
subsequent comments. Although all participants had high levels of self-efficacy prior to entering
the program, 92% expressed an incremental increase as a result of participating in activities and
believed it contributed to their development in a management capacity.
The level of effort exerted by the participants was resoundingly in the affirmative of
having allocated a significant amount of their time towards fulfilling the activities within the
program. Despite observing others in the program that were not engaged or working to complete
the minimum levels of performance to graduate from the program, the participants expressed
strong commitment to maximizing the opportunity. However, it was clear from participants’
responses that the level of effort was undeterred by their belief that they could “control” future
136
opportunities for promotion. All but one participant placed the responsibility upon themselves to
continue to explore promotional opportunities, but this influence remains a significant gap.
Table 13 summarizes the motivational categories and the influences into whether it was
an asset or if a gap (the need) remained.
Table 13
Motivational Influences Determination
Motivation
category
Motivation influence
Asset
Need
Task value
NCL graduates need to value the skills learned through
participating in the NCL program for accelerating their
attainment of a leadership role.
X
Outcome
expectancy
NCL graduates need to believe by participating in the
program, they will gain the necessary knowledge and
fulfill the requisite requirements for attaining a
promotion.
X
Self-efficacy NCL graduates need to be confident in their ability to
perform in a management capacity.
X
Attribution NCL graduates need to see creating opportunity for
promotion as within their control.
X
137
Organizational Influence Summary
In a review of the organizational influences, there were varying results with regards to
whether assumed influences were present. The marketing materials and advertising to promote
the NCL program left participants interpreting the outcomes very differently, ranging from
perceptions that they were guaranteed an immediate promotion to an intrinsic return of self-
development. The disparity and lack of consistency of communication of intent contribute to the
varying outcomes. Additionally, the lack of structured opportunities for promotion and the
ambiguity in the messaging potentially contributed to misalignment regarding expected
outcomes for participants following program completion.
The participants unanimously expressed gratitude and celebrated the opportunity to be
part of the NCL program. However, given only two of the 12 participants are currently
performing in a management capacity, there remains a gap in aspects of the organizational
influences. Table 14 summarizes the organizational influences and identifies if it was an asset or
a need.
138
Table 14
Organizational Influence Determination
Organizational category
Organizational influence
Asset
Need
Setting
CCL needs to have programs in place
that offer structured opportunities for
promotion into management roles.
X
Setting The goals of the NCL program with
respect to preparing NCL graduates for
management positions need to be
clearly articulated to participants.
X
Model CCL needs to have a culture of
transparency regarding the NCL
program as a space for developing the
needed competencies to perform at a
managerial level.
X
Setting The NCL program needs to be structured
in a manner that develops participants
to perform management functions.
X
Overall, based on the narrative data, it is evident that the NCL program provides value to
develop knowledge, increase motivation, and keep high potential employees engaged. However,
there are opportunities for improvement. Chapter 5 will investigate possible recommendations
based upon the narrative data to address the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences.
139
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
From the findings discussed in Chapter 4, it is evident that there were assets associated
with the research study as well as gaps that should be addressed. This chapter will consolidate
the findings with a particular focus on the identified gaps. After reviewing the consolidated gaps
on comparison to previous research, the information will be synthesized to present
recommendations to address the gaps associated with knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences towards the stakeholder goal of achieving a promotion at CCL.
Discussion of Findings
This study utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to explore gaps
influencing NCL graduates’ development towards their goal of promotion. The participants
presented narrative data that identified various gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. The knowledge gaps were associated with conceptual and procedural
knowledge. Gaps in motivation pertained to expectancy outcomes and attributions associated
with participating in the NCL program. Finally, organizational influence gaps were focused on
two settings; the need to have programs in place to provide structured opportunities for
promotion and the NCL program preparing graduates with articulated goals for future promotion
to management.
Discussion of Knowledge Findings
The knowledge gaps are related to conceptual and procedural knowledge. Conceptual
knowledge, as discussed in Chapter 2, refers to whether NCL graduates need an understanding of
basic business acumen such as accounting, finance, and project management. Procedural
knowledge was about understanding how to navigate the promotional process and the
requirements to transition into management.
140
Conceptual Knowledge
As discussed in Chapter 2, studies of organizations noted that future leaders needed
competencies associated with basic elements of financial statements and the ability to manage
projects (Anderson et al., 2018; David & David, 2016). Half of this study’s participants cited
basic business acumen, such as finance and program management, was used during the NCL
program to support activities. However, they did not explicitly state that they believed basic
business acumen was a requirement for progression into management. The mixed belief that
basic business acumen was not a requirement for leaders is contrary to the Richtermeyer (2017)
study that identified a consensus amongst industries that basis business acumen is a key element
of leadership skills. The narrative data showed participants had cited using aspects of financial
and project management skills, which may infer it is an important skill to have developed and to
be able to recall and use in a management function. Nevertheless, as noted by participants, the
skills learned from the program were less about basic business acumen and more so the
conceptual knowledge surrounding human interaction, collaboration, and enterprise awareness.
Souba and Souba (2018) corroborated this study’s participants’ beliefs that leadership
capabilities were more than outcome-based knowledge like those associated with basic business
acumen. The participants expressed valuing human interaction and socialization skills;
additionally, they perceived them to have greater applicability in a management role than
business acumen. In alignment to participants’ beliefs, other research has acknowledged that
taking foundational knowledge, such as basic business acumen, involved finding associations
through interactions and applying them for critical thinking and problem-solving; key traits of
leadership (Bratianu & Vatamanescu, 2017; He, 2015; Rebeťák & Farkašová, 2015). Although
Byrne and Lees (2018) noted that finance and accounting plays a role in developing leadership
141
skills, the association and application of basic business acumen to “self-lead and think critically”
are more important components for success (p. 168). Therefore, basic business acumen is akin to
skills as part of a cognitive toolkit to be used as necessary and in context, but not a prescriptive
requirement for progression.
As the knowledge influence began with a presumption that basic business acumen was
necessary, the results of this study are mixed. This study’s data reflects that without having basic
business acumen in finance and accounting, the participants could not have completed projects.
Therefore, it infers that it is a need based upon the data available. However, the depth of
expertise or previous experience associated with business acumen needs further study to
determine whether a gap exists in the skills being provided by the NCL program.
Procedural Knowledge
Navigating the development process towards promotion remains a significant gap in
knowledge as none of the participants could articulate what the process entails with complete
assurance. The participants noted anecdotal assumptions as to what may contribute to promotion,
but the assumptions were still speculative. Although two participants noted that having a strong
network or an advocate is necessary for visibility amongst the leadership who make the
decisions, those statements were hypothetical.
A review of literature corroborates a need for a professional network and references some
level of self-promotion is essential, but it does not provide a consensus as to what are explicit
components of the promotional process (Burke, 2015; Burrus et al., 2013; Dries & Pepermans,
2018; Harvard, 2010; Rebeťák & Farkašová, 2015). Furthermore, literature is consistent in
identifying a gap among employees associated with the specifics of promotion processes (Al
Mamun, 2017; Croteau & Wolk, 2010; McConnell, 2011; Zaharee et al., 2018). Aspects of the
142
NCL program align to studies that denoted leadership development programs should include job-
based experiences, rote education, coaching-mentoring, and rotational programs (Burke, 2012;
Couch & Citrin, 2018). Equally important to modeling leadership development programs is
ensuring knowledge of the promotional process is included to mitigate the potential loss of high
potential talent like the NCL graduates (Kollmann et al., 2020; Riddle, 2012).
In concurrence with the need to be explicit about the promotional process, Zaharee et al.
(2018) explored the alignment of expectations from early-career employees that aided in
retention of top talent. A central aspect of the study identified the type of work and knowledge
for which high potential employees are searching. Still, the research also recognized that an
ambiguous and undefined pathway for promotion requires active management to reduce
employee turnover (Zaharee et al., 2018). As noted in Chapter 2, ensuring the development of
employees is purposeful with a direct link to upward mobility is a critical element of reducing
voluntary turnover of employees (Puckett, 2018). Therefore, it is incumbent on CCL to address
this gap in procedural knowledge or potentially lose high potential talent.
Discussion of Motivation Findings
There were mixed findings regarding the effect of motivational influences on the
participants. The NCL graduates valued the skills learned through participating in the NCL
program (task value) and expressed high levels of self-efficacy as manifested through their
increased confidence through the projects completed. Both task value and self-efficacy were
assets towards building motivation in their goal of attaining a future promotion. Conversely,
there were noted gaps concerning the expected outcomes in gaining the requisite knowledge
necessary for promotion and being able to control and create opportunities for promotions.
143
Outcome Expectancy
With regards to expected outcomes, all the participants entered the program to gain the
knowledge to fulfill the requisite requirements to attain a promotion. However, during the
program, as expressed by the participants, there was a shift in expectation from immediate
promotion to something more holistic, such as recognition and opportunity for stretch
assignments. The change in expectation was partially influenced by the program's structure being
“participant-led,” which left it open for participants to determine their level of involvement and
subsequent outcomes. Without a defined metric to objectively assess progress in the
development of competencies or demonstration of capabilities, participants felt they were left to
define their own milestones and measures of success. The varying measures of participants’
success may not align with CCL’s expectations of leadership development.
Participant-led programs have been noted by Omilion-Hodges and Sugg (2019) as an
effective approach to development programs, but the same programs resulted in varied levels of
achievement and development for participants in those programs. Because this study’s
participants’ approach to knowledge attainment varied, the different levels and types of
outcomes achieved by participants influenced their change in expected outcomes. For example,
one participant remained stalwart about being promoted in the immediate future, but the
remaining participants recognized their achievements in the program could not be aligned
directly to promotional opportunities which changed their expectations.
Although the NCL program’s “unstructured” design allowed participants to define the
program to their personal learning needs, which aligns with practices identified by Fer
Fernández-Aráoz et al. (2017), this study’s participants felt it also had the effect of “gaming” the
system especially in the case of “ghosters.” The participants perceived that this lack of structure
144
resulted in instances where other NCL graduates focused only on completing the minimum
requirements to graduate from the program. Given that the NCL participants are the 0.04% of the
population and HiPos in the organization, this perception among this study’s participants is
contrary to prevailing definitions of HiPos and their work ethics as found in several other studies
(e.g., Lederman, 2017; Letchmiah & Thomas, 2017; Winiarska-Januszewicz & Winiarski, 2014).
The varying degree of engagement and the subjective measure of achievement contributes to the
gap.
Attributional Patterns
Based upon participants’ responses, motivation, with regards to attribution, evolved from
believing the NCL program was a mechanism for control for promotion when they started the
program to a less definitive understanding. Upon selection and before starting the program, all
the participants expressed asserting significant effort to participate and engage in all activities to
gain knowledge and experiences from the program. According to the participants, part of the
motivation stems from their attributing effort to an outcome of future promotion. In essence,
their control over the level of effort exerted was presumed to directly relate to their opportunity
for promotion.
After the program launch and having engaged in the program activities, participants’
beliefs in how the NCL program enables control over future promotion were muted. Contributing
to this augmented belief were external influences, such as the general business environment,
management opinion of the program, and observing others in the program who had exerted
enough effort to meet graduation requirements and still be in consideration for promotion. The
lack of alignment of participating in the program to specific outcomes contributes to the
misconception surrounding control. Past studies have identified that leadership development
145
programs need to improve the alignment of future leadership needs to business strategy (Burke,
1997; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2017; Kuron et al., 2015; McCall, 2010; Singh & Sanjeev,
2017). Equally important is to communicate the future business strategy needs with regards to
promotion to level-set expectations amongst participants to ensure there is alignment. Therefore,
there is a need for definitive messaging that participating in the NCL program is a component of
their progress towards promotion, or alternatively, the program should be structured to provide
promotional opportunities to graduates to address the gap.
Contributing to the change in the belief among participants that the NCL program was a
control mechanism was due to perceived external factors associated with manager support and
level of effort or engagement. Regarding the former, two of the 12 participants cited lack of
manager engagement or belief that the NCL program had value, which influenced their belief of
having control from participating in the program. Significant literature emphasizes a positive
correlation between manager support, as a material influencer, as manifested through motivation,
on talent development outcomes (Lee et al., 2018; Morrell & Abston, 2018; Omilion-Hodges &
Sugg, 2019; Pantouvakis & Karakasnaki, 2019; Rebeťák & Farkašová, 2015).
Although the participants of this research study expressed exerting significant effort,
demonstrating strong cognitive ability, and modeling leadership competencies, three participants
observed participants outside of this study who were not as engaged and were still considering
promotional opportunities impacted the three participants. Aware there were other participants
not actively engaged in the program, the three participants reported a reduced association that the
NCL program is a control mechanism for promotion. It was abundantly evident that a gap
remained in creating opportunities for promotion.
146
Discussion of Organizational Findings
As discussed in Chapter 4, the two gaps in the organizational influences were associated
with what Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) refer to as cultural settings. Cultural settings are
associated with events occurring when people are engaged with a joint intent to accomplish a
task, such as those participating in the NCL program (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). From this
research study, the NCL program was intended to be a leadership development program that
defined the expected competencies and capabilities (traits) of a leader within CCL and afforded
participants opportunities to accelerate their promotional opportunities. However, it was evident
from the research that there is a significant gap between the intended objectives and outcomes
from an organizational perspective.
Structured Opportunities
The first gap identified in this study is associated with having a program in place that
offers structured opportunities for promotion into management. As previously discussed, there is
a high cost (e.g., recruiting, selection, training) associated with employee turnover and even
more pronounced when a high potential employee leaves an organization (Laddha et al., 2012;
Lee et al., 2018; McConnell, 2011; Puckett, 2018). Although many organizations have
established employee development programs, programs are focused on the general development
of leadership competencies and not on attaining skills specific to a leadership role (Ardichvili et
al., 2016; Couch & Citrin, 2018; Holt et al., 2018; Letchmiah & Thomas, 2017; Ready &
Conger, 2010).
The NCL program has a historical average of a 10% promotion rate. Coincidentally, two
of the 12 participants in this study are in a post-graduation management position, representing
roughly the 10% representation of management, but this is purely coincidence as a function of
147
the sample size. However, it is essential to note that the two management participants recognized
that the NCL program offered learning opportunities. Still, they did not cite the program as
offering a clear path for being promoted into a management role. Like many development
programs, the NCL program provides a structured opportunity for leadership development but
does not directly provide a path for promotion into management roles. For leadership
development to be effective, studies have shown there needs to be aligned to business strategy
and towards specific future roles in leadership (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Couch & Citrin, 2018;
Fernández-Aráoz et al., 2017; Wallace et al., 2021; Winiarska-Januszewicz & Winiarski, 2014).
Articulated Outcomes
The second gap found in this study is rooted in the ambiguous messaging of the NCL
program as articulated by the participants. As noted in the literature regarding turnover of high
potential employees, it is imperative that communicating outcomes in development programs
concerning knowledge to be gained, activities contributing to development, and post-course
engagement is necessary for successful leadership development programs (Holt et al., 2018;
McGregor, 2010; Puckett, 2018; Souba & Souba, 2018). From the narrative data, the participants
expressed varying degree of outcomes. The NCL program’s messaging on objectives spanned
from providing opportunities for promotion upon completion to being an opportunity to learn
new competencies. Although promotional documents and artifacts substantiate that the program
is intended to provide learning through experiential activities, it leaves the actual learning goals
and outcomes for interpretation by the participants. The assumed outcomes and goals from the
perspective of the participant have the effect of establishing unintended outcomes, differing
expectations, and reduces the participants’ perceived efficacy of the program. Multiple studies
have shown that inconsistency of articulated and aligned outcomes results in leadership programs
148
having effectiveness only during the time in the program and lacks long term impacts (Bajer,
2016; Chambers et al., 1998; Cloutier et al. 2015; Finkelstein et al., 2018; Khoreva et al., 2017).
Therefore, it is necessary to present a consistency of messaging that explicitly aligns learning
outcomes, metrics on expectations to objective performance levels, and a defined pathway
outlining defined competencies and capabilities to be considered for promotion.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the findings associated with gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences, three recommendations address this study’s findings. Although the findings reflected
explicit gaps in the assumed influences, the recommendations are based on achieving
promotional outcomes and not necessarily mutually exclusive. Additionally, Clark and Estes
(2008) provided tools to address gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational constructs
that aid in framing the recommendations that follow. Finally, the recommendations are presented
in sequential order with ease of implementation in mind. For example, the first recommendation
can be implemented within framework of the current NCL program infrastructure. However,
recommendations two and three require more significant changes in the organizational
infrastructure and culture of the program.
Recommendation 1: Train NCL Participants on the Knowledge and Skills Necessary for
Promotion
As noted in the narrative data, 50% of the participants expressed using basic business
acumens such as finance, accounting, and program management, but no one could articulate if
basic business acumens are needed for promotion. Additionally, participants could not identify
what other “foundational” knowledge was needed. Additionally, all 12 participants expressed
that there is a lack of clarity in the procedural knowledge towards promotion. Therefore, to
149
address these gaps in knowledge and remove ambiguity, CCL should provide information on
outcomes of participating in the program, modify the program to provide appropriate business
acumen training, and train participants on the expectations following completion of the program.
Defining foundational knowledge requirements to succeed at leadership has been studied
extensively without a consensus on what makes for a successful leader, yet research has found
many leadership programs are delivered without defined outcomes (Brack & Kelly, 2012;
Chavez, 2011; Gallardo et al., 2013). The literature points to various competencies surrounding
leadership capabilities and qualities that range from basic business acumen to human
interpersonal skills (Anderson et al., 2018; Byrne & Lees, 2018; De Fruyt et al., 2015; Eisner,
2010; Richtermeyer, 2017). It is logical that at some point in a leader’s journey that basic
business acumen is necessary to serve in a leadership capacity, but these skills are not necessarily
the driver for promotion (Byrne & Lees, 2018). According to the relevant literature, there is no
consensus on the expected competencies, qualities, and capacities of leaders, nor does it define a
standardized process towards promotion as these requirements are unique to organizations and
highly contextual (Dries & Pepermans, 2012; Puckett, 2018; Rebeťák & Farkašová, 2015).
Therefore, CCL needs to provide training to NCL graduates on the specific foundational
knowledge requirements required for promotion within its organization and how development
programs like NCL serve in that capacity. In addition to establishing the foundational knowledge
necessary, providing information through a standardized skills attainment and assessment
repository used by all NCL graduates would establish how knowledge can be gained or
demonstrated about a career pathway or succession planning program. Significant literature
references how having defined career pathways, with achievable milestones and defined
knowledge requirements achieved through experiential learning, is advantageous to the
150
organization and the individual (Charan et al., 2010; Croteau & Wolk, 2010; McConnell, 2011;
Pandya, 2017).
Recommendation 2: Delineate Learning Outcomes and Defined Metrics Associated With
the Promotion Process
According to this study’s data, the NCL program is a “participant-led” program with
milestones associated with fulfilling requirements to graduate from the program. As projects and
activities beyond those required for graduation are at the participant's discretion, none of the
participants were able to identify how outcomes were achieved or what metrics were used in
assessing those outcomes. Half the participants identified leveraging their mentors, managers, or
their “quad” as mechanisms to receive feedback and gauge their progress. Still, it was based
upon self-assessed subjective measures akin to a self-defined Likert scale. Literature references
successful examples where assessments, such as personality assessments and Multi-Test Multi-
Method, effectively shaped how learning programs can be structured for purposeful and
objective outcomes (Charan et al., 2010; Church et al., 2013; Finkelstein et al., 2018; Silzer &
Dowell, 2010; Tormala et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2013). Metrics explicitly aligned to learning
outcomes and demonstration of competencies similar to how specific, measurable, attainable,
relevant, and time-based (SMART) goals are established have been shown effective in achieving
development outcomes (Ford, 2017; Hagstrom & Backstrom, 2017).
Aligning SMART goals to learning objectives, along with required levels of achievement
concerning future promotional opportunities upon completion of the program, would serve CCL
in developing a prepared pipeline of future talent. An ancillary outcome from a SMART goal
approach to the program includes a potential increase in employee retention given participant
perceptions as revealed in this study. Studies have shown that employees who have specific
151
awareness of the organization’s expectations for leadership competencies, job enrichment
programs aligned to career progression, and defined career pathways are more engaged and have
a lower propensity to seek external opportunities (Bajer, 2016; Croteau & Wolk 2010;
Finkelstein et al., 2018; Mamun & Hasan, 2017; Pandya, 2017).
The NCL program can serve as a mechanism to differentiate and stratify participants
towards a selection process for promotion by establishing information regarding the conceptual
knowledge to be gained and using SMART goals. Having a framework to curate their learning
and standards to which they can assess their progress, participants can structure an effective and
personalized development program. This approach can address the gaps in procedural knowledge
and gaps in motivation associated with attribution. Furthermore, participants have a clearer
understanding of the knowledge attainment necessary for promotion through the program.
Implementing this recommendation establishes the NCL program as the structured opportunity
towards promotion with a pipeline of “ready” talent to perform in a management role.
Recommendation 3: Institute a Competitive Process With Assessments Leading to
Promotion at Completion of the NCL Program
In conjunction with Recommendations One and Two, Recommendation Three serves to
inform, train, and educate participants in the process for promotion upon completion of the NCL
program. From the research, all 12 participants were appreciative and valued the learning that
occurred in the program and the opportunity to engage with various model leaders in the
organization. However, all 12 participants were equally critical of the NCL program lacking
clarity on how the program yields opportunities for promotion into management roles.
Additionally, as 25% of the participants are on a technical pathway towards leadership, as
discussed in Chapter 4, the participants felt the program neither addressed their specific learning
152
needs nor the pathway to promotion. Therefore, to address the need of having a structured
program that prepares and provides opportunities for promotion, CCL should actively identify,
assess, and prepare to promote NCL graduates upon completion of the program.
The NCL graduates expressed feeling pride and valued from the initial selection process,
having access to resources, and from the support during the program. However, the NCL
graduates reported when they returned to their regular duties upon completion of the program,
the feeling of recognition and differentiation ended. Similar to the perspective of this study’s
participants, Lederman (2017) noted a common issue with many leadership development
programs in that they were effective only while in the program without lasting effect. To address
the gaps in the program, the program needs to be developed with the end in mind. Having an
objective assessment system during the program will continue to differentiate the participants
even though it is not practical that every NCL graduate will be offered a promotion within six
months of completion of the program.
In developing in-program assessments, Fernández-Aráoz et al. (2017) proposed aligning
talent development and selection to future resource needs of the organization. In doing so, the
necessary knowledge needed to be developed is explicit and measurable with respect to progress.
Additionally, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) developed four levels of evaluation (reaction,
learning, behavior, and results) with a particular emphasis on starting with results as the training
program design process. With the context of future talent needs, CCL should design the NCL
program to promote select graduates upon completion of the program. This change will ensure a
tangible and attainable outcome of being promoted upon graduation through demonstrated
performance within the program.
153
Implementing this recommendation may require a cultural and policy change from the
organization’s traditional posting of positions and inviting employees to apply for roles to a
purposeful and direct promotion offer. Although studies like Jones (2019) highlight the
advantage of promotion from within as a matter of priority to reduce costs associated with
external talent acquisition, others, such as O’Connor and Crowley-Henry (2019), identify the
challenges of implementation to limit “distributive justice,” a resultant from implicit and
unconscious bias (p. 980). Minimizing potential perceived bias association with selection,
assessment, and promotion is critical. It will be imperative that CCL clearly defines objective
and articulated set of metrics of performance for graduates to be offered promotional
opportunities upon completion of the program.
Limitations and Delimitations
During the research, factors associated with limitations and delimitations were considered
and mitigated where possible. Limitations refer to factors outside the control of the study
(Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018, p. 156). Delimitations are factors that were purposefully
deselected or were placed outside the bounds of the research during the study design
(Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018, p. 157). Both limitations and delimitations are important
factors when reviewing the research.
Limitations
One potential limitation associated with the study is the trustworthiness of the responses
with respect to whether the stakeholder was providing a ‘truthful’ response or providing a
response with intent. For example, in the case of the successful NCL graduate, given they have
achieved promotion, their association to the NCL program may be viewed more positively. In
contrast, the unsuccessful candidate may have opposite opinions. However, regarding whether
154
responses would be truthful representations, the two MIPO participants were forthcoming with
explicit program critiques. Through their statements and how they emoted them, it was evident to
me that their statements were more likely than not to be truthful representations of their
perceptions. Similarly, responses from the HIPOs did reflect what could be construed as
“disappointment” or “confusion” based upon the narrative data. Still, they did not reflect any
resentment nor give any impression of misrepresentation from my perspective.
Another limitation was associated with exogenous influences that materially change the
business environment (Nižetić, 2020). Some examples of exogenous shocks during the time of
this study include, but are not limited, to the 2020 Coronavirus-19 (COVID19) pandemic,
unforeseen industry-related events that are material to an organization’s operation, and other
‘force majeure’ type influences (Cloyne et al., 2020). From the participants’ responses, three
cited the direct impact of COVID19 on discretionary activities like travel and group meetings.
They also noted the material impact COVID19 had on the financial and social-emotional
conditions of the organization, which proved to be a significant factor in the participants’
experiences in the program. As noted in Chapter 4, all the participants articulated the value of a
network, developing a global awareness of the enterprise, and expanding communication skills
through in-person activities in the NCL program. As aspects of the NCL program typically
involve travel to global destinations and immersion and engagement with various international
operations, replacing that experience with virtual experiences was noted by the three participants
as a deficit to their perceived development and engagement in the program.
Given the limitations on gatherings in social and business settings, the ability to develop
connections was shifted to virtual platforms that were perceived to reduce the efficacy of the
engagements and interpersonal development opportunities. However, upon reflection on the
155
narrative data, it was undetermined as to the impact of this condition on the respondents. The
assumed conceptual knowledge influence explored in this study was not presumed to be based on
human interactions, thus having less interaction to develop a professional network or not being
able to visit global operations were not considered material to the scope of this study.
Delimitations
Regarding delimitations, demographic factors regarding race, ethnicity, socio-economic
status, and family dynamics may influence knowledge development and motivation (Barbarin &
Jean-Baptiste, 2013; Lee et al., 2008; Manstead, 2018; Martinez & Williams, 2021; McGee et
al., 2018; Williams et al., 2020). However, demographic factors were excluded from
consideration in this research. Including the factors mentioned above would represent
confounding influences and prove too expansive of a study to incorporate the effects on
psychology, physiology, and general cognitive abilities.
Additionally, the role of performance evaluations was not included in this study when
graduating from the NCL program. For example, if a stakeholder’s performance of their main
duties had changed for the better or the worse during their participation in the program, it was
not considered in this study. Performance evaluations would reflect individual performance in
their day-to-day duties within the organization. Had there been a negative change in
performance, it may reflect the additional amount of time and effort allocated to the NCL
program over their normal duties. Alternatively, if the performance had improved, it may be
attributed to the knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences from the NCL program.
However, as noted by the participants, there were identified instances of other cohort members
who were not participants of this study, that were purported to be less engaged in activities and
were still in consideration for a promotion. Having access to performance evaluations might have
156
provided further insights into the selection and promotion process within CCL that was not
addressed by this study, which outlined proposed goals, semi-annual achievements, and
managerial evaluations.
Finally, as noted in Table 7, four of the 12 participants had previous managerial
experience before their tenure with CCL. Each of the HIPOs, who had previous managerial
experience, noted that development was unique to CCL’s culture and processes. Still, they did
not refer to their previous experience in a managerial capacity as either a benefit or detractor.
Based on this research study's focus and the associated interview questions, the fact they had
previous managerial experience was not explored as to whether it influenced outcomes.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on NCL
graduates toward attaining a promotion based upon their experiences during the program. This
study was predicated on the assumption that NCL graduates were participating in a program with
an expectation to be promoted to management. Specifically, the study explored the impact of
experiences from participating in the NCL program and without consideration to previous
managerial or leadership experience. Inferred as part of the delimitation on previous managerial
experience among NCL graduates, the implications of previous experience may have a material
impact on the type of knowledge gained, the level of sustained motivation, and the impact of the
organizational influences.
The NCL graduates were interviewed, and the narrative data was analyzed as if the
participants were all equally capable of gaining the requisite knowledge to perform in a
leadership capacity. Furthermore, I had an underlying presumption that each participant in the
NCL program is presumed to be seeking a future promotion. However, all the participants
157
expressed promotion to management as a potential outcome from the narrative data, but not all
the participants expressed wanting to serve in a management capacity. Therefore, as a
consideration for future research, emphasis should be placed on identifying two separate groups
of participants: one that has expressed wanting to be promoted to formal management and one
seeking leadership development opportunities without the administrative duties associated with
management. To support the segmentation and identification of participants, an initial survey on
pre- and post-knowledge (e.g., level of business acumen and human skills) and explicit
motivation (e.g., wanting to be a formal manager or not) would serve in this capacity.
Literature denotes that GenYZ will represent the majority of the workforce by 2025
(Omilion-Hodges, 2019). Although the majority of the participants in this study were GenYZ, I
did not explore if generational differences influenced perceptions and participation in the NCL
program. Considering there may be differences in learning styles and generalized preferences
associated with different generations, a future study could include additional questions to
determine if age is a material influence on outcomes.
Finally, as noted in Table 7, four of the 12 participants had previous managerial
experience in different organizations. It could be presumed that the four HIPOs with previous
managerial experience should have an “advantage” from the perspective of having previous
experiential lessons learned from serving in a management capacity. However, the narrative data
from those same four participants did not identify any advantage or recognized by the
organization as augmenting their development pathway. It raises questions about whether
previous managerial experience advantages promotional opportunities and, if not, what type of
previous experiential knowledge does, if any? As the scope of this study did not explore previous
158
knowledge in performing at a managerial level, further research should be considered to isolate
these influences.
Conclusion
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to explore the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on high potential (HIPO) employees participating in the Next
Century Leadership (NCL) program towards promotion. The program has been in place for over
5 years, with nearly 1000 graduates having completed the program. The NCL program has an
approximate 10% promotion rate upon graduation of the program. The 90% of the NCL
graduates who are not successful in achieving a promotion within six months of completion of
the program are a potential “flight risk” regarding them seeking opportunities outside of the
organization. The extensive literature on the impact of HIPO employees leaving the organization
(turnover) showed the financial loss associated with disruption to operations and replacing lost
employees. Therefore, it was imperative to understand how to address the gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences to mitigate the loss by providing structured
opportunities to increase the promotion rate to 20%.
Using Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis framework (2008), the narrative data in Chapter 4
identified the associated gaps to address. Chapter 5 summarized the gaps and proposed three
recommendations to mitigate the gaps in the influences. The recommendations recognize that
potential changes in the institutional policies concerning promotion procedures may be needed to
implement them and address the gaps.
Although the interviews suggest NCL graduates gained knowledge and appreciated the
development opportunities, the ambiguity surrounding future promotional opportunities lessens
the long-term value and impact of the program. The NCL graduates have demonstrated their
159
commitment to develop their knowledge and grow with the organization. Therefore, it is
imperative that CCL consider implementing changes to the NCL program purpose, structure, and
outcomes to increase the promotion rate of NCL graduates and continue to mitigate the potential
for employee turnover.
160
References
Abram, S. (2007). Millennials: Deal with them! Part I. School Library Media Activities
Monthly, 24(1), 57–58. http://search.proquest.com/docview/237135134/
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Akar, A., & Sharma, G. (2018). An empirical study on different factors of talent management
practices influencing the employees satisfaction in banking sector (with special reference
to private sector banks). Sumedha Journal of Management, 7(4), 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0449.2018.00007.8
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works (1
st
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, S., Chandy, R., Zia, B., (2018). Pathways to profits: The impact of marketing vs.
finance skills on business performance. Management Science, 64(12), 5559–5583.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2920
Ardichvili, A., Natt och Dag, K., & Manderscheid, S. (2016). Leadership development: Current
and emerging models and practices. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3),
275–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645506
Arnolds, C., & Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, esteem valence and job performance: an
empirical assessment of Alderfer’s ERG theory. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 13(4), 697–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210125868
Bajer, J. (2016). What’s the point? The search for purpose at work. Strategic HR Review, 15(1),
25–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-12-2015-0094
161
Baker, E. (2018). Down and down we go: The falling U.S. labor force participation rate.
Monthly Labor Review, 1–1. http://search.proquest.com/docview/2130710072/
Ballot, G., Fakhfakh, F., Taymza, E. (2006). Who benefits from training and R&D, the firm or
the workers. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 473-495.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1984). Representing personal determinants in causal structures. Psychological
Review, 91(4), 508–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.4.508
Barbarin, O., & Jean‐Baptiste, E. (2013). The relation of dialogic, control, and racial
socialization practices to early academic and social competence: Effects of gender,
ethnicity, and family socioeconomic status. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(2-
3), 207.
Beyers, W., Reid, N., Carroll, M., & Ye, X. (2013). The Great Recession and state
unemployment trends. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(2), 114–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413479653
Bills, D. (1988). Educational credentials and promotions: Does schooling do more than get
you in the door? Sociology of Education, 61(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112309
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 4: Qualitative data. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 117-129). Allyn and
Bacon.
Brack, J., & Kelly, K. (2012). Maximizing millennials in the workplace. UNC Executive
Development, 22(1), 2-14.
Bratianu, C., & Vatamanescu, E. (2017). Students’ perception on developing conceptual generic
162
skills for business. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems, 47(4), 490–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-11-2016-0065
Burbach, M., Matkin, G., & Fritz, S. (2004). Teaching critical thinking in an introductory
leadership course utilizing active learning strategies: A confirmatory study. College
Student Journal, 38(3), 482.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability
(pp. 1–24). Jossey-Bass.
Burke, L. (1997). Developing high-potential employees in the new business reality. Business
Horizons, 40(2), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(97)90004-5
Burke, R. (2015). The changing faces of leadership. Effective Executive, 18(4), 7–10.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1759910001/
Burrus, J., Jackson, T., Xi, N., & Steinberg, J. (2013). Identifying the most important 21st
century workforce competencies: An analysis of the Occupational Information Network
(O* NET). ETS Research Report Series, 2013(2), i-55.
Byerly, B. (2012). Measuring the impact of employee loss. Performance Improvement, 51(5),
40–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21268
Byrne, D., & Lees, D. (2018). Finance and accounting—Beyond the numbers with self-
leadership. Contemporary Issues in Accounting (pp. 167-186). Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham.
Campione, W. (2015). Corporate offerings: Why aren’t millennials staying? The Journal of
Applied Business and Economics, 17(4), 60–75.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1764139218/
163
Caraher, L. (2014). Millennials & management: The essential guide to making it work at work.
Bibliomotion.
Carlin, B., Jiang, L., Spiller, S. (2018). Millennial-style learning: Search intensity, decision
making, and information sharing. Management Science, 64(7), 3313–3330.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2689
Carucci, R. (2018, October 29). When companies should invest in training their employees and
when they shouldn’t. https://hbr.org/2018/10/when-companies-should-invest-in-training-
their-employees-and-when-they-shouldnt
Casey, L., & Vogel, M. (2019). Preparing for the next generation: Profiles of millennial city
managers and their approach to the job. State and Local Government Review, 51(2), 122–
133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X19889094
Chambers, E., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S., & Michaels, E. (1998). The war for
talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, (3), 44–57. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/224542898/
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Adler, S., & Kaiser, R. B. (2017). What science says about identifying
high-potential employees. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. org/2017/10/what-
science-says-about-identifying-high-potential-employees
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2010). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership
powered company (Vol. 391). John Wiley & Sons.
Chavez, J. (2011). The case for succession planning. Strategic Finance, 92(8), 15–16.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/851504072/
164
Church, A., & Rotolo, C. (2013). How are top companies assessing their high-potentials and
senior executives? A talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 65(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034381
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Cloutier, O., Felusiak, L., Hill, C., & Pemberton-Jones, E. (2015). The importance of developing
strategies for employee retention. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and
Ethics, 12(2), 119–129. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1726791378/
Cloyne, J., Costa Dias, M., Parey, M., & Ziliak, J. (2020). COVID‐19 and the Economy. Fiscal
Studies, 41(2), 257–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12234
Cole, J. (1999). The art of wooing Gen Xers. HR Focus, 76(11), 7–8.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/206798449/
Coleman, L.J., Hladikova, M., & Savelyeva, M. (2006). The baby boomer market. Journal of
Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(3), 191–209.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740181
Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reaching the Millennial
generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 471–
481. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.6.2
Couch, M., & Citrin, R. (2018). Retooling leadership development. Strategic HR Review, 17(6),
275–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-2018-0061
Cox, L., DeVore, D., De Long, L., & Rodriguez, C. (2016). Understanding Millennial,
Generation X, and Baby Boomer preferred leadership characteristics: Informing today’s
165
leaders and followers (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing).
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1793940464/
Croteau, J. D. & Wolk, H.G. (2010). Defining advancement career paths and succession plans:
Critical human capital retention strategies for high-performing advancement
divisions. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(2), 59–70.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ijea.2010.6
David, F., & David, M. (2016). How important is finance coverage in strategic management? A
content analysis of textbooks. (Report). International Journal of Management and Human
Resources, 4(1).
De Fruyt, F., Wille, B., & John, O. (2015). Employability in the 21st century: Complex
(interactive) problem solving and other essential skills. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 8(2), 276–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.33
De Meuse, K., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G., (2010). Learning agility: A construct whose time has
come. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 119–130.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019988
Dotsey, M., Fujita, S., & Rudanko, L. (2017). Where is everybody? The shrinking labor force
participation rate. Economic Insights, 2(4), 17-24.
Downs, L. (2015). Star talent: investing in high-potential employees for organizational success.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(7), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-06-
2015-0041
Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2012). How to identify leadership potential: Development and
testing of a consensus model. Human Resource Management, 51(3), 361–385.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21473
166
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series
Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (5
th
ed., pp. 1017–1095). Wiley.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eisner, S. (2010). Grave new world? Workplace skills for today’s college graduates. American
Journal of Business Education, 3(9), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i9.478
Elliot, A., Dweck, C., & Yeager, D. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation: theory
and application (Second edition.). The Guilford Press.
Engle, P. (2014). The incredible shrinking workforce. Industrial Engineer, 46(7), 22.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1546476665/
Esping-Andersen, G. (1993). Changing classes stratification and mobility in post-industrial
societies. Sage Publications.
Fernández-Aráoz, C., Roscoe, A., & Aramaki, K. (2017). Turning potential into success: The
missing link in leadership development. Harvard Business Review, 95(6), 86–93.
Finkelstein, L., Costanza, D., & Goodwin, G. (2018). Do your high potentials have potential?
The impact of individual differences and designation on leader success. Personnel
Psychology, 71(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12225
Finkelstein, L., Ryan, K., & King, E. (2013). What do the young (old) people think of me?
Content and accuracy of age-based metastereotypes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 633–657.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.673279
167
Flores, K., Matkin, G., Burbach, M., Quinn, C., & Harding, H. (2012). Deficient critical thinking
skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 44(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x
Ford, R. C. (2017). Combining performance, learning, and behavioral goals to match job with
person: Three steps to enhance employee performance with goal setting. Business
Horizons, 60(3), 345–352.
Fung, E., & Filback, R. (2017). Attracting and retaining talent: Improving the impact of
workplace mentorship (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing).
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2158861254/
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T.F. (2013), “What is the meaning of ‘talent’
in the world of work?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, 290-300.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gilbert, J. (2011). The Millennials: A new generation of employees, a new set of engagement
policies. Ivey Business Journal (Online), N_A.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/912503107/
Gladwell, N., Dorwart, C., Stone, C., & Hammond, C. (2010). Importance of and satisfaction
with organizational benefits for a multigenerational workforce. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 28(2). http://search.proquest.com/docview/1730176439/
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162–183). Pearson.
168
Goldberg, E. (2012). The changing tides of careers. People and Strategy, 35(4), 52–58.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1498386866/
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters.
(Report). International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x
Hagstrom, T., & Backstrom, T. (2017). Decentralized autonomy and company culture
integration: Individual and organizational development incentives and potentials
contextualized. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 22(2), 361.
Hansen, K., Hillenbrand, S., & Ungerleider, L. (2012). Effects of prior knowledge on decisions
made under perceptual vs. categorical uncertainty. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 163–.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00163
Hartwell, R. (1971). The Industrial Revolution and economic growth. Methuen
Harvard, P. (2010). Maslow, mazes, minotaurs; Updating employee needs and behavior patterns
in a knowledge-based global economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(2), 117–
127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-009-0008-5
Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). Attribution theory and motivation. Organizational
behavior, theory and design in health care, 143-158
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. World Pub. Co.
Hewlett, S., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K., (2009). How Gen Y and Boomers will reshape your
agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7-8), 71–153.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/67517006/
169
Hezlett, S. (2016). Enhancing experience-driven leadership development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 369–389.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645887
Hobsbawm, E. (1963). The standard of living during the Industrial Revolution: A
discussion. Economic History Review, 16(1), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0289.1963.tb01722.x
Holman, L. (2011). Millennial students’ mental models of search: Implications for academic
librarians and database developers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(1), 19–
27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.10.003
Holt, S., Hall, A., & Gilley, A. (2018). Essential components of leadership development
programs. Journal of Managerial Issues, 30(2), 214–229.
Hopkins, E. (1982). Working hours and conditions during the Industrial Revolution: A re‐
appraisal. Economic History Review, 35(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0289.1982.tb01186.x
Horowitz, J. (2018). Relative education and the advantage of a college degree. American
Sociological Review, 83(4), 771–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418785371
Jenkins, D., & Andenoro, A. (2016). Developing critical thinking through leadership
education. New Directions for Higher Education, 2016(174), 57–67.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20189
Jones, B. W. (2019). Creating a culture of promoting from within. Dimensions of Critical Care
Nursing, 38(1), 50-53.
170
Juhdi, N., Pa’Wan, F., & Hansaram, R. (2012). Examining characteristics of high potential
employees’ perspective. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5(7), 175–186.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1366357953/
Kaifi, B., Nafei, W., Khanfar, N., & Kaifi, M. (2012). A multi-generational workforce: managing
and understanding millennials. International Journal of Business and
Management, 7(24), 88–93. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p88
King, E., & Nesbit, P. (2015). Collusion with denial: leadership development and its
evaluation. The Journal of Management Development, 34(2), 134–152.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2013-0023
Khoreva, V., Vaiman, V., & Van Zalk, M. (2017). Talent management practice effectiveness:
investigating employee perspective. Employee Relations, 39(1), 19–33.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2016-0005
Koenig, J. (2011). Assessing 21st century skills: summary of a workshop. National Academies
Press.
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Kensbock, J., & Peschl, A. (2020). What satisfies younger versus
older employees, and why? An aging perspective on equity theory to explain interactive
effects of employee age, monetary rewards, and task contributions on job
satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 101–115.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21981
Kopelman, R., Prottas, D., & Davis, A. (2008). Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y: toward a
construct-valid measure. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(2), 255–271.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
171
Kuron, L., Lyons, S., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. (2015). Millennials’ work values: differences
across the school to work transition. Personnel Review, 44(6), 991–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2014-0024
Laddha, A., Singh, R., Gabbad, H., & Gidwani, G. (2012). Employee retention: An art to reduce
turnover. International Journal of Management Research and Reviews, 2(3), 453–458.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1419632188/
Lawrence, R., & Edwards, L. (2013). US employment deindustrialization: Insights from history
and the international experience. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698574277/
Lederman, G. (2017). How to spot high-potential employees-and how to keep them. Rochester
Business Journal, 33(20), 13. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1935720512/
Lee, S. M., Daniels, M. H., Puig, A., Newgent, R. A., & Nam, S. K. (2008). A data-based model
to predict postsecondary educational attainment of low-socioeconomic-status
students. Professional School Counseling, 11(5), 2156759X0801100504.
Lee, T., Hom, P., Eberly, M., & Li, J. (2018). Managing employee retention and turnover with
21st century ideas. Organizational Dynamics, 47(2), 88–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.08.004
Lee, T., Hom, P., Eberly, M., Li, J., & Mitchell, T. (2017). On the next decade of research in
voluntary employee turnover. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 31(3), 201-221.
Letchmiah, L., & Thomas, A. (2017). Retention of high-potential employees in a development
finance company. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(2), e1–e9.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v15i0.924
172
Liao, C., Mo, S., & Grant, J. (2011). Market implication of human capital investment in
training. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 15(1), 59–87.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1426388418/
Little, D. (2007). Promotional material: Promoting employees from within a company takes hard
work and commitment, but often pays off. Journal of Property Management, 72(2), 38-
42.
Lynch, A. (2008). ROI on generation Y employees. Bottom Line Conversations, LLC.
http://www.knoxvillechamber.com/pdf/workforce/ROIonGenYWhitePaper.pdf
Mamun, C., & Hasan, M. (2017). Factors affecting employee turnover and sound retention
strategies in business organization: a conceptual view. Problems and Perspectives in
Management, 15(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.06
Manstead, A. S. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts
thought, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267-291.
Martinez, B., & Williams, T. O. (2021). Building class and race intersections in leadership
development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(169), 43-50.
Martins, E. C., & Martins, N. (2011). The role of organisational factors in combating tacit
knowledge loss in organisations. Southern African Business Review, 15(1).
McCall, M. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 3(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01189.x
McConnell, R. (2011). Addressing employee turnover and retention: Keeping your valued
performers. The Health Care Manager, 30(3), 271–283.
https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0b013e318225e3bf
173
McDonnell, A. (2011). Still fighting the ‘war for talent’? Bridging the science versus practice
gap, Journal of Business and Psychology, v. 26, n. 2, p. 169-73.
McGee, S., McGee-Tekula, R., Duck, J., McGee, C., Dettori, L., Greenberg, R. I., ... & Brylow,
D. (2018, February). Equal outcomes 4 all: A study of student learning in ECS.
In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education (pp. 50-55).
McGregor, J. (2010). Giving back to your stars. (40 Under 40) (Career; The Way We Work)
(employee motivation). Fortune, 162(7), 53–54.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, A. (2018). Meeting Millenials. Aerospace America, 56(2), 38–45.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2014943283/
Miner, J. (2005). Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Organizational behavior I. (pp.
61–74). http://search.proquest.com/docview/36790741/
Mitchell, E., & Watstein, S. (2007). The places where students and scholars work, collaborate,
share and plan. Reference Services Review, 35(4), 521–524.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320710838345
Morrell, D., & Abston, K. (2018). Millennial motivation issues related to compensation and
benefits: Suggestions for improved retention. Compensation & Benefits Review, 50(2),
107–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368718822053
Morse, R., Brooks, E., & Mason, M. (2019, September 8). How U.S. News Calculated the 2020
Best Colleges Rankings. US News.
174
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_g
uide/reference_list_electronic_sources.html
Moldoveanu, M., & Narayandas, D. (2019). The future of leadership development. Harvard
Business Review, 97(2), 40-48.
Murray, K. (2016). Retaining Baby Boomers. Nursing Management, 47(10), 56.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000499578.15378.f0
Muthuveloo, R., Chiek, K., & Ping, T. (2017). An empirical analysis of the perceived skills in
predicting managerial effectiveness: The Malaysian perspective. Global Business and
Management Research: An International Journal, 9(4 SI), 41–59.
Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2014). A multidisciplinary review into the
definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World
Business, 49(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002
Niles, P. (2011). Meeting the needs of the 21st century student. Community & Junior College
Libraries, 17(2), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763915.2011.591707
Nižetić, S. (2020). Impact of coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic on air transport mobility,
energy, and environment: A case study. International Journal of Energy
Research, 44(13), 10953–10961. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5706
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. (7th ed.) Sage
Publications.
O’Connor, E. P., & Crowley-Henry, M. (2019). Exploring the relationship between exclusive
talent management, perceived organizational justice and employee engagement: Bridging
the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 903-917.
175
Omilion-Hodges, L., & Sugg, C. (2019). Millennials’ views and expectations regarding the
communicative and relational behaviors of leaders: Exploring young adults’ talk about
work. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 74–100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490618808043
Pandya, S. (2017). Early success experience as a predictor of fast-track career
growth. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 31(2),
10–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-07-2016-0057
Pantouvakis, A., & Karakasnaki, M. (2019). Exploring the links between talent philosophies and
talent management in service organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51(4),
277–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-03-2019-0026
Pati, S., & Kumar, P. (2010). Employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy, organizational
support & supervisor support. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), 126–
137. http://search.proquest.com/docview/919902523
Patterson, A. (2016). 3D leadership: technical experts often become managers because of their
expertise, but that's only one dimension of strategic leadership. TD Magazine, 70(4), 56-
60.
Patton, M. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and evaluation
methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-380). Sage Publications.
Payment, M. (2008). Millennials: The emerging work force. Career Planning and Adult
Development Journal, 24(3), 23–32. http://search.proquest.com/docview/204091187/
Perry, R. P., & Hamm, J. M. (2017). An attribution perspective on competence and
motivation. Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application, 2006, 61-
80.
176
Petrie, N. (2011). Future trends in leadership development. Center for Creative Leadership white
paper, 5(5), 36.
Pigza, J. (2015). Navigating leadership complexity through critical, creative, and practical
thinking. New directions for student leadership, 2015(145), 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20122
Priyadarshi, P. (2011). Employer brand image as predictor of employee satisfaction, affective
commitment & turnover. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), 510–522.
Puckett, S. (2018). The role of professional development and certification in technology worker
turnover: An evaluation study. Los Angeles, California [Place of publication (of the
original version)].
Quinn, R. (1973). Evaluating working conditions in America. Monthly Labor Review, 96(11),
32–42. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1304504551/
Rasca, L. (2018). Employee experience – An answer to the deficit of talents, in the fourth
industrial revolution. Calitatea, 19(S3), 9–14.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2113235147/
Ready, D., Conger, J., & Hill, L. (2010). Are you a high potential? Harvard Business Review,
88(6), 78–84.
Rebeťák, M., & Farkašová, V. (2015). Managing high-potential employees. Procedia Economics
and Finance, 23, 867–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00437-2
Reiser, C., Van Vreede, V., & Petty, E. (2019). Genetic counselor workforce generational
diversity: Millennials to Baby Boomers. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 28(4), 730–737.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1107
177
Richtermeyer, S. (2017). 7 Tips for a diverse pipeline: Create a more qualified and diverse pool
of entry-level accounting and finance graduates with these key methods.
(DIVERSITY). Strategic Finance, 99(2).
Riddle, D. (2012) Your high-potential program could ruin your business. Harvard
Business Review Blog, p. 2
Rios, J., Ling, G., Pugh, R., Becker, D., & Bacall, A. (2020). Identifying critical 21st-century
skills for workplace success: A content analysis of job advertisements. Educational
Researcher, 49(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19890600
Ritzer, D., & Sleigh, M. (2019). College students’ value judgments of workplace
skills. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18(2), 154–164.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718794999
Roberts, K., Woods, S., Richardson, A., Murray, S., Moss, M., & Smith, M. (2008). Strategic
human resources and human capital development: strategies for managing the 21st
century workforce. (Report). Forum on Public Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round
Table.
Roupnel, S., Rinfret, N., & Grenier, J. (2019). Leadership development: three programs that
maximize learning over time. Journal of Leadership Education, 18(2).
https://doi.org/10.12806/V18/I2/T1
Rubery, J., Keizer, A., & Grimshaw, D. 2016. Flexibility bites back: the multiple and hidden
costs of flexible employment policies. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(3),
235‒51.
178
Schiemann, W., & Seibert, J. (2013). Optimizing human capital: Moving beyond
engagement. People and Strategy, 36(1), 32–68,61.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1767144211/
Schumacher, S. (2012). Engage and encourage high-potential employees--or risk losing them.
(OPERATING STRATEGIES). E&MJ - Engineering & Mining Journal, 213(2), 68–69.
Shatto, B., & Erwin, K. (2016). Moving on from Millennials: Preparing for Generation
Z. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 47(6), 253–254.
https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20160518-05
Shoaib, F., & Kohli, N. (2017). Employee engagement and goal setting theory. Indian Journal of
Health and Wellbeing, 8(8), 877–880. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1961767253/
Shuck, B., Reio, T., & Rocco, T. (2011). Employee engagement: an examination of antecedent
and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14(4), 427–445.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.601587
Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. (2010). Strategy-driven talent management: a leadership imperative (1st
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Sinek, S., Mead, D., Docker, P. (2017). Find your why: A practical guide for discovering
purpose for you and your team. Portfolio/Penguin, an imprint of Penguin Random House
LLC.
Singh, A., & Sanjeev, R. (2017). Talent management for developing leadership: An empirical
investigation. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 8(3), 1130–1146.
https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v8i3.630
179
Sørensen, P. (2017). What research on learning transfer can teach about improving the impact of
leadership-development initiatives. Consulting Psychology Journal, 69(1), 47–62.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000072
Souba, W., & Souba, M. (2018). Challenging your implicit leadership theory. Journal of
Leadership Education, 17(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.12806/V17/I4/T1
Srikanth, P. (2012). Self-efficacy & career self-management: Moderating role of proactive
personality. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2), 274–289.
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research
process. Perioperative nursing, 7(3), 155-163.
Tormala, Z. L., Jia, J. S., & Norton, M. I. (2012). The preference for potential. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 567–584. https://doi:10.1037/a0029227
Treuren, G., & Anderson, K. (2010). The employment expectations of different age cohorts: Is
Generation Y really that different? Australian Journal of Career Development, 19(2), 49–
61. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621001900207
Villado, A., & Arthur, W. (2013). The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-
action reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(3), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031510
Wallace, D. M., Torres, E. M., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2021). Just what do we think we are doing?
Learning outcomes of leader and leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly,
101494.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational
process. Review of educational research, 42(2), 203-215.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and social psychology of
180
perceived competence. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp.73-84). Guilford Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 3: Preparation for interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The
art and method of qualitative interview studies (pp. 51-59). The Free Press.
Werner, S., & Bleich, M. (2017). Critical thinking as a leadership attribute. Journal
of Continuing Education in Nursing, 48(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-
20170110-03
Williams, S. A., Hanssen, D. V., Rinke, C. R., & Kinlaw, C. R. (2020). Promoting race pedagogy
in higher education: Creating an inclusive community. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 30(3), 369-393.
Wilson, C., Huang, J., & Kraiger, K. (2013). Personality and the analysis, design, and delivery of
training. In N. Christiansen & R.Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 543–
564). New York, NY: Routledge.
Winiarska-Januszewicz, A. A., & Winiarski, J. (2014). Advancing leadership pipeline through
the development of high-potential employees. Journal of Intercultural Management, 6(1),
17-25.
Wolfe, J. (2016). The industrial revolution: Steam and steel (First edition.). Britannica
Educational Publishing in association with Rosen Educational Services.
Zaharee, M., Lipkie, T., Mehlman, S., & Neylon, S. (2018). Recruitment and retention of early-
career technical talent: What young employees want from employers A study of the
workplace attributes that attract early-career workers suggests that Millennials may not
be so different from earlier generations. Research-Technology Management, 61(5), 51–
61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1495966
181
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction
I appreciate your time today. I understand with all the activities surrounding you inside
the company as well as the unprecedented effects of the pandemic, I’m very appreciative of your
taking time to assist in this study. As you may recall this study is in association with a
dissertation that I am completing at USC to study early to mid-career employee development.
Specifically, I am looking at programs like NCL to gather data on individual’s experiences and
insights leading up, during and post program graduation.
Do you have any questions about the study before we begin?
This interview is slated for about an hour, so again I appreciate your time.
Before we begin, I wanted to share that all the information shared during this interview
will be held confidential. Additionally, the data will be aggregated to maintain anonymity.
As your participation is completely voluntary, at any point in the process you may
withdraw from the study, essentially removing your consent of use of your responses and they
will be deleted.
Finally, to aid in conversation, I would like your permission to record this Zoom session
as well as use as audio recording so that I can focus on the conversation and review the notes
later. Is that alright with you? Again, I’d like to reassure you that the recordings will be stored
and held confidentially.
182
Interview Questions
Table A1
Interview Questions
Interview question Potential probes RQ Concept
1. Tell me about how you started
your career at CCL.
What motivated you to
choose CCL? What were
your career ambitions?
Background,
Experience
2. I wanted to ask you about
your experience with the NCL
program. Can you tell my what
interested you about the NCL
program?
1 M-Task value,
Expectancy
3.What about this program, if
anything, do you think attracts
employees aspiring to grow in
the company?
1 K-Metacognition; M-
Value
4. Can you describe some of the
skills or knowledge experience
you believe was needed to
progress to management before
you started the program?
Which those skills do
you believe you
possessed prior to
starting the program?
1 K-Foundational
5.What were you hoping to gain
from going through the
program?
What skills or knowledge
did you gain from being
in this program if at all?
2, 3 M-Expectancy;
O-Goal of NCL
6.On your application for the
“reason” section of the NCL
program, what did you tell
your manager and executive
sponsor as to why they should
be your advocates?
Was there a
difference between what
you told your manager
and what you told your
executive sponsor?
1,3 K-Procedural; O-
Structured programs,
Goal of NCL
7. Can you tell me what they
told you were the objectives of
the program? Where was the
alignment, if at all, to your
expectations?
What did you expect to
happen after you
completed the program??
1, 2 K-Foundational,
Conceptual,
Metacognition;
M-Expectancy
183
8. Take me back to when you
were in the program. Tell me
about specific experiences
during the program that gave
the impression, if at all, that it
was designed for future
leaders.
How did these activities
help your development?
3 O-Goals of NCL,
Structured
opportunities
9.Let’s go back to your
expectations of the program.
How well did the program
meet those expectations?
2,3 O-Goals of NCL
10. Managing expectations are
important, so I am wondering
in what ways did you feel like
you have control over
opportunities for promotion?
How did it impact, if at
all, your motivation and
expectations given your
perception of control?
2 M-Expectancy,
Attribution
11. After you graduated, how
did the program change your
knowledge or capabilities, if at
all, regarding preparing you for
management?
How effective was this
program in adding to
your knowledge in
preparation for future
leadership roles?
1, 3 O-Goals of NCL
12. How has participating in the
program impacted your
confidence, if at all, in being
able to perform in a leadership
role??
Do you believe the NCL
program has accelerated
your career progression?
Why/why not?
1, 2 K-Metacognition; M-
Self-Efficacy
13. Given the many activities in
the program, describe the
activities, if any, in the
program that were believe
were valuable towards your
development?
How did those activities
influence your
motivation, if at all, to
continue your
development?
2, 3 M-Task value; O-
Goals of NCL
14. The NCL program is touted
as an “immersive and
experiential development
program.” In what ways, if
any, were the activities in the
program used to develop
competencies to perform in a
management capacity?
In what ways, if any,
were the programs needs
structured to your
individual development
needs?
3 O-Structure of NCL
15. What do you think the
organization is expecting in
return for investing in this
program, if anything?
What should the
organization articulate its
expectation of the
program?
2, 3 O-Goals of NCL,
Structured
Opportunities
184
16. Reflecting to the
organizational expectations, in
what ways, if any, did CCL
cultivate a culture of having a
safe space for learning and
development in the program?
How would you suggest
CCL articulate and/or
improve the transparency
as to the expectations of
this program?
3 O-Transparency of
NCL
17. Let us change the
perspective here. What are
your expectations of the
organization given you’ve
invested your time and energy
into this program?
2,3 M- Expectancy; O-
Goals of NCL,
Structured
Opportunities
18. What other ways, if any,
should the organization engage
with you to support your
aspirations?
In what ways is the
company working to
keep you in the
company?
2, 3 O-Goals of NCL,
Structured
Opportunities
19. Last question, if your friends
were thinking about joining the
company, what would you tell
them it takes to progress to
management?
How would you
articulate the value of
this program to them?
How would you describe
the value of this program
to them?
1, 3 K-Foundational,
Procedural,
Conceptual,
Metacognition; M-
Task value,
Expectancy; O-Goals
of NCL, Structured
Opportunities
185
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol
The documents that will be analyzed for this study include the following:
1. Next Century Limited (NCL) program history
2. NCL program mid-year review
3. NCL program brochure
4. NCL quarterly Newsletters
NCL program history prompts:
1. What knowledge is expected of graduates after completion of the program? (RQ1;
knowledge)
2. What is the purpose of the NCL program for the individual? (RQ2; expectancy value)
3. What is the purpose of the organization having the NCL program? (RQ4; structured
program)
4. What is the outcome for participants in completing the program? (RQ3; task value)
NCL program mid-year review:
1. Who are the sponsors of the program and what are their roles with respect to engagement and
ensuring successful outcomes? (RQ3, RQ4; structured program)
2. What are the metrics of success of the program? (RQ3; structured program)
3. What have been the feedback results from past participants and stakeholder regarding the
efficacy of the program? (RQ2; task value, expectancy outcome, attribution)
4. How has feedback been incorporated into improving the program to achieve performance
metrics? (RQ4; structured program)
NCL program brochure:
186
1. What is the stated purpose and mission being promoted to employees? (RQ2; task value,
expectancy outcome, attribution)
2. What are the stated outcomes as to why employees should apply for the NCL program?
(RQ2; task value, expectancy outcome)
NCL quarterly newsletters:
1. Does the newsletter identify the type of knowledge and skills gained from highlighted
capstone projects? (RQ1; knowledge)
2. Do the updates from alumni perspectives identify their progression to management and key
points of consideration for current NCL participants? (RQ1, RQ2; knowledge, motivation)
187
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Early to Mid-career Employee Development: An Exploratory Study
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Andrew Choi
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Jennifer Phillips, Assistant (Teaching) Professor of Education
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore, understand, and identify influences associated
with leadership development programs. Specifically, we hope to learn about your
experiences before, during, and after the Leadership Next program in support of this
study. You are invited as a possible participant because you are a graduate of the
program.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You will be interviewed via Zoom by the principal investigator about your career, actions
during the application process, and experiences during the Leadership Next program.
The interview will be recorded using Zoom and a separate audio recording device as
backup upon the participant’s consent. You may decline to be recorded, however, it
would strength the research validity if the interview could be recorded. The interview is
anticipated to take approximately 1 hour. After the interview, as the principal researcher
is transcribing and analyzing the information, the researcher may follow-up with
questions for clarity or confirmation of intent.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to arrange a mutually acceptable time for
the interview.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
All data collected will be kept confidential. All recordings will be stored on the principal
researcher’s laptop and portable storage device which will be encrypted.
The personal identities of the participant will be coded as an interview participant
number in the order interviews are conducted. An electronic document on the principal
investigator’s laptop will correlate participant number to the individual’s first and last
initial only.
188
The data will be kept for a period of 5 years from the date of the interview. After a period
of 5 years, or on request from the participant to decline future participation in the study,
the data will be destroyed by removing all copies from the principal investigator’s laptop
and storage device.
The participant’s specific audio and Zoom recordings are available for the participant’s
review upon request. All the transcribing of the information from the recordings will be
done by the principal investigator using transcribing software.
In the very unlikely event data will need to be released to any party other than the
participant or principal researcher, the participant will be furnished the purpose, which
information, and to whom the information will be provided.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Andrew Choi,
achoi013@usc.edu, (415) 370-5633.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Corporate America after Ursula Burns: building a pipeline of Black female executives
PDF
Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs
PDF
Exploring the experience of acquired employees within an organization following acquisition
PDF
Developing and retaining employees: exploring talent management initiatives for enlisted women
PDF
Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap
PDF
The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study
PDF
The lack of gender diversity in executive leadership ranks within higher education
PDF
Understanding the varied effects of leadership on employee retention in high stress work environments
PDF
Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices
PDF
Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods
PDF
Addressing employee retention in the technology industry: improving access to corporate social responsibility programs
PDF
Closing the leadership development learning transfer gap
PDF
Your soft skills are showing: organizational efforts to develop soft skills
PDF
Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover
PDF
Stop the revolving door: the influence of emotionally intelligent leadership practices on employee retention in non‐profit human service organizations
PDF
Gender-based leadership barriers: an exploratory study of the underrepresentation of women of color in technology
PDF
Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization
PDF
Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity
PDF
Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study
PDF
Transformational leadership theory aligned-practices and social workers' well-being: an exploratory study of leadership practices in the context of stress and job burnout
Asset Metadata
Creator
Choi, Andrew
(author)
Core Title
Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-08
Publication Date
07/13/2023
Defense Date
06/29/2021
Publisher
Los Angeles
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Development,high potential employees,knowledge loss,leadership development,Millennials,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,talent pipeline
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Phillips, Jennifer (
committee chair
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
), Wilcox, Alexandra (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jeonghyeon@gmail.com,jeonghyeon@msn.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15496663
Unique identifier
UC15496663
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChoiAndrew-9738
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Choi, Andrew
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
high potential employees
knowledge loss
leadership development
Millennials
retention
talent pipeline