Talent Q Dimensions - Korn Ferry · Elements for cognitive ability ... The Talent Q Dimensions KFLA...

Talent QDimensions

KFLA Competency Report, Development Guide, and Interview GuideUser guide and technical informationSeptember 2017

ii © Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.ii © Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL MANUALS FOR THE NEW KORN FERRY ASSESSMENT SOLUTION

The Korn Ferry Assessment Solution (KFAS) offers a new and innovative process for assessing talent. Deployed on a technology platform that enables client self-service, the KFAS shifts the focus away from specific assessment products to solutions suitable for applications across the talent life cycle. Whether a need pertains to talent acquisition or talent management, the participant will experience a single, seamless assessment process. This process has three elements: a success profile, an assessment experience, and results reporting tailored to a variety of talent acquisition and talent management uses.

The success profile provides a research-based definition of “what good looks like” in a given role. Specifically, the success profile outlines the unique combination of capabilities, including competencies, traits, drivers, and cognitive abilities, that are associated with success in the role. These components are used to inform both the assessment experience and results reporting, which differ according to the solution, for both talent acquisition and talent management.

Whereas the KFAS is new, the assessment components are carried over from legacy Korn Ferry assessment products. The science, research, and psychometric-based information that are the foundation of these robust assessments remain relevant. Therefore, while we work to consolidate and refine technical manuals for the KFAS, we can use the existing technical manuals for KF4D Enterprise, Dimensions-KFLA, Aspects, and Elements as a bridge.

CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE

iii © Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.iii © Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

This technical manual provides background research and psychometric-based information regarding some of the assessments used in the KFAS. The following table summarizes the solutions available for talent acquisition offerings and where to find the relevant psychometric-based information in the technical manual. We would like to remind you that, in the talent acquisition context and absent a client-specific validation study, the assessment should always be used with other information (e.g., from interviews and résumés) to guide talent decisions.

The Korn Ferry Assessment Solution: Talent Acquisition

SOLUTION/NEED

ENTRY LEVEL

GRADUATE I(for entry professionals)

GRADUATE II(for entry first-line leadership) PROFESSIONAL

MANAGERIAL/ LEADERSHIP

Types of roles in solution offering

Frontline

Apprenticeships

Operational

Customer service

Hospitality

Retail

Non-managerial

Graduate/campus

Apprenticeships

Across all industries

Across all geographies

Graduate/campus

Apprenticeships



Sales

Engineering

Accounting

Technical

IT

Finance

Marketing

Design

Any level of leadership



Assessment objects available

Competencies

Cognitive ability:• Numerical• Verbal• Checking

Competencies

Cognitive ability:• Numerical• Verbal• Logical

Competencies


Drivers

Traits

Competencies


Drivers

Traits

Competencies


Drivers

Traits

Technical manuals to reference

Dimensions-KFLA for competencies

Aspects for cognitive ability

Dimensions-KFLA for competencies

Elements for cognitive ability

KF4D Enterprise for competencies, traits, drivers






The KFAS may also be used for a variety of talent management applications such as high potential identification, leadership development/succession, leadership selection, and professional development. The self-assessment components within these solutions include competencies, traits, and drivers, which may be used for diverse reporting needs, including learning agility and risk factors results. Technical information for these components is covered in the KF4D Enterprise technical manual. Multi-rater assessments may also be a part of talent management solutions.

1 © Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTIONThis Talent Q Dimensions user guide is intended to help users apply the Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Competency Report, Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Competency Development Guide, and the Dimensions KFLA Interview Guide to real-life talent management scenarios, by providing knowledge and advice for practitioners on how to administer, interpret and provide feedback on the reports.

Information on how to use and interpret the additional reports from Talent Q Dimensions can be found in the Talent Q Dimensions Practitioner Guide.

Authors:Heather Barnfield

James Bywater

Cathy Chaplin

Maynard Goff

Sarah Hezlett

Tony Li

Alexandra Schaack

Emma Stirling

The technical information in this manual is also relevant to the Korn Ferry Assessment Solution. Dimensions KFLA competency reporting is one of the tools in this blended assessment suite.


CONTENTSOVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL MANUALS FOR THE NEW KORN FERRY ASSESSMENT SOLUTION ii

SECTION 1Competency Report, Development Guide, and Interview Guide 3

SECTION 2Structure and interpretation 5

SECTION 3Psychometric-based information 22

SECTION 4Appendices 33

SECTION 5References 42


SECTION 1

The Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Competency Report (Competency Report) helps organizations identify employee strengths and individual development needs, to inform hiring decisions, as well as guide the development of current employees.

The Competency Report is designed to be used by line managers and HR professionals who want to understand and gain insights from employees’ personality characteristics framed in the language of competencies. It summarizes individuals’ “competency potential”.

The Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Competency Development Guide (Development Guide) has been designed so that individuals can reflect on their own development needs, either alone or with the support of a facilitator.

The Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Interview Guide (Interview Guide) has been designed to allow hiring managers to select and apply interview questions against key job competencies.

The competencies used in the reports are from the Korn Ferry Leadership Architect™ (KFLA), a world-class, leading competency framework that allows organizations to align their talent with business strategy.

RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENTCompetencies are the skills and behaviors required for success that can be observed (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2009). As the use of competency frameworks has been widely adopted across organizations, the Competency Report has been developed with the line manager and HR professional in mind, with the key aim of measuring personality characteristics that are related to aspects of commonly occurring competencies in work settings.

The competency movement has been influential and useful as a way of integrating and aligning HR activities, but the competency models espoused by thousands of organizations are of very uneven quality. To be useful, and to stand the test of time, competencies need to be well designed and scientifically based. At the very least, they must have a sound rationale for the ongoing strategy of the organization.

The competencies contained within the Competency Report, the Development Guide and the Interview Guide are based on the Korn Ferry Leadership Architect™ – a comprehensive competency framework backed by 60 years of research. The Korn Ferry Leadership Architect™ (2016) contains a set of 38 competencies that matter most for performance, are most relevant in the 21st century context, and are valid across global regions. As such, it provides a comprehensive framework which organizations can use in multiple processes, including selection, development, performance, and competency modeling.

The Competency Report, the Development Guide and the Interview Guide are based on a subset of 29 competencies from the Korn Ferry Leadership Architect™. The competencies are grouped under four factors relevant to workplace behavior: Thought, Results, People, and Self. Thought relates to thinking style. Results considers how individuals manage tasks and projects. People relates to working with other people and relationships at work. Self is focused on how people deal with change and challenge and their own development. Not all competencies are relevant to all roles, and some roles may have a

COMPETENCY REPORT, DEVELOPMENT GUIDE, AND INTERVIEW GUIDE


stronger focus on “people” competencies, whereas others may be more results focused. Table 1 lists all 38 competencies, highlighting the 29 that were selected for the Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Competency Report.

Table 1. KFLA competencies in the Talent Q Dimensions KFLA reports

Factor I: THOUGHT Factor II: RESULTS Factor III: PEOPLE Factor IV: SELF

A. Understanding the business5. Business insight

11. Customer focus

17. Financial acumen

35. Tech savvy

D. Taking initiative2. Action oriented

27. Resourcefulness

G. Building collaborative relationships6. Collaborates

9. Manages conflict

20. Interpersonal savvy

21. Builds networks

J. Being authentic10. Courage

36. Instills trust

B. Making complex decisions8. Manages complexity

12. Decision quality

32. Balances stakeholders

E. Managing execution15. Directs work

25. Plans and aligns

38. Optimizes work processes

H. Optimizing diverse talent4. Attracts top talent

13. Develops talent

14. Values differences

34. Builds effective teams

K. Being open29. Demonstrates self-awareness

30. Self-development

C. Creating the new and different18. Global perspective

19. Cultivates innovation

33. Strategic mindset

F. Focusing on performance1. Ensures accountability

28. Drives results

I. Influencing people7. Communicates effectively

16. Drives engagement

23. Organizational savvy

24. Persuades

37. Drives vision and purpose

L. Being flexible and adaptable3. Manages ambiguity

22. Nimble learning

26. Being resilient

31. Situational adaptability

INTENDED USEThe Competency Report is designed for use by line managers and HR professionals to support talent discussions, including selection, internal succession and development.

The Competency Report measures “competency potential” – it does not evaluate how the individual is performing at present. Those using the report should be supervised by a certified user of the Talent Q Dimensions questionnaire. They do not need to be trained in personality assessment, but they must demonstrate a good understanding of the requirements of the role in question and the competencies most relevant to that role.

The Competency Report should be used to support the selection and development of individuals in conjunction with the Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Interview Guide and the Talent Q Dimensions KFLA Development Guide. The Interview Guide is intended for use in selection and recruitment contexts.Additional interview questions can be found for these competencies in the Korn Ferry Interview Architect™ at http://www.kornferry.com/online-solutions/interview-architect. The Development Guide is intended for use in individual development contexts. More tips for development and links to further resources can be found in Korn Ferry FYI® for your improvement: Competencies development guide and on the FYI Resource Center website at http://www.kornferry.com/fyi-resources.


SECTION 2

In the Dimensions KFLA report, each “competency potential” is evaluated with a number of personality sub-traits. Each sub-trait is measured with three items. Individuals’ responses to all of the items comprising the mapped sub-traits are combined to produce a rating for each competency. This rating provides an overall summary of an individual’s potential for the competency and can help to highlight areas that may require some development.

The Competency Report provides the following:

■ Each of the 4 factors, under which sit the related competencies. ■ The title and definition of the competency. ■ A check box to select the most significant competencies for the role you are focusing on. ■ The individual’s rating for each competency, as per their responses to the Talent Q Dimensions

questionnaire, displayed on a 1-5 scale. ■ The individual’s likely behaviors regarding certain aspects of that competency.

OVERVIEW OF APPROACH FOR DEVELOPMENT

Action planning

SMART

Coaching conversation

Reflection

Reports

KFLA Competency Report

KFLA Development Report

Take Talent Q Dimensions questionnaire

Competency selection

Talent Q Assessment System

Competency choice

Using sort cards

Business strategy

Define key organization requirements

OVERVIEW OF APPROACH FOR RECRUITMENT

Decision making

based on Interview and Assessment results

Interview candidates

Reports

KFLA Competency Report

KFLA Interview Guide

Take Talent Q Dimensions questionnaire

Competency selection

Talent Q Assessment System

Competency choice

Using sort cards

Business strategy

Define key organization requirements

When using the Competency Report, it is important to identify which of the 29 competencies are most relevant to successful performance in the job. Generally, it is advisable to select between 8-12 competencies for a particular role. This ensures good coverage without trying to cover too broad a range of areas. Those wishing to use the Competency Report can review existing materials such as person specifications and job descriptions, as well as existing competency models to determine which competencies are most relevant.

STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION


KORN FERRY LEADERSHIP ARCHITECT™ SORT CARDSKorn Ferry Leadership Architect™ Sort Cards are available to help stakeholders weigh up the relative importance of competencies for roles. It is advisable that competencies representing each of the factors (Thought, Results, People, and Self) be selected for each role and report.

TALENT Q KFLA COMPETENCY SELECTORThe Competency Selector functionality allows you to select which competencies to include within a Competency Report, Interview Guide or Development Guide, making the reports easier to interpret for HR and line managers. These condensed reports increase the consistency of interpretation and validity of the assessment feedback, as well as reducing the paper waste.

Getting startedTo use this functionality, click on the “Manage Projects” tab, followed by “View KFLA Competency”.

On first entry, you will see that there are no profiles defined. If you click on “Add new Competency Profile”, you will be taken to the new competency profile page.


KFLA Competency Profile definitions Fill in the form based on the instructions below:

Profile name: Enter the name for this profile.

Base selection on: You can select an existing profile here, in which case the profile selections will be pre-populated, allowing you to quickly create a new profile that is similar to an existing profile.

Competencies: Select the competencies from this list that you want to be included in your reports. If you need information on a competency, click on the “i” icon to find out more.

Available to: You can determine who within your organization can use this profile.

Once you are satisfied with the profile definition, click “Save”.

You will then be taken back to the “View Competency Profiles” page, where you will see the profile you just created. Clicking “Amend” will take you to a page where you can make any edits, if you wish.

You will also see on this screen a section entitled “Inherited Profiles”. This section lists competencies created within your parent accounts, along with the “All Competencies” profile provided by Korn Ferry Hay Group. Here you can define whether administrators within your account can use these profiles.


Once profiles have been created, you can use them wherever you order a Competency Report. Once you select a Competency Report, the “KFLA Competency Selection List” drop-down appears, allowing you to select the profile you wish to be used when creating the report(s).

The report will then be created including only those competencies included in the chosen profile.


TALENT Q DIMENSIONS KFLA COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT GUIDEThe Development Guide has been designed so that individuals can reflect on their own development needs, either alone or with the support of a facilitator. The Development Guide shows example behaviors in terms of what being “Less skilled” and “Talented” looks like in this competency. It also contains information regarding things individuals might want to consider as they develop each competency, including job assignments that they can select in their current role to address a development need. Additional tips can also be found in Korn Ferry FYI® for your improvement: Competencies development guide at http://www.kornferry.com/fyi.


These development activities can then be assembled into a concrete SMART development plan using the Development Planner template.


EXAMPLE COMPETENCY PROFILE: INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT

Business scenario/background

■ Novotech is an IT consultancy, providing expert project managers to organizations implementing large-scale IT projects, typically of three to six months’ duration.

■ John Williams is a Senior Project Manager but is considering progression to the senior management role of Lead Project Manager. The senior management role entails responsibility for a large team of project managers, coordinating a significant number of projects and delivering projects to timescale, cost and quality.

■ John has completed the Dimensions questionnaire as part of a professional development program. His results were reviewed in order to get some detailed feedback to help him think about possible development priorities going forward. John has reviewed his own Development Guide and has met with his coach for a development planning session.

Process

■ A review of the key requirements for the Lead Project Manager role established eight competencies critical for success.

Key requirements (from role profile/job description) KFLA Competency needed

Excellent interpersonal and communication skills – able to work across multiple functions and countries

Communicates effectively

Builds networks

Effective persuading/selling to culturally diverse groups Persuades

Strong business analysis skills with systematic approach to problem-solving

Manages complexity

Manage and develop effective working relations with stakeholders

Balances stakeholders

Apply formal project methodology to ensure effective control and successful delivery within agreed timelines

Plans and aligns

Able to work on projects of 3–6 months duration, with potentially changing requirements, and to work under stressful conditions and move on quickly from setbacks

Being resilient

Manages ambiguity


Competency profile


■ A review of John’s Competency Report highlighted his strengths against the key competencies required for the role.

John’s strengths in relation to the role are likely to be in the areas of “Manages complexity”, “Builds networks”, and “Persuades”.

John prefers to work through formal and informal channels to build broad-based relationships. He communicates openly with a very wide network of internal and external connections. He is likely to be perceived as confident, socially skilled and even charismatic.

John tends to assert ideas with strong conviction, confidence and enthusiasm, and is likely to share his ideas in a persuasive and compelling manner that gains commitment from others. He may also tend to communicate in a captivating and socially skilled manner.

John is comfortable taking a highly analytical approach to solve problems, and is likely to seek out a great deal of diverse information to uncover the root causes of difficult problems. He is likely to be very much at ease thinking through complex, multifaceted problems. The role of Lead Project Manager should enable him to play to his strengths.

■ The Competency Report identified areas where John may need to work outside his comfort zone as a Lead Project Manager.

John scored 1 on “Balances stakeholders” and “Being resilient”, so there is a strong developmental need in these areas.

■ Based on the Development Guide, John and his coach discussed key development actions going forward.


Determining developmental priorities

Balances stakeholdersJohn’s coach suggested they start this process by looking through the “Less skilled” behavioral statements to determine if any of the bullet points describe what John does, and the “Talented” behaviors, which allow John to think about what he would like to be able to do when he has finished working on this need.

Take time to reflectJohn and his coach reviewed some thought-provoking statements from the Development Guide regarding things John might want to consider as he develops the competency.

Job assignments John’s coach discussed possible job assignments from the Development Guide that John can select in his current role to address the developmental need.


The Development Planner document was then used to make these actions SMART:

■ Specific ■ Measurable ■ Achievable ■ Relevant ■ Time bound

TALENT Q DIMENSIONS KFLA INTERVIEW GUIDEThe Interview Guide has been designed so that interviewers have a high quality, free-standing interview guide to support the assessment and recruitment of employees. The report includes full introduction, and a five step guide to how to run competency based interviews using the Korn Ferry Interview Architect tried and tested approach of: Actions, Thinking, Outcome, Learnings and Application. It then includes two interview questions for each competency and space to score/rate the candidates and write notes/observations.

Additional interview questions can also be found in https://www.kornferry.com/online-solutions/interview-architect

EXAMPLE COMPETENCY PROFILE: RECRUITMENT

Business scenario/background

■ Novotech, the IT consultancy, is looking for a project manager to help implementing large-scale IT projects, typically of three to six months’ duration.

■ Sasha Olsen has applied for the role of Senior Project Manager and has completed Dimensions as part of the selection process.

A section of Sasha’s report is shown on the next page:


Process

■ Based on the job description, key requirements for the role were identified. ■ Relationships were then established between these requirements and the Talent Q Dimensions

KFLA Competency Model to select which of the 29 competencies are the most important for success in this role.

■ Sasha’s scores for each of these important competencies were then reviewed.

Key requirements (from role profile/job description) KFLA Competency needed Sasha’s Score

Area of concern?

Excellent interpersonal and communication skills – able to work across multiple functions and countries


Builds networks

4

5

No

No

Effective persuading/selling to culturally diverse groups Persuades 5 No

Strong business analysis skills with systematic approach to problem-solving

Manages complexity 5 No

Manage and develop effective working relations with stakeholders

Balances stakeholders 1 Yes

Apply formal project methodology to ensure effective control and successful delivery within agreed timelines

Plans and aligns 4 No

Able to work on projects of 3–6 months duration, with potentially changing requirements, and to work under stressful conditions and move on quickly from setbacks

Being resilient

Manages ambiguity

1

4

Yes

No

The table above illustrates that Sasha’s strengths in relation to the role are likely to be in the areas of “Builds networks”, “Persuades” and “Manages complexity”.

However, the competencies “Balances stakeholders” and “Being resilient” were identified as being important to the role based on the job description. Sasha was rated a 1 on these competencies, so this on the face of it looks like a potential concern.

■ These areas can then be explored further during a subsequent job interview to establish whether these represent a genuine area of concern.

■ The KFLA Interview Guide provides two interview question with a number of follow up probes for each of the competencies. It is a structured approach to gain more insight into Sasha’s behavior.


CONDUCTING THE COMPETENCY-BASED INTERVIEW

Being resilientThe Interview then focused on the key competencies. Each candidate was asked the same questions for consistency. The probes were used to explore the responses further,

Based upon the way in which Sasha responded, the Assessment suggested that she might struggle with working under stressful conditions and rebounding from setbacks. At the interview Sasha was asked the following questions:

The interviewer recorded details of her responses in the notes pages. To avoid personal judgements, the interviewer tried to write these as close to verbatim as possible so as to collect real evidence of behavior.

After Sasha had left, the interviewer reviewed the evidence and made an overall rating for the competency, using a rating between 1 to 5 on the scale below to capture the quality of behavioral performance.


Finally the overall strengths and development needs were summarized on the page below, which was helpful for when Sasha asked for feedback.

INTEGRATIONThese ratings were then compared with the scores from the Assessment to give two separate sources of data for each competency:

■ The Assessment looked at innate strengths and comfort (“competency potential”) against these competencies.

■ The Interview gave real behavioral evidence of what Sasha has done in a different organizational context.


SECTION 3

PSYCHOMETRIC-BASED INFORMATIONThis section summarizes the development of the Dimensions KFLA Competency Report (Competency Report), summarizes evidence of reliability and validity, and evaluates group differences. We show that the reliabilities for competency scales meets conventional psychometric-based standards and the competency scales predict relevant workplace behaviors. In addition, from a diversity perspective, group differences between age, gender, and ethnicity groups are generally small.

BACKGROUND TO DIMENSIONS

IntroductionPersonality traits are valuable predictors of job success (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick & Mount, 2012; Hough, Oswald, & Ock, 2015; Schmitt, 2014). Talent Q Dimensions (Dimensions) has been developed with a specific purpose in mind – to measure personality at work in a useful way. There are four practical objectives in the design of Dimensions:

■ To measure the aspects of personality that best predict success in the world of work. ■ To ensure personality can be linked to competencies. ■ To have one assessment generating multiple reports for different aspects of the employee lifecycle. ■ To be both user-friendly and robust.

Dimensions measures 15 traits and each trait has three sub-traits. The Dimensions questionnaire contains 160 questions and takes about 25 minutes to complete. A comprehensive review of Dimensions is available in the Talent Q Dimensions Psychometric Review (Korn Ferry, 2017). In an independent review conducted by the British Psychological Society, Dimensions successfully meets the Society’s criteria used to evaluate psychometric-based tests and questionnaires (British Psychological Society, 2014).

Questionnaire formatPersonality questionnaires often use one of the two following response formats:

■ Normative, single-stimulus format – where individuals are asked to indicate their responses to one behavior statement at a time, often on a five-point or seven-point Likert-type rating scale. In this format, the individual has the “free choice” to respond to each statement independently. Likert-type response formats have been criticized for being prone to response biases such as acquiescence, leniency or central tendency, as well as being susceptible to intentional response distortions. Individuals may present themselves in an excessively positive light, especially in a high-stakes assessment situation (Stark, Chernyshenko, Chan, Lee, & Drasgow, 2001).

■ Ipsative, forced-choice format – where individuals have to make a choice between multiple statements presented simultaneously. Classic examples of forced-choice formats include asking individuals to pick which of two statements best describes them or to rank a set of statements from highest to lowest in terms of how well they are “like me”. This format is less vulnerable to the response biases and distortions typically associated with normative rating scales. However, a fully ipsative format can sometimes be quite difficult or frustrating for the participant to complete. Often, individuals genuinely feel they agree with all the statements presented in a set and dislike being forced to make a differential choice to proceed to the next set.

Dimensions employs a “modified nipsative” response format. The individual is given four statements to


rate, in a normative format. If two or more statements are given the same rating, a new page is displayed and the individual is asked to rank the tied statements using a forced-choice response format to indicate which statement should be ranked higher. The modified nipsative approach is an effective way of gathering normative information and minimizing the issues of “faking good”, while making sure that the experience of completing the questionnaire is less cumbersome than a fully ipsative questionnaire. The KFLA competency scores are derived from rating data and may not be suitable for very high-stakes or competitive selection situations, which is why it is primarily targeted at employee development.

Initial rating

Tie

Ranking a tie-break

Mapping Talent Q Dimensions to KFLA competenciesOne of the key aims for Dimensions is to measure aspects of personality that are related to competencies important to success in work settings. This allows the mapping between Dimensions sub-traits and the KFLA competencies. The mapping process was based on some key criteria and principles:

■ Construct relevance. A team of Korn Ferry measurement scientists identified Dimensions sub-traits that are conceptually related to KFLA competencies. The scientists used their expert knowledge of competencies and personality to map the sub-traits to the competencies.

■ Empirical reliability. In this step, the team conducted reliability analysis to ensure each mapped expected competency scale has acceptable reliability.

Based on the above criteria, a final set of 29 competencies was identified and included in the Competency Report. Organizations seeking to assess the remaining 9 competencies should find alternative assessment methods such as CV or structured interview. Interview questions for KFLA competencies are available through the Korn Ferry Interview Architect™ suite of products.


Competency correlationsUnderstanding how the Dimensions “competency potential” rating scales relate to each other (as determined by intercorrelations) can be useful in determining which competencies to choose and identifying possible competency substitutes when an individual lacks skill (Korn Ferry, 2016). Full correlations between the competencies can be found in Appendix A.

RELIABILITYReliability is an estimate of the proportion of true score variance included in a measure. As multiple and different sub-traits are mapped onto each competency, we computed composite reliability. In particular, we used stratified coefficient alpha (Feldt & Brennan, 1989), which is suitable for studying the reliability of scores from measures composed of heterogeneous items. Stratified coefficient alpha for each competency scale is calculated using the following equation and is shown in Table 2.

21

2 )1(1

c

k

i ixStratified

i

s

asa � =

��=

Where: = the reliability of the composite score;

= the (Cronbach alpha) reliability of sub-trait i;

= the variance of sub-trait i;

= the variance of the composite score.

The composite reliabilities for the competency potential scales range from 0.67 to 0.87, with a median of 0.74. Typically, a value of .70 or higher is considered acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994.) The vast majority of the reliabilities for the competency scales exceed this.

21

2 )1(1

c

k

i ixStratified

i

s

asa � =

��=

21

2 )1(1

c

k

i ixStratified

i

s

asa � =

��=

21

2 )1(1

c

k

i ixStratified

i

s

asa � =

��= 2

12 )1(

1c

k

i ixStratified

i

s

asa � =

��=


Table 2. Reliability estimates (n = 22799)

Competency scale Reliability

Customer focus .74

Manages complexity .72

Decision quality .67

Balances stakeholders .73

Cultivates innovation .75

Strategic mindset .70

Action oriented .69

Resourcefulness .71

Directs work .70

Plans and aligns .72

Ensures accountability .77

Drives results .74

Collaborates .73

Manages conflict .77

Interpersonal savvy .72

Builds networks .82

Attracts top talent .77

Develops talent .80

Values differences .75

Builds effective teams .74

Communicates effectively .85

Drives engagement .87

Organizational savvy .74

Persuades .75

Drives vision and purpose .79

Courage .83

Self-development .75

Manages ambiguity .74

Being resilient .81


VALIDITYCriterion validity is evidence for the relationship of a measure to desired outcomes. This section focuses on an investigation into the correlations of KFLA “competency potential” scores with various job competencies rated by line managers. Dimensions and competency rating data were collected as part of 360 assessment engagements from multiple clients.

In the first step, the experts established the a priori hypotheses for each job competency and the Dimensions scales. Correlation analyses were then conducted to examine the relationships. The results are presented in Table 3. As can be seen, all but one hypothesized relationships between the competency scales and line manager rated job competencies reach the significant level, ranging from .24 to .57. Higher correlations tend to occur where there is a content overlap between the job competence and the Dimensions questions. Overall, this suggests the “competency potential” scale scores derived from Dimensions are meaningfully related to relevant workplace behaviors. The full correlation matrix between the predictors and criterion is provided in Appendix B.

Table 3. Correlation with job competency rating

Job competency and definitionHypothesized correlated KFLA Competency potential scales a priori

Actual correlations (uncorrected)

Leading (n = 658)A natural and effective leader and manager, who takes responsibility for others, and is a dominant and forceful person.

Directs work

Drives engagement

Drives vision and purpose

Courage

.56

.57

.48

.56

Selling and negotiating (n = 299)A successful salesperson and negotiator, who is able to persuade others to “buy” ideas or products on favorable terms.

Persuades .49

Public speaking and presenting (n = 260)A charismatic and convincing communicator orally and in writing, a polished public-speaker who relates well to the audience.


Persuades

.27

.35

Networking (n = 485)Someone who communicates frequently with a wide network of useful contacts and who can count on their cooperation.

Interpersonal savvy

Builds networks

.25

.38

Teamworking (n = 539)A good teamworker who volunteers readily for team projects, who gets on well with others and puts the team’s interests before their own.

Collaborates

Manages conflict

Values differences

Builds effective teams

.31

.35

.33

.31

Customer orientation (n = 585)“Clients” are put first with this person, who takes an interest in their aims and needs, giving priority to serving and caring for them.

Customer focus .24

Cultural sensitivity (n = 356)Someone who is alert to different moods or environments, tolerant and understanding of them, and is liked and accepted by a range of people.

Interpersonal savvy

Values differences

.33

.34

Developing others (n = 605)Someone who encourages colleagues and reports, understanding their needs and devotes time to helping them achieve success.

Develops talent .35

Handling numbers and statistics (n = 241)Someone who is quick and accurate at handling numbers, has relevant data at their fingertips, and who understands statistics and finance.

Decision quality .52


Job competency and definitionHypothesized correlated KFLA Competency potential scales a priori

Actual correlations (uncorrected)

Problem solving (n = 606)A quick and effective problem-solver, capable of handling complexity, an objective analyst who can also use intuition.

Manages complexity .45

Strategic thinking (n = 570)A strategic thinker, focused on the big picture, confident in dealing with theories and concepts, capable of developing a vision or mission.

Strategic mindset .42

Innovation (n = 454)A creative, innovative and imaginative person, quick to adopt novel ideas and to entertain radical proposals and opportunities.

Cultivates innovation .44

Planning and organizing (n = 503)A structured operator and a good planner, who can successfully identify and organize relevant resources, and is a good time-manager.


Efficiency and accuracy (n = 282)Someone who follows rules and established procedures, whose work is consistently accurate, and who uses technology efficiently.


Coping with stress and resilience (n = 607)Someone who can handle stress or anxiety and remain composed, who is courageous and who bounces back quickly from setbacks.

Being resilient .56

Accepting criticism (n = 429)A self-aware and tough-minded person, who is able to accept and act on criticism and to take the blame when appropriate.

Self-development

Being resilient

.35

.35

Reliability and ethics (n = 450)Someone who honors commitments, promises and deadlines, and can be relied on as regards ethics, honesty and fair-play.

Ensures accountability .39

Independence and self-confidence (n = 388)Someone who is self-confident and can work independently, developing an independent point of view and unafraid to express a divergent opinion.

Courage .38

Adaptability to change (n = 502)A flexible and adaptable person, who can embrace or even manage radical change, altering their attitudes and behavior as required.

Manages ambiguity .38

Decisiveness (n = 462)Someone who is oriented towards action, who has a high output, a bold and quick decision-maker who is also prepared to take risks.

Action oriented

Courage

.36

.47

Competitiveness (n = 251)Someone who thrives on competition and relishes a contest, never or rarely conceding defeat, and who usually ends up on the winning side.

Collaborates (-) .07

Achievement orientation (n = 550)Someone who seeks excellence and challenge, consistently achieving even difficult targets, and who is personally ambitious.

Action oriented

Drives results

Self-development

.36

.41

.43

Note. Bold p < .01

Table 3. Correlation with job competency rating (continued)


SUB-GROUP DIFFERENCESIt is important to examine and understand how various groups score on the Competency Report. This helps to anticipate the expected effect of using the information in the Competency Report on the demographics of the workforce. Understanding the group differences in scores that are likely to appear allows users to ensure that the use of a particular competency is justified for a role and also to “balance” competencies to achieve an even-handed outcome. UK norm group data and demographic information were used for the analysis.

AgePartial correlation was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the “competency potential” scores and age, while controlling for the effect of gender. Table 4 shows the results. There is a wide age range in the sample, therefore these correlations represent linear trends across working life span. Due to the large sample size, most of the correlations with age reach significance. However, only one “competency potential” scale, Self-development, reaches 0.27 in magnitude, showing a significant negative correlation with age.

Table 4. Correlations of competency scores with age (n = 78741)

Competency scale Partial correlation

Customer focus -0.15

Manages complexity -0.11

Decision quality -0.12

Balances stakeholders -0.07

Cultivates innovation -0.03

Strategic mindset -0.08

Action oriented -0.12

Resourcefulness -0.11

Directs work 0.00

Plans and aligns -0.09

Ensures accountability -0.07

Drives results -0.11

Collaborates -0.07

Manages conflict -0.13

Interpersonal savvy -0.11

Builds networks -0.06

Attracts top talent -0.17

Develops talent -0.10

Values differences -0.11

Builds effective teams -0.02

Communicates effectively -0.17

Drives engagement -0.06

Organizational savvy -0.03

Persuades -0.02

Drives vision and purpose -0.09

Courage -0.04

Self-development -0.27

Manages ambiguity -0.02

Being resilient -0.09 Note. Bold: p < 0.01


GenderData were analyzed using a repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).

Dimensions “competency potential” scores served as dependent variables in each analysis. Work experience (years), categorical educational attainment, categorical industry sector, and categorical job function were included as covariates to isolate the effects of gender. Gender difference is reported in Table 5 in terms of effect size (pooled standard deviation unit discrepancies). An effect size can be interpreted as a small, medium, or large standardized difference in mean score. A commonly used interpretation is as follows: an effect size of 0.2 is considered a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 and up a large effect (Cohen, 1988). In Table 5, positive values indicate that women score higher than men; negative values indicate higher scores for men. Only three exceed the threshold for a “small” effect size. In general, in typical and reasonable uses of assessments, effect sizes of 0.25 or less are unlikely to provide either substantial advantage or disadvantage for any group.

Table 5. Gender difference (Female N = 22714; Male N = 38478)

Competency scale Effect size (female/male)

Customer focus 0.07

Manages complexity -0.24

Decision quality -0.28

Balances stakeholders 0.19

Cultivates innovation 0.01

Strategic mindset -0.22

Action oriented -0.04

Resourcefulness -0.11

Directs work -0.13

Plans and aligns -0.04

Ensures accountability 0.02

Drives results -0.14

Collaborates 0.18

Manages conflict -0.09

Interpersonal savvy 0.13

Builds networks 0.07

Attracts top talent -0.15

Develops talent 0.17

Values differences 0.12

Builds effective teams -0.10

Communicates effectively -0.02

Drives engagement -0.14

Organizational savvy -0.03

Persuades -0.13

Drives vision and purpose -0.16

Courage -0.16

Self-development -0.16

Manages ambiguity -0.08

Being resilient -0.17


EthnicityMANCOVA was used to analyze the data to control for the effect of work experience (years), categorical educational attainment, categorical industry sector, and categorical job function. Table 6 presents the differences in average competency scores between historically disadvantaged groups with the majority group. The differences are presented in terms of effect size (pooled standard deviation unit discrepancies). Positive values indicate historically disadvantaged groups score higher than the majority group; negative values indicate lower scores for historically disadvantaged groups. As can be seen, ten are in the “small” effect size range, and none passes the threshold for “medium”.

Table 6. Ethnicity differences

Competency scale Black/White(N = 2870/42624)

Asian/White(N = 11379/42624)

Mixed/White(N = 1648/42624)

Customer focus 0.06 -0.22 -0.12

Manages complexity 0.17 -0.03 0.10

Decision quality 0.15 0.08 0.04

Balances stakeholders -0.04 -0.18 -0.05

Cultivates innovation 0.10 -0.09 -0.02

Strategic mindset 0.24 0.10 0.11

Action oriented 0.03 -0.07 0.02

Resourcefulness 0.32 0.08 0.04

Directs work 0.01 -0.11 0.04

Plans and aligns 0.21 0.00 0.00

Ensures accountability 0.05 -0.19 -0.09

Drives results 0.09 -0.03 0.04

Collaborates -0.06 -0.17 -0.04

Manages conflict 0.17 -0.14 0.00

Interpersonal savvy 0.11 -0.15 0.00

Builds networks 0.03 -0.05 0.04

Attracts top talent 0.24 0.01 0.07

Develops talent -0.09 0.06 0.03

Values differences -0.06 0.11 -0.02

Builds effective teams -0.08 0.04 -0.01

Communicates effectively -0.17 0.16 0.01

Drives engagement -0.14 0.09 0.07

Organizational savvy -0.06 0.20 0.03

Persuades -0.11 0.14 0.09

Drives vision and purpose -0.26 -0.05 0.10

Courage -0.11 0.04 0.07

Self-development -0.24 0.10 0.07

Manages ambiguity 0.07 0.22 -0.09

Being resilient -0.21 0.12 -0.03


Summary of group differenceEffects of age were generally small, with younger people tending to score slightly higher on all but one scale. The largest age-related trends were for Self-development (-0.27), Attracts top talent (-0.17), Communicates effectively (-0.17), and Customer focus (-0.15). The analyses of gender differences indicate that there are consistent small differences between men and women. Generally, women tend to score higher on competencies within the People factor of the KFLA library, such as Collaborates, Interpersonal savvy, Values differences, and Develops talent. On average, men score higher on some of the competencies in the Thought factor, including Decision quality, Manages complexity, Strategic mindset, on several competencies in the Results factor, including Directs work, Drives results, and Resourcefulness, and on some competencies in the Self factor (Being resilient, Courage and Self-development). Ethnic group differences between minority and majority groups are smaller than a third of a standard deviation. Overall, when used appropriately, the Competency Report is unlikely to cause differential results based on gender, age or ethnicity. However, in keeping with other good practice, we recommend that users should check these trends with their own data where samples are large enough, and ensure that the precise choice of competencies is clearly based upon an up-to-date picture of the needs of the job (“job analysis”).


SECTION 4

APPENDIX A: INTER-COMPETENCY CORRELATION

APPENDIX B: CORRELATION WITH JOB COMPETENCY

APPENDICES


APPENDIX A: INTER-COMPETENCY CORRELATION

Customer focus

Manages complexity

Decision quality


Cultivates innovation

Strategic mindset

Action oriented

Resourcefulness

Directs work

Plans and aligns

Ensures accountability

Drives results

Collaborates

Manages conflict

Interpersonal savvy

Builds networks

Attracts top talent

Develops talent

Values differences



Drives engagement

Organizational savvy

Persuades


Courage

Self-development

Manages ambiguity

Being resilient

Cus

tom

er f

ocu

s1

Man

ages

co

mp

lexi

ty0

.31

1

Dec

isio

n q

ualit

y0

.23

0.7

31

Bal

ance

s st

akeh

old

ers

0.6

80

.20

0.12

1

Cul

tiva

tes

inno

vati

on

0.3

50

.38

0.3

10

.36

1

Str

ateg

ic m

ind

set

0.2

70

.85

0.6

10

.21

0.6

31

Act

ion

ori

ente

d0

.32

0.3

60

.43

0.2

80

.71

0.4

41

Res

our

cefu

lnes

s0

.33

0.4

70

.55

0.2

20

.34

0.4

30

.61

1

Dir

ects

wo

rk0

.120

.35

0.4

60

.180

.51

0.4

20

.68

0.6

01

Pla

ns a

nd a

ligns

0.4

80

.57

0.6

10

.27

0.2

20

.41

0.3

70

.78

0.3

11

Ens

ures

acc

oun

tab

ility

0.6

70

.35

0.3

30

.45

0.3

30

.30

0.4

20

.51

0.4

40

.60

1

Dri

ves

resu

lts

0.3

10

.38

0.4

40

.25

0.6

40

.46

0.8

80

.69

0.8

00

.36

0.4

81

Co

llab

ora

tes

0.6

80

.190

.110

.95

0.3

50

.21

0.2

60

.21

0.16

0.2

60

.43

0.2

31

Man

ages

co

nflic

t0

.75

0.3

10

.25

0.7

30

.43

0.3

20

.38

0.2

90

.24

0.3

50

.53

0.3

40

.68

1

Inte

rper

sona

l sav

vy0

.60

0.2

30

.150

.81

0.4

00

.25

0.3

60

.28

0.2

80

.29

0.4

90

.35

0.8

00

.68

1

Bui

lds

netw

ork

s0

.41

0.2

30

.20

0.7

20

.50

0.3

10

.46

0.3

40

.46

0.2

50

.42

0.4

90

.65

0.5

80

.78

1

Att

ract

s to

p t

alen

t0

.46

0.5

00

.49

0.4

30

.60

0.5

90

.71

0.7

40

.69

0.4

70

.50

0.7

90

.42

0.4

60

.46

0.5

31

Dev

elo

ps

tale

nt0

.74

0.2

10

.120

.86

0.3

30

.22

0.2

40

.190

.130

.27

0.4

30

.20

0.8

20

.78

0.6

90

.56

0.4

11

Val

ues

diff

eren

ces

0.7

10

.28

0.16

0.8

50

.41

0.3

40

.25

0.2

10

.110

.30

0.4

40

.20

0.9

10

.70

0.7

50

.50

0.4

60

.86

1

Bui

lds

effec

tive

tea

ms

0.5

50

.29

0.2

80

.63

0.4

80

.35

0.4

50

.39

0.5

20

.33

0.5

60

.47

0.6

40

.71

0.5

80

.71

0.5

30

.58

0.5

91

Co

mm

unic

ates

eff

ecti

vely

0.7

50

.35

0.2

70

.79

0.4

90

.36

0.4

50

.36

0.3

50

.37

0.5

60

.44

0.7

50

.88

0.8

20

.76

0.5

90

.74

0.7

10

.74

1

Dri

ves

eng

agem

ent

0.3

80

.43

0.4

60

.39

0.6

30

.49

0.7

70

.64

0.8

30

.44

0.5

80

.84

0.3

70

.51

0.5

50

.67

0.8

00

.33

0.3

30

.66

0.6

41

Org

aniz

atio

nal s

avvy

0.5

00

.36

0.3

10

.67

0.5

40

.41

0.5

30

.45

0.6

40

.36

0.5

10

.64

0.6

40

.60

0.6

70

.74

0.7

00

.60

0.5

40

.63

0.7

10

.78

1

Per

suad

es0

.23

0.3

50

.34

0.3

30

.50

0.4

10

.56

0.4

70

.77

0.2

90

.43

0.7

20

.30

0.3

70

.53

0.6

80

.72

0.2

60

.23

0.5

30

.57

0.8

80

.82

1

Dri

ves

visi

on

and

pur

po

se0

.38

0.4

40

.48

0.3

30

.61

0.4

90

.74

0.7

60

.78

0.4

60

.57

0.8

20

.31

0.4

80

.43

0.5

40

.81

0.2

80

.29

0.6

30

.56

0.9

00

.62

0.6

61

Co

urag

e0

.190

.38

0.4

70

.22

0.6

60

.48

0.8

10

.65

0.9

20

.33

0.4

50

.90

0.2

00

.31

0.3

30

.51

0.8

10

.170

.160

.54

0.4

30

.87

0.7

00

.82

0.8

41

Sel

f-d

evel

op

men

t0

.44

0.5

10

.50

0.3

30

.63

0.5

80

.75

0.6

60

.60

0.4

80

.52

0.7

10

.31

0.5

50

.42

0.4

70

.79

0.2

90

.36

0.4

90

.61

0.7

30

.55

0.5

60

.76

0.7

01

Man

ages

am

big

uity

0.5

80

.23

0.18

0.4

20

.67

0.3

30

.50

0.15

0.3

20

.09

0.4

10

.46

0.4

10

.68

0.4

60

.46

0.3

90

.38

0.4

00

.56

0.6

30

.56

0.4

60

.37

0.5

60

.42

0.5

11

Bei

ng r

esili

ent

0.6

70

.35

0.3

30

.46

0.5

10

.37

0.4

70

.37

0.3

10

.37

0.5

60

.46

0.4

40

.80

0.5

20

.47

0.4

70

.40

0.4

30

.59

0.7

50

.63

0.4

90

.41

0.6

40

.40

0.6

40

.83

1


APPENDIX B: CORRELATION WITH JOB COMPETENCY

Boss Ratings of Multiview Competencies

Leading (n = 658)

Selling and negotiating (n = 299)

Public speaking & presenting (n = 260)

Networking (n = 485)

Teamworking (n = 539)

Customer orientation (n = 585)

Cultural sensitivity (n = 356)

Developing others (n = 605)

KF

LA C

om

pet

ency

po

tent

ial

Customer focus 0.08 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.29 0.24 0.30 0.24

Manages complexity

0.19 0.15 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.09

Decision quality 0.17 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.05 -0.01 0.05


0.17 0.16 0.08 0.28 0.31 0.16 0.31 0.26


0.38 0.30 0.18 0.21 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.14

Strategic mindset

0.31 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.15

Action oriented 0.37 0.23 0.12 0.20 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.11

Resourcefulness 0.34 0.31 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.17 0.00 0.15

Directs work 0.56 0.34 0.21 0.24 0.07 0.05 -0.01 0.14

Plans and aligns 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.03 0.12


0.30 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.18

Drives results 0.48 0.34 0.16 0.26 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.14

Collaborates 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.23 0.31 0.16 0.32 0.27

Manages conflict 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.29 0.35 0.19 0.32 0.29

Interpersonal savvy

0.24 0.20 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.13 0.33 0.26

Builds networks 0.39 0.33 0.27 0.38 0.24 0.13 0.25 0.24

Attracts top talent

0.48 0.46 0.17 0.23 0.11 0.18 0.08 0.20

Develops talent 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.37 0.23 0.30 0.35

Values differences

0.13 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.33 0.19 0.34 0.31


0.40 0.26 0.22 0.33 0.31 0.15 0.28 0.29


0.29 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.18 0.31 0.26

Drives engagement

0.57 0.47 0.30 0.29 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.20


0.46 0.43 0.26 0.34 0.27 0.21 0.20 0.26

Persuades 0.56 0.49 0.35 0.26 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.17


0.48 0.40 0.15 0.28 0.15 0.14 0.07 0.18

Courage 0.56 0.41 0.20 0.26 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.15

Self-development

0.38 0.33 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.14 0.07 0.14

Manages ambiguity

0.21 0.22 0.14 0.23 0.20 0.09 0.26 0.16

Being resilient 0.22 0.29 0.18 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.22 0.17

Note. Bold: p < 0.01; Bold and Italic: p < 0.05


Appendix B: Correlation with job competency (continued)


Handling numbers and statistics (n = 241)

Problem solving (n = 606)

Strategic thinking (n = 570)

Innovation (n = 454)

Planning and organizing (n = 503)

Efficiency and accuracy (n = 282)

Coping with stress and resilience (n = 607)

KF

LA C

om

pet

ency

po

tent

ial

Customer focus 0.03 0.03 -0.01 -0.09 0.08 0.14 0.29

Manages complexity

0.33 0.45 0.34 0.31 0.16 0.30 0.11

Decision quality 0.52 0.41 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.15


-0.11 -0.06 0.02 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 0.17


0.04 0.25 0.28 0.44 -0.02 -0.04 0.30

Strategic mindset

0.32 0.46 0.42 0.52 0.13 0.20 0.13

Action oriented 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.10 0.03 0.36

Resourcefulness 0.31 0.30 0.24 0.13 0.42 0.35 0.27

Directs work 0.17 0.28 0.32 0.27 0.15 0.03 0.32

Plans and aligns 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.06 0.51 0.50 0.15


0.09 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.27 0.24 0.26

Drives results 0.17 0.27 0.31 0.27 0.13 0.02 0.37

Collaborates -0.12 -0.08 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 0.16

Manages conflict 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.44

Interpersonal savvy

-0.07 -0.01 0.09 0.08 0.00 -0.07 0.21

Builds networks -0.02 0.05 0.17 0.15 0.07 0.00 0.27

Attracts top talent

0.23 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.15 0.04 0.30

Develops talent -0.05 -0.07 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.13

Values differences

-0.04 0.01 0.05 0.13 -0.02 -0.01 0.12


0.13 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.16 0.42


0.10 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.40

Drives engagement

0.16 0.28 0.32 0.26 0.20 0.08 0.45


0.05 0.15 0.27 0.22 0.09 0.00 0.33

Persuades 0.11 0.22 0.32 0.26 0.14 -0.05 0.32


0.21 0.29 0.30 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.45

Courage 0.19 0.30 0.35 0.33 0.14 -0.01 0.37

Self-development

0.28 0.35 0.30 0.38 0.14 0.21 0.40

Manages ambiguity

0.03 0.13 0.16 0.10 -0.11 -0.05 0.49

Being resilient 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.56



Appendix B: Correlation with job competency (continued)


Accepting criticism (n = 429)

Reliability and ethics (n = 450)

Independence and self confidence (n = 388)

Adaptability to change (n = 502)

Decisiveness (n = 462)

Competitiveness (n = 251)

Achievement orientation (n = 550)

KF

LA C

om

pet

ency

po

tent

ial

Customer focus 0.22 0.26 -0.05 0.19 -0.03 0.04 0.12

Manages complexity

0.08 0.17 0.25 0.18 0.23 0.13 0.31

Decision quality 0.15 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.25 0.13 0.30


0.08 0.06 -0.10 0.23 0.00 0.08 0.09


0.21 0.05 0.23 0.46 0.34 0.34 0.30

Strategic mindset

0.12 0.13 0.27 0.31 0.34 0.21 0.32

Action oriented 0.29 0.12 0.25 0.38 0.36 0.44 0.36

Resourcefulness 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.24 0.32 0.40 0.46

Directs work 0.29 0.17 0.37 0.33 0.44 0.42 0.39

Plans and aligns 0.18 0.42 0.21 0.13 0.19 0.09 0.36


0.20 0.39 0.17 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.32

Drives results 0.30 0.16 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.51 0.41

Collaborates 0.09 0.08 -0.12 0.22 0.01 0.07 0.07

Manages conflict 0.30 0.12 0.09 0.25 0.04 0.10 0.13

Interpersonal savvy

0.09 0.06 -0.02 0.26 0.08 0.18 0.12

Builds networks 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.32 0.21 0.32 0.23

Attracts top talent

0.30 0.16 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.50 0.40

Develops talent 0.13 0.12 -0.12 0.15 -0.05 0.01 0.07

Values differences

0.07 0.10 -0.11 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.07


0.28 0.17 0.14 0.32 0.21 0.30 0.26


0.28 0.10 0.10 0.28 0.13 0.19 0.15

Drives engagement

0.34 0.19 0.34 0.38 0.43 0.50 0.41


0.26 0.16 0.23 0.36 0.29 0.37 0.28

Persuades 0.25 0.10 0.34 0.31 0.40 0.43 0.29


0.33 0.20 0.32 0.37 0.37 0.50 0.45

Courage 0.31 0.15 0.38 0.39 0.47 0.53 0.40

Self-development

0.35 0.15 0.34 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.44

Manages ambiguity

0.25 0.04 0.14 0.38 0.12 0.19 0.14

Being resilient 0.35 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.16 0.21 0.18



SECTION 5

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2012). Nature and use of personality in selection. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 225-251). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

British Psychological Society. (2014). Psychological Testing Centre test reviews: Dimensions. Retrieved from http://ptc.bps.org.uk/test-review/dimensions. Leicester, England: British Psychological Society.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105-146). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ock, J. (2015). Beyond the Big Five—A paradigm shift in researching the structure and role of personality. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 183-209.

Korn Ferry. (2016). Korn Ferry Leadership Architect™ Research guide and technical manual. Minneapolis, MN: Korn Ferry.

Korn Ferry. (2017). Talent Q Dimensions psychometric review. Thame, England: Korn Ferry.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2009). FYI® for your improvement: A guide for development and coaching (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Korn Ferry.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Schmitt, N. (2014). Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of effective performance at work. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 45–65.

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Chan, K. Y., Lee, W. C., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 943-953.

REFERENCES


ABOUT KORN FERRY Korn Ferry is the preeminent global people andorganizational advisory firm. We help leaders,organizations, and societies succeed by releasing the full power and potential of people.

Through our Executive Search, Hay Group, andFuturestep divisions, our nearly 7,000 colleagues deliver services in the following areas:

� Strategy Execution and Organization Design

� Talent Strategy and Work Design

� Rewards and Benefits

� Assessment and Succession

� Executive Search and Recruitment

� Leadership Development

See how we help your organization rise UPat kornferry.com

Contact us:http://infokf.kornferry.com/-PRO-contact-us.html

©Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

TQ-1

01

KF

HG

GU

IDE

V3

NO

V 2

017

Talent Q Dimensions - Korn Ferry · Elements for cognitive ability ... The Talent Q Dimensions KFLA...

Documents

Transcript of Talent Q Dimensions - Korn Ferry · Elements for cognitive ability ... The Talent Q Dimensions KFLA...