University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Constructing the achievement index: an assessment to help people achieve high-performance leadership in the workplace

(USC Thesis Other)

Constructing the achievement index: an assessment to help people achieve high-performance leadership in the workplace

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CONSTRUCTING THE ACHIEVEMENT INDEX:
AN ASSESSMENT TO HELP PEOPLE ACHIEVE HIGH-PERFORMANCE LEADERSHIP
IN THE WORKPLACE

By
Apollo Emeka

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Apollo Emeka

ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my wife Aneesah for being my partner
through life's twists and turns. This doctoral program demanded lots of my time and energy over
the past several years. Thank you for being so understanding. Thank you also for being a
sounding board and supporter, and for holding down the fort on those nights and weekends when
I was on campus or locked away researching and writing.
Next, I would like to thank my parents for providing me with the world's most
unconventional education and supporting my individuality and initiative from the time I can
remember. I attribute so much of my success to my unconventional upbringing. I hope that I
have the same courage that you raised me with as I progress through fatherhood.
Next, I would like to thank my brothers Amon, Gabe, and Justin. Each of you supported
me in different ways from the time that I was very young. Being the youngest by 11 years, I had
the benefits of being able to walk in your footsteps to replicate your success and avoid pitfalls
that I otherwise wouldn't have known about. Thanks for making the mistakes so I didn't have to.
Haha!
I am honored to acknowledge my committee. Thank you, Dr. Juliet Musso for stepping
up to be my chair and cheer me across the finish line. I deeply appreciate your direct and
powerful feedback and guidance. To Dr. Carol Geffner your experience in academia and in the
professional world is remarkable. Thank you for being a mentor and champion in both of those
worlds for me. Finally, to Dr. Deborah Natoli, I would not be here if it were not for you. You are
a kindred spirit and my guardian angel. Thank you so much for your unwavering support, the

iii
long conversations, and for your fierce belief in me and all of the students that you support and
in our program.
Finally, I would like to thank anyone else who helped me along the way. To name a few I
would like to thank my fellow graduates Kevin Williams, Michael Falkow, Stone James, Jim
Madia, and John Holmes. The last year working with you all, exchanging ideas, and sharing each
other’s company has been an awesome experience. Thank you for welcoming me into your
cohort and challenging my work to make it better.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Dissertation ......................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 4
Personal Motivations .............................................................................................................. 6
The Achievement Index Proposed Framework: Prioritize, Leverage, and Execute ................... 8
Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations .................................................................................... 8
Coaching Paradigms ............................................................................................................... 9
Scope and Delimitations ........................................................................................................... 11
Key Concepts and Terms .......................................................................................................... 12
Understanding Prioritization ................................................................................................. 12
Understanding Leverage ....................................................................................................... 14
Understanding Execution ...................................................................................................... 15
Significance of the Research ..................................................................................................... 15
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 18
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 18
Themes and Trends in the Understanding of Leadership ......................................................... 18
Leadership in the 21st Century ................................................................................................. 19
Defining High-Performance Leadership ................................................................................... 21
Leadership as Core Competencies ........................................................................................ 21
Leadership as Process Management ..................................................................................... 23
Leadership Development Approaches ...................................................................................... 25
High-Potential Programs ....................................................................................................... 25
Coaching ............................................................................................................................... 27

v
The Gap This Dissertation Will Address .................................................................................. 29
Chapter 3: Method ........................................................................................................................ 30
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 30
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 30
Methodology Selected .............................................................................................................. 30
Standards for Validity ............................................................................................................... 32
Establishing Intended Uses and Interpretations ........................................................................ 34
Issues Regarding Samples and Settings Used in Validation ..................................................... 36
Forms of Validity Evidence. ..................................................................................................... 36
Standards for Reliability ........................................................................................................... 36
Standards for Fairness ............................................................................................................... 38
Standards in Scoring ................................................................................................................. 39
Supporting Documentation ....................................................................................................... 41
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 4: A Description of the Assessment Framework ............................................................. 42
Logical Construction ................................................................................................................. 42
The Assessment Contents ......................................................................................................... 45
Worldview ............................................................................................................................. 46
Energizers ............................................................................................................................. 51
Problem-Solving ................................................................................................................... 56
Strengths ............................................................................................................................... 61
Working with Others ............................................................................................................. 64
Presenting Achievement Assessment Results ........................................................................... 70
Levels of Orientation: The Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Orientations ......................... 70
The Prioritize Orientation ..................................................................................................... 71
Leverage Summaries: ............................................................................................................ 74
Execute Orientation .............................................................................................................. 77
Career Level and the Achievement Index ................................................................................. 80
Entry-Level Individual Contributor ...................................................................................... 81
Senior-Level Individual Contributor ..................................................................................... 82
Manager (of people) .............................................................................................................. 82
Executive ............................................................................................................................... 83
Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 85

vi
Summary of Findings by Research Question ............................................................................ 85
1. How do the tendencies for a person to prioritize, leverage, and execute inform their
performance in the workplace? ............................................................................................. 85
2. How can assessment be constructed to assess a person’s tendency to prioritize, leverage,
or execute? ............................................................................................................................ 85
The Need for Future Research .................................................................................................. 86
Future Research Proposed in Three Phases .............................................................................. 86
Phase 1: Professional Review ............................................................................................... 86
Phase 2: Pilot to Establish Validity ....................................................................................... 87
Phase 3: A Study to Establish Reliability ............................................................................. 87
A More Robust Study ........................................................................................................... 88
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 88
Appendix A: The Researcher’s Personal Statement ..................................................................... 90
References ..................................................................................................................................... 95

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: The HiPo Evaluation Matrix……………………………………………………….29

viii
Abstract
High-performance leadership is highly desired in the workplace however there is little agreement
as to how to define, measure, or develop high-performance leaders. Development programs for
high-potential employees, or HiPo programs as they are often called, have grown in popularity
over recent years. Many scholars have found these programs are often haphazardly operated
(Finkelstein et al., 2018; Hogan et al., 2018). Coaching is another method of developing people
that has gained popularity in the 21
st
century and it is found to be largely effective so long as it
adheres to a few basic principles (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018), but coaching is a highly
focused and targeted intervention. The objective of this dissertation was to establish an
assessment that would help people measure their effectiveness in the workplace and provide
information to support their growth and development. The assessment poses questions that are
designed to support and guide attention, help respondents envision outcomes, and help them
cultivate new behaviors—these are fundamental principles of coaching. The primary
methodology was an analysis of previous academic studies to construct an assessment guided by
the standards developed by the American Educational Research Association, the American
Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. The result
is the Achievement Index, an assessment aimed to support leadership growth and development.
This dissertation describes the pilot phase for the Achievement Index. Some of the most popular
and useful assessments, such as the leadership practices inventory, have been refined over the
course of decades with millions of people taking the assessment and providing valuable data
(Posner, 2016). This dissertation contains suggestion for future research and development of the
Achievement Index.

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background
The term “high-performance leadership” is used often in popular discourse and scholarly
research, but there is little agreement as to how to define, achieve, or measure it. Some
researchers say leaders achieve high-performance by mastering lists with two (Collins, 2011),
four (Hogan et al., 2018), five (Posner & Kouzes, 1988), seven (Daniel, 1992), or eight (Wilson
et al., 2000), competencies such as “goal setting” and “employee development.” Some scholars
examine the impact of a single behavior such as the ability for managers to coach their people
(Longenecker, 2010) or communicate (Garrett & Pursch, 2006). Psychology and mindset are
other areas of interest among scholars examining high-performance leadership (Dweck, 2006;
Polsfuss & Ardichvili, 2009). Neither academic, nor popular sources offer the type of cogent
definitions around leadership or team performance you may find in other disciplines such as the
social sciences or risk management. The lack of a common definition of high-performance in the
workplace does not stop organizations from attempting to cultivate high-performers or improve
overall performance. What follows, is a brief introduction to two methods organizations use to
improve performance.
Estimates suggest up to 60% of companies globally create High-Potential (HiPo)
programs to identify employees that show the potential to serve in leadership roles later in their
careers (Malik & Singh, 2014). Many scholars are highly critical of such programs and claim
they can do more harm than good if not conducted properly (Finkelstein et al., 2018; Hogan et
al., 2018; Kotlyar, 2018; Malik & Singh, 2014; Silzer & Church, 2009). Consensus about the
effective use of HiPo programs is as elusive as the definition of high-performance itself. Some

2
HiPo programs have well-defined selection criteria while other organizations simply select the
loudest self-promoters who excel at managing up (Hogan et al., 2018; Zenger & Folkman, 2018).
Furthermore, there is no common agreement as to what elements should constitute a HiPo
program. Despite the academic critiques, HiPo programs remain a fixture among many of the
best companies in the United States and abroad.
The second method for improving individual and collective performance is professional
coaching. Organizations are turning to coaches with greater frequency in an effort to develop
high-potential leaders. In a rigorous meta-analysis of coaching, researchers found that every
coaching model they examined was capable of creating positive outcomes for coachees
(Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018). The same researchers found coaching resulted in positive
outcomes in 70 out of the 84 peer-reviewed studies that measured outcomes. In general, this
study of 110 peer-reviewed articles on coaching published up to 2016 found the benefits of
coaching to be largely positive. Some exceptions to these positive results arose in cases where
the coachee was extremely uncommitted, experienced a major career setback, or set goals that
were unattainable and therefore unmotivating (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018).
These efforts to develop high-performance leaders outnumber efforts to measure high-
performance leadership in the field. At times both high-performance programs and coaches rely
on personality assessments that do little to define the leadership activities and instead focus on
personal traits and values. Personality tests often assume these traits are intrinsic to the
individual and fairly immutable. They are often used by HiPo programs and coaches to help
increase self-awareness among the individuals who are selected for leadership
development. Personality tests are often used to develop leaders by helping them cultivate
healthy interpersonal relationships with colleagues, friends, or relatives. There are very few

3
assessments however which seek to understand an individual’s effectiveness. The most common
assessment type used by coaches to determine effectiveness is a 360-degree leadership
assessment. These types of assessments, which solicit feedback from the coachee’s coworkers,
tend to be highly costly in terms of time and money and can have detrimental social effects on
the workplace environment when not conducted properly.
Problem Statement
Organizations have a lot at stake in developing high-performance leaders and the path to
doing so is riddled with uncertainty (Michaels et al., 2001). There is little consensus about how
to develop high-performance leaders. That problem is exacerbated by the absence of a
framework for consistently evaluating individual effectiveness. Personality types are often
applied as stand-ins for an assessment of leadership capacity or potential. People and
organizations need an effective method to define high-performance and measure it. Providing
the definition and tool for measurement will enable people to modify or instill new behaviors
that produce better individual and collective results.
Furthermore, it appears that much of the popular opinion on developing high-
performance leaders is based on anecdotal or “best practice” information that contradicts what
empirical studies support (Collins, 2011; Dweck, 2006; Hogan et al., 2018; Kotlyar, 2018;
Zenger & Folkman, 2018). Despite the contradictory and thin theories that abound within the
field, the impact of leadership is undeniable (Morris & Rogers, 2013). This dissertation will
wrangle the definitions of leadership into one coherent assessment intended to be used by
ambitious leaders for generations to come.

4
Purpose of the Dissertation
The purpose of this dissertation is to construct an Achievement Index to help people
become reflect on their leadership behaviors in the workplace to improve their leadership skills.
The dissertation describes the processes and procedures used to create the assessment. Another
purpose of this dissertation is to lay the foundation to expand the application of the Achievement
Index. The long-term aim is to increase its reliability and validity and to expand its usefulness
into other areas of work and life. Ideally the assessment will be used by professionals to help
them reflect on their own thoughts and behaviors and improve their performance in the
workplace to cultivate and solidify their own high-performance leadership.
Research Questions
This dissertation is guided by two main questions:
1. How do the tendencies for a person to prioritize, leverage, and execute inform his or
her performance in the workplace?
2. How can an assessment be constructed to assess a person’s tendency to prioritize,
leverage, or execute?
The Pragmatic Worldview
The pragmatic worldview “is not committed to any one system of philosophy and
reality,” and conceives of truth as “what works at the time” (Creswell & Creswell, 2017, p. 10).
One researcher wrote, “pragmatism rescues our appreciation of learning from academic
understanding and instead allows us to also emphasize active experimentation” (Reason &
Bradbury, 2007, p. 19). As we are able to leverage technology to conduct technical work,

5
leadership remains one skill that machines cannot yet conduct effectively. People need practical
tools to help them lead better. I submit the Achievement Index as a tool born of the pragmatic
worldview to help people understand and develop their leadership and effectiveness. The
following descriptions of the pragmatic worldview were listed in Mixed Methods Applications in
Action Research served as salient guides during the construction of the Achievement Index
(Ivankova, 2014):
• “Rejects either or dichotomous thinking”
• “Views knowledge as constructed and resulting from empirical discovery”
• “Reality is complex and multiple”
• “Views theories instrumentally (i.e., theories are not viewed as fully true or false, but as
more or less useful for predicting, explaining, influencing desired change)”
This dissertation often includes the word “you.” Any references to the word “you” here
are directed at the respondent to the assessment. Most passages that contain “you” are written
directly into the actual assessment or its results. Also, this dissertation occasionally uses
contractions in order to make the assessment easier to read for respondents from across differing
socio-economic, education, and career levels.
Method
The method used for exploring the research questions of this dissertation is the
construction of an assessment. The methods used to construct the assessment include analysis of
popular personality type assessments, analysis of academic literature, an application of

6
professional experience. The complete methodology will be explained in depth in chapter three
of this dissertation.
The Rationale for Constructing an Assessment
The construction of the leadership assessment both described and guided by this
dissertation aligns with the aims of this doctoral program as outlined on the USC Sol Price
School of Public Policy website:
The USC Price Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development offers established
professionals in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors a high level academic
experience to enhance their leadership capabilities, to extend their knowledge of
policy, administration, planning and development, and to empower them in
designing frameworks and strategies for sophisticated problem solving (USC Sol
Price School of Public Policy, 2020).

The process of defining, measuring, and cultivating high-performance leaders is the
problem I sought to address with the construction of the Achievement Index. The methods
applied here, which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this dissertation, are apt to
produce knowledge consistent with the pragmatic worldview (Stringer, 2014, p. 61).
Personal Motivations
The pragmatic grounding and the methodological approach guiding this dissertation call
upon me to provide some personal context of my relationship with the work. For more of my
personal perspective, and explanation of what qualifies me to make some of the claims and

7
assumption underpinning this dissertation is included in the personal statement in Appendix A.
The anecdote from that follows is the earliest time I can remember beginning to think about the
framework that evolved into the Achievement Index.
When I was 20 years old, I served in the Army with two brothers, Staff Sergeant Smith
and Captain Smith. In the Army, the rank of Staff Sergeant is enlisted, and the rank of Captain is
a commissioned officer. Enlisted soldiers are often thought of as the muscle of the Army and
officers are thought of as the brains. One day, Staff Sergeant Smith completed a task to a high
standard, and I complimented him. “Yeah, that's what I do, I get stuff done.” he replied proudly
and then continued, “My brother [Captain Smith] would have taken all day thinking about it.
He’s always been like that. Stuck thinking about stuff while I was getting it all done.”
Staff Sergeant Smith spoke so disparagingly about his brother’s tendency to think about
things. At that moment, I found myself feeling embarrassed and even a little ashamed because I
recognized I was a person who liked to think deeply about things too. That exchange left me
feeling like thinking was stupid and that the best way to achieve success was to take action.
Over the course of my varied career, I have seen a variety of similar comments that cut
both ways across the thinking/doing spectrum. Comments such as “that guy is a total knuckle
dragger” or a “worker bee” or a “button pusher” suggest that taking action is often a mindless
undertaking. Disparaging comments about folks who are more inclined to think deeply about
things include “all she does is sit in meetings” or “that guy dreams up all these ideas that are just
not feasible.” Occasionally there is evidence of admiration across these ways of thinking as
reflected by comments such as “she’s the most creative thinker I know” or “I wish I had his work
ethic.” It often seems there is a common belief that one is right and the other is wrong. Another
common assumption I have noticed is that many people feel they cannot adopt more of a

8
“thinker” or “doer” orientation. I choose to create the Achievement Index through my doctoral
work in an attempt to help people reflect on how they approach work; acknowledge where they
fall on the thinking/doing spectrum and how they can improve their performance.
The Achievement Index Proposed Framework: Prioritize, Leverage, and Execute
As mentioned above, popular writing proposes a wide range of traits and behaviors of
high-performance leaders, and scholarly researchers do provide much clarification. The
Achievement Index is built around a simple framework that I propose as a culmination of my
personal and professional experience as well as my doctoral coursework and research. The
baseline assumption in this framework is that both individual and organizational success can be
accomplished when three things are done well:
• Prioritize – Know what must be done.
• Leverage – Make the work easy.
• Execute – Ensure it gets done.

Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations
Professional coaching is very important to the construction of the Achievement Index.
The Achievement Index could be used by coaches and managers (in addition to individuals) to
help develop high-performance leaders. Within the practice of coaching, there are several
recognized approaches. It is important to examine them prior to describing the construction of
the assessment, because the structure and questions that make up the Achievement Index were
designed with the intention of supporting coaching efforts. Specifically, this assessment was

9
designed according to coaching approaches defined by Yossi Ives work exploring coaching
paradigms (2008) and the International Coaches Federation (ICF) “Core Competencies.”
Coaching Paradigms
The coaching paradigms from Ives work are:
1. The Goal-oriented approach is characterized by intense focus on goals whereby
the coach helps the coachees ensure their goals are consistent with their personal
strengths and desires. Then the coach helps coachees align resources with the
newly established goals (p. 101).
2. The humanist approach demands the coach view the coachee as a multifaceted
person, not just a professional. At its essence, this approach focuses on the growth
potential of every individual (p. 101).
3. The adult learning approach is characterized by its ability to help people grow
and develop through reflection and self-directed learning. To that end, this
assessment was designed to be interpreted by the respondent without the
assistance of a trained professional (p. 101).
In addition to coaching approaches, Ives also distinguished between a directive style
(whereby coaches act as guides or advisors) and a non-directive style (whereby coaches only ask
questions and do not guide or advise). Ives stated that no approach is entirely directive or non-
directive (2008, p. 108). If there were a spectrum with directive at one end, and non-directive at
the other, the Achievement Index skews towards non-directive end. This assessment offers
respondents an opportunity to self-reflect, then determine the actions they would like to take
from themselves.

10
Ives described one final pair of traits to categorize coaching approaches: therapeutic
(which focuses on psychological state) and performance-driven (which focuses on actions and
outcomes) (Ives, 2008, p. 107). In performance-driven approaches, action typically prompts
psychological change (Ives, 2008), although the psychology of the coachee is not a target of the
coaching effort. Where many personality tests attempt to measure mental state, emotional
temperament, and other traits commonly associated psychological approaches, the Achievement
Index is rooted in behavior and impact. Therefore, the assessment is informed by, and caters to,
the performance-driven approach.
The Core Competencies of Coaching
The ICF is likely the most respected accreditation body in the coaching industry. The ICF
conducts research, offers professional membership, and outlines a set of core competencies that
all coach training programs must adhere in order to earn accreditation from the ICF ((The Gold
Standard in Coaching | ICF - Core Competencies, n.d.). The core competencies (as listed on the
ICF website) are as follows:
A. Setting the Foundation
1. Meeting Ethical Guidelines and Professional Standards
2. Establishing the Coaching Agreement
B. Co-creating the Relationship
3. Establishing Trust and Intimacy with the Client
4. Coaching Presence
C. Communicating Effectively

11
5. Active Listening
6. Powerful Questioning
7. Direct Communication
D. Facilitating Learning and Results
8. Creating Awareness
9. Designing Actions
10. Planning and Goal Setting
11. Managing Progress and Accountability
This assessment is designed to support conversations, or self-reflection, consistent with
the core competencies listed above. An underlying assumption of this study is that coaching
produces successful outcomes when basic principles such as listening, questioning, reframing,
and encouraging action are employed (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Laske, 2004). For
instance, the format of the results of the Achievement Index are essentially the respondents
answer choices reframed into a cohesive narrative. This assessment combines many of the
strongest elements of professional coaching (such as “powerful questioning” and “creating
awareness) plus the leadership, and process management concepts discussed in Chapter 2, the
literature review.
Scope and Delimitations
This dissertation is scoped to guide the initial creation of the Achievement Assessment.
This dissertation does not include the use of a sample. Testing on a sample would enable
qualitative and quantitative analysis that would produce valuable insights and increase validity

12
and reliability. That said, substantial research, effort, and academic scrutiny contributed for the
assessment as it currently exists. The plan is to build upon this foundation in the near future.
Key Concepts and Terms
Understanding Prioritization
Lexico powered by Oxford (2019) defines “prioritize” as a process to “designate or treat
(something) as being very or most important” (Prioritize | Definition of prioritize by Lexico,
n.d.). Esteemed business scholar Michael Porter spoke succinctly about the importance of
prioritizing when he wrote, “the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do” (1996, p. 70).
Porter’s statement distills the importance for leaders to prioritize.
The purpose of prioritizing is to identify what people and organizations should focus on
and what they should not. The most successful companies decisively divest lines of business and
products that do not fit the business model. An analysis (Dranikoff et al., 2002) of a study
conducted by McKinsey and Company from 1990 through 2000 referred to divesting as pruning.
These authors said that you have to cut the dead branches of a business before they impact the
whole tree. They also stated that sometimes you have to “prune” large healthy branches that are
making it difficult for other aspect of the business to get the nutrients and attention they need.
They note that famed General Electric CEO Jack Welch divested 117 business units in the first
four years of his tenure, which was 20% of General Electric’s total assets at the time. Then
General Electric went on to experience meteoric growth. The same authors pointed out that most
companies are only willing to let go after years of continued losses. This article highlights what
is probably the toughest part of prioritization and that is deciding what not to focus on or commit
resources to.

13
“Pruning” the right branches of the business is no easy task. One popular guide for
deciding what to focus on is called “the balanced scorecard,” a tool developed by a Harvard
Business School professor and a management consultant. They urge companies to prioritize
according to: 1) company vision, values, and mission, 2) the financial perspective, 3) the
customer perspective, 4) internal process, and 5) the learning and growth perspective. This
framework emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their framework could still be useful in
terms of setting priorities, although these authors reference a transition from the industrial age
into the information age. Now we are fully immersed in the information age and the internal
process perspective as they do not account for the rapidly changing, technology-driven
environment.
In fact, some experts believe that too much internal process can be stifling and that
companies should let their employees decide what matters most (Carney & Getz, 2018). These
same experts say the key to employee-driven priorities is for senior leaders to let go of ego and
describe the vision of where the company is headed. Then create a climate of respect and ask the
team what barriers they are facing so leaders can do their best to remove them. This will result in
a “liberated team” that will take ownership and prioritize according to the company vision
without the need for micromanagement.
Management consultant Dick Grote (2017) expresses a similar opinion and states that
employees should have autonomy in choosing what to work on. Rather than engaging in the
common practice known as “cascading goals” whereby each business unit sets its goals within
the confines of the company goals, and each employee sets his or her goals within the confines of
the business unit’s goal, Grote believes that a strong company vision should drive goal setting at
all levels. Focusing on communicating the company vision may also be more memorable to its

14
employees. One study of more than 300 companies found that most employees, even higher-
level ones, cannot articulate their company strategy (Carney & Getz, 2018).
While experts have differing opinions on how to prioritize, and at what level to do so,
they all agree that each company should be deliberate in how they prioritize. The clearer the
priorities are, the easier it will be to leverage resources and people against them.
Understanding Leverage
Leveraging technology. Simply purchasing latest technology does not guarantee a leader
or their team will fully leverage technology against their established priorities. According to
Leandro DalleMule, the Chief Data Officer at AIG, and Thomas Davenport, a professor in
Management and Information Technology at Babson College, (2017) as technology advances
companies must develop a strategy to manage the data and make it useful. They highlight the
fact that most do not fully leverage the data they possess because it is not easily accessible.
These authors state that companies cannot expect the latest hardware and software to solve their
data management issues without a coherent strategy. Appropriate use of data is such an
important aspect of leveraging technology because it can support prioritization helping people
understand the impact of particular activities. It also supports execution. If a company has the
right data management strategy, it can measure progress and indicators of success more
effectively.
Leveraging process. Norm Smallwood and Dave Ulrich wrote an article (2004) that
presented a number of core strengths that an organization can possess. The way they discuss
collaboration as a point of leverage within companies. The authors state, “collaboration occurs
when an organization as a whole gains efficiencies of operation through the pooling of services

15
or technologies, through economies of scale, or through the sharing of ideas and talent across
boundaries.” This pooling of resources is a key leverage point because it can have positive
financial implications on an organization, but it also draws people together to have conversations
that may lead to companywide innovation and improvement.
Understanding Execution
According to Lexico powered by Oxford (2019), to execute is to “put (a plan, order, or
course of action) into effect”(Execute | Definition of execute by Lexico, n.d.). Notice that this
definition of execution centers on a plan. Execution is, at its essence, following through on a plan
to link people and resources to specific milestones and then monitor progress and intervene when
necessary.
Simply put, execution is the act of getting things done. Most authors agree that successful
execution is the result of clear expectations among those who must take action, and well-defined
milestones with qualitative or quantitative metrics, and the alignment of appropriate resources
(Reynolds & Lewis, 2017).
Significance of the Research
The construction of the Achievement Index is important for three main reasons. First,
there is little consensus on the definition of effective leadership or methods for developing
effective leaders. Carol Dweck (2016) stated it perfectly when she said “there are scores of
leadership books with titles like The Ten Secrets of the World’s Most Successful People
crowding the shelves of bookstores, and these books may give many useful tips. But they are
usually a list of unconnected pointers, like ‘Take more risks!’ or ‘Believe in yourself!’ While
you’re left admiring people who can do that, it’s never clear how these things fit together or how

16
you could ever become that way” (p. 9). This dissertation is an attempt to make sense of these
“unconnected pointers” in an ordered and logical way that promotes self-awareness and personal
development among those who take the Achievement Index.
Second, some personality tests, such as CliftonStrengths, assume that personality traits
are more or less fixed within individuals and assert that people should choose environments and
careers that best fit their personality traits. The Achievement Index is rooted in a performance-
based framework that focuses on behavior but there are few assessments that examine an
individual's behavior and how that contributes to a general theory of Effectiveness and producing
successful results. the Achievement Index can be a strong compliment to personality a test
which helped raise self-awareness and smooth interpersonal relationships when applied properly.
Third, there is a wide spectrum of approaches to leadership development. On one end,
coaching methodologies encourage the coachee to direct the course of the coaching engagement,
whereby the coach serves largely as an inquisitor without a specific agenda. Then there are
leadership training programs that attempt to deliver strategies for effective leadership in a
didactic format. This dissertation proposes a tool for leadership development that takes
advantage of both ends of this spectrum while providing individuals with an accessible and easy
to interpret tool for personal and professional development.
Summary
This dissertation seeks to establish the Achievement Index, an assessment to help people
understand how to achieve high-performance in the workplace. The construction of the
assessment is rooted in the principles of professional coaching and guided by procedures
established by The American Education Research Association, the American Psychological

17
Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. This dissertation did not
adequately address each standard. Plans to more thoroughly satisfy the Standards are outlined in
chapter 4 of this dissertation. The standards themselves will be discussed in greater detail and
chapter 3. This dissertation and the resulting assessment are my attempt to fill the aims of the
Doctor of Policy Planning and Development program by creating a valuable contribution to
practice.
In chapter 2, the literature review, I will explore academic works which describe various
characteristics of high-performance leadership. These characteristics informed the structure of
the Achievement Index as well as the actual wording of the questions. Chapter 4 of this
dissertation is it breakdown of the construction of the assessment. In this chapter I will discuss
the logic and academic grounding underpinning the construction of the assessment. In chapter 5,
I will briefly discuss the implications of the assessment and comma most importantly,
recommendations for future research and development of this assessment.

18
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter will highlight the academic research that informed the construction of the
Achievement Index. It begins with a review of the themes and trends in the study of leadership,
then explores definitions of high-performance leadership with conversations on: 1) mastering
lists of core competencies and 2) process management. I will then examine the literature
regarding two popular methods of increasing individual and organizational leadership capacity:
1) programs to develop employees identified to have the potential to serve as leaders and 2)
coaching. This literature review will also briefly discuss a handful of relevant personality
assessments. This chapter will conclude this chapter by highlighting the gap this dissertation will
address.
Themes and Trends in the Understanding of Leadership
Before the 1980s, organizational success was largely believed to be a function of
organizational structure and efficient processes (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). It was not until the
1980s that leaders were widely viewed as crucial to an organization’s success. In 1984,
Hamrbick and Mason developed upper echelon theory (UET), which posited that senior leaders,
namely Chief Executive Officers (CEO) have a significant impact on the organizations they lead
(1984, p. 193). They focused heavily on demographic attributes when they determined what
made a good leader, attributes that cannot be changed. Posner and Kouzes (1988), who
developed the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), were two researchers who directly observed
the shift in discussions from structure to leadership when, in 1988, they wrote:

19
Currently, the leadership field is in transition about the essential behaviors of leaders,
moving from earlier versions of initiating consideration and structure (Fleishman, 1953)
and transactional leaders to what Burn’s (1978) referred to as transformational
leadership. Still, it would be fair to say that the field lacks consensus around such issues
as just what leadership is, how it differs from management, and whether it can be
measured or taught (p. 483).

A few years later, Thomas Daniel (1992) wrote that “proactive and highly effective
managers and supervisors are no longer organizational luxuries; rather, they are necessities for
survival” (p. 58). In the late 1990s the perceived importance of leaders crystallized when
McKinsey and Company coined the term “the war for talent” and later published a book by the
same name, which spoke with a sense of urgency about the need for competent leaders within
organizations (Michaels et al., 2001). By this time, scholars and practitioners began to diverge
from earlier conceptions of the “born leader” to posit that leadership ability could be cultivated
and nurtured.
Leadership in the 21st Century
The popular and academic literature of the 21st century stresses that leadership, like
many skills previously thought to be predetermined, can be learned. One scholar, a Stanford
psychologist named Carol Dweck, debunked the notion that leaders are born, not developed. In
her 2006 bestseller Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Dweck broadly identified two
mindsets: fixed and growth. People who hold a fixed mindset believe personal attributes such as
intelligence and leadership ability are largely unchangeable. Those who subscribe to a growth

20
mindset believe they can improve any personal attribute by striving and learning from setbacks.
In her research, she found that people with a growth mindset show greater performance
improvement and are better adjusted than those who subscribe to a fixed mindset. This work
represents a clear departure from the messages of the 1980s that celebrated leaders as nearly
mythical figures who were born great. Even one of the pioneers of the aforementioned Upper
Echelon Theory capitulated that “managerial discretion and job demands” (p. 335) likely have an
impact on the effectiveness of leadership in a 2007 update to the original 1984 article that
introduced upper echelon theory and focused heavily on demographics (Hambrick, 2007)
In his highly regarded work Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and
Others Don’t (2011), Jim Collins found that leadership was a key distinguishing factor between
companies that experienced enduring success and companies that did not. Good to Great
examined the financial performance of 11 companies that outperformed the market by a factor of
three for a 15-year period. He compared these companies to other “good” companies in the same
industry that did not maintain their performance over the same period. With a focus on
financials and large trends, Collins continually directed his research team to “ignore the
executives” of the companies studied (p. 22), but the impact of these leaders emerged as an
undeniable factor that contributed to the success of the “great” companies. The impact of
leadership was so important that it is the first concept discussed in the book, ahead of culture,
technology and other factors.
Specifically, the leaders who made the greatest difference were the ones who displayed
“level 5 leadership,” which Collins characterized as a “blend of extreme personal humility and
intense professional will” (p. 20). Collins quoted a leader who displayed level 5 leadership when
he said, ‘I never stopped trying to become qualified for the job’ (p. 20). Collins and Dweck build

21
a strong case that leadership matters and that people can learn to be better leaders, but there is
little agreement as to how to measure high-performance or become a high-performance leader
(Collins, 2011).
Defining High-Performance Leadership
Leadership as Core Competencies
Jim Collins essentially identified two traits a “great” leader must possess: humility and
professional will. His list only has two factors while other scholars have as many as 13 (Daniel,
1992). Another team of researchers posited that subordinates long to see integrity, competence,
good judgement, and vision (Hogan et al., 2018). If there are similarities between Collins’ list of
two competencies, and the four just listed, they are not inherently evident. However, both teams
of researchers caution against placing too much stock in charismatic leaders noting that charisma
does not indicate the presence of competencies required to carry out the work of the organization
or lead people effectively. In fact, both research teams found an inverse relationship in many
instances (Collins, 2011; Hogan et al., 2018).
Another team of researchers who created what they call the leadership practices inventory
(LPI) claim that over 3 million people have completed the assessment (Leadership Practices
Inventory, n.d.). These researchers found that there are 5 core competencies of high-performance
leaders: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the
way, and encouraging the heart (Posner & Kouzes, 1988, p. 485). Each of these competencies
has two sub-competencies. There is only one clear overlap with the competencies identified by
Collins or Posner and Kouzes or Hogan and his colleagues and that is the role of “vision” in
high-performance leadership. Each of these research teams claim academic rigor in their

22
research, yet there are few clear commonalities among their findings. The creators of the LPI
released an article in 2016, nearly 30 years after they released the original study, which restated
the validity of the LPI (Posner, 2016).
In 1992, Thomas Daniel published a study on high-performance leadership that used
mixed methods to test 13 leadership traits in managers within the manufacturing industry. Of the
13 tested traits, 7 of them, were identified to result in high-performance. The high-performance
traits were: 1) goal orientation, 2) bottom-line orientation, 3) initiative, 4) collaboration and team
building, 5) systematic problem solving, 6) image and reputation, and 7) self-confidence (Daniel,
1992, p. 63). These traits, which were identified through the use of coded response and
quantitative analysis. There are few similarities with the traits identified above that were
developed by other researchers. One interesting thing to note here is the tension that may exist
between traits that appeared to be on opposite ends of the spectrum. For instance, goal
orientation requires big picture, abstract thinking whereas bottom line orientation requires a
strong command of metrics and key performance indicators. Collaboration and team building
require leaders to celebrate others, whereas self-confidence encourages leaders to look inward.
Another group of researchers said, in order to reach high-performance, leaders must
master eight competencies that span two domains (Wilson et al., 2000, p. 74). The first domain is
employee performance, which includes goal setting/management, rewards and coaching,
motivating commitment, and assessment. The second domain is employee potential, which
includes employee development, supportive environment, human resource systems, and job and
work redesign. This research is based mainly on review of other literature and cases. Unlike
many of the studies in this arena that simply seek to identify characteristics of high-performance
leaders, this work gives explicit suggestions to help practitioners cultivate these competencies by

23
completing the numerous sub-competencies for each core competency. These sub-competencies
act as a checklist for the overarching competency they support. For example, the sub-
competencies for “assessment” include “links individual behavior with goals of the organization”
and “reviews employee performance through a formal appraisal system” (Wilson et al., 2000, p.
85). Those are just two of the nine sub-competencies the researchers identified for the
assessment competency.
The sub-competencies here offer a way to implement and evaluate leadership practices in
a way that many studies and articles on the topic do not. In this way, the work of these
researchers treats high-performance leadership as the facilitation of a fixed process. Examining
the high-performance leadership through the lens of individual behaviors and traits only provides
one perspective on high-performance. The Achievement Index aims to help leaders understand
how their actions are linked to the success of the organization. To understand high-performance
leadership from the standpoint of the organization, the next section will examine established
theories for managing processes that drive high-performance results.
Leadership as Process Management
Some researchers and practitioners focus on the management of processes to ensure the
success of people and organizations. John Kotter, a leading voice in change management, posits
the key to building high-performance organizations is their ability to adapt to change. In Kotter’s
eight-step process, organizational change can and should be driven by a single high-performing
leader. Kotter’s well-known process is as follows: 1) establish a sense of urgency, 2) create a
guiding coalition, 3) develop a shared vision, 4) communicate the change vision, empower
broad-based action, 6) generate short-term wins, 7) consolidate gains and create more change,
and 8) anchor new approaches in the culture (Kotter, 2012, p. 22). Kotter states that this is a

24
process of facilitating organizational change, but there are similarities in the steps he presents to
the traits identified by the researchers mentioned earlier in the literature review with regards to
high-performance leadership. Kotter built a consulting practice around his eight-step framework
to help organizations manage change (Strategy Execution and Change Management Consultants,
n.d.). Again, the presence of tension exists between tenants of a single philosophy. For example,
this process requires a focus on short-term wins and on long-term anchoring.
The four disciplines of execution is another framework that was established to help
leaders ensure the success of the people and organizations they lead (McChesney et al., 2016).
The authors suggest high-performance leaders: 1) focus on the wildly important, 2) act on the
lead measures, 3) keep a compelling scorecard, and 4) create a cadence of accountability. The
authors take a pragmatic approach by addressing what they call “the whirlwind” in reference to
the routine work that must be completed to sustain any organization (McChesney et al., 2016, p.
5). They suggest that barrages of emails and paperwork must not prevent the organization for
completing WIGs (short for wildly ambitious goals). These four disciplines provide a framework
for achieving high-performance while managing day-to-day operations, whereas most of the
studies that attempt to identify the common traits of high-performance leaders do little to help
people implement them.
The balanced scorecard is another framework that helps leaders push organizations to
high-performance. Leaders set the vision and strategic direction across four domains to include
financial, internal business processes, learning and growth, and customer (Kaplan et al., 1996, p.
11). The balanced scorecard makes an earnest effort to translate the strategic, company-level
goals down to the front lines of the organization.

25
A consistent challenge with high-performance leadership as process management is that
these approaches only work at the organizational level and are less applicable at the individual
level. Conversely, the core leadership competencies are easy to implement at the individual level
but are more difficult to apply to organizational contexts. The literature presents a significant gap
between practices for generating high-performance at individual and group levels.
Leadership Development Approaches
High-Potential Programs
Many practitioners believe that high-performance leaders are developed through
programs designed to prepare high-potential employees (HiPos) for future leadership roles
(Downs, 2015; Kotlyar, 2018; Melum, 2002; Morris & Rogers, 2013; Zenger & Folkman, 2018).
These programs typically aim to identify the top 5% of employees who possess leadership
acumen in addition to technical competence (Zenger & Folkman, 2018). It is relevant to explore
the work of HiPo programs for this study because they probably represent the most concerted
effort within organizational culture to develop high-potential leaders yet there remains so much
confusion around them (Malik & Singh, 2014; Michaels et al., 2001). Furthermore, the
Achievement Index could be used within HiPo programs to determine the type of training and
programs employers should create.
While many practitioners and scholars agree that HiPo programs can be an effective tool
for developing leaders, they have to be conducted thoughtfully. Zenger and Folkman (2018)
examined 360-degree feedback for 1,964 individuals who were identified as HiPos by the
companies they worked for. These researchers found that leaders who were previously identified
as HiPos only performed slightly better than the average leader at their company. In fact,

26
between 33 and 52 percent of those leaders were found to be below average at the companies
studied. These numbers are hardly compelling, especially considering the cost of implementing a
HiPo program and the consequences of advancing the wrong candidates. These authors identify a
host of issues in advancing the wrong candidates to include opportunity cost, decreased
employee engagement, and ultimately, threats to profitability. The promoted leader may also
suffer if promoted away from the technical work they enjoyed and excelled at in their previous
role (Hogan et al., 2018; Zenger & Folkman, 2018). Organizations should ensure HiPos have
accountability and a plan that details the expectations that need to be satisfied in order to ascend
to higher levels of leadership (Zenger & Folkman, 2018).
An additional danger of HiPo programs is that employees are more likely to be selected if
they are skilled at “managing up,” which is not necessarily an indicator of future leadership
potential (Zenger & Folkman, 2018). Similarly, HiPos may be selected based on how vocal or
charismatic they are, which can be extremely detrimental because charisma is linked to
narcissism and narcissistic leaders tend to ruin companies (Collins, 2011; Hogan et al., 2018).
Therefore, HiPos need to be evaluated on the basis of clearly established competencies and
nominated by more than one person or by using data-driven feedback such as personality
assessments or internal company performance data (Hogan et al., 2018; Zenger & Folkman,
2018). The Achievement Index could serve as one aspect to help inform a person’s inclusion in a
HiPo program.
The composition of HiPo programs is just as important as the selection of the
participants. Gail Johnson Morris and Kim Rogers (2013) conducted a study to “identify the key
elements of a world-class HiPo development program” (p. 59). Morris and Rogers studied 8
programs and half of them used the matrix below in Figure 2 that evaluates HiPos on the basis of

27
current performance and future potential. HiPos should be selected from the top right quadrant,
which represents people who are currently performing at a high level and who demonstrate
significant potential to for leadership (Morris & Rogers, 2013, p. 62). Even a simple framework
like this can help organizations avoid the risk of selecting vocal or charismatic people who lack
either performance or potential.

Figure 1: The HiPo Evaluation Matrix. (Morris & Rogers, 2013, p. 62).
Coaching
While there is no regulatory government authority for coaches like there is in other
professional services such as law and accounting, the International Coaches Federation (ICF) is a
private organization with credibility within the industry. A 2016 study commissioned by the ICF
and conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper provided thorough insights into the coaching

28
industry. The study collected surveys from nearly 6,000 respondents in North America who
identified as coaches. Based on the responses, the ICF estimates there are about 17,500 people
who identify as coaches in North America. The industry generates $955 million in North
America, which represents a significant interest in coaching from both organizations and
individuals who were equally likely to pay for coaching services according to the study. They
found that 50 was the median age for professional coaches and 73% of North American coaches
are women. Additionally, when asked if “coaching is able to influence social change,” 51% of
respondents selected the answer choice, “to a large extent,” which was the most frequent answer
(International Coach Federation & Pricewaterhouse Cooper, 2016, p. 20). It appears from these
statistics that coaching is a sizable and highly valued industry in North America.
There are a number of coaching approaches and methodologies, many of which have
been discussed throughout the dissertation thus far. Specifically, in Chapter 1 I listed the 13 core
competencies of coaching defined by the ICF. In addition to designing the Achievement Index in
congruence with the ICF core competencies, it also considers work by Otto Laske who posits
there are three “generic coaching processes” that all coaching orientations include (2004, p. 41):
1. “Supporting and guiding attention”
2. “Envisioning outcomes”
3. “Enacting new behaviours and experiences.”
In a study of 6 coachees over 14 months, Laske found that coaching was most effective
when the coachee underwent a developmental advance, which is essentially a paradigm shift in
the coachee’s thinking. That is what leads to lasting behavior change. As stated in the intro, a

29
meta-analysis of peer reviewed coaching literature found all coaching approaches that were
studied to be effective to varying degrees (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018).
The Gap This Dissertation Will Address
The lack of agreement as to what constitutes high-performance leadership at the
individual and group level makes it difficult to try to cultivate. While many scholars have
developed lists of leadership traits and actions, few scholars discuss the notion that increasing a
leader’s acumen in one arena might challenge their ability to perform leadership attributes in
another arena. For instance, a tension may exist between long-term goal setting, driving bottom
line results; between promoting teamwork, and maintaining high self-confidence; between being
collaborative and being decisive. The achievement Index seeks to address this discrepancy.
While there are numerous personality tests that claim varying degrees of validity and
reliability, there are very few that focus on a defined standard of effectiveness or high-
performance effectiveness. Most of the existing personality tests aim to help people: 1) maximize
a particular aspect of their personality such as CliftonStrengths (Inc, n.d.), 2) strengthen
interpersonal relationships with colleagues, friends and family members, and love interests such
as the five love languages (Productions, n.d.), or 3) choose a career sector such as “the arts” or
“law enforcement” such as the Hollande Codes career tests (What are Holland Codes?, n.d.)
Conversely, the assessment constructed through this research does not claim to assess personality
type, rather it aims to identify behaviors that contribute to individual and organizational
effectiveness.

30
Chapter 3: Method
Introduction
This chapter will outline the approach used to construct the Achievement Index. The
academic works presented in the literature review, along with additional references, applied to
logical reasoning and analysis support the construction of a rigorous assessment. This chapter
will describe the guiding framework and philosophies for this assessment. This chapter will also
discuss the limitations of the construction of the Achievement Index.
Research Questions
This dissertation is guided by two main questions:
1. How do the tendencies for a person to prioritize, leverage, and execute inform
their performance in the workplace?
2. How can assessment be constructed to assess a person’s tendency to prioritize,
leverage, or execute?
Methodology Selected
This dissertation documents the systematic construction of a behavioral assessment
guided by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and Assessment (hereinafter
referred to as the “Standards”), a publication produced in 2014 by the American Educational
Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on
Measurement in Education. The Standards, were created to “provide criteria for the development
and evaluation of tests and testing practices and to provide guidelines for assessing the validity
of interpretations of test scores for the intended test uses” (American Educational Research

31
Association, 2014, p. 20). While the authors caution test developers and users from relying on
the Standards as a checklist, they also say that test developers should follow every applicable
standard when possible.
The content of the assessment is rooted in my professional experience and observations
as a leadership and strategy coach to leaders and organizations. These observations are supported
by relevant academic research as identified in the literature review. Each question was
constructed while considering the leadership traits and processes that reoccurred throughout the
relevant literature.
The Standards contains more than 200 clearly articulated standards for validity,
reliability, fairness, scoring, supporting documentation, ethics, and a variety of issues unique to
different contexts such workplace or educational assessments. According to the Standards, if a
standard is applicable to the assessment it should be met. Only when a standard is completely
irrelevant should the standard not be considered (American Educational Research Association,
2014, p. 5). This research did not successfully meet every applicable standard, but suggestions
for future research are outlined in chapter 5.
Rigor and Limitations
Laid out below are the details regarding the methodological elements driving the
construction of the Achievement Index. These elements were taken directly from the Standards
and include design, validity, reliability, fairness, scoring, supplemental documentation, and
ethical considerations. Each section will begin with the overarching standard for that element,
displayed exactly as written in the Standards. Each of these elements in the Standards contains
up to 25 well-defined individual standards. This section aims to address every applicable

32
standard, but it will not enumerate them all. Shortcomings or recommendations to more
effectively satisfy the Standards will be noted here and discussed in Chapter 5 of this
dissertation.
Standards for Validity
Standard 1.0 from the Standards:
“Clear articulation of each intended test score interpretation for a specified use should be
set forth, and appropriate validity evidence in support of each intended interpretation should be
provided” (p. 23).
Validity is the most important foundational consideration in constructing and evaluating
assessments because “it refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the
interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” (American Educational Research
Association, 2014, p. 11). An assessment is considered valid when it is understood to accurately
measure the construct that it is designed to measure. The Standards state that validity must be
established for each interpretation of the assessment to include conclusions drawn from
assessment scores. In order to establish validity, it is important to clearly define the constructs
being assessed and understand their relationships to one another.
There are two major threats to validity. The first is called construct underrepresentation,
which occurs when an assessment only measures a portion of the construct it claims to measure.
The second threat to validity is called construct-irrelevance which occurs when the assessment
measures other factors that are not related to the intended construct. Mitigating these threats and
establishing validity can be accomplished through the application of empirical evidence, by
considering pertinent academic literature, or conducting logical evaluation and analysis

33
(American Educational Research Association, 2014, p. 13). Validity is established through the
quality of evidence applied and not necessarily the quantity. The standards enumerate a number
of types of validity evidence that can be used when constructing and evaluating assessments.
The Standards’ sources of validity evidence provide frameworks for evaluating
relationships between the structure of the assessment, the constructs it is intended to measure, the
results of the assessment, and the participants who will eventually take the assessment. For
example, validity evidence is based on test content and examines the relationship between the
actual assessment questions and the concepts they are intended to measure. Assessment
developers may use empirical or logical analysis to examine this relationship or any other
relationship identified by the other types of evidence for validity listed in the Standards.
Questions of validity often arise in response to issues around equity. Essentially, all
populations and subgroups who are candidates for taking the assessment should be able to
understand and interpret the questions to the degree that is commensurate with the construct
being measured. For instance, an assessment containing questions intended to measure one's
physical abilities should not include sophisticated language and terminology that is not necessary
for the use of those physical abilities. This becomes especially important when considering how
socio-economic factors such as race, ethnicity, income, and geographic location impact
educational attainment. The Achievement Index is intended to be used by a wide range of
individuals in the workforce spanning entry-level workers to seasoned executives. The language
of this assessment needs to accommodate all subgroups of this population while measuring the
intended constructs with validity.
The validity evidence assembled here was derived primarily from existing academic
literature, professional expertise, and logical reasoning. This speaks to validity standard 1.11:

34
Standard 1.11 When the rationale for test score interpretation for a given use rests in part
on the appropriateness of test content, the (1) procedures followed in specifying and
generating test content should be described and justified with reference to the intended
population to be tested and the (2) construct the test is intended to measure or the domain
it is intended to represent (p. 26).

In order to the meet this standard 1.11, the Standards recommends creating a content or
logic map which has been addressed in chapter 4.

Establishing Intended Uses and Interpretations
This assessment is intended to be used by English-speaking, adults who participate in the
workforce via employment or business ownership. the assessment aims to be a tool for self-
reflection that respondents can use to better understand their preferences and behaviors in the
workplace and learn how to improve their performance. The assessment measures respondents
across the three constructs that make up high-performance leadership identified in chapter
1: prioritize, leverage, and execute. These constructs represent a collection of thoughts and
behaviors that, when combined, contribute to successful performance in the workplace. Unlike
the personality tests that largely focus on intrinsic personality traits, the Achievement Index
assesses respondents’ orientation towards the prioritize, leverage, and execute constructs. In
order to establish validity for the Achievement Index, existing academic literature was
considered in order to develop assessment questions, establish score calculations, and provide

35
recommended action based on individual results. A summary of the academic literature used to
establish valid test construction is present in Chapter 2 of this dissertation.
The Standards encourage assessment developers to identify ways in which the
assessment may be used improperly based on the potential to arrive at unsupported
interpretations. One such cautionary message is to use the results from the Achievement Index
for reflection and development purposes only. This assessment should not be used as sole
justification to hire or fire an individual or impose any external and lasting consequence that
could negatively impact the respondent. The respondent will have immediate access to the results
of the assessment upon completion of the computer-based assessment. The interpretations
justified by academic literature, professional expertise, and logical analysis are wholly listed on
the report of results. Any interpretations beyond what is contained in the report should be made
with caution and at the discretion of the respondent. The construction of assessment questions
and subsequent interpretations and results are presented to the respondent in the resulting report,
which affords respondents to the opportunity to self-validate their responses.
A reasonable effort was made to establish an understanding of the direct and indirect
benefits this assessment presented to potential respondents. Potential drawbacks and
contradictory findings were also included in order to provide the greatest understanding of the
implication of this assessment as possible. Potential respondents are given very little information
regarding the content of the assessment because their foreknowledge may influence their answers
to the assessment if they believe their responses will produce what they would consider an
unfavorable result. For example, respondents in executive roles may attempt to answer questions
based on how they believe an executive should answer the questions rather than answering based
on what they actually believe.

36
Issues Regarding Samples and Settings Used in Validation
This assessment was not given to a sample population for the purposes of qualitative or
quantitative validation of the results by way of examining individual responses in an attempt to
create generalizable knowledge. The need for a pilot study of this nature will be discussed in
chapter 5.
Forms of Validity Evidence.
There are 15 standards that describe different forms of validity evidence. As stated above,
not every type of validity evidence must be used in order to establish validity of the assessment
nor should the quantity of evidence outweigh the quality. The main forms of validity evidence
used in the construction of this assessment include content-oriented evidence, evidence regarding
relationships with criteria, and evidence regarding internal structure. As displayed in chapter 4,
these forms of validity evidence are derived from the synthesis of academic research, logical
analysis, and professional expertise. The evidence is compiled to ensure that the constructs are
well defined and delineated, the questions adequately measure the defined constructs, the scoring
and results are accurate and meaningful, and the implications of the scores are relevant to the
respondent. The logical construction will be described in chapter 4 will describe this process.
Standards for Reliability
Standard 2.0 from the Standards:
“Appropriate evidence of reliability/precision should be provided for the interpretation
for each intended score use” (p. 42).

37
Reliability can have many definitions depending on the subject matter and academic
setting. This dissertation relies upon the notion of reliability put forth in the Standards which
states that reliability is essentially the consistency of scores across time and conditions under
which the assessment is administered (American Educational Research Association, 2014, p. 33).
The Standards states that:
A higher degree of reliability/precision is required for score uses that have more
significant consequences for test takers. Conversely, a lower degree may be acceptable
where a decision based on the test score is reversible or dependent on corroboration from
other sources of information. (p. 42)

So long as respondents use the assessment as intended (as a tool for self-reflection on
leadership behaviors), the stakes are extremely low, thus the level of reliability required is also
low. Some examples of “high-stakes” assessments are ones used to determine mental state for
legal purposes in a court proceeding or an assessment that results in certification to perform a
surgical, medical procedure.
The Achievement Index makes no claims regarding the consistency of scores across time
or setting. This assessment is intended to be a tool for self-reflection and personal growth.
Results may be impacted by the respondent’s mood, professional disposition, or some other
factor and the value of the assessment is not compromised. The level of transparency in the test
results enables respondents to self-validate their responses at the time they take the assessment.
That is, the results are essentially a restatement of the respondents answers rather than an
inferred response to how the respondent answered. This may represent a unique snapshot and the

38
respondent’s life and her responses could change at any time. Scores are not meant to be
compared over time or compared to other respondents’ scores directly. Instead, scores should
help respondents think about their own behavior in the workplace and steps they might take to
improve their workplace performance.
As a caveat, there is one aspect of the Achievement Index that would benefit greatly
from stronger reliability evidence. There is a section of the results that are separated into
categories based on career level (e.g., entry-level individual contributor, executive, etc.) and it
would be useful to understand how respondents of different career levels consistently perform on
the assessment. The construction of the Achievement Index lacked the use of a sample to test and
retest after a period of time had elapsed. This is one of the best methods to establish the
reliability and should be strongly considered in the future development of the assessment in order
to strengthen its reliability. This and other considerations for the potential future development of
the Achievement Index will be discussed in chapter 5.
Standards for Fairness
Standard 3.0 from the Standards:
All steps in the testing process, including test design, validation, development,
administration, and scoring procedures, should be designed in such a manner as to
minimize construct-irrelevant variance and to promote valid score interpretations for the
intended uses for all examinees in the intended population (p. 63).

In order to preserve fairness on the Achievement Index the language was carefully
crafted so is not to be a test of intelligence or linguistic ability. The wording of each question

39
was scrutinized and derived from the types of questions and traits used by previous studies and
described in the literature review. The personalized nature of the questions and the use of
contractions such as “you’re” was intended to set respondents at ease and avoid construct
irrelevance by minimizing the chance of misinterpretation of the questions or test taking anxiety.
Great care was also taken to avoid colloquialisms, slang, and technical terms that may be
narrowly associated with a specific cultural or educational background.
The test taking environment will be consistently applied for all respondents because the
Achievement Index is only available via an online platform. test that require an administrator to
deliver, score, or interpret the results can often insert a level of bias and inconsistency in the
assessment process. There is no such risk in this case as the Achievement Index results are and
scored automatically delivered in a written format to each respondent. Assessment instructions
and descriptions for interpreting the results will also be clearly and consistently delivered via the
online platform. Instructions and descriptions necessary to complete and understand the
assessment were written with the intention of being clear and concise. These instructions and
descriptions are included in chapter 4 of this dissertation.
Standards in Scoring
Standard 5.0 from the Standards:
Test scores should be derived in a way that supports the interpretations of the test scores
for the proposed uses of tests. Test developers and users should document evidence of
fairness, reliability, and validity of test scores for their proposed use (p. 102).

40
In order to meet this standard, respondents are provided with clear explanations of the
characteristics being measured. Potential negative consequences that may arise from any
assessment are mitigated by keeping the claims regarding the implications of the assessment
results conservative. The true value of the assessment is not derived from making bold claims
about the results instead the value lies and providing a tool first self-reflection. Consistent with
the coaching traditions and practices identified in chapters 1 and 2, respondents answers are
essentially reframed and reflected back to them. There are no complex algorithms or impudent
inferences drawn from the respondents answer choices. Every assessment structuring and scoring
format has benefits and drawbacks. Force choice is commonly used on assessments of this nature
and make scoring relatively easy without degrading the quality of the results. Other formats
would require stronger validity evidence in order to make inferences regarding the implications
of the results.
One point of possible contention in terms of structure and scoring is that this assessment
is a forced choice assessment, meaning that respondents are presented with three options and
forced to choose the one they agree with most. Different scoring measures such as ranking
answer choices in order of preference or scoring choices in dependently using a Likert scale
would present more options for calculating scores and generating interpretations but would also
introduce complexity that would necessitate greater levels of reliability and validity than
established in the process driven by this dissertation. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of personality
assessment structures found that forced choice resulted in less score inflation than other
structures when each answer choice was perceived as equally socially desirable (Cao &
Drasgow, 2019, p. 1361). In order to ensure equal social desirability, the wording on answer
choices is very similar so as not to single out any choice as socially unacceptable.

41
Supporting Documentation
Standard 5.0 from the Standards:
Information relating to test should be clearly documented so that those who use test can
make informed decisions regarding which test to use for a specific purpose, how to
administer The Chosen test, and how to interpret test scores.
The supporting documentation for the assessment is twofold: this dissertation and the
results that every respondent receives when the take the assessment. The final report the
respondent receives provides clear instruction for understanding and self-validating the
responses.
Summary
This dissertation and the resulting assessment attempt to follow the standards that guide
the development for these types of assessments. This includes specifically addressing validity,
reliability, fairness, design, and ethics. Shortcomings are highlighted here in chapter 3 and
proposed approaches for addressing those shortcomings are highlighted in chapter 5 of this
dissertation. In summary the risk presented by the Achievement Index is relatively low so long as
respondents use the assessment for self-reflection and not for highly consequential decisions
such as hiring and firing in the workplace. While attempts were made to follow the guidelines
described in the Standards, the assessment would require empirical study to establish validity
and reliability. Steps to establish validity and reliability are described in chapter 5. The next
chapter lays out the construction, content and logic of the Achievement Index.

42
Chapter 4: A Description of the Assessment Framework
This chapter details the structure, content, scoring, and results for the achievement
assessment. The Achievement Index contains 25 multiple choice questions. The prompt for each
question is “Select the statement that is the most true” and each question has three answer
choices. Each choice represents a prioritize, leverage, or execute orientation. When a respondent
answers a question, one point is added to the score for the achievement orientation that
corresponds with their selection. Then the points are then calculated in descending order and
labeled the primary, secondary, and tertiary orientations respectively.
The results are presented in three ways, 1) a general summary of the respondents
Achievement Index, 2) a summary of each the respondent’s primary, secondary, and tertiary
orientations, and 3) lists of the respondents’ answer choice within the context of all possible
choices.
Logical Construction
The questions in the Achievement Index are based on themes that emerge from academic
literature regarding leadership and organizational development. Some personality tests use
abstract concepts such as word association, then test the assessment with a sample population
and conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis to establish then establish validity and
reliability linking seemingly ambiguous words to descriptions of personality. The questions on
the Achievement Index are worded with the intention of upholding the pragmatic worldview.
The “individual responses” show the respondents the answers they selected on the assessment
written as a sentence or two comparing their answer choices to the answers the they did not
choose. Summary responses and the overall index are essentially the answers the respondents
chose, rephased and written into a narrative form.

43
This was in inductive process that involved compiling statements, scales, and lists
regarding high-performance leadership as described by scholarly works. Then, in order to
develop assessment questions, the traits identified in the literature were analyzed and filtered
through the five following criteria:
1. Does the construct indicate a measure of high-performance according to the literature?
2. Can the construct apply evenly across the prioritize, leverage, execute orientations?
3. Does the construct apply regardless of career level?
4. Does the question support a coaching process (as described in chapter 2)?
5. Does the question support the development of high-potential people in the workplace?

Here is an example of four statements regarding goals form a scholarly research. Dozens
of statements such as these were gathered and filtered in order to create the assessment
questions:
A. "Champions Change. Finally, the misplaced people in the HiPo group received higher
scores on being champions of change, supportive of not getting stuck in the old ways, and
willing to experiment" (Zenger & Folkman, 2018, p. 29).
B. “High-performance leaders communicate organizational goals to gain employee
commitment to the vision of the organization” (Wilson et al., 2000, p. 75).
C. “To be effective, goals at the individual job performer level must be congruent with the
goals of the organization and process levels” (Wilson et al., 2000, p. 75).

44
D. “When we asked over 85,000 managers what was most important for their direct reports
to do to be successful, their number one choice was “Drive for Results.” This was also
the number one choice of secondary managers” (Zenger & Folkman, 2018, p. 29).

Each of these statements from the literature provides a slightly different lens on goals,
goal setting, goal accomplishment, and the congruence of goals with individual job descriptions.
Using statements like these as a foundation, I applied the five filtering questions listed above to
develop questions that satisfied each of the five requirements. This sometimes involved
combining or extracting concepts from the literature in order to create questions that satisfied
each requirement. Assessment questions that did not satisfy each requirement were not included.
Satisfying criteria 2 and 3 were the most difficult. It was often difficult to identify literature that
would the support the construction of questions for each prioritize, leverage, and execute
orientation. As a result, dozens of potential question sets were discarded in the construction
process.
Criteria 3 was difficult to satisfy at times because much of the literature on high-
performance leadership is geared towards people who are already in leadership positions. So, it
was difficult in some instances to find ways to ask questions supported by academic research that
could just as easily be answered by someone in an entry level position, as in an executive
position. As a result, many potential question sets were discarded.
Here is an example of a goal setting question set derived from statements from scholarly
research like the one listed above labeled A, B, C, and D:
1. Prioritize option: I enjoy setting long term goals.

45
2. Leverage option: I enjoy uniting a team around a common goal.
3. Execute option: I enjoy making sure a goal is completed.

Each question draws from different aspects of the examples from the literature. A, and B
are more reflective of organizational, long-term goals, which are reflective of the prioritize
orientation. B and C emphasized communicating goals to a team, which are reflective of the
leverage orientation. D emphasized goal accomplishment, which is reflective of the execute
orientation. This illustrates how to satisfy criteria 1 and 2. Then the questions had to satisfy the
remaining three criteria so they were crafted to be applicable to all career levels (criteria 3),
support a coaching principles (criteria 4), and provide a self-reflection opportunities for HiPo
individuals in the work place (criteria5).
The Assessment Contents
The format of this chapter follows the format of the results generated when a respondent
completes the Achievement Index. Each section heading corresponds to a section heading on the
results report. Each question contains the weighted score for that response as well as each
possible written response to that specific question. The range of possible answers follow each of
the questions in the dissertation in order to make the logical construction transparent. Unlike
other assessments that are based on abstract concepts such as single word association, the
achievement assessment is based on clearly delineated thoughts beliefs and actions. By laying
out the answers with the questions readers of this dissertation have the opportunity to evaluate
the logical construction of the responses for themselves.

46
The bold typeface in the answer phrases indicates the option the respondent chose. The
text that is not in bold typeface indicates the options the respondent did not choose. This enables
respondents to self-validate their own responses as they analyze their results. This method of
self-validation is similar to a feature of the MBTI at www.mbtionline.com. This also enables
respondents to reflect on the answers they did not choose with the understanding that the people
they work with may have chosen different answers, which would represent different types of
behavior and expectations in their workspaces.
Worldview
This section highlights what you believe it takes for people and organizations to be
successful. Be mindful of how people with different PLE orientations may think about success
and how that might impact your interactions with them.
Question 1 (What is the value of education?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: Education and learning are valuable because they can broaden
my way of thinking.
• Leverage option: Education and learning are important because they can qualify
me for new jobs and work roles.
• Execute option: Education and learning are important because they provide
technical skills to get work done.

47
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You value education and learning because they can broaden
your way of thinking (prioritize) whereas others like to qualify for future work
roles (leverage) or gain technical skills (execute).
• Leverage answer: You value education and learning because they can qualify
you for new jobs and work roles (leverage) while others like to broaden their
way of thinking (prioritize) or gain technical skills (execute).
• Execute answer: You value education and learning because they provide
technical skills to get work done (execute) while others like to broaden their
way of thinking (prioritize) or qualify for new work roles (leverage).
Question 2 (When do people do their best work?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I believe people do their best work when they understand why
their work is important.
• Leverage option: I believe people do their best work when they are working in an
area they are knowledgeable and passionate about.
• Execute option: I believe people do their best work when they are given clear
directions and standards.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You believe people do their best work when they
understand why their work is important (prioritize) while others believe

48
people do their best work when they are working in an area of passion or strength
(leverage). Some others believe people do their best work when they are given
clear directions (execute).
• Leverage answer: You believe people do their best work when they are
working in an area they are knowledgeable and passionate about (leverage)
while others believe people do their best work when they understand why their
work is important (prioritize). Some others believe people do their best work
when they are given clear directions (execute).
• Execute answer: You believe people do their best work when they are given
clear directions and standards (execute) while others believe people do their
best work when they understand why their work is important (prioritize). Some
others believe people do their best work when they are working in an area they
are knowledgeable and passionate about (leverage).
Question 3 (What should an organization base its work on?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: An organization should base its work on ambitious goals.
• Leverage option: An organization should base its work on the talents of its people.
• Execute option: An organization should base its goals on what it can realistically
accomplish.

49
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You believe that an organization should base its work on
ambitious goals (prioritize) while others believe it should be based on the talents
of the organization (leverage) or what is feasible (execute).
• Leverage answer: You believe that an organization should base its work on
the talents of its people (leverage) while others believe it should be based on
ambitious goals (prioritize) or what is feasible (execute).
• Execute answer: You believe an organization should base its goals on what it
can realistically accomplish (execute) while others believe it should be based on
ambitious goals (prioritize) or the strengths of the organization (leverage).
Question 4 (What is the most important ingredient of success?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: Success is most dependent on having the right thoughts and
ideas.
• Leverage option: Success is most dependent on working smart.
• Execute option: Success is most dependent on taking action.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You believe that success is most dependent on having the
right thoughts and ideas (prioritize) whereas others believe that success is most
dependent on working smart (leverage) or taking action (execute).

50
• Leverage answer: You believe that success is most dependent on working
smart (leverage) while others believe it is dependent on having the best ideas
(prioritize) or taking action (execute).
• Execute answer: You believe that success is most dependent on taking action
(execute) while others believe its dependent or having the right ideas (prioritize)
or working smart (leverage).
Question 5 (Which of your skills do you value most?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I most value my critical thinking skills.
• Leverage option: I most value my leadership abilities.
• Execute option: I most value my technical or task specific knowledge.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You most value your critical thinking skills (prioritize)
whereas others value their own leadership abilities (leverage) or their own task-
specific knowledge (execute).
• Leverage answer: You most value your leadership abilities (leverage) whereas
others value their own critical thinking skills (prioritize) or task-specific
knowledge (execute).

51
• Execute answer: You most value your technical or task-specific knowledge
(execute) whereas others value their own leadership abilities (leverage) or critical
thinking skills (prioritize).
Energizers
This section highlights the activities that energize you. You can do this type of work without
getting fatigued easily. Take a look at the activities that don't energize you. Be cautious of
making career decisions that lead you away from the type of work that energizes you. It can be
difficult to learn and adapt when you're working in a way that drains your energy.
Question 6 (What do you like to focus on at work?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I love thinking through complex problems.
• Leverage option: I love to create processes and workflows.
• Execute option: I love when I am allowed to work for long, uninterrupted periods
of time.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You would rather spend time thinking through complex
problems (prioritize) than building processes (leverage) or working for long,
uninterrupted periods of time (execute).

52
• Leverage answer: You would rather spend time creating processes and
workflows (leverage), than thinking through complex problems (prioritize) or
working on a specific for long, uninterrupted periods of time (execute).
• Execute answer: You would rather work on a specific task for long,
uninterrupted periods of time (execute) than spend time thinking through
complex problems (prioritize) or building processes and workflows (leverage).
Question 7 (How do you like to organize your work?)
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I like to identify the most important milestones of a project.
• Leverage option: I like to maximize the use of technology to get things done.
• Execute option: I like to organize my work around deadlines and metrics.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You enjoy identifying the most important milestones that
need to be accomplished (prioritize). You are less excited about figuring out
how to leverage technology (leverage) or establish deadlines (execute).
• Leverage answer: You enjoy figuring out how to leverage technology to make
the work easy (leverage). You are less excited about identifying milestones
(prioritize) or creating deadlines (execute).
• Execute answer: You enjoy identifying deadlines and metrics (execute). You
are less excited about identifying milestones (prioritize) or figuring out how to
leverage technology (leverage).

53
Question 8 (What types of projects energize you?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I enjoy working on tasks that are clearly linked to a long-term
goal.
• Leverage option: I enjoy working on tasks that take full advantage of my talents
and passions.
• Execute option: I like to take on the most urgent tasks.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: Working on tasks that are clearly linked to a long-term goal
(prioritize) motivates you, even if the work is not urgent (execute) or in an area
that you are passionate about (leverage).
• Leverage answer: Working on tasks that take advantage of talents and
passions (leverage) motivates you more than working on urgent tasks (execute)
or tasks that are linked to a long-term goal (prioritize).
• Execute answer: Working on urgent tasks (execute) motivates you more than
working on tasks that are linked to a long-term goal (prioritize), or tasks that are
in your area of passion or talent (leverage).
Question 9 (How comfortable are you with uncertainty?)
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I would rather work on an ambiguous task.

54
• Leverage option: I would rather organize a complicated project with lots of
moving pieces and people involved.
• Execute option: I would rather work on a repetitive and predictable task.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You would rather work on an ambiguous task (prioritize)
than one with lots of moving parts (leverage) or one that is highly repetitive or
predictable (execute).
• Leverage answer: You would rather organize a complicated project with lots
of moving pieces and people involved (leverage) than one that is ambiguous
(prioritize) or highly repetitive (execute).
• Execute answer: You would rather work on a project that is highly repetitive
and predictable (execute) than one that is ambiguous (prioritize) or one that
involves lots of people and moving pieces (leverage).
Question 10 (What do you like most about goals?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
A. Prioritize option: I enjoy setting long term goals.
B. Leverage option: I enjoy uniting a team around a common goal.
C. Execute option: I enjoy making sure a goal is completed.

55
Answer:
• Prioritize answer: You favor setting goals (prioritize) more than uniting a team
around a goal (leverage) or ensuring that the goal is actually completed (execute).
• Leverage answer: You favor uniting a team around a goal (leverage) more than
setting the goal (prioritize) or ensuring it is completed (execute).
• Execute answer: You favor making sure a goal is completed (execute) more
than setting a goal (prioritize) or uniting a team around one (leverage).
Question 11 (How much information do you need in order to take action?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I like to gather just enough information to make a decision, but I
don't need to know all the details.
• Leverage option: I love to thoroughly read or research on a topic so I can
understand the details and become a subject matter expert.
• Execute option: I would rather be actively working on a problem rather than
reading or researching about it.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You like to gather just enough information to make a
decision, but you don't need to know all the details (prioritize). Other people
may be more inclined to thoroughly research (leverage) or dive into a project
blind (execute).

56
• Leverage answer: You love to thoroughly read or research on a topic so you
can understand the details and become a subject matter expert (leverage).
Other people may be more inclined to dive into projects (execute) without
research (prioritize).
• Execute answer: You would rather be actively working on a problem rather
than reading or researching it (execute). At times you might feel like research
(prioritize/leverage) is a waste of time.
Problem-Solving
Things don't always go according to plan. This section describes how you react to
stressful situations and solve problems that arise. Are you the type that takes a step back when
you hit a roadblock? Or the type that dives deeper into the ocean of work and doesn't come up
for air until the work is done? What are the advantages and risks associated with your brand of
problem-solving?
Question 12 (How do you react to difficult tasks?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: When I receive a difficult task, my first thought is often, "why is
this task important?"
• Leverage option: When I receive a difficult task, my first thought is often, "how
can I use technology to or some process to make this easy?"
• Execute option: When I receive a difficult task, my first thought is often, "I better
get started. The sooner I start, the sooner I'll be finished."

57
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: When you receive a difficult task, your first thought is
often, "why is this task important?" (prioritize) whereas others may spend
more time thinking about how to work smart (leverage). Some others may feel a
sense of urgency to get right to work (execute).
• Leverage answer: When you receive a difficult task, your first thought is
often, "how can I use technology to or some process to make this easy?"
(leverage) whereas others may question whether or not the task is even worth
doing (prioritize). Others feel that time is of the essence, so they get started with a
sense of urgency (execute).
• Execute answer: When you receive a difficult task, my first thought is often,
"I better get started. The sooner I start, the sooner I'll be finished." (execute)
whereas other people may seek to understand why the task is important
(prioritize) or devise a plan to get it done (leverage).

Question 13 (What do you do when you encounter a setback in your work?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: When I hit a significant roadblock in my work, I question if
working on this task is the best use of time and resources.
• Leverage option: When I hit a significant roadblock in my work, I reach out for
help or resources that might make the work easier.

58
• Execute option: When I hit a significant roadblock in my work, I work tirelessly
to troubleshoot my way to a solution.
Answer:
• Prioritize answer: Your initial reaction to roadblocks in the workplace is to
question whether or not the task is really worth doing (prioritize), whereas
other people may reach out for help (leverage) or tirelessly troubleshoot a solution
(execute).
• Leverage answer: Your initial reaction to roadblocks in the workplace is to
reach out for help or resources that might make the work easier (leverage).
Other people who hit roadblocks may question whether the task is worth the effort
(prioritize) or may work tirelessly to troubleshoot a solution (execute).
• Execute answer: Your initial reaction to roadblocks in the workplace is to
work tirelessly to troubleshoot a solution (execute), whereas others in the same
position may question if the task is worth the effort (prioritize) or may reach out
for help (leverage).
Question 14 (How do you react when you are pulled in multiple directions at work?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: When I feel I am getting pulled in many directions, I try to shift
my focus to the tasks that matter most and decide not to do other tasks.
• Leverage option: When I feel I am getting pulled in many directions, I seek to
delegate, outsource, and look for shortcuts to getting the work done.

59
• Execute option: When I feel I am getting pulled in multiple directions, I find a
quiet place where I can focus and power through my work.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: When you feel you are getting pulled in many directions,
you try to shift your focus to the tasks that matter most and decide not to do
other tasks (prioritize). You may know people who would rather outsource or
delegate (leverage) or find a quiet place to power through the work (execute).
• Leverage answer: When you feel you are getting pulled in many directions,
you seek to delegate, outsource, and look for shortcuts to getting the work
done (leverage). You may know people who would rather narrow their focus to
the tasks that matter most (prioritize) or find a quiet place to focus on powering
through the work (execute).
• Execute answer: When you feel you are getting pulled in multiple directions,
you find a quiet place where you can focus and power through your work
(execute). You may know people who would rather narrow their focus to the
tasks that matter most (prioritize) or seek to outsource or delegate (leverage).
Question 15 (What might make you change your approach to your work?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: When the circumstances that I am working under change, I
adjust my approach to the work accordingly.

60
• Leverage option: Reading a relevant book or article will make me change my
approach to my work.
• Execute option: I am unlikely to change my approach to my work once I have
started working.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: When the circumstances that you are working under
change, you adjust your approach to the work accordingly (prioritize). The
people around you may be more influenced to change the way they work based on
what they read (leverage) and some others might not change their approach to
their work once they get started (execute).
• Leverage answer: Reading a relevant book or article will make you change
your approach to your work (leverage). The people around you may be more
influenced to change the way they work based changes in their environment
(prioritize), and some others might not change their approach to their work once
they get started (execute).
• Execute answer: You are unlikely to change your approach to your work once
you have started working (execute). The people around you may be more
influenced to change the way they work based on what they read (leverage) and
some others might change their approach to work when something in the
environment changes (prioritize).

61
Strengths
This section describes the things you do well. Remember, a strength in one context can
be a disadvantage in another. Whereas a sumo wrestler relies on gaining and maintaining a high
bodyweight, the marathon runner relies on being light. Are you a marathon runner trying to
compete against a sumo wrestler? Where? On the wrestling mat, or the track? The environment
makes a difference. How does this analogy apply to you and your work?
Question 16 (Through what lens do you view information?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I have an eye for the big picture.
• Leverage option: I have an eye for how things are connected.
• Execute option: I have an eye for the details.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You have an eye for the big picture (prioritize)You notice
other people focus on the details (execute) or on how things are connected
(leverage).
• Leverage answer: You have an eye for how things are connected (leverage).
You notice other people focus on the big picture (prioritize) or the granular details
(execute).
• Execute answer: You have an eye for the details (execute). You notice that other
people may tend to focus on the big picture (prioritize) or how things are
connected (leverage).

62

Question 17 (Do you prefer abstract or concrete frameworks?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I am good at imagining potential future outcomes.
• Leverage option: I am good at maximizing technology, people's talents, templates,
and processes.
• Execute option: I am good at creating checklists and to-do lists.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: Whereas other people are great at creating checklists (execute)
or leveraging people's talents (leverage), you excel at imagining potential future
outcomes (prioritize).
• Leverage answer: Whereas other people are great at creating checklists (execute)
or imagining potential future outcomes (prioritize), you excel at maximizing
technology, people's talents, templates, and processes (leverage).
• Execute answer: Whereas other people are great at imagining potential future
outcomes (prioritize) or leveraging talent and technology (leverage), you excel at
creating checklists and to-do lists (execute).

63
Question 18 (How do you think about your work projects?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I usually know which parts of a project are most important to its
success.
• Leverage option: I usually know which parts of a project me or my team is likely
to do well.
• Execute option: I generally know how long each aspect of a project will take.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You are great at determining which elements of a project
are most important to its success (prioritize). Other people are good at
matching certain people with certain tasks (leverage) or estimating how long each
aspect of a project will take (execute).
• Leverage answer: You usually know which parts of a project you or your
team are likely to do well (leverage). Others are great at understanding which
parts of a project are most important to its success (prioritize) or estimating how
long each aspect of a project will take to complete (execute).
• Execute answer: You generally know how long each aspect of a project will
take to complete (execute). Other people are great at identifying which aspects
of a project are most important to its success (prioritize) or matching certain
projects with the people most likely to do them well (leverage).

64
Working with Others
This section should help you work with other people to accomplish big goals. Your responses
here are a good indicator of how you interact with other people and how you may be perceived
by other people.
Question 19 (How do you feel about meetings?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: A good meeting is a great opportunity to identify strategic
objectives and challenges.
• Leverage option: A good meeting is an opportunity to bring out the best ideas
from a diverse group of people.
• Execute option: Meetings mostly distract from getting real work done.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: During meetings, you like to work with others to identify
strategic objectives and challenges (prioritize). Other people like to use
meetings to get ideas from everyone to create plans (leverage) while some others
feel that meetings are often a waste of time that detracts from getting real work
done (execute).
• Leverage answer: During meetings, you like to bring out the best ideas from a
diverse group of people (leverage). Other people may be more concerned with
identifying strategic objectives and challenges (prioritize) and some others feel
that meetings are often a waste of time that detracts from real work (execute).

65
• Execute answer: You feel like meetings often distract from getting real work
done (execute) whereas others like to use them to identify strategic issues
(prioritize) or gather ideas from a diverse group (leverage).
Question 20 (How do you contribute to a team?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I often contribute to my team by trying to make sure we stay
focused on the right things.
• Leverage option: I often contribute to my team by trying to ensure we make the
best use of everyone's talents.
• Execute option: I often contribute to my team by getting work done while others
talk or think about it.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You often contribute to your team by trying to make sure
you all stay focused on the right things (prioritize). Other people on the team
might be more inclined to make the best use of each person's unique talents
(leverage), and others may contribute by working diligently (execute).
• Leverage answer: You often contribute to your team by trying to ensure you
all make the best use of everyone's talents (leverage). Other people on the team
might try to keep everyone focused on the right things (prioritize) and others may
focus on working diligently (execute).

66
• Execute answer: You often contribute to your team by getting work done
(execute) while others talk or think about it (leverage/prioritize).
Question 21 (What do other people probably think your strengths are?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: People probably think of me as someone who constantly comes
up with great ideas.
• Leverage option: People probably think of me as someone who helps others
perform at their best.
• Execute option: People probably think of me as someone who consistently gets
things done.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: People probably think of you as someone who constantly
comes up with great ideas (prioritize) while others are known from bringing the
best out of people (leverage) or getting things done (execute).
• Leverage answer: People probably think of you as someone who helps others
perform at their best (leverage) while others are known for coming up with
great ideas (prioritize) or getting things done (execute).
• Execute answer: People probably think of you as someone who consistently
gets things done (execute) while others are known for coming up with great
ideas (prioritize) or helping others perform at their best (leverage).

67
Question 22 (What type of help do people come to you for?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: People come to me for my ability to help them think through a
problem and its many parts.
• Leverage option: People come to me because I have connections and resources
that make work easier.
• Execute option: People come to me for my ability to get things done.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: People go to you for your ability to help them think through
a problem and its many parts (prioritize), but they got to other people if they
are seeking resources to make their work easier (leverage) or if they want
something done (execute).
• Leverage answer: People go to you because you have connections and
resources that make work easier (leverage), but they go to others if they want
help thinking through a problem (prioritize) or if they want something done
(execute).
• Execute answer: People go to you for your ability to get things done (execute),
but they go to others if they want help thinking through a problem (prioritize) or
resources to make the work easier (leverage).
Question 23 (What is the best way to help people?):
Select the statement that is the most true:

68
• Prioritize option: I believe the best way to help people is by asking them great
questions.
• Leverage option: I believe the best way to help people is to connect them with a
person or resource that can help them.
• Execute option: I believe the best way to help people is to try to solve their
problem for them if I can.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You believe the best way to help people is by asking them
great questions (prioritize). Others help people connecting them with resources
or people (leverage) while others try to solve the problem for them (execute).
• Leverage answer: You believe the best way to help people is to connect them
with a person or resource that can help them (leverage). Others help people by
asking them great questions (prioritize) or solving problems for them (execute).
• Execute answer: You believe the best way to help people is to try to solve their
problem for them if you can (execute). Others help people by connecting them
with people or resources (leverage) or asking them great questions (prioritize).
Question 24 (How do you most often encourage people on your team?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: I often encourage people to look at the big picture.
• Leverage option: I often encourage people to think about how to work together.

69
• Execute option: I often encourage people to focus on the details of a project or
issue.
Answers:
• Prioritize answer: You often encourage people to look at the big picture
(prioritize) while others encourage people to work together (leverage) or focus
on the details of an issue (execute).
• Leverage answer: You often encourage people to think about how to work
together (leverage) whereas others encourage people to focus on either the big
picture (prioritize) or the details (execute).
• Execute answer: You often encourage people to focus on the details of a
project or issue (execute) while others encourage people to work together
(leverage) or think about the big picture (prioritize).
Question 25 (What is the utility of delegating?):
Select the statement that is the most true:
• Prioritize option: Delegating allows me to focus on "big picture" issues.
• Leverage option: Delegating improves the quality of the work by matching the
right people with the right tasks.
• Execute option: Delegating means losing control of the quality of the work.

70
Answer:
• Prioritize answer: You feel that delegating allows you to focus on big picture
issues (prioritize) whereas others like to delegate because it matches the right
people with the tasks they can perform well (leverage). Some people are reluctant
to delegate because they like to retain control over the work (execute).
• Leverage answer: You feel that delegating improves the quality of the work by
matching the right people with the right tasks (leverage) whereas others
delegate so they can focus on big picture issues (prioritize). Some people are
reluctant to delegate because they like to retain control over the work (execute).
• Execute answer: You feel that delegating means losing control of the quality of
the work (execute) whereas others delegate so they can focus on big picture
issues (prioritize) or match talent with tasks (leverage).
Presenting Achievement Assessment Results
Levels of Orientation: The Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Orientations
This assessment, similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Huefner et al., 1996)
describes primary, secondary, and tertiary orientations. Everyone is capable of using each of the
three orientations, but most people tend to rely on one more than the other two. People can, and
often do, change their achievement orientation as they move through life and work. Achievement
orientations are like muscles, the more you use a particular orientation, the stronger it gets.
What is a Primary Orientation? Your primary orientation is the one that comes most
naturally to you at this point in your life and career. You are likely to employ your primary

71
orientation above the other two, especially when you are under pressure. The fact that this is your
primary orientation does not mean that it will always work to your advantage or that you will
consistently apply the key aspects of the orientation in an effective way. That is why the primary
orientation contains three sections: 1) the summary, 2) “When you are at your best,” and 3)
“Where you may struggle.” Strive to draw out your primary orientation behaviors listed under
the “When you are at your best” section.
What is a Secondary Orientation? Your secondary orientation is one that you can rely
on to enhance the effectiveness of your primary orientation.
What is a Tertiary Orientation? Your tertiary orientation is the one you rely on the
least. You should work to improve your ability to employ this orientation if it is required for your
current career level or the career level you are looking to move into; otherwise you should seek
to work closely with people whose primary orientation is your tertiary orientation so they can
cover your weaknesses. If you work with someone whose primary orientation is your tertiary
orientation, it may be difficult for you to communicate with each other. If you can master that
relationship, you can be highly beneficial to one another.
The Prioritize Orientation
Anytime the Respondent’s Primary Orientation is Prioritize. Your primary
orientation is prioritize. You highly value your ability to think critically. You can think far into
the future when you consider what you or your team should be doing. Where others feel
uncomfortable with ambiguity, you see it as freedom to explore multiple outcomes. You rapidly
and frequently create alternatives and options. Before a project gets underway, you usually try to

72
ensure that it makes sense to move in a particular direction. Delegating work to other people
enables you to focus on big picture issues.

When you are at your best:
• You are able to quickly make big decisions that have a long-term impact.
• You can help people think through complex problems and focus on what truly matters.
• You excel at breaking big goals down into smaller, achievable milestones that will lead to
the ultimate goal.
• You inspire others by painting a compelling vision of what is possible.
• You have the rare ability to say “no” to things that are distractions from the activities that
will lead to the ultimate goal.
Where you may struggle:
• You may overthink things and suffer from analysis paralysis.
• It may take you a bit long to start working on a project because you are busy considering
a wide range of possibilities.
• You may play “devil's advocate” so much that people lose confidence in their own ability
to come up with ideas.
• People may get frustrated with you if you change your mind on big decisions too often.
• If you don’t understand the “why” of your work, it’s hard for you to stay motivated.

73
• You struggle with tedious or repetitive work.

When the Respondents Secondary Orientation is Prioritize (Primary = Leverage,
Tertiary = Execute). Your secondary achievement orientation is the prioritize orientation.
Though you mostly see the world through the lens of the leverage orientation, you are also able
to think critically about the world around you. Your first inclination is to lean into the leverage
orientation to think about how things are connected and think about how to make work easy, but
you also spend some time thinking about how the work contributes to a larger priority. You can
easily communicate with other people whose top two orientations are also prioritize or leverage.
As you learn to employ the prioritize orientation in conjunction with the leverage orientation,
you will be able to create complex plans based on the most important goals of your organization.
When the Respondents Secondary Orientation is Prioritize (Primary = Execute,
Tertiary = Leverage). Your secondary achievement orientation is the prioritize orientation.
Though you mostly see the world through the lens of the execute orientation, you are also able to
think critically about the world around you. Your first inclination is to lean into the execute
orientation to focus on the details and get work done, but you also spend some time thinking
about how the work contributes to a larger goal. You can easily communicate with other people
whose top two orientations are also prioritize or execute. As you learn to employ the prioritize
orientation in conjunction with the execute orientation, you will be able to work tenaciously on
the projects that support your larger goals and the goals of the organization.
Anytime the Respondent’s Tertiary Orientation is Prioritize. Of the three
achievement orientations, you are least likely to employ the prioritize orientation. You are

74
stronger in the arenas of getting things done (execute), and leveraging processes, technology and
people’s talents (leverage). You run the risk of rushing to build a plan and executing before a
promising destination is set. In other words, without the proper focus on what is most important,
you might “build a bridge to nowhere.” At the same time, you will pair well with people whose
primary orientation is prioritize because these folks often have great ideas but have a hard time
translating their ideas into action. Whereas people whose primary orientation is prioritize tend to
have vivid imaginations, you tend to be more practical. They can help you dream bigger and you
can help them ground their dreams in reality. The key to lasting success will be to overcome the
challenge of communications differences between your achievement orientation and theirs.
Leverage Summaries:
Anytime the Respondent’s Primary Orientation is Leverage: Your primary
orientation is leverage. You tend to think about how things are connected, and you naturally
recognize patterns. This outlook puts you in a position to implement processes, leverage
technology, and empower people to solve problems. Planning is important to you, especially
when there are lots of moving pieces involved. You get annoyed or frustrated by repetitive tasks
that you feel could be automated. You like to adopt templates and processes rather than “reinvent
the wheel” or duplicate efforts. You prefer to invest time or money before starting a project to
ensure that there is a plan and adequate resources in place to effectively carry out the work.
When you’re at your best:
• You create processes that make getting work done easier.
• You can organize complex projects with lots of moving parts to make sure they all fit
together.

75
• You know when to reach out for help and who to reach out to.
• You thoughtfully and effectively match the right people with the right projects to increase
the likelihood of the person’s engagement, commitment and chances of success.
• You are highly concerned with getting people the right resources and training to do their
job effectively.
• You connect people across your organization, and across your life to share knowledge
and resources and build relationships.
• People on your team feel energized and valued because you listen to their feedback and
seek to put them in positions where they can thrive and grow.
Where you may struggle:
• Your love for processes and systems may cause you to create cumbersome bureaucracy
that bogs people down without producing adequate payoff.
• It can sometimes take you a long time to get started on projects because you are busy
concocting plans.
• Your high reliance on collaboration may cause you to bring people into conversation and
decision-making processes who do not contribute value but slow things down or
unnecessarily complicate things.
• You may confine yourself or your organization to the things you are good at, which may
restrict you from exploring new or uncomfortable territory.

76
• You may get carried away “networking” and creating connections just in case. This can
result in a lot of unnecessary coffee dates and email exchanges when it’s possible your
time could be better spent elsewhere.
• You may overspend on technological investments that are cumbersome or unnecessary.
When the Respondents Secondary Orientation is Leverage (Primary = Prioritize,
Tertiary = Execute): Your secondary achievement orientation is the leverage orientation.
Though you mostly see the world through the lens of the prioritize orientation, you are also able
to find ways of making work easier. Your first inclination is to lean into the prioritize orientation
to ensure the work contributes to a larger goal, but you also spend time thinking about how to
leverage technology and talent to make projects easier. You can easily communicate with other
people whose top two orientations are also prioritize or leverage. As you learn to employ the
leverage orientation in conjunction with the prioritize orientation, you will be able to create
complex plans based on the most important goals of your organization.
When the Respondents Secondary Orientation is Leverage (Primary = Execute,
Tertiary = Prioritize): Your secondary achievement orientation is the leverage orientation.
Though you mostly see the world through the lens of the execute orientation, you are also able to
find ways of making work easier. Your first inclination is to lean into the execute orientation to
focus on the details and get work done, but you also spend time thinking about how to leverage
technology and talent to make projects easier. You can easily communicate with other people
whose top two orientations are also execute or leverage. As you learn to employ the leverage
orientation in conjunction with the execute orientation, you will be able to create complex plans
and ensure they are carried out.

77
Anytime the Respondent’s Tertiary Orientation is Leverage. Your tertiary orientation
is the leverage orientation. You are stronger in the arenas of getting things done (execute) and
setting big goals (prioritize). You know what should be done and you are determined to do it, so
you run the risk of burning yourself out if you don’t look for ways to delegate or make the work
easier. At the same time, you will pair well with people whose primary orientation is leverage
because these folks can often implement systems that make getting work done easier but may
lack your ability to identify what matters most or get things done. Whereas people whose
primary orientation is leverage tend to love systems and processes, you may not stop to think
about how something can be systematized. People with a primary leverage orientation can help
you make the work easier by delegating or applying technology and you can help them ensure
the systems they build are goal oriented and feasible. The key to lasting success will be to
overcome the challenge of communications differences between your achievement orientation
and theirs.
Execute Orientation
Anytime the Respondent’s Primary Orientation is Execute. Your primary
achievement orientation is execute. You are extremely committed to getting things done and
your solution to most problems is to take immediate action. You can generally work for long
periods of time if you are not interrupted. Checklists and schedules help you understand what
needs to be done and how long tasks will take. You have an eye for the details and you can
typically recall information faster than others. You often persevere through difficult tasks,
regardless of how tedious or monotonous they are.

78
When you’re at your best:
• You are tenacious and focused on getting the job done.
• You have a solid command of the technical knowledge and skills to get the job done.
• You are constantly thinking about what is feasible and realistic.
• You can help implement plans and break logjams by being the first to take action.
• You are highly organized and structured in your work and you are great at creating
checklists, tagging, and color-coding things.
• You are highly focused on productivity and can encourage the people around you to
tackle mountains of work.
• When people need help, you can often help them on the spot.
Where you may struggle:
• You may waste massive amounts of time working on things that ultimately don’t matter
because they are not connected to a larger goal.
• It can be hard for you to delegate to others because you believe things will be easier or
better if you just do them yourself.
• Your tendency to solve other people’s problems directly may deprive them of
opportunities to develop.
• It may be difficult for you to change course in your work, even when doing so might
improve the results.
• You might be disconnected during meetings.

79
• You may jump into projects before the direction has been set.
• You may see training and mentoring people as a waste of time, which could limit your
positive impact on the team.

When the Respondents Secondary Orientation is Execute (primary = Prioritize,
Tertiary = Leverage): Your secondary achievement orientation is the execute orientation.
Though you mostly see the world through the lens of the prioritize orientation, you are still able
to lean into the execute orientation to focus on the details and get work done. Your first
inclination is to use the prioritize orientation to ensure the work contributes to a large and
ambitious goal, you are also very concerned with making sure the goals are trackable and
achievable. You can easily communicate with other people whose top two orientations are also
prioritize or execute. As you learn to employ the execute orientation in conjunction with the
prioritize orientation, you will be able to work tenaciously on the projects that support your
larger goals and the goals of the organization.
When the Respondents Secondary Orientation is Execute (primary = Leverage,
Tertiary = Prioritize). Your secondary achievement orientation is the execute orientation.
Though you mostly see the world through the lens of the leverage orientation, you are still able
to call upon the execute orientation to focus on the details and get work done. Your first
inclination is to lean into the leverage orientation to think about how things are connected and
think about how to make work easy, you are also very concerned with making sure plans are
practical and productive. You can easily communicate with other people whose top two
orientations are also leverage or execute. As you learn to employ the execute orientation in

80
conjunction with the leverage orientation, you will be able to create complex plans that are
highly feasible and productive.
Anytime the Respondent’s Tertiary Orientation is Execute. Your tertiary orientation
is the execute orientation. You are stronger in the arenas of setting big goals (prioritize) and
leveraging processes, technology and people’s talents (leverage). You know what should be done
and you can create amazing plans and systems, but you’re less interested in carrying out the
actual work so you run the risk of your ideas dying before they are born. At the same time, you
will pair well with people whose primary orientation is execute because these folks often love to
take ideas and plans and run with them but may lack the ability to identify what matters most or
fully leverage resources. Whereas people whose primary orientation is execute tend to love
systems and processes, you may get lost in your thoughts or trapped by indecision. People with a
primary execute orientation can carry out your ideas and you can help them dream bigger and
avoid burnout. The key to lasting success will be to overcome the challenge of communications
differences between your achievement orientation and theirs.
Career Level and the Achievement Index
The following section provides some general notes about how each orientation applies to
four different career levels. Every person is different and every organization is different. The
guidelines below do not represent a set of unshakable rules, but rather a framework for thinking
about how your primary, secondary, and tertiary achievement orientations apply to your current
career level and how you can prepare for the next level. Consider these guidelines in addition to
your overall Achievement Index description and your individual responses, which are detailed
later in this report.

81
These career levels should not be thought of in terms of age of the person holding the role
or length of time at the organization. Instead, career level should be considered with regards to a
person’s responsibilities and experience. The first two career levels, entry-level individual
contributor and senior individual contributor, are generally considered non-supervisory career
levels. The manager and executive career levels are, by definition, supervisory career levels.
Therefore, for the purposes of this report, people who have executive titles such as “vice
president” but do not supervise people would be considered senior-level individual contributors.
A final note, so many people progress through different career levels for the wrong
reasons. Don’t be one of those people. Some people are perfectly happy to go their entire career
without supervising anyone. Don’t feel compelled to become a manager or an executive as a
result of this section. Instead consider how much you’re already aligned with the next level, and
if you would want to adjust your achievement orientation in order to be successful there.
Entry-Level Individual Contributor
Most entry level roles demand a strong execution orientation. Entry level positions are
often directly responsible for delivering the products or services of an organization. People
entering this career level often face a steep learning curve with regards to procedures and
technical skills. The execution orientation encourages the persistence required for people to
progress up the learning curve and become a competent professional. It may be difficult to apply
the prioritize or leverage orientations at this level.
Entry level positions often lack the authority or perspective to make big decisions
consistent with the prioritize orientation. That lack of autonomy or influence at this level. It can
also be hard to see the big picture because of your lack of access to information and contextual

82
information. If you have a strong leverage orientation, it will likely shine through in your
individual use of technology and creation of processes that make your work easier.
If you naturally tend towards the prioritize orientation then you may become frustrated by
the direction of the organization at times. If you naturally tend towards the leverage orientation,
you may become frustrated by how the organization gets things done. You will have the
opportunity to prioritize or leverage in the future, but only if you can lean on the execute
orientation at this career level.
Senior-Level Individual Contributor
At this level, you are expected to master the execute orientation by demonstrating strong
technical skill and the ability to get things done with speed and accuracy. You should be able to
accomplish most tasks correctly the first time without much guidance. In your entry level
position, you leaned on the execute orientation to persevere through problems and conduct trial
and error as you confronted the learning curve of the job. Now, you lean on your execute
orientation to be highly productive.
In order to maximize your effectiveness at this level, you should attempt to employ the
leverage orientation to train people in entry level positions and volunteer to lead projects. This
will give you an opportunity to develop the leverage muscles you will need in order to be
effective in a management role. Executives and managers with authority and perspective may
expect you to occasionally employ the prioritize orientation by asking your opinion about what
should be done. You can help them make decisions by grounding their ideas in reality. When
providing your feedback and opinions at this point, make an effort to consider how your
suggestions fit into the larger organizational picture.
Manager (of people)

83
The manager career level demands a leverage orientation. Managers are typically not
involved in the highest levels of decision making but are expected to ensure that the high-level
priorities are carried out. Managers also typically have access to people and technological
resources they can leverage to get results. Your effectiveness at this stage depends greatly on
your ability to match people’s talents with projects they are likely to do well. In order to fully
leverage the people you manage you’ll need to help them develop and match them with the
resources they need to do their jobs effectively.
If you were promoted to manager for your ability to execute, that orientation may begin
to work against you here. Now you are responsible for too much work for you to do it yourself. It
is time to let go of the parts of the execution orientation that might compel you to do everything
yourself. The people you manage will depend on you for guidance and training, which takes lots
of time. The stronger your tendency towards the execute orientation, the more difficult it will be
to dedicate time to the leverage orientation, but you need to do it to be an effective manager.
As a manager, you may not have the autonomy to fully capitalize on the prioritize
orientation, but you probably have the opportunity to become a trusted advisor to people in
executive roles. As you master the leverage orientation, seek to sit in on meetings where big
decisions are being made. Volunteer to take on projects that you find vital to the success of the
organization, even if they may extend a bit beyond the scope of your normal work. This will help
you get more comfortable with big picture issues and help you develop the prioritize orientation
required to be successful at the executive level.
Executive
When you become an executive, the prioritize orientation is essential to your success and
the success of your organization. As an executive, you have the authority, perspective, and

84
responsibility to make decisions that have a lasting impact on your organization. The prioritize
orientation will help you make decisions that impact your entire department or your entire
organization. People will look to you to confidently set direction through uncertain territory.
As a manager the leverage orientation was highly important because you were
responsible for carrying out ideas. At the executive level you are responsible for generating
them. While there are a number of organizational formats that push the authority to make big
decisions down to managers and individual contributors, most organizations rely on executives
to set direction. People in executive positions spend most of their time in the prioritize and
leverage orientations, but it’s important to apply the aspects of the execute orientation that
successfully estimate timelines and understand the metrics that drive the work of your
organization.
The more you employ the prioritize orientation as an executive, the more you run the risk
of forgetting how things actually get done in your organization. That’s why it is important to lean
on your ability to leverage others. You will need the perspective of managers and individual
contributors to inform your prioritize orientation and make big decisions.

85
Chapter 5: Discussion
This brief chapter will identify talk about the successes and shortcomings in the
construction of the Achievement Index and propose future actions for its development.
Summary of Findings by Research Question
1. How do the tendencies for a person to prioritize, leverage, and execute inform their
performance in the workplace?
This question was important in guiding the dissertation and the assessment construction
process because it served as the prompt to identify and link leadership concepts from scholarly
research to the definitions of prioritize leverage and execute that I established. This question was
successfully answered to the extent possible by reviewing academic literature. As I will discuss
briefly below, further research efforts would greatly aid and refining these results.
2. How can assessment be constructed to assess a person’s tendency to prioritize, leverage, or
execute?
This question helped guide the logical construction and flow of the Achievement Index.
The juxtaposition of the potential answer choices with the narrative answers in chapter 4
highlights the logical link between the respondents’ choices and the answers they receive. While
the assessment would benefit greatly from additional research that includes a sample, the logic
that holds the assessment together they sound enough to provide value two real respondents in
their workplaces.
In addition to guiding the logical construction of the assessment. This question also
helped me successfully apply the Standards to the development process. Not every standard was
satisfied but there was enough adherence to the Standards for the commensurate level of risk and

86
consequences involved and taking the assessment. Future research efforts with a sample will help
increase the reliability and validity of the Achievement Index.
The Need for Future Research
The use of a sample as described above would enable the statistical analysis necessary to
establish a reliability coefficient and standard error. Increasing the reliability in this way would
enable the use of the Achievement Index to make bold claims across a broad range of settings. It
would also provide respondents with the ability to compare their results across time and job role.
As it stands, the Achievement Index should be used primarily for self-reflection and personal
development. With increased reliability and refinement, this assessment could be used more
generally to establish teams and make staffing decisions.
Future Research Proposed in Three Phases
Phase 1: Professional Review
The first phase of future research would be a professional review. A sample size of 12 to
15 professionals should review the content, delivery, and logic underpinning the assessment.
These professionals should have extensive professional backgrounds, training, or certification in
the fields of organizational development, leadership coaching, business leadership, psychology,
and assessment use and construction. Each professional will receive a copy chapter 4 of this
dissertation, which details the construction of the assessment. They will also have the
opportunity to take the assessment on the online platform to experience the respondent
perspective and understand the delivery of the results. Then, professionals will provide written or
verbal feedback on the assessment tool. After analyzing the feedback, the assessment should be

87
updated. The objective of this phase is to increase the internal validity of the assessment before it
is tested on a sample population.
Phase 2: Pilot to Establish Validity
The second phase of future research would be a pilot study on a sample of at least 100
respondents. The sample would need to include people in all stages of their career in order to
ensure the assessment can gain validity and reliability across career levels. After each person in
the sample population completed the assessment, qualitative interviews would be conducted with
a random stratified sample of 30 respondents to ensure data collection from each career level.
The qualitative interviews would include questions regarding the accuracy of the assessment
would be explored. The interviews would also seek to gain personal backstory to get a deeper
understanding of why each respondent chose the answers they did. Interviews would be coded
for themes, which would allow for frequencies to be considered in a quantitative analysis. A
quantitative analysis would also be conducted to understand the relationship between answer
choices and the relationships between those choices and the coded themes. Then the assessment
should be revised accordingly. The goal of this phase is to establish validity.
Phase 3: A Study to Establish Reliability
The assessment should be administered to a new sample of at least 100 people. A
statistical analysis should be conducted to confirm validity. Then six months the same population
should be given the assessment again to confirm reliability. If there are no statistically significant
changes that cannot be explained by change of career level or the completion of relevant training,
the assessment can establish a base level of reliability. All of these research efforts must be
guided by the Standards.

88
A More Robust Study
Posner and Krouse (1988, p. 486) followed similar procedures to the ones proposed
above when the validated the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). The researchers distributed
the LPI to a group of more than 100 working professionals (the majority of whom had
management experience) who were also enrolled in an MBA program. The researcher engaged in
a question-by-question discussion with the respondents to validate each question. The
researchers also asked nine processionals and academics to review the framework and content of
the LPI. The reviewers represented fields including psychology, organizational development, and
leadership. In subsequent studies, the researchers were able to test the LPI on thousands of
people and in (Posner, 2016) made a claim that more than three million people had taken the
LPI.
Conclusion
Overall, this dissertation did what it set out to do–designed an assessment to measure and
help people improve their high-performance leadership capacity. It is my intention to build on
the Achievement Index and the next step is to test it on a sample population and gather
qualitative feedback from respondents in order to build validity and reliability so that the
assessment can be applied to a wider range of settings. For instance, I would love to create a
version that enables the Achievement Index to be used as a 360-degree feedback tool. I would
also like to create a survey that enables people to determine the types of achievement
orientations are best suited for a particular position in the workplace.

89
I believe the Achievement Index covers a gap and leadership development an assessment
practices I'm excited to see where this can make a difference in people's lives as I continue to
develop it.

90
Appendix A: The Researcher’s Personal Statement
When I was eight years old, I came home from school one day to find my mother reading
a novel as she did so often. “I hate school,” I uttered as I plopped down in the recliner across
from her. “Well, you know, we’re thinking about homeschooling you,” she responded casually
without looking up from her book. I was shocked! “So you mean I could just not go to fifth
grade?” I asked as a heaping dose of skepticism corralled my excitement. Maintaining her casual
demeanor, she said, “you don’t have to go back tomorrow if you don’t want to.” So began my
unorthodox journey through life.
I was an easily distracted student who always wanted to understand why we were doing
what we were doing. Filling out worksheets and engaging in classroom rituals was a challenge
for me. Most kids’ parents compelled their kids to stay engaged. For better or worse, mine let me
remove myself entirely. My father is still very proud that I learned the Pythagorean theorem in
my homeschooling studies ahead of my peers in elementary school. It’s impressive, but my
conventional education at home didn’t extend much beyond that formula.
As a homeschooled student, I was even harder to wrangle than I was in public school, and
my parents weren’t exactly sticklers. As a result, I submitted to very little structured learning at
home. I was an adventurous, entrepreneurial kid, though. I launched more than one business
venture before the age of 13 and dreamed of gaining financial Independence as I watched my
parents struggle at times. At one point we lived in a state park out of our car. I was five years old
so it felt more like an adventure than a symptom of poverty.
As I grew older though, I had a strong desire to make my own money. For example, in
the nineties, macramé jewelry was popular. I got really good at making necklaces, bracelets, and
rings. I convinced my parents to help me rent a booth at the local farmers market and partnered

91
with the owner of the bead shop in our small town to split the cost of a booth. My sales were
lousy but I fell in love with the idea of controlling my financial fate and thinking creatively to
solve problems.
In nearly every grade, I felt the need to return to public school. Sometimes I thought I
was missing out on opportunities to socialize with my friends and make new ones. Other times I
felt guilty for how little schoolwork I was doing at home. So, most years between the fourth and
twelfth grades grade, I would return to school in some capacity only to realize why I left in the
first place and choose to leave again. There were only two years between the fourth and twelfth
grades that I remained enrolled in public school the entire academic year.
It wasn’t just in school that my parents let me quit without resistance. I also played sports
of all types most years I was growing up. In nearly every season, I reached a point when the
demands of the sport started to wear on me, and I would make it known. “Mom, I don’t want to
go to practice,” I would moan. “Well... okay,” my mom nearly always responded. Shortly after
that first missed practice, I usually quit the season altogether. Later in my life, I cultivated the
perseverance and discipline to become a US Army Special Forces Green Beret, but I clearly was
not born with it.
My lackluster work ethic did not prevent me from having larger than life goals. When I
was about 13 years old, I developed an X-Files induced obsession with the FBI and dreamed of
one day joining its ranks. During my senior year in high school, I called the local FBI field office
in Seattle to speak with someone who could tell me how to join. I remember my heart pounding
as I dialed the phone number. “FBI,” a man’s solemn voice said on the other end. I told him I
had questions about joining, so he took my number and said someone would call me back.

92
I placed that phone call at a time when my family and I were watching my mother lose a
gruesome, very short battle with pancreatic cancer. She was diagnosed in June of my junior year
and succumbed to its effects just five months later in October of my senior year. At that point, I
was no prize student, and losing my mother made me nearly useless at school. I never had
excellent study habits or a passion for conventional learning, so the added stress of losing my
mother paralyzed me.
I had two choices: become a second-year senior or try to get my GED and see what
opportunities I might have then. The idea of staying in high school another year was unbearable,
but the prospect of getting a GED left me wondering how I would get any job, let alone get into
the FBI. I realized that I had established a pattern of quitting nearly everything I started as soon
as it got too difficult. I felt stuck.
I vividly remember sitting in the parking lot of the high school, contemplating dropping
out, when a lovely woman from the FBI returned my phone call about recruitment. She said I
needed a bachelor’s degree in any field (as long as my performance was stellar) and three years
of work experience as a lawyer, an accountant, a police officer, or in military service. I asked her
about my chances of getting in (as if she had a crystal ball) and she said, “it’s very competitive,
so you’ll have to do your best.” I was contemplating dropping out of school the very moment she
called, which at the time sounded like the opposite of what she advised me to do. I wanted to
keep her on the phone indefinitely. As long as she was on the phone, my dreams of being in the
FBI felt real. After she patiently answered every question I could think of, I let her go.
My goals suddenly felt impossibly far away. Somewhere deep down I knew that the best
thing would be to persevere through high school and follow the plan the FBI recruiter laid out for
me, but I knew that my days in high school would be excruciating and therefore unproductive.

93
There was no way I could get the “stellar” performance required for the FBI if I forced myself to
stay. I would have to find another way.
After we got off the phone, I walked into the academic advisor’s office and let them
know that I would be dropping out and pursuing my GED. I suspect most people who would
have tried to predict my future that day would have gotten it wrong. In less than a decade, I
would accomplish my dreams of joining the FBI and gaining financial Independence operating
my own business, along with numerous goals that would have seemed impossible for much of
my life.
Afterall, by the time I dropped out of high school, I had missed nearly every conventional
mark of success. I didn’t have the pedigree, a history of proven results, discipline, or
perseverance. I recognized that if I were to accomplish big goals, I would be competing against
people who had been conditioned to achieve conventional success their whole lives. If I were to
be successful, I would have to do something extraordinary. I was not interested in incremental
improvements, which would have done little to get me where I wanted to be. I needed to figure
out how to achieve dramatic results in a condensed time frame when the odds were against me.
I eventually started figuring things out, but my early victories felt like flukes, or like I
fooled everyone. At 18 years old, US Army Basic training was the first thing that I ever finished.
I felt like I slid by, like I didn’t deserve to graduate. I struggled hard with “imposter syndrome”
in those days. Especially when I watched my high-achieving peers work to check every so-called
box and I felt like I was not working near as frantically as they were. I felt that I must be doing
something wrong. I had stumbled onto a way to fast track to my goals and I didn’t quite
understand it. I began asking myself “how did you do that?”

94
My self-reflection led to an epiphany: success doesn’t depend on doing everything right.
Success is dependent on doing the right things right. This is the foundation for the tactics I have
used to accomplish whatever I set my mind to in my adulthood. Now, as a professional coach, I
share these tactics to help my high-performing clients overcome obstacles and achieve even
higher levels of success.
I have been fortunate to have an amazing set of experiences to draw from for this work.
When I emerged from my lackadaisical adolescence, I was decorated for my actions in Iraq, got
admitted to a top-tier university for both undergraduate and doctoral programs, I joined the FBI,
became a Green Beret, built and sold a business (then built another one), coached some of the
most amazing business people in the world, and cultivated a beautiful family by the age of 35
years old. I do not list these accomplishments to be boastful, but to convey the fact that I had to
learn how to cover vast distances in my life with few resources and little preparation, so I must
have learned something along the way.
I am also very grateful to have taken graduate coursework to add academic context to my
experiences. Classes like Human Behavior in Public Organizations, Strategic Planning in the
Public Sector, Intersectoral Leadership, Social Innovation, Statistics, Risk Analysis,
Organizational and Management Consulting, and Policy and Program Evaluation provided me
with venues for study and robust discussions about how people and teams can improve. This
coursework also provided me with formal research skills to test and inform my perspectives and
my work.

95
References
American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for educational and
psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Athanasopoulou, A., & Dopson, S. (2018). A systematic review of executive coaching outcomes:
Is it the journey or the destination that matters the most? The Leadership Quarterly,
29(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.004
Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-
choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
104(11), 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
Carney, B., & Getz, I. (2018, September 10). Give Your Team the Freedom to Do the Work
They Think Matters Most. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/09/give-your-
team-the-freedom-to-do-the-work-they-think-matters-most
Collins, J. (2011). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don’t (1
edition). HarperBusiness.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
DalleMule, L., & Davenport, T. H. (2017, May 1). What’s Your Data Strategy? Harvard
Business Review, May–June 2017. https://hbr.org/2017/05/whats-your-data-strategy
Daniel, T. L. (1992). Identifying Critical Leadership Competencies of Manufacturing
Supervisors in a Major Electronics Corporation. Group & Organization Management,
17(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601192171005

96
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
Dranikoff, L., Koller, T., & Schneider, A. (2002, May 1). Divestiture: Strategy’s Missing Link.
Harvard Business Review, May 2002. https://hbr.org/2002/05/divestiture-strategys-
missing-link
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.
Execute | Definition of execute by Lexico. (n.d.). Lexico Dictionaries | English. Retrieved
September 3, 2019, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/execute
Finkelstein, L. M., Costanza, D. P., & Goodwin, G. F. (2018). I-O Psychologists Can Help Make
Sure Your HiPos Aren’t NoPos. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 257–
261. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.15
Garrett, G. A., & Pursch, W. C. (2006, April). Building High-Performance Buying and Selling
Teams. Contract Management; McLean, 46(4), 52–59.
Grote, D. (2017, January 2). 3 Popular Goal-Setting Techniques Managers Should Avoid.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/01/3-popular-goal-setting-techniques-
managers-should-avoid
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. The Academy of Management
Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159303
Hogan, R., Lusk, D., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2018). Are Your HiPos Overrated?(high-
potential). People & Strategy, 41(1), 38–41.

97
Huefner, J. C., Hunt, H. K., & Robinson, P. B. (1996). A comparison of four scales predicting
entrepreneurship. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 56-. Gale OneFile:
Business.
Inc, G. (n.d.). CliftonStrengths. Gallup.Com. Retrieved March 24, 2020, from
https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/252137/home.aspx
International Coach Federation, & Pricewaterhouse Cooper. (2016). 2016 ICF Global Coaching
Study [Global Study]. International Coach Federation.
https://coachfederation.org/app/uploads/2017/12/2016ICFGlobalCoachingStudy_Executi
veSummary-2.pdf
Ivankova, N. V. (2014). Mixed Methods Applications in Action Research: From Methods to
Community Action. SAGE Publications.
Ives, Y. (2008). What is ‘Coaching’? An Exploration of Conflicting Paradigms. International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6(2), 100–113.
Kaplan, R. S., Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard:
Translating Strategy Into Action. Harvard Business Press.
Kotlyar, I. (2018). High-Potential Programs: Why Still a Gap? Journal of Leadership,
Accountability and Ethics; Lighthouse Point, 15(1), 60–73.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Press.
Laske, O. (2004). Can Evidence Based Coaching Increase ROI? International Journal of
Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 41–53.
Leadership Practices Inventory. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2019, from
http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/professionals-section-lpi.aspx

98
Longenecker, C. (2010). Coaching for better results: Key practices of high performance leaders |
Emerald Insight. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 32–40.
Malik, A. R., & Singh, P. (2014). ‘High potential’ programs: Let’s hear it for ‘B’ players. Human
Resource Management Review, 24(4), 330–346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.06.001
McChesney, C., Covey, S., & Huling, J. (2016). The 4 Disciplines of Execution: Achieving Your
Wildly Important Goals. Simon and Schuster.
Melum, M. (2002). Developing High-Performance Leaders Developing High-Performance
Leaders 55. QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 14.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The War for Talent. Harvard Business
Press.
Morris, G. J., & Rogers, K. (2013). High Potentials Are Still Your Best Bet. T + D; Alexandria,
67(2), 58-62,8.
Polsfuss, C., & Ardichvili, A. (2009). State-of-Mind as the Master Competency for High-
Performance Leadership. Organization Development Journal; Chesterland, 27(3), 23–33.
Porter, M. E. (1996, November 1). What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, November–
December 1996, 61–78.
Posner, B. Z. (2016). Investigating the Reliability and Validity of the Leadership Practices
Inventory®. Administrative Sciences; Basel, 6(4), 17.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.3390/admsci6040017
Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and Validation of the Leadership Practices
Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(2), 483–496.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488482024

99
Prioritize | Definition of prioritize by Lexico. (n.d.). Lexico Dictionaries | English. Retrieved
September 3, 2019, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/prioritize
Productions, M., Grooters. (n.d.). 5 Love Language Profiles. The 5 Love Languages®. Retrieved
March 24, 2020, from https://www.5lovelanguages.com/quizzes/
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative
Inquiry and Practice. SAGE.
Reynolds, A., & Lewis, D. (2017, October 30). Closing the Strategy-Execution Gap Means
Focusing on What Employees Think, Not What They Do. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2017/10/closing-the-strategy-execution-gap-means-focusing-on-what-
employees-think-not-what-they-do
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential | Industrial and
Organizational Psychology | Cambridge Core. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 377-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2009.01163.x
Smallwood, N., & Ulrich, D. (2004, June 1). Capitalizing on Capabilities. Harvard Business
Review, June 2004. https://hbr.org/2004/06/capitalizing-on-capabilities
Strategy Execution and Change Management Consultants. (n.d.). Kotter. Retrieved October 27,
2019, from https://www.kotterinc.com/
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action Research (4 edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
The Gold Standard in Coaching | ICF - Core Competencies. (n.d.). International Coach
Federation. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://coachfederation.org/core-
competencies

100
USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. (2020, February 2). Doctor of Policy, Planning, and
Development. USC Sol Price School of Public Policy.
https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/doctoral-programs/dppd/
What are Holland Codes? - Learn More About Career Test Theory | 123test. (n.d.). Retrieved
March 24, 2020, from https://www.123test.com/holland-codes-career-tests/
Wilson, L. S., Boudreaux, M. A., & Edwards, M. (2000). High-Performance Leadership at the
Individual Level. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2(2), 73–103.
https://doi.org/10.1177/152342230000200205
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2018). Getting the Right People in the Hi-Po Pool. People and
Strategy, 41(1), 28–31.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract High-performance leadership is highly desired in the workplace however there is little agreement as to how to define, measure, or develop high-performance leaders. Development programs for high-potential employees, or HiPo programs as they are often called, have grown in popularity over recent years. Many scholars have found these programs are often haphazardly operated (Finkelstein et al., 2018

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Does organizational culture play a role in aviation safety? A qualitative case study analysis

PDF

Conditions for an app serving unplanned urban communities: integrating cell phones into health promotion messaging

PDF

Critical factors in evaluating compliance to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540: developing a methodology for compliance evaluation

PDF

How can metrics matter: performance management reforms in the City of Los Angeles

PDF

Looking to the stars: perceptions of celebrity influence in the nonprofit sector

PDF

China-Africa cooperation: an assessment through the lens of China’s development experience

PDF

Goal setting and performance in federal agencies

PDF

Making an impact with high-net-worth philanthropists: understanding their attributes and engagement preferences at nonprofit organizations

PDF

The role of leadership and collaboration as a catalyst for regional economic development: a grounded theory study

PDF

Using technology to drive high academic achievement

PDF

Workplace conflict and employment retaliation in law enforcement; an examination of the causes, effects and viable solutions

PDF

Emerging best practices for using offline mobile phones to train English teachers in developing countries

PDF

Productive frictions and urbanism in transition: planning lessons from traffic flows and urban street life in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

PDF

Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education

PDF

Property and labor formalization in the age of the sharing economy: Airbnb, housing affordability, and entrepreneurship in Havana

PDF

Jobs, not jail: Homeboy Industries, a radical approach to redirecting adolescents away from the criminal justice system

PDF

Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity

PDF

Latina elected officials in California: a call to action to prepare and pipeline Latinas into the political process

PDF

Understanding the varied effects of leadership on employee retention in high stress work environments

PDF

Who learns where: understanding the equity implications of charter school reform in the District of Columbia

Asset Metadata

Creator Emeka, Apollo (author)

Core Title Constructing the achievement index: an assessment to help people achieve high-performance leadership in the workplace

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 04/26/2020

Defense Date 03/23/2020

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

Tag achievement index,assessment,Coaching,high-performance,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,prioritization,professional development

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Musso, Juliet (committee chair), Geffner, Carol (committee member), Natoli, Deborah (committee member)

Creator Email aemeka@usc.edu,apollo.emeka@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-288313

Unique identifier UC11663278

Identifier etd-EmekaApoll-8350.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-288313 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EmekaApoll-8350.pdf

Dmrecord 288313

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Emeka, Apollo

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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