THE ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP AUDIT
This range of self-assessment audits is
designed to provide you with powerful
management tools for measuring, assessing
and improving the performance of your
organisation. They are the ideal way to:
• analyse areas of your business to pinpoint
weaknesses and target improvements
• identify problems before they happen
• implement world-class best practices
• ensure hands-on control of every area of
the business
• compare results with other organisations
• align overall business strategy with the
organisation’s needs and strengths.
To order copies of any of the audits in the
series please contact us:
e-mail: info@cambridgestrategy.com
fax: +44 (0)1297 631456
tel: +44 (0)1297 631456
Web site: www.cambridgestrategy.com
Cambridge Strategy Publications Ltd.
Station Offices
Station Yard
Axminster
Devon. EX13 5PF
United Kingdom
Also available from CSP:
THE
THE ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP AUDIT
Scoreable Audits
The Organisation Shadow-Side Audit
The Business Innovation Audit
ORGANISATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
Human Resources
The Employee Motivation Audit
The Human Resource Function Audit
AUDIT
The Human Resource Information System Audit
The Human Resource Planning Audit
The Leadership Skills Audit
The Organisational Change Audit
The Payroll Audit
The People Policies Audit
The Performance Management Audit
The Reward and Benefits Audit
The Teams Audit An new six-step business
The Training and Development Audit improvement tool to
help organisations build
Marketing an effective leadership
The Customer Loyalty Audit structure and culture
The Customer Support Audit
The Franchising Audit
The Pricing Strategy Audit
The Strategic Marketing Plan Audit
WILLIAM TATE
Strategy and General Management
The Business Strategy Audit
The Corporate Culture Audit
The Cost of Quality Audit
The Customer Satisfaction Audit
The Logistics Audit
The Partnership and Alliances Audit
The Productivity Audit
The Technology Management Audit
CSP
An Imprint of Triarchy Press Ltd
A COMPANY SELF-ASSESSMENT
CSP
THE
ORGANISATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
AUDIT

William Tate
Prometheus Consulting

CSP
Cambridge Strategy Publications Ltd.
Station Offices
Station Yard
Axminster
Devon. EX13 5PF
United Kingdom

www.cambridgestrategy.com
CONTENTS

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................1
OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................3

BUSINESS BENEFITS ................................................................................................. 5

ABOUT CAMBRIDGE STRATEGY AUDITS .............................................................7

Concept .........................................................................................................................7
Who the audits are for ....................................................................................................8
Ways of undertaking the audit ........................................................................................8
Facilitated workshops .....................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION TO ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP ..................................... 11

The need to move beyond the popular model ................................................................ 13
Components of the alternative model ........................................................................... 17

ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................27

Using the questionnaires ...............................................................................................27
The scoring options ......................................................................................................27
The design of questions ................................................................................................28
Recording and monitoring assessment ...........................................................................28
Using the results ...........................................................................................................28
Interpreting your score ..................................................................................................29
Copying the questionnaires ...........................................................................................29

IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP: THE SIX THEMES .................. 31

1. Responding to the new environment ......................................................................... 33
2. Mapping the organisation context ............................................................................. 43
3. Challenging the leadership culture ............................................................................ 53
4. Attaining leadership competence .............................................................................. 65
5. Managing leadership across the employment spectrum ..............................................81
6. Supervising leadership development ..........................................................................91

PLANNING IMPROVEMENT ACTION .................................................................. 97

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................105

APPENDICES
About the audit’s designer ...........................................................................................107
About the publisher .....................................................................................................109
 THE ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP AUDIT

OVERVIEW

W e can consider leadership in several ways, especially the question of how to

improve it. The most popular way is to equate leadership with individual
leaders. We can identify known leaders — usually but not necessarily successful ones
— Ernest Shackleton, Jack Welch, Richard Branson, etc. We can study the role and
preoccupations of such leaders. We can examine their character, qualities and values,
their chosen style, skills and behaviour, and their upbringing and development. And we
can attempt to learn from all of this and try to replicate the patterns in others.

Most leadership programmes therefore assume that the way to improve leadership in
an organisation is to improve individual leaders. This school of thought usually takes
‘improve’ to mean ‘develop’. Many people who are concerned about the quality of
leadership automatically think in terms of leader development programmes. And they
assume that leadership means personal leadership and means leading people.

But there are other ways of thinking about leadership, and there are other ways of
thinking about its improvement. We don’t need to focus so strongly on individuals, and
there are risks in beginning our thinking here. There are routes to improving leadership
in an organisation beyond personal development activity. The purpose of this audit is
to share latest thinking with readers, open minds to these alternatives, and spread best
practice.

So how else might we consider leadership? One way is to think of leadership exercised
by a team, such as an executive board or management group. Another is to apply
leadership to things like innovation and ideas, including ‘thought leadership’.

More radical is to think of leadership as a characteristic of the organisation itself.

A company may be admired for giving leadership to its market sector. It may be
recognised as a leader in corporate responsibility. In the public sector a council may
provide strong leadership in local government.

We can also conceive of organisations as systems, and of leadership as one component

in that system along with structure, culture, values and so on. Good leadership then
becomes a key resource: one of the organisation’s prime assets.

The important thing is to be clear about the organisation’s needs and aspirations
for leadership. And what are the needs of stakeholders to receive leadership — what
is leadership to be used for? We can then consciously begin to manage leadership.
Yes, from the organisation’s perspective, leadership itself has to be supervised and
coordinated by key executives, odd as that may sound at first.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 3

THE ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP AUDIT

The more we associate leadership with individual leaders (whatever their level), the
more likely it is that we will treat the subject as a branch of personal development.
Even if individuals improve their leadership skills, the needs of the business as a
whole for leadership will almost certainly remain unmet. But the more we associate
leadership directly with the organisation, the more likely it is that the needs of the
business will be met. And the more likely it is that leadership strategy will take account
of society’s, and other stakeholders’, needs and expectations for business leadership in
the new economy of the 21st century.

The popular model assumes that the sum of individuals exercising leadership will
deliver leadership for the organisation as a whole. In reality, unless the organisation
plays a direct part in the process, that outcome is unlikely. To achieve this goal,
organisations must deliver a shared, honest and valid purpose, a conscious, supportive
leadership culture, a leadership structure that works, and an absence of obstacles to
individual leadership.

So, leadership cannot be left to individual leaders. Nor can it be left to agents such as
management development departments or trainers. Improving leadership is a strategic
activity before it is a training activity. The strategy — indeed the lead — needs to come
from the organisation itself.

The model espoused in this tool is called organisational leadership. To paraphrase

Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg address, we are interested here in leadership

•  of the organisation
•  by the organisation
•  for the organisation.

This holistic approach combines context, focus and purpose. The key question for
organisations becomes:

How well is leadership being managed from an organisational perspective?

T his audit will help you to answer that question. The section entitled ‘An
Introduction to Organisational Leadership’ describes the new model and
explains the why and what of organisational leadership. The next section, ‘Improving
Leadership: The Six Themes’, shows you how to meet your organisation’s needs for
leadership.

Please note that this audit is not advocating organisational leadership as a replacement
for individual leaders and their leadership. Nor is it intended to replace leadership
development programmes. It offers a complementary and reinforcing perspective,
aimed at improving leadership at an organisational level. One of its benefits is that it
can help make development programmes more robust and rooted in the organisational
context and concerns.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 4

 THE ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP AUDIT

BUSINESS BENEFITS

B y undertaking this self-assessment you will gain the following benefits:-

1.  You will determine what your organisation’s relative strengths and weaknesses are
in respect of leadership. These include the oversight provided by top management
to leadership-enhancing initiatives, the leadership culture, leadership-related
strategies, policies, plans, systems, processes and leadership competence.

2.  You will develop a clear view of the nature of, and need for, organisational
leadership that meets the requirements, expectations and demands of the
changing business and social environment.

3.  You will identify what permits, sustains and inhibits leadership in your
organisation, and be able to remove weak links in the chain of provision.

4.  You will promote a joined-up and consistent approach along the employment
spectrum - one which ensures that leadership is defined, acquired, developed,
utilised, appraised, promoted, rewarded, retained and suitably terminated.

5.  You will pinpoint and design appropriate responses to make good any deficits in
your organisation’s systemic provision and exercise of leadership.

6.  You will set the important groundwork on which to construct a corporate-led
senior management development strategy and programme.

7.  You will establish a baseline from which to audit organisational leadership at a
future date and measure progress.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 5

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

Theme 4:
Attaining leadership competence

Many larger companies and consultancies publish lists of leadership competencies

(sometimes called ‘behaviours’ or ‘practices’). A typical list appears below.

ESSENTIAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES

Knowledge
Courage
Integrity
Being purposefully awkward and challenging the status quo
‘Paradox management’ – not ‘either/or’ but ‘and’
Vision
Being an exemplar
Helping others in the organisation change and feel comfortable with change
Acting consistently in an ambiguous environment
Listening to and understanding how others feel and make decisions
Personal awareness and strong emotional intelligence

Table 7: Essential leadership competencies. (Adapted from Chris Gamblin et al:

Leading and Managing in the New Economy, Centre for Tomorrow’s Company, 2001)

Pros and cons of competencies

Competencies like those above can be used to drive and horizontally integrate
recruitment, appraisal, promotion and reward systems. They can also be used to
vertically integrate management behaviour with the business’s goals. They
communicate what the organisation considers best practice and they sideline aberrant
behaviour.

One of the strengths of formal competencies is their face-validity or natural appeal:

they appear timeless, worthy and useful for any organisation. But such strengths
may mask weaknesses. Competencies suffer from a number of drawbacks, including:

• Competencies focus excessively on individuals.

The conventional view of competencies implies that all would be well if only
individuals were competent. This overlooks what binds individuals together to
produce collective success. Value is added at the interface. Scope for improving
organisational competence is often found in the gaps.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 1

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

• Competencies don’t tap into what is happening in a particular organisation

at a particular time.

This means that they may fail to address explicitly what needs to change,
especially for the organisation as a whole.

Competency schemes can help to professionalise the individual. This may be what an
organisation most needs at a given stage in its development. But competencies derive
from past best practice and tend to professionalise the status quo. In complex, fast-
moving environments, this may not be what is needed.

It is relatively easy to come up with a list of what a company thinks it ‘wants’ from
individuals. By contrast, embedding and delivering competence from a particular
organisational standpoint (i.e. what the company ‘needs’ at a given time in order to
change) is a much more challenging task.

Organisational competence

To avoid these pitfalls, there is another approach. It starts from the assumption that
competencies (and collective competence) are a property of the organisation not of the
individual.

The organisational leadership model raises several questions that relate to the concept
and practice of competencies:

1. What does the organisation as a whole want to excel in

and be recognised for as a leader?

2. How can the organisation ensure that it does the right

things, and does not just do things right (i.e. competencies)?

3 How should the organisation get its own leadership needs met through
individual leaders’ competencies?

4. What do leadership competencies look like?

Defining leadership competence

The terms ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ are often used loosely, almost
interchangeably. This is unfortunate but understandable. It occurs because many
people’s job titles contain the word ‘manager’, but fewer contain the word ‘leader’
(though the job of ‘team leader’ is growing). Also, managers are expected to display
leadership at times. And, confusingly, senior executives and directors are expected to
be good managers too. Think of leadership as a role, not a job position.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 2

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

Nonetheless, it can be helpful for an organisation to be clear about what the terms
leadership and management mean for it. It can then design and run personnel
systems for appointment, development, appraisal, promotion and reward more
effectively. It may also help to ensure that the organisation’s need for individuals to
exercise leadership doesn’t get overlooked in their pursuit of management.

Table 8 shows how management and leadership are different. Some of the leadership
characteristics in the list are most clearly associated with senior positions. But it can
be helpful to think of everyone, regardless of level, as having two jobs. One is to do
what they routinely consider their job to be (as outlined in a job description). The
other is to change that job – i.e. improve it, by asking questions about how and why it
is that way. How and why are strategic questions that draw on qualities of
leadership. This secondary job role gives most people, some of the time and within
their own sphere of influence, access to the listed leadership characteristics.

MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP

Delivering today Securing tomorrow

Working within the existing paradigm
Using the present business model
Operating the system
Maintaining consistency, ensuring
order and preventing excessive
disturbance
Understanding the present
Achieving more with less and getting
the work done efficiently
Doing things right
People, operations, information,
finance
Processes, statistics, calculations,
routines
Planning, organising, monitoring and
controlling
Problem solving
Changing the paradigm
Developing the next business model
Stepping outside the system to
challenge and improve it
Questioning current rules and
norms and disturbing the
organisation
Explaining current reality
Providing focused direction for the
common good
Doing right things
Inspiring and empowering people
Envisioning and communicating the
future
Aligning people with the organisation
Providing meaning for people’s work
Art
Providing good governance
Balancing stakeholders’ interests

Table 8: Management versus leadership

Some organisations are over-managed and under-led. It is also possible to argue that
organisations are often over-led and under-managed; i.e. there may be no shortage of
grand visionary statements about the future, but these may be accompanied by a lack

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 3

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

of managerial follow-through. A balance between management and leadership is

needed (as there is between lack of administrative processes and too much
bureaucracy).

The explanation behind different perceptions and criticisms may lie in what critics
think leadership and management are and whether their focus is primarily internal or
external. The history and traditions of the organisation will be a factor too.

Sharpening the distinction between leadership and management is helpful because it

provides a way of understanding what is going on inside under-performing
organisations and what we need and would like more of. It allows those who provide
oversight (including politicians) to think clearly about appropriate measures of
performance.

Many jobs contain multiple leading and managing roles, and some people can handle
them both well. But most people are naturally suited more to one than the other.

Organising for individual leadership competencies

For the organisation to perform well as a whole, individuals’ competencies should:

• be designed to align with, and be driven by, the organisation’s direction and
goals

• work together as an integrated, managed whole

• co-ordinate with the competencies of colleagues

• balance the organisation’s needs for both convergence and divergence

• be facilitated by the organisation’s systems, and be free of obstruction

• be capable of adapting to the changing needs of both the business and the
organisation.

Specified competencies should be the minimum required in number for their purpose.
They should not impose a straitjacket on acceptably diverse leadership behaviour.
Around the necessary core, variety is healthy.

Competencies should be uniquely suited to a particular business at a given time.

They should help take the business in its chosen direction and address real issues of
concern.

Choosing competencies is therefore a matter of meeting the organisation’s needs

rather than merely its wants.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 4

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

Eliminating legacy competencies

Before new competencies have a chance to establish themselves, some present ones
may need clearing away. Out-of-date ‘legacy’ competencies need identifying in order to
manage their decline. The challenge of leadership is about much more than specifying
that individual leaders should possess new competencies: it includes how to change
the organisation to enable such new competencies to gain a foothold in the desired
culture and supplant out-of-date ones.

BUREAUCRACY

Before privatisation, British Airways managers were issued with rules for everything.
There was even a published regulation on the standard type of ash tray to be given to
employees.

The highly developed bureaucratic machinery had to be dismantled before managers

were willing to accept new-found freedom to use their common sense, discretion and
ingenuity.

The fact that these competencies include those of top executives compounds the
problem (leaders are effectively talking about themselves). Worse still, the present
leaders and their present competencies will be required to change. This results in a
well-known paradox: “You have to work with the present culture if you are to change
it”. This explains why major change is so difficult. Inherent vested interest means
that there is an in-built resistance to change.

A typical defensive response to this dilemma is for leaders of an organisation to claim

that competencies apply to all levels below them, but not to themselves (after all, they
argue, they wouldn’t be in their positions if their own competence was in doubt!).

Categorising competencies

These practical and political problems aside, one of the ‘tricks’ is to classify and
manage competencies under four headings:

1. Emergent competencies
Competencies that are of increasing importance to the organisation.

2. Legacy competencies
Dated competencies that have outlived their usefulness.

3. Enduring competencies
Competencies that you will always value.

4. Transitional competencies
Competencies that are relevant for the short term, such
as ‘change management’.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 5

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

Thinking about competencies in this way calls for considerable

in-house research effort. A good starting point is the question:

What does this organisation need less of, and more of?

The organisation’s overall competence

Organisations as a whole may be known as leaders (‘market leaders’ is one

manifestation of this). Such leadership reflects their prominence, reputation, what
they stand for, and how they represent their sector. Any organisation has to ask itself
if and how it wants to be recognised for giving leadership. Possible examples include:

high-quality products
value for money
safety of the public and employees
good care of the environment
honest governance
inclusive relationships
product innovation
customer service

Hewlett-Packard was long respected for its leadership in printer technology, supported
by The HP Way. Industry sector leadership often combines with other human or social
values that extend beyond the boundaries of the firm. The drinks firm Diageo claims:

‘We are not content just to comply with high standards of behaviour; we want
to provide leadership and involve our corporate partners in good citizenship
activities. …Diageo has been a prime mover in the drinks industry in
establishing social aspects organisations (SAOs) … promoting sensible drinking
and helping to prevent alcohol misuse.’

Some organisations’ reputation, values, preoccupations and commitments are

inseparable from their individual leaders. Some approach this question of sector
leadership with a dominant stakeholder in mind: e.g. profit for shareholders or value-
for-money for customers. Others parade their leadership with a wider group of
stakeholders, with customers or society (e.g. until the recent catastrophic oil spill,
BP and ‘beyond petroleum’).

Besides their market image, these stances have an internal relevance: they can play a
key role in defining relevant individual leadership competencies. And they can shape
the purpose and content of leadership development programmes.

The positions adopted by companies that wish to be recognised in such a way are a
reflection of leaders’ and organisations’ values. An explicit set of values and principles
grounds and defines desired executive behaviour. Values serve as a continual source
of reference against which leaders may test their decisions and determine appropriate
action when faced with a tough choice.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 6

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

Doing right things and doing things right

There are times when taking a decision and getting on with it is more important than
agonising over what is the best decision. The difference between options may be
small, but timing may be everything. Equally, some people argue that what you do
matters less than how well you do it. They focus on the means and neglect to
question the ends. They see little difference between ‘doing right things’ (ends) and
‘doing things right’ (means).

It is sometimes claimed that a key difference between leadership and management is

the difference between doing right things (leading) and doing things right (managing).
If so, one must accept that leaders also have to be able to manage. And managers are
expected to lead.

If the distinction between right things and things right is not made, inappropriate
things get done. Both doing right things and doing things right must be considered,
especially where ethical business conduct is concerned. Prizing individual competence
without thinking about where that competence will be applied, can lead to ethical
disasters. Equally, concentrating on results without specifying the ‘how’ can be risky.
Take the case of hacking into competitors’ computers:

HACKING INTO COMPETITORS’ COMPUTERS

Managers at Princeton University were discovered hacking into the students’ database
at rival Yale University. The unethical practice enabled Princeton to offer discounts to
students to switch courses. But the revelation was immensely damaging to its
reputation, one of its prime assets. The managers involved may have been highly
skilled at what they were doing, but they were not doing appropriate things.

Another way of looking at this is to say that the university’s specification for the
managers’ required results failed to place limits on the means of their achievement.

Balancing results and competencies

When British Airways launched its performance-related reward scheme for managers,
it weighted results and competencies equally. It later changed this to favour results at
the expense of competencies. Presumably it believed – as many companies do – that
what ultimately matters is results. But this view carries dangers. Companies need to
be aware of the risks they take in emphasising results and the messages conveyed to
employees and other stakeholders by this tactical switch.

However, a focus on competencies is not enough. Talent and intelligence do not

necessarily equate with high principles, or indeed common sense or sound judgement.
Nor do they guarantee that the values of the organisation and its employees will be
aligned.

Moreover, the leadership culture may be corrupt. Even ethical and well-intentioned
individuals can lose sight of their values and principles and find themselves swayed

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 7

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

and caught up in unethical decisions in fulfilment of their organisation’s financial

success – even without the lure of high personal reward.

The scandal of Enron is a case in point; here some potentially good leaders turned
bad, influenced by a dangerous culture. The American consultancy McKinsey
designed Enron’s leadership culture, and has been much criticised for it.

The broader failing of McKinsey and its acolytes at Enron is their assumption
that an organisation’s intelligence is simply a function of its employees. They
believe in stars, because they don’t believe in systems. …But companies …
don’t just create; they execute and compete and co-ordinate the efforts of many
different people, and the organisations that are most successful at that task
are the ones where the system is the star. …The talent myth assumes that
people make organisations smart. More often than not it’s the other way
around.
(‘The Talent Myth’, The New Yorker, 22 July 2002)

Jack Welch, ex-boss of GE, used to claim that the most dangerous combination was
competence and unalignment (i.e. with his goals for GE). If people were unaligned,
better they were incompetent.

Alignment comes through values and clarity about desired results and outcomes.
Equally, specifying results alone is not enough; they need coupling with acceptable
managerial and leadership practices and behaviour. Both are needed. The
organisation’s values (assuming that they are ethical and can be shared publicly)
should drive both the sought-after results and the competencies. This is true for the
leaders themselves, for the organisational entities they lead, and for the people they
are responsible for.

Allowing and choosing to do

Conventional development primarily concentrates on the efficacy of its inputs –

helping learners learn. But if potential is to be realised, it requires two further
ingredients: will and opportunity. ‘Performance is potential minus interference’,
according to Timothy Gallwey in The Inner Game of Work. He is referring to
psychological barriers, but we can extend his point. Transfer to the workplace is
enabled by recognising and managing the equation which states that individual
competence translates into competence for the organisation only through the
mediation of organisational ‘top-down’ allowed-to-do permission and individual
‘bottom-up’ choose-to-do motivation. (See Figure 4.)

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 8

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

Top-down organisation facilitation

Through a purposeful context and problems

to solve, a supportive framework, an absence
of needless restrictions and boundaries, a lack
of obstacles to performance, appropriate
checks and balances, etc.

(allowed to do)

INDIVIDUAL (can do) COMPETENCE CORPORATE COMPETENCE

(choose to do)

Bottom-up motivation and values

Through clear vision, goals and challenges,

a positive fear-free climate, constructive
feedback, relevant job-person matches, fair
recognition and rewards, etc.

Figure 4: Converting individual competence into corporate competence.

(from W Tate: Developing Corporate Competence, Gower)

Without such facilitation, personal development won’t take root in actual performance.
In other words, blockages to leadership being practised need to be made explicit and
removed, whether they stem from above in the diagram (the organisation) or below (the
individuals themselves).

It is worth remembering that much-vaunted skills – which most organisations are

content to develop – only amount to can-do competence. The above model argues that
organisations need to look beyond what skills people have to what they do do. In
other words, what they choose to do with what they can do. What allows them to do
what they can do. And thus what causes them to do what they do do.

The perceptions and mental maps in people’s heads are crucial here. These reside in
the heads of followers as well as the leaders. What the leader is allowed to do includes
what those who are potentially affected will allow the leader to do. And that depends
on their perceptions, in turn shaped by their relationship with the leader, among other
things. This is a big subject – beyond the scope of this audit. It concerns change
implementation as much as diagnosis and planning. The important lesson is to
realise the limited powers of development on its own to bring about change.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 9

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

THEME 4 QUESTIONNAIRE
Attaining leadership competence

ASSESSMENT
Write in empty boxes, complete statements, circle options, or mark where applicable. Numbers
equate to points scored.

Designing competencies
How clearly does your organisation distinguish managerial from leadership competencies?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

Are competencies grounded in what is happening in your organisation at this particular time?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Fairly 3. Considerably

Is past best practice in your organisation a good guide to competencies needed for its future?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Fairly 3. Very

Is it clear what your organisation wants to excel at as a driver of individual competencies?

Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Fairly 3. Very

Has your organisation considered its need for more convergence vs. more divergence in performance?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

Has your organisation taken into account how competencies incline towards converging behaviour?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

Managing competencies
Does your organisation recognise the role of will and opportunity in converting competencies into performance?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

Does your organisation ensure that will and opportunity are managed so they enable competencies to flourish?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

How much effort goes into managing competence at the interface or space between individuals?
Don’t know 0. None 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

Categorising competencies
How much thought has your organisation given to distinctive and explicit leadership competencies?
Don’t know 0. None 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal
If they are not published, list what you think are key leadership competencies for your organisation.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 10

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

How aware is your organisation of which competencies will remain important for your organisation?
Don’t know 0. None 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. Very
List enduring competencies that you consider will remain important for your organisation.

How aware is your organisation of which competencies will become increasingly important in future?

Don’t know 0. None 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. Very

List emergent competencies that you consider will become increasingly important for your
organisation.

How aware is your organisation of its need for special competencies to help manage transitional
change?

Don’t know 0. None 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. Very

List transitional competencies that you consider your organisation will need for a short time.

How readily does your organisation jettison outdated competencies?

Don’t know 0. None 1. A little 2. Quite 3. Very

List legacy competencies that you consider are no longer relevant to your organisation and should
decline.

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 11

Extract from: The Organisational Leadership Audit

Doing things right or doing right things

Does your organisation recognise the distinction between leaders doing right things (i.e. appropriate
end results) and doing things right (i.e. competencies/methods/practices/ behaviour)?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

Does your organisation show concern for an appropriate balance between leaders doing the right
things and doing things right?
Don’t know 0. Not at all 1. A little 2. Quite a lot 3. A great deal

In which direction, in your view, does the balance need redressing? To show more concern for:

Appropriate end results F or Appropriate competencies/methods/practices/behaviour F

What are some of the wrong things your organisation is doing, however competently it does them?

What are some of the right things your organisation is doing, but with insufficient competence?

SCORING

Total number of points scored

Out of a possible maximum of 48
Percentage = %

© Cambridge Strategy Publications 12