Developing leaders for the future of our companies seems something all companies are compelled to do. Though that might be the case, in his research Mark found that most companies are far away from a professional development of their leaders. In this presentation Mark will give an overview of his findings, based on an integrated model of how to develop leaders. He supports this with handouts of an audit model that allows you to review your company’s leadership development process. With the knowledge shared and the handout, you are able to make a first review of your own process and work towards further improvements. This presentation was used at HR Summit and Expo 2013 www.hrsummitexpo.com

1. Develop leaders for the future,
Fact based approach
Dr. Mark van Dongen GPHR
HR Director Global Business Integration
Cristal, Jeddah

2. Agenda
Agenda:
1. An integrated model
2. From HR roadmap to the HEART model of MD
3. MD audits in three global FT 500 companies
4. Conclusions
At the back of the room there is a handout, summarizing in a whitepaper
what we discussed.
When you provide me your email address, I will send you the audit list
and an interpretation tool. Email: dr.mark.van.dongen@gmail.com

3. An integrated model
• Succession and talent management has moved to the forefront of the
agenda’s of CEO’s worldwide
• ‘War for Talent’ will increase due to demographics.
• Research has shown that investment in personnel development has a
substantial ROI, depending on the right person being developed, to
over 200%
• In the US $125.88 billion was spent on leadership development; of
which 24% on leadership development(ASTD 2009). Nevertheless
leadership development remains the least explored topic within the
field of leadership.
• No integrated theory, or model to date has been accepted.
3

4. Challenges?
• The field of HR is a not a science in itself, it is an amalgamation of
different disciplines.
• Fragmented elements are developed, but currently there is not an
integrated theory on MD. These elements are derived from nonrelated sciences, hence from different methodical setup.
• The defined process should be theoretically correct, but also
practically useful to both developed as well as less developed
companies.
• If the MD process is truly seen as a competitive advantage, it will be
difficult to get access to data for the empirical part.
4

5. What is Talent?
A talent is an individual, who generates a disproportional higher
value compared to the cost to employ them.
Therefore talent (as such) is not linked to company hierarchy, nor
leadership capability.

6. Talent
For ease of discussion, talent is split out in two ways:
1.
Deep talent; individual value creators who do not have vertical
talent
a) Workers (skills / competencies based deep talents)
b) Deep talent (unique deep knowledge based talents)
2.
Vertical talents are individuals with the ability to move upward in
the organization.
In this presentation vertical talent is emphasized

7. What is leadership
Leadership is defined as the ability to exert a conscious influence
on the behavior of another person in order to make them pursue
targets the leader desires.
The most modern form of leadership is value based leadership,
which is a scale with two poles, one is the transactional leader the
other is the transformational leaders.
• Transformation leaders change the individual perception to
attain the goal
• Transactional leaders reward for changing behavior; bonus for
best behavior, etc.
• Management is transactional leadership.

8. Talent and leadership talent
Leader-talents are defined as those who:
1. Have the potential (intellectually) to develop themselves into
higher level roles (IQ & EQ)
2. Have the development-need-strength to withstand
developmental challenges
3. Have the individual engagement to ensure when developing
them, that these value adding capabilities benefits your
company.
4. Have personal values aligned with the values of the company
Gaining, keeping and developing such talents remains on the
forefront of CEO´s agenda (CIPD, 2012)

9. From process to audit tool and standardized company profile
Defining and detecting
talents
Phase based
development of talents
Organizational
prerequisites to the
effective process
Case study of companies,
including generation of
profile
Details of the process
put to 34 International
HR directors from 11
countries in 3 surveys
Process
finalized
Items reformulated into
44 questions, that form
16 clusters

10. Empirical data from a group of companies

11. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Results on talent defining and detecting
talent
32.4% state their organization have no adequate definition of talent
and only 26,5% had an organization defining entry level. Combine this
with the 44.1% of the companies did not have a valid selection system
in place for entry
Less then 48.5% match individual values versus those of the company
Intellectual capabilities are measured in 51.8 % (IQ) resp. 41.9% (EQ).
The rest assumed education as a predictor.
71% measure self motivation to develop,
61.3% stated they measure individual engagement, but tools used
were inadequate to measure this
61.8% found reference checks (candidate provided) a ‘good’ method.
Research showed a predictive validity of 0.19. (Anderson et.al., 1993,
McClelland, 1998).
Categories of talent: Deep talent, 8.8% ; 91.2 % vertical talent.
11

12. HR and MD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In 97.1% of companies HR leads MD process,
Only in 23.5 % is the MD (leadership development) lead by a ´talent´.
Leading MD is needed to become head of HR in 23.5%
When reviewing the use of leadership models upon which to base their
development, 53% use entirely outdated leadership models (such as
situational leadership), though they state they have good knowledge on
the topic (58.%).
Most people support the definition given on leadership and management.
Those that did not, often use SHL methods, which in term supports the
definition (Burk et al. (2009) and Burke, (2010))
Full andragogical model were not seen. Only in 37% of the companies,
input of the talent on their development track was requested.
Of those who stated understanding of leadership, 59,8% were not able to
mentioned the model their company used. Exception was situational
leadership theory which is still used in 53.3% of the companies. Which
either captures low knowledge or low influence by HR.

13. Organizational prerequisites
• Informal talent networks in only 14.7%;
• Changing preferences of generations, taken into account in 32.3%.
• Team based action learning used in 44%
Use of stretch assignments:
Expat
54.5% all
35.2% HR
X-functional
26.5% HR
64.7%
all
Job challenge measured in 53%
• Stretch assignments:
• Perfect fit (90%+)
• Near fit (75-90%)
• True stretch assignments (60-75% fit)
11,8%,
67.7%
20.6%
• 41.1% see mistakes as learning experiences, the remaining 58.1% sees it
simply as mistakes. No correlation between the assignment score and
‘mistake’-score.
• Job challenge is not measured in 47% of companies.
13

14. Reviewing performance versus the model
of Global Companies

15. The Audit list items
The 16 key elements of the MD model were:
1. Talent is defined
2. Values of the company and the individual are matched at recruitment
3. The culture is more transnational than nationally dominated
4. Capability of individuals are assessed.
5. Methods of development vary as per the individual needs
6. Knowledge is Transferred as per the development phase
7. Stage based development model is adhered to.
8. Feedback is provided to talents, in line with their phase
9. Developmental assignments are used to develop talents.
10.Leaders are made responsible for the development of their talents
11.Active learning initiatives are used
12.Mentoring relationship's and coaching is used
13.Talents are rewarded differently
14.The performance and development cycle is viewed differently
15.There are networking initiatives offered to talents
16.HR leads the MD process and is occupied by talents.

16. Empirical results; Audited companies
16

17. Empirical results; Audited companies
17

18. Empirical results; Audited companies
Empirical results; Audited companies
TRENDS
18

19. Conclusion
Companies believe MD provides a competitive advantage, it is difficult to
obtain data utilizing self-surveys, as self criticism was found difficult.
Though Talent is seen as one of the major differentiators for the future,
companies often falls behind:
– Do not have a robust system of selection and development in place
– Do not measure needs for developments and developments offered
– Have insufficient knowledge or influence in incorporating leader-
development methods.
– Have little knowledge on how development works, nor seem to invest
much in understanding, instead of cookie-cutting ‘best practice’
solutions.

20. Conclusions 2
Many companies do not hold leaders accountable for development of their
talents,
Companies do not reward for potential (future of company) instead reward
short term goals achievement
Low hanging fruits “left to rot”:
Talent networks
Leaders accountable for talents
Action learning initiatives
HR measured and developed as other talents
Measure capabilities and their progress

21. Consequences
for HR
•
Though HR is accountable for MD, they need substantial improvement
to increase knowledge
– Situational leadership model usage
– Use of reference to check on applications
– Declining decision style method etc.
•
For a core process such as MD, signature processes should be
developed.
•
Though talent is seen as strategic asset, little strategy seems to
underlie their development.
•
Some short term solutions would already improve outcome, but longer
term reviews are needed.

22. Develop leaders for the future,
Fact based approach
Dr. Mark van Dongen
HR Director Global Business Integration
Cristal, Jeddah