course material

1. (Mt) – AMU Leadership Skills and the Tribe Research Paper
The Skills Approach to Leadership Leadership theory has progressed over the past century.
By 1955, leadership theorists were trying to put together a set of traits that would further
the leader-focused trait theory (including the personality trait-based OCEAN model from
Module 1). As this was going on, Katz (1955) published his article in the Harvard Business
Review called “Skills of an Effective Administrator,” which turned leadership theory upside
down. While the prior theories were heavily focused on innate traits (including
personality), Katz was focused on a developable set of skills that could prove that leaders
are made, not born. Over the following four decades, a “comprehensive skillbased model of
leadership” was developed by the top researchers in the field of leadership (Northouse,
2018, p. 39). Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business
Review, 33(1), 33-42. Please take the opportunity to locate and read it before you move on
to this week’s assignments. The Three-Skill Approach Katz’ work yielded what is referred to
as the three-skill approach to leadership. This approach focuses on three specific types of
skills that are needed by leaders at different levels. Those three types include: technical
skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. Beyond those three categories, Katz classified
three levels of leadership, including top management, middle management, and supervisory
management. The key to the three-skill approach is that each leadership level requires a
certain mix of the three types of skills. The chart below shows the correct “mix” for each
level of leader, based on the Katz model. As the chart clearly shows, few conceptual skills
are needed from a middle manager than from a top manager, and fewer still are needed
from supervisory managers. On the human side, all three levels require a highly-skilled
leader. On the technical side, top managers need the least. Middle and supervisory
managers, on the other hand, need the most. Adapted from Northouse (2018) The Skills
Model Building on the work of Katz (1955), Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and
Fleishman (2000) proposed “that effective leadership behavior fundamentally depends
upon the leader’s ability to solve the kinds of complex social problems that arise in
organizations” (p. 11). The model the authors proposed in this article, which should be
accessed in the Trident Library for this module, is known as the skills model of leadership.
Please see the reference for the article below: Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D.,
Jacobs, T. O., and Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving
complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35. As Northouse (2018)
summarizes, the skills model works as follows: The skills model frames leadership by
describing five components of leader performance. At the heart of the model are three

2. competencies: problem-solving skills; social judgment skills; and knowledge. These three
competencies are the central determinants of effective problem solving and performance,
although individual attributes, career experiences, and environmental influences all have an
impact on leader competencies. Through job experience and training, leaders can become
better problem solvers and more effective leaders (p. 53). The five components of
leadership performance are detailed and explained in the figure and description below:
Individual Attributes. From the figure above, you can see how leadership theory through the
ages is woven into skillsbased leadership. On the left (first box), you can see individual
attributes. This category is closer to trait-based leadership. Attributes like cognitive ability
and motivation are more focused on innate (or “born with it”) characteristics.
Competencies. As we move to the second (dark blue) box, we can see the competencies we
discussed above and learned about in the Mumford, et al (2000) article. These are skills that
can be taught (as opposed to traits from birth). Career Experiences. It is clear from the
figure that the first two boxes (individual attributes and competencies) are both influenced
by career experiences. For example, you might be born with a strong dose of motivation.
But career experiences (the types of leaders you have, the types of work you do) can impact
your motivation level, as well. On the skill side, your knowledge can be derived from and
influenced by your career experiences just as your individual attributes can. According to
Northouse (2018), “leaders can be helped by challenging job assignments, mentoring,
appropriate training, and hands-on experience in solving new and unusual problems” (p.
52). On the flip side, the lack of challenging assignments and the other examples mentioned
can negatively impact a leader’s growth. Leadership Outcomes. Finally, we explore the third
box— leadership outcomes. This helps us visualize how the sum of individual attributes and
competencies can lead to specific leadership outcomes such as effective problem solving
and performance. Environmental Influences. Beyond the three boxes and the tie-in between
the first two boxes and career experiences, we find environmental influences. These are
influences that have nothing to do with traits or competencies, but that clearly still impact
leadership outcomes. An example of this would be a scenario in which an old facility that is
missing most of the modern technological advances that help an organization remain
competitive. In this situation, growing leaders must learn to problem solve around issues
they don’t have the ability to impact. Learning to work around such complex environmental
influences grows the leader and prepares him or her for solving future complex problems.
Leadership Skills and The Tribe: Making Your Own Connections Now that we have explored
skills-based leadership, let’s apply that knowledge to The Tribe. This is your opportunity to
make your own connections between two major concepts. Rather than providing you with
an application of tribal leadership to the skills approach, you will look for these links
yourself within the two discussion questions for this module. For the first question, you will
apply the three-skill approach to tribal leadership. For the second question, you will apply
the skills model to tribal leadership. LEADERSHIP SKILLS FOR A CHANGING WORLD:
SOLVING COMPLEX SOCIAL PROBLEMS Michael D. Mumford* University of Oklahoma
Stephen J. Zaccaro George Mason University Management Research Institute Francis D.
Harding Management Research Institute T. Owen Jacobs National Defense University Edwin
A. Fleishman George Mason University and Management Research Institute Leadership has

3. traditionally been seen as a distinctly interpersonal phenomenon demonstrated in the
interactions between leaders and subordinates. The theory of leadership presented in this
article proposes that effective leadership behavior fundamentally depends upon the
leader’s ability to solve the kinds of complex social problems that arise in organizations. The
skills that make this type of complex social problem solving possible are discussed. The
differential characteristics and career experiences likely to influence the development of
these skills also are considered along with the implications of these observations for
leadership theory and for the career development of organizational leaders. * Direct all
correspondence to: Michael D. Mumford, Department of Psychology, University of
Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey St., Room 740, Norman, OK 73019; e-mail:
mmumford@ou.edu. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11– vier
Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843 12
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 INTRODUCTION Continual change and the
need to respond to it compels the Commander to carry the whole apparatus of his
knowledge with him. He must always be ready to bring forth the appropriate decision by
total assimilation of his mind and life. The Commander’s knowledge must be transformed
into general capability (Von Clausewitz, 1984, p. 147). In this quote, Von Clausewitz states a
fundamental issue that must be addressed in any attempt to develop a truly comprehensive
theory of leadership. Few of us would dispute the point that leaders exercise influence,
taking actions that, in one way or another, shape the behavior of others (Bass, 1990;
Fleishman, 1973, 1998; Yukl, 1994). However, it is not enough for leaders to exercise
influence, however important this influence may be to perceptions of leadership (Hall &
Lord, 1995). Certainly, people in the Gulag would not question whether Stalin influenced
their lives. However, it is open to question, given the long-term consequences of his actions
for Russia, whether Stalin was an effective leader. Leaders must not only exercise influence,
they must decide when, where, and how influence will be exercised to bring about the
attainment of social goals (House & Howell, 1992; Mumford, 1986; Winter, 1991). The
importance of effective leadership has not been lost on students of leadership. Over the
years, many theories have been proposed describing the kinds of behaviors that make
effective leadership possible—theories of behavioral styles (Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992),
tranformational or charismatic leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Klein & House, 1995) and
leader-member exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These theories all have in common a
focus on certain behavior patterns and the implications of these patterns for leader
performance. In contrast, however, leadership can be framed not in terms of specific
behaviors, but instead in terms of the capabilities, knowledge, and skills that make effective
leadership possible. Although capability models have not been widely applied in studies of
leadership, they have been used in a number of other areas, ranging from the design of
educational interventions (Halpern, 1984) to the description of work force requirements
(Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999). Capability models (i.e.,
theories examining the knowledge and skills held to underlie effective performance) have
contributed to the design of new assessment and developmental interventions. They have
also proved particularly useful in describing the basis for effective action within unstable or
changing environments (Cascio, 1995). This article describes a capability model for

4. understanding leader performance in organizational settings, considering both skill and
knowledge requirements, as well as the development and expression of those capabilities
over the course of leaders’ careers. Organizations and Problems Attempts to develop
models of the skills and knowledge required for effective performance typically begin with
an analysis of the demands being made on people working in a certain arena (Fleishman &
Quaintance, 1984; Mumford & Peterson, 1999). Thus, to develop a model of the capabilities
underlying effective organiza- Leadership Skills for a Changing World 13 tional leadership,
one must identify the performance requirements imposed on organizational leaders. These
requirements are succinctly described by Hackman and Walton (1986, p. 25) who state that
the leader’s main job is to do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for
group needs (McGrath, 1962, p. 5). If a leader manages, by whatever means, to ensure that
all functions critical to both task accomplishment and group maintenance are adequately
taken care of, then the leader has done his or her job well. This description of leader
performance, however, poses another, somewhat deeper question. What must the leader do
to facilitate group maintenance and task accomplishment? To answer this question, one
must consider the problems confronting organizational leaders as they attempt to manage
people and their work. Although a number of models have been proposed that might be
used to understand organizational behavior (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), socio-technical
systems theory represents a widely accepted model, one that has proven useful in
accounting for a variety of organizational phenomena, including cycles of growth and
change (Tushman & Anderson, 1986), culture (Schneider & Schneider, 1994), and reactions
to innovation (Bryan, 1988; Burns & Stalker, 1961). Systems theory defines an organization
as a collection of subsystems that operate together to provide products and meet the goals
of various constituencies using a socio-technical transformation process (Katz & Kahn,
1978). This transformation process is based on the division of labor and available
technology. Maintaining this process requires organizations to extract resources from the
surrounding environment and produce products that are likely to attract investment. While
this seems quite straightforward, systems theory points to three rather fundamental
contradictions of organizational life. First, organizations must balance the tendency toward
stability, brought about by prior investments, interdependencies among systems, and
people’s habits, with the need for change to cope with shifts in the environment, technology,
and available resources. Second, although they might work together to bring about products
or services, the loosely linked subsystems that comprise organizations may not agree on
goals or strategies for coping with changes. Third, organizations must not only cope with
objective performance demands and the bottom line, they must recognize the unique needs
of the people who comprise the subsystems. Environmental change, subsystem differences,
and the diversity of human beings result in organizational contexts defined by complexity,
conflict, and dynamism. Under these conditions, end goals and paths to goal attainment are,
at best, uncertain. To survive and prosper, organizations must control conflict, position
themselves to adjust to change, and choose the best paths to goal attainment. Accordingly,
organizational leaders who are tasked with maintaining organizational viability must
search for goals and paths to goal attainment that will maintain the organization and ensure
that the work gets done. Thus, a leader’s performance is a function of whether he or she can

5. identify goals, construct viable goal paths, and direct others along these paths in a volatile,
changing socio-technical environment (Mumford & 14 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11
No. 1 2000 Connelly, 1991). Leaders must not only be able to define departmental, unit or
organizational missions, they must be able to coordinate the activities of others motivating
them to meet mission requirements. Additionally, they must circumvent or resolve issues
impeding progress towards accomplishing organizational goals. Selection and
implementation of actions to bring about goal attainment represents a form of problem
solving making the generation, evaluation, and implementation of proactive and reactive
solutions key to leader effectiveness. Leadership Problems The statement that
organizational leadership involves problem solving should not be taken to imply that
leadership is the equivalent of performance on the Scholastic Achievement Test. Leadership
instead represents a complex form of social problem solving. One way leadership problems
differ from more routine problems is that the complexity, conflict, and change
characterizing organizations ensure that leaders are presented with ill-defined problems
(Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, & Hein, 1991; Mumford & Connelly, 1991).
Ill-defined problems lack a single solution path—right answer or wrong answer—allowing
the problem to be construed in a number of different ways (Fredericksen, 1984; Runco,
1994). As Amabile (1997) points out, one of the central issues leaders must address,
particularly entrepreneurs, is defining exactly what the problem is in the first place. Not
only is it difficult in many organizational settings for leaders to say exactly what the
problem is, it may not be clear exactly what information should be brought to bear on the
problem. There is a plethora of available information in complex organizational systems,
only some of which is relevant to the problem. Further, it may be difficult to obtain accurate,
timely information and identify key diagnostic information. As a result, leaders must
actively seek and carefully evaluate information bearing on potential problems and goal
attainment (Komaki, Desselles, & Bowman, 1989; Voss, Wolfe, Lawrence, & Engle, 1991).
Still another way leadership problems differ from more routine kinds of problems is that
they tend to be novel. Many routine managerial problems, business projections for example,
do not represent especially novel problems to experienced managers (Nutt, 1984). These
routine organizational issues do not call for exceptional leadership. Leadership, however,
becomes more crucial when one must develop and guide adaptive responses to new or
changing situations. As Hackman and Walton (1986) and Tushman and Anderson (1986)
point out, when groups must deal with novel problem scenarios, leadership is likely to have
its greatest impact on organizational performance. Complexity, novelty, and information
ambiguity define one set of attributes that set apart leaders’ problem solving efforts. It is
important to remember that leaders solve problems in “real-world” settings where time is
short, and demands are many. As a result, leaders typically do not have the luxury of
analytically working through all options attached to a problem (Lord & Maher, 1990).
Instead, they must often generate solutions to multiple, rapidly unfolding problems, using
short-cuts and applying general models (Mintzberg, 1973, 1975, 1994; Wagner, 1991).
Solutions may often be extemporaneous, involving interactions among multiple different
problems as they unfold over time in a dynamic system. Leadership Skills for a Changing
World 15 Moreover, in organizations it is often far more important to have a workable

6. solution at the right time than one truly best solution. One implication of this observation is
that leaders attend to restrictions imposed by time frame, resources, system demands,
conflicting goals, and conflicting problems in generating and implementing potential
solutions (Schor, 1983). Determining how to work within these restrictions may, in fact,
represent the most common manifestation of leader innovation. In organizations, however,
feasibility is not simply a matter of attending to constraints. Leaders must also attend to
potential negative consequences of a solution with respect to other ongoing problem-
solving efforts and broader system goals (Mumford & Peterson, 1999). Solutions
inconsistent with broader goals and policies, or solutions associated with negative
downstream consequences must be rejected as unworkable (Wagner, 1991). Given these
system concerns and the pressures, it is not surprising that leaders often evaluate problem
significance and solution feasibility before starting work (McCall & Kaplan, 1985). From a
leader’s perspective, organizational constituencies and stakeholders pose significant
potential restrictions. Thus, leaders’ solutions must be built upon consensus which implies a
broader point. Leaders must develop and implement solutions in a distinctly social context.
Solutions are often developed interactively or with the help of key subordinates, peers, and
supervisors (House, 1996; Howard, 1995). The need to develop and implement solutions
with and through others places a premium on social skills (Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, &
Mumford, 1991), especially skills used in acquiring information, framing actions, and
promoting coherent actions on the part of the group. In this sense, it is clear that
communication of a shared vision and flexibility in implementation may represent
necessary components of effective problem solving in organizations. LEADERSHIP SKILLS
These observations about the nature of leaders’ problem-solving efforts are of some interest
in their own right. With respect to understanding effective leadership in organizational
settings, however, the nature of the problems at hand and their associated performance
demands have another noteworthy set of implications. Specifically, they provide us with
some important clues about the kinds of knowledge and skills likely to underlie effective
performance in organizational settings. Figure 1 presents an overview of the key kinds of
capabilities, knowledge and skills brought to bear in leaders’ problem-solving efforts. This
model posits that leaders begin to address complex organizational issues by defining the
problem and formulating a solution framework or set of ideas that might be used to
understand the problem and develop initial solution strategies. In this phase, leaders,
sometimes with the help of others, focus primarily on the problem, its significance, origins,
and potential solutions. Although the focus at this point is on the problem, it is important to
recognize that experience, knowledge of the job, and the nature of the organizational
environment and the leader’s understanding of it shapes the way leaders represent the
problem, the kinds of information they look for, and the type of concepts being applied
(Mumford, Whetzel, & Reiter-Palmon, 1997). Leaders cannot assume work is done when
they have formulated an initial Model of Leader Problem Solving LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY
Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 Figure 1. 16 Leadership Skills for a Changing World 17 solution approach
to the problem. Capabilities such as wisdom and perspectivetaking enable leaders to “go
outside themselves” to assess how others react to a solution, identify restrictions, develop
plans, and build support for implementation. At times, restrictions, lack of effort, or the

7. failure to find a viable plan of action, may dictate new cycles of problem-focused cognition.
In other cases, this organizational cognition leads to a refinement of initial solution
frameworks that permits effective problem solving within the context of ongoing
organizational activities. Accordingly, a knowledge of the organization, key constituencies
and operational requirements appear to be important influences on performance during
this phase of problem solving. Ultimately, performance depends on implementation of a
plan. Implementation, however, occurs in a distinctly social context, where the leader
depends on the efforts of others in implementing proposed solutions. Thus, social cognition
is also required. One important requirement during the social implementation phase is a
knowledge of subordinates, peers, and superiors, people the leader is interacting with
during solution implementation. The leader must be able to communicate vision, establish
goals, monitor progress, and motivate subordinates as they attempt to implement a given
solution plan. This requires flexibility in dealing with others and in adjusting plans
opportunistically, as dictated by the demands of a changing social environment (Hayes-Roth
& Hayes-Roth, 1979; Zaccaro, 1996; Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991). With regard
to this general model of leaders’ problem-solving efforts, three points should be borne in
mind. First, although problem-focused, organizational, and social cognition can be viewed as
distinct phases, in “real world” settings, all three phases may interact in a dynamic and
cyclical fashion. For example, implementation issues such as subordinate motivation may
trigger new cycles of problem-focused cognition. Second, within this model, leadership is
viewed as a highly complex phenomenon involving multiple forms of cognition. Third,
although this model recognizes the importance of the social informational capacities
traditionally held to define leadership, it also indicates that effective leadership depends
upon an underlying bedrock of problem-focused and organizational cognition— topics that
have received scant attention in the literature. Creative Problem Solving In problem-focused
cognition, leaders are attempting to solve novel, ill-defined problems. Novel, ill-defined
problems cannot be solved simply through the routine applications of extant knowledge
(Baughman & Mumford, 1995). Instead, relevant knowledge, particularly representations
derived from prior experience and knowledge of one’s job, must be reshaped and reformed
to generate new solutions. These observations, in turn, suggest that the skills involved in
creative problem solving influence leader performance. Traditionally, organizational
leaders, despite the manifest creativity of such notables as Henry Ford and Robert E. Lee,
have not been viewed as particularly creative people (Torrance, 1971; Whyte, 1956). The
available evidence, however, indicates that creative problem-solving skills may indeed
represent an important influence 18 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 on leader
performance. Studies by Bray, Campbell, and Grant (1974), Chusmir and Koberg (1986),
DeVeau (1976), Howard and Bray (1988), Rusmore (1984), and Sinetar (1985) all indicate
that measures of divergent thinking skills are positively correlated with leader
performance. More recent work by Guastello (1995) has shown that idea generation is
related to emerging leadership, while Mumford and Peterson (1999) found that across
industries, high levels of creative problem-solving skills were required on upper level
managerial jobs. Over the years, a number of scholars have proposed models describing the
key cognitive skills involved in creative problem solving (e.g., Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992;

8. Isaksen & Parnes, 1985; Merrifield, Guilford, Christensen, & Frick, 1962; Mumford, Mobley,
Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, & Doares, 1991). Typically, those models assume that creative
problem solving involves a complex set of skills beginning with problem construction,
where the selection and screening of knowledge representations derived from past
experience is used to define the nature of the problem structure, structure information
search, and select concept relevant concepts (Davidson, 1995; Mumford & Gustafson, in
press; Perkins, 1992; Runco, 1994). Based on this information, existing concepts are
restructured or reorganized to provide the new understandings that serve as the basis for
generating alternative solutions, evaluating the merits of these alternatives, and
constructing an initial implementation plan (Finke et al., 1992; Runco & Chand, 1994). The
evidence accrued in these and a number of other studies, indicate that these skills represent
unique capacities reflecting something above and beyond general intelligence (Okuda,
Runco, & Berger, 1991; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). For example, in one series of studies,
Mumford, Baughman, Supinski, Costanza, and Threlfall (1993) found that performance on a
set of ill-defined management problems depended on (1) the identification of viable
procedures during problem construction; (2) the capacity to identify key facts and
anomalous observations during information gathering; and (3) the use of appropriate
analogies and metaphors in combining and reorganizing concepts to generate new
understandings. Along similar lines, other studies by Runco and Basadur (1993) and
Basadur and Hausdorf (1996) have shown that elaboration of those new understandings to
generate viable ideas, subsequent evaluation of ideas, and the construction of idea
implementation strategies also influence creative problem solving. Although there is reason
to suspect that these kinds of progressive skills influence creative problem solving, it should
be recognized that leaders may apply these skills in some unique ways. For example,
organizational goals may play a more important role in shaping leaders’ problem
constructions than is typical on more free-flowing creative problem-solving tasks. Along
similar lines, leaders are more likely to rely on a progressive on-line reorganization of
extant schemas to generate new solutions (Mumford & Connelly, 1991; Weber, 1992).
Finally, the generation and evaluation of alternative solutions may be more markedly
influenced by prior experience and perceived interpersonal reactions than is the case in
other types of creative problemsolving efforts. Social Judgment Skills As noted above,
leaders’ problem solutions must be implemented and applied in a distinctly social context.
As a result, selected alternatives need to be extended Leadership Skills for a Changing
World 19 and revised to ensure workability within the context of the organizational
environment. This point is nicely articulated by Geiwitz (1993) who argues that
understanding and monitoring social dynamics within the problem domain represents a key
leadership skill. Further, as Kuhnert and Russell (1990) point out, integration of potential
solutions with the practical demands of the organization requires perspective-taking of the
capacity to move beyond the problem to see other ways in which solutions can be useful.
These kinds of appraisal and perspective-taking activities are most commonly discussed
under the rubric of wisdom. Studies by Arlin (1990), Orwoll and Perlmutter (1990), and
Sternberg (1985, 1990) have identified a number of capacities that appear to be related to
wisdom, including self-objectivity, self-reflection, systems perception, awareness of solution

9. fit, judgment under uncertain conditions, and systems commitment. Moreover, at least one
study suggests that measures of these capacities have been formulated that evidence some
construct validity (Connelly, Marks, & Mumford, 1993). Although stronger evidence bearing
on the nature and significance of these constructs is desirable, there are theoretical reasons
why they could have a significant impact on leader performance. For example, objectivity
would seem to be necessary whenever one is dealing with a complex system where
feedback is ambiguous. Along similar lines, sensitivity to issues of solution appropriateness,
as well as an awareness of different constituencies, are likely to be important when
integrating solutions into an organization composed of rather loosely linked subsystems,
each having somewhat different concerns, responsibilities, and functions. The various
components of wisdom, however, do not represent the only skills needed when bringing
potential solutions into the organization. In complex organizational systems, causal linkages
are often obscure and difficult to diagnose (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Further, the efforts of
making a change are not necessarily linear and any change may be associated with a
number of unanticipated, perhaps problematic, consequences. Those observations suggest
that skills such as identification of restrictions, analysis of downstream consequences,
coordination of multiple activities, and sensitivity to relevant goals may all play a role in
leader performance. Leaders must not only be able to formulate a plan that works within
the context of the organization, they must also be able to implement this plan within a
distinctly social context, marshaling support, communicating a vision, guiding subordinates,
and motivating others. Thus, leaders must also be able to understand and work with
others—another point which underscores the need for social skills (Bass, 1990; Boyatzis,
1982; House & Baetz, 1979; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992; Zaccaro, 1996; Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, &
Mumford, 1991). One key social skill that appears to underlie leader performance is social
perceptiveness. Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, and Mumford (1991) see social perceptiveness as a
complex skill involving insight into the needs, goals, demands, and problems of different
organizational constituencies. In organizational settings, social perceptiveness allows
leaders to identify emerging problems, the potential influence of others on problem
solutions, and requirement for organizational groups. It is not enough, however, for leaders
to be aware of others. They must also adjust their behavior to cope with the requirements
imposed by their perceptions of others. In fact, Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (1991), using an
experimental rotational design 20 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 where
individuals were rotated through multiple group situations, found that people who emerged
as leaders displayed substantial behavioral flexibility, being capable of changing behavior in
accordance with the demands of the situation. Although social perceptiveness and
behavioral flexibility represent key social skills, laying a foundation for effective leadership
by providing leaders with the capability to understand the social setting and respond to the
dynamics of this setting, leaders must also possess a host of other social performance skills.
These include: communication and persuasion; negotiation; conflict management; and
coaching. For example, Kabanoff (1985) and Sheppard (1984) have described how the use
of various conflict-resolution strategies can contribute to group maintenance and leader
performance. Other work by Conger and Kanungo (1988) and House and Shamir (1993)
indicates that persuasive skills may represent an essential step in getting subordinates to

10. adopt a vision or a proposed solution plan. Knowledge Our discussion of the skills involved
in leader performance rests on an assumption evident in our discussion of social skills.
More specifically, effective application of all these skills depends on knowledge. In
generating solutions, tailoring solutions to the organizations, and implementing these
solutions within the organization, leaders need knowledge. In keeping with this proposition,
Simonton (1984, 1988, 1990) found that charismatic leaders characteristically have a rather
unique set of career experiences providing the knowledge needed to solve the problems
confronting various constituencies. As important as knowledge is to skilled performance
(Ericsson & Charness, 1994), students of leadership often downplay the role of knowledge
in shaping leader performance. One reason the need for knowledge is often discounted, is
that it is frequently confused with information. Knowledge, however, is not simply an
accumulation of bits of information. Instead, knowledge reflects a schematic organization of
key facts and principles pertaining to the characteristics of objects lying in a domain
(Fleishman & Mumford, 1989). Studies contrasting novices and experts within a domain
indicate that experts typically have more concepts or schema available, that are organized
on the basis of underlying factors that permit them to more accurately diagnose and assess
the implications of different pieces of information (Anderson, 1993; Chi, Glaser, & Rees,
1982; Halff, Hogan, & Hutchins, 1986; Salthouse, 1987). The availability of these complex,
principle-based schematic structures also appears to characterize leaders, with more
successful ones evidencing more complex schematic structures (Streufert & Nogami, 1992)
and using structures that apply across a longer time frame (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987, 1990,
1991; Jaques, 1977). Another reason the importance of knowledge is often overlooked is
that several different forms of knowledge appear to play a role in leader performance. To
solve leadership problems, knowledge is needed bearing on: (1) the tasks at hand; (2) the
organization; and (3) the people with whom one works (Zaccaro, Marks, O’ConnorBoes, &
Costanza, 1995). Each of these types of knowledge may exert unique effects on leader
performance. Moreover, each type of knowledge may be organized or Leadership Skills for a
Changing World 21 structured in different ways, sometimes reflecting a set of base
concepts, and other times reflecting more complex mental models, articulating relationships
among different concepts (Goldschmidt, 1991). For example, knowledge of organizations
may be represented in terms of a complex mental model, in which knowledge of others may
be represented in terms of prototype categories. In addition to these kinds of formal,
conscious knowledge structures, experiential knowledge, derived from representations of
past experience, may be structured in terms of associational networks (Seger, 1994). These
experience-based representational networks influence how leaders define problems,
evaluate restrictions, and implement plans. In fact, a series of studies by Sternberg and his
colleagues (Sternberg & Wagner, 1993; Wagner & Sternberg, 1985) indicates that this tacit,
experientially based knowledge may represent an important influence on leader
performance, correlating with pay as well as performance in complex simulation exercises.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION Our observations with regard to knowledge
bring to the fore an important issue that has received only limited attention in our
discussion thus far. Knowledge and skills are developed capabilities that emerge over time
as a function of education and experience (Ackerman, 1992; Fleishman, 1992). This point is

11. of some importance in contrasting the model presented above with “great man” views of
leadership (Bass, 1990; Jennings, 1960; Woods, 1913). Leadership skills and subsequent
performance are not viewed as the province of a few gifted individuals. Instead, leadership
is held to be a potential in many individuals—a potential that emerges through experience
and the capability to learn and benefit from experience. Differential and Contextual
Influences A skills-based model of leadership, however, is not necessarily incompatible with
traditional trait-based models. More basic attributes of the individual—abilities, motivation,
and personality—influence the kinds of experiences one has and the kinds of skills that
develop as a function of experience. For example, Snow and Lohman (1984) have shown
that the rate with which people acquire abstract, principle-based knowledge structures is
influenced by intelligence. Intelligence also appears to influence the acquisition of complex
problem-solving skills (Baughman, 1997). Intelligence, or general cognitive ability, is
perhaps the individual characteristic that has most often and consistently been associated
with leadership. Stogdill (1948) reported 23 studies that found leaders to be brighter than
followers; only five studies showed no difference. In a second review, covering research
between 1948 and 1970, 25 studies indicated a positive correlation between intelligence
and leadership (Bass, 1990; Stogdill, 1974). In subsequent meta-analyses, with the effects of
range restriction, attenuation, and sampling error taken into account, the correlation
between intelligence and leadership was sizable, with population validities lying in the .50s
(Cornwell, 1983; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986). In keeping with these findings,
intelligence has been found to be a characteristic of leader prototypes 22 LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992) while
being related to indices of advancement and success in managerial positions (Howard &
Bray, 1988). Intelligence, however, is not the only ability that might influence the
acquisition of requisite skills and subsequent leader performance. Leaders also need
crystallized cognitive abilities including written and oral expression, and written and oral
comprehension to acquire, exchange, and manipulate information in most, if not all,
problem domains (Bass, 1990; Fleishman & Friedman, 1990). Moreover, some fluid abilities,
such as fluency and speed of closure, may also be relevant to leader performance, given the
need for leaders to solve novel, ill-defined problems. Divergent thinking ability may also be
a necessary precursor to effectively defining and solving these types of problems.
Intelligence and other abilities are not the only differential characteristics that might
influence the acquisition of requisite leadership skills. Skills development also requires a
willingness to enter situations where these skills can be exercised, as well as a willingness
to exercise these skills in solving significant organizational problems. As a result, one might
expect that certain motivational and personality characteristics also influence both leader
performance and the development of requisite capabilities. With regard to motivation, three
characteristics seem essential to effective leadership. First, leaders must be willing to tackle
difficult, challenging organizational problems using these problems as a vehicle for growth
(Howard & Bray, 1988). Accordingly, achievement and mastery motives, or the motivation
to extend one’s performance capabilities (Dweck, 1986) can be expected to be related to
both skills acquisition and subsequent performance. Second, leaders must be willing to
exercise influence. Dominance, as a result, can be expected to influence performance,

12. attracting individuals to situations where those skills can be exercised, motivating effort in
those situations. In fact, House, Woycke, and Foder (1988) and Lord, DeVader, and Alliger
(1986) have shown that measures of dominance or power motives are consistently related
to leadership. Dominance and power motives, however, may not necessarily be desirable
unless coupled with a third motive—social commitment (House & Howell, 1992). This point
is illustrated in a recent study by O’Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, and Connelly (1995)
who found that a lack of social commitment, as evidenced in negative life themes, resulted
in leaders who had disastrous effects on society’s long-term best interests. With regard to
personality, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that characteristics that allow leaders to
survive and prosper in complex organizational environments may be related to leader
performance. A host of personality characteristics have been found to be related to
performance on complex social problems (Barron & Harrington, 1981; MacKinnon, 1962).
Some of these characteristics, for example, openness, tolerance for ambiguity, and curiosity,
may influence leader willingness to tackle novel problems and success in working through
these problems. Other characteristics, such as confidence, risk taking, adaptability, and
independence, may influence performance by allowing leaders to apply resources more
effectively in a turbulent and rather stressful environment (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). In an
extensive review of Myers-Briggs research in managerial samples, Gardner and Martinko
(1996) found evidence to suggest that intuitive managers are inclined to be more
Leadership Skills for a Changing World 23 Figure 2. Influence of Leader Characteristics on
Leader Performance idealistic, unconventional, and creative; upper level managers are
likely to be more intuiting than sensing; and managers high on perceiving prefer
unstructured and dynamic situations and are more flexible and creative. A Model of Leader
Problem-Solving Characteristics An important notion implicit throughout much of the
foregoing discussion is that many differential characteristics exert their effects on
leadership by promoting development of requisite knowledge and skills. For example,
achievement motivation may promote skills development, just as it serves to motivate
performance in the setting at hand. Those observations, in turn, suggest that the differential
characteristics related to leader performance are best understood in terms of the
mediational model presented in Fig. 2. This model holds that knowledge and skills
represent the most direct determinants of performance. Knowledge and skills are in turn
influenced by more basic differential characteristics. The model presented in Fig. 2 makes
two other noteworthy points. First, knowledge, skills, problem solving, and performance are
all held to be influenced by various environmental facts. Put simply, even the most skilled
leader may fail if subordinates are completely incapable of implementing a proposed
solution. The leadership literature has long recognized the importance of the social
environment in shaping leader performance (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). The model presented
in Fig. 2, however, reminds us that the environment can also have somewhat more subtle
effects on leader performance. For example, if information systems or the 24 LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 pattern of social interactions provide inadequate
information to the leader about the problem situation, performance suffers. Second, this
model suggests that career experiences can also exert effects on leader performance.
Knowledge and skills develop as a function of experience (Ackerman, 1992; Hulin, Henry, &

13. Noon, 1989). Thus, the experience leaders acquire in the course of their careers should
influence whether requisite knowledge and skills are available for problem solving. Given
the importance to leader performance of solving novel social problems, one would expect
that certain types of experiences would prove particularly beneficial, including: (1) job
assignments that provide exposure to novel, challenging problems; (2) mentoring; (3)
appropriate training; and (4) hands-on experience in solving related problems. McCauley,
Ruderman, Ohlott, and Morrow’s (1994) study of job influences on leader development
provides some support for this proposition. Although career experiences shape the
development of requisite capabilities, they may exert other types of effects on the various
characteristics held to influence organizational leadership. Certain experiences may enable
slow growth of intellectual abilities in adulthood (Schooler, 1984). Reputation and past
performance affect the perceptions of a leader’s performance (Kasof, 1995) which in turn
affects the conditions of performance in social settings and the way performance is
evaluated. Thus, career experiences may, like the organizational environment, exert a
number of complex and subtle effects on organizational leadership. Skills Development
These observations about career experiences and organizational influences point to a
broader conclusion, specifically, skills of the sort described above develop rather slowly,
emerging over a period of time as a function of certain abilities and experiences. This point
is consistent with the observations of Ericsson and Charness (1994) who note that it
typically takes people seven to ten years to acquire the skills needed at the top levels in a
career field. In the case of organizational leaders, however, where multiple skill sets and a
variety of different forms of expertise are required, this developmental period may be
significantly longer. The time needed to acquire requisite leadership skills has a number of
noteworthy implications. Without appropriate developmental experience, even the most
intelligent and motivated individual is unlikely to be an effective leader in organizational
settings. Along similar lines, people who lack the abilities needed to develop these skills in a
timely fashion are unlikely ever to become effective leaders. Thus, leaders are not born, nor
are they made; instead, their inherent potentials are shaped by experiences enabling them
to develop the capabilities needed to solve significant social problems (Erickson, 1959;
Jacobs & Jaques, 1987, 1990, 1991; Lewis & Jacobs, 1992). The rather slow development of
requisite knowledge and skills, however, has another, somewhat more subtle implication. At
any given time, the number of people available within an organization who have the
requisite knowledge and skills is not typically sufficient to get the job done. Organizations,
however, solve the problem by capitalizing on the range of requisite leadership roles
available, differ- Leadership Skills for a Changing World 25 entiating among roles with
respect to function, level of responsibility, and the type and amount of skill required.
Essentially, the complex nature of organizational leadership structures complements the
diversity of people and their development. In fact, Jaques (1977) and Jacobs and Jaques
(1987, 1990, 1991) have proposed theories of organizational leadership that expressly take
this differentiation into account. They argue that as leaders ascend a hierarchy, the kinds of
problems they are confronted with become progressively more complex and long term.
These changes in role demands, in turn, require higher levels of conceptual capacity and
greater abstract thought. Mumford and Connelly (1991) extended this argument, suggesting

14. that the types of problems confronting senior executives, as opposed to first-line
supervisors, also tend to be more ill-defined, more novel, and involve a larger number of
interactions among a wider range of constituencies. These authors suggest that higher
levels of creative problem-solving skills and complex social judgment skills are increasingly
required as leaders move through their careers. This progressive change in the complexity
and demands associated with organizational leadership roles has a number of implications
for leader development. First, one would expect leadership roles to be structured to impose
progressively greater skill requirements. Second, as leaders move through these roles and
acquire experience, one would expect to see gains in requisite problems-solving systems
and social skills, as well as the development of more complex principle-based knowledge
structures. Third, the knowledge and skills showing gains at one point in leaders’ careers
may not be identical to the knowledge and skills growing at other points in their careers.
For example, it may be difficult for problem-solving skills to grow until the individual has
acquired a basic working knowledge of the organization. Along similar lines, the growth of
certain systems skills may well depend on the prior acquisition of requisite problem-solving
skills. Fourth, because skill development proceeds in a complex fashion, the kinds of
experiences that contribute to growth at one point in a leader’s career are likely to be
different in some respects than experiences contributing to growth in later phases. The
framework sketched out above implies progressive growth of the knowledge and skills
needed to solve leadership problems. Certainly, the bulk of the available evidence supports
this proposition, suggesting that people move from more concrete operations to
progressively more complex, principle-based structures as they acquire expertise
(Anderson, 1993; Chi, Bassock, Lewis, Reiman, & Glaser, 1989). These aggregate trends,
however, may not reflect what appears at the individual level where more complex patterns
of growth and change often emerge (Gardner, 1995; Lerner & Tubman, 1989). Certain
individuals, for example, may acquire some types of skills far more rapidly than others, due
to their abilities and certain dispositional characteristics. In other cases, individuals may
pursue certain experiences or be exposed to certain events that affect the skills they are
likely to develop, and the rate at which they develop these skills. These kinds of effects
suggest that patterns of skills development for individual leaders may be quite complex
giving rise to different patterns of skills and skills development. To complicate matters
further, the nature of organizations and organizational leadership roles may facilitate the
emergence of these differential skill patterns. Although leadership roles all involve solving
novel social problems, the types of 26 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000
problems leaders confront over the course of their careers may differ as a result of the
functional areas they work in. Organizations need leaders who can manage resources,
market products, direct day-to-day work, and drive the organization into the future. These
differences in the focus of leadership roles may not only give rise to distinct skill patterns,
but may also create the need for leadership teams where a variety of different types of
capabilities can be brought to bear in solving significant organizational problems.
CONCLUSION This article outlines the framework for a new model of organizational
leadership— one based on the notion that organizational leadership is a form of skilled
performance. This skills-based model of organizational leadership is a distinctly cognitive

15. model based on the proposition that leadership ultimately depends on one’s capability to
formulate and implement solutions to complex (i.e., novel, ill-defined) social problems.
Solving these problems depends, in turn, on a complex set of skills and the availability of
requisite knowledge. Broadly speaking, it is argued that the skills needed to solve
organizational leadership problems include complex creative problem-solving skills
associated with identifying problems, understanding the problem, and generating potential
solutions; social judgment skills associated with the refinement of potential solutions and
the creation of implementation frameworks within a complex organizational setting; and
social skills associated with motivating and directing others during solution
implementation. Application of each of these skill sets is associated with various forms of
knowledge. Knowledge and skills grow as a function of experience as leaders progress
through their careers. This skills-based model of leader performance paints a rather
different picture of leadership than would emerge after a careful reading of the traditional
texts (e.g., Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Studies of leadership have focused on the behaviors
observed as leaders interact with followers (e.g., Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998;
Fleishman, 1973) and on followers’ perceptions of leader behavior (e.g., Hall & Lord, 1995;
Kim & Yukl, 1995). There is no disputing that leadership is an interactional social
phenomenon involving the exercise of influence and others’ reactions to these influence
attempts. However, it is argued here that effective leaders must exercise influence
judiciously, tackling the right problems in the right way within the context of other
organizational activities. Thus, problem-focused and organizationally-focused cognition
represent necessary precursors to the effective exercise of influence. This skills-based
approach to organizational leadership not only reminds us of the importance of certain
skills, it reminds us of another important, often overlooked component of leader
performance. Leadership is often studied in a vacuum—as a thing that exists outside the
context of “real world” organizational problems. However useful this strategy may be in
initial theory-testing efforts, crucial components of performance such as knowledge of the
organization, are often not included (Komaki, Deselles, & Bowman, 1989). The model
presented here assumes that skills application requires multiple forms of knowledge—
knowledge of the job, Leadership Skills for a Changing World 27 knowledge of the
organization, knowledge of the business, and knowledge of people, particularly those who
implement solutions. Without this knowledge, even the most skilled problem solver is likely
to be an ineffectual leader. Unfortunately, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Sternberg &
Wagner, 1993), knowledge has received relatively little attention in the leadership
literature. This model of leadership also has some noteworthy implications for how the
sources of leader performance are construed. Some theorists see leadership as the
prerogative of a few gifted individuals; others see leadership as a function of the situation;
still others see leadership as being shaped by the need for certain traits within a given
environment (e.g., Fiedler & Garcia, 1987; Podsakoff & McKenzie, 1995). Here, however, the
dynamic interaction of the environment and the person, as it gives rise to the development,
acquisition, and application of requisite organizational problem-solving skills is seen as the
key to understanding leader performance. Thus, skills for circumventing organizational
constraints are required, as well as the capability to conceive of organizational problems in

16. practical terms and solving problems that can be solved, often over substantial periods of
time within the context of multiple, ongoing managerial demands (Mintzberg, 1975). These
observations, with regard to the implications of skills-based models of leader performance
beg a question: Is there any evidence to suggest that the skills and knowledge implied by
this social problem-solving model are indeed related to leader performance? Certainly,
studies by Guastello (1995), Jaques (1977), Mumford, O’Connor, Clifton, Connelly, and
Zaccaro (1993) and Sternberg and Wagner (1993), among others, have provided some
indirect evidence for certain key propositions flowing from this model. No studies
conducted to date, however, have attempted to provide systematic evidence for the
knowledge and skills held to underlie leader performance in this theoretical system. The
following set of articles describes the results obtained in a large-scale study that represents
an initial attempt to provide evidence for the meaningfulness of this skills-based model of
effective organizational leadership. More specifically, they address the following four key
issues. First, they examine the possibility of developing reliable and valid measures of
requisite knowledge and skills appropriate to the organization at hand. Second, they
examine whether these measures are capable of predicting leader performance, accounting
for variance in leader performance beyond that attributed to measures of abilities, motives,
and personality characteristics. Third, in keeping with the notion that skills develop, and
that higher levels of these skills are required as leaders move into positions of greater
responsibility, propositions about leaders’ knowledge and skills development over time and
experiences linked to this development are identified and tested. Fourth, abilities, motives,
and personality characteristics associated with different patterns of leader growth and
change are examined. These last two goals are distinctly developmental in nature. Thus, a
developmental approach, based on either a longitudinal or cross-sectional design seemed
indicated. Although a longitudinal study was envisioned, the costs associated with any
developmental study dictated use of the less costly cross-sectional approach. In the present
study, a cross-sectional design was implemented, using leaders in the U.S. Army who were
at different points in their careers. This organization 28 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11
No. 1 2000 provided a particularly attractive test site, in part because cohorts of leaders
progress systematically through their careers, with limited turnover, making it possible to
implement a cross-sectional design where many types of cross-organizational confounds
were controlled. The first four articles in this series examine the results obtained in the
sample of Army officers as they bear on the hypotheses described above. The first two
studies focus on initial development of the measures, their incremental validity vis-à-vis
measures of abilities, motives, and personality characteristics, and their relationships to
leader performance. The third article examines development of leader knowledge and skills
and experiences that appear to be linked to skill growth during different career periods. The
fourth article in this series examines how patterns of change in knowledge and skills may be
linked to different patterns of abilities, motives, and personality characteristics. The fifth
article uses automated measurement techniques to measure related types of leader skills or
metacognitive skills. To conclude, the last article in this series takes stock of the results.
Here, the overall pattern of evidence is considered as it pertains to the validity of this skills-
based model of leader performance in organizational settings. These studies also speak to

17. the development and application of leadership skills as they pertain to such practical
problems as selection and development. Finally, inherent limitations in the present study
are considered along with promising directions for future research, recognizing that this
skills-based approach is in its initial stages of development and require substantial
elaboration if, in the long run, it is to make a real contribution to our understanding leader
performance in organizational settings. Acknowledgments: The research described in this
article was supported by a contract to Management Research Institute from the Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences under the Small Business
Innovation Research program and was also carried out at George Mason University. During
this study the first author was at George Mason University. Parts of this research stem from
earlier work completed at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Advanced Research
Resources Organization. The material presented in this article represents the opinions of
the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S Army or the Department
of Defense. REFERENCES Ackerman, P. O. (1992). Predicting individual differences in
complex skill acquisition. Dynamics of ability determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77(5), 598–614. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational
synergy. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 18–26. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving
and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35–44. Arlin, P. K. (1990). Wisdom: The art of
problem finding. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp.
230–243). New York: Cambridge University Press. Leadership Skills for a Changing World
29 Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual
Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476. Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring
attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovative management. Creativity
Research Journal, 9(1), 21–32. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership:
Theory, research, and managerial application (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., &
Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. International
Journal of Public Administration, 17(3), 541–554. Baughman, W. A. (1997). The role of
relational preferences in the development of knowledge and skills. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, George Mason University. Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Process-
analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination and
reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 37–62. Boyatzis, R. R. (1982). The
competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: Wiley. Bray, D. W.,
Campbell, R. S., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business. New York: Wiley. Bryan,
R. F. (1988). Skippers and strategies: Leadership and innovation in Shetland fishing areas.
Human Organization, 39, 227–241. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of
innovation. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and
organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50(11),
928–939. Chi, M. T., Bassock, M., Lewis, M. W., Reiman, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self
explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.
Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182. Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem
solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–
75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chusmir, K., & Koberg, E. (1986). Creativity
differences among managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 240–253. Conger, J. A., &

18. Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Connelly, M. S., Marks, M. A., & Mumford, M. D.
(1993). An integrated dimensional structure of wisdom. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Cornwell, J. M. (1983).
Meta-analysis of selected trait research in the leadership literature. Paper presented at the
meetings of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. Dansereau, F., &
Yammarino, F. J. (1998). Introduction and overview. In F. Dansereau and F. J. Yammarino
(Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches. (pp. xxv–xliii). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Davidson, J. E. (1995). The suddenness of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),
The nature of insight. (pp. 125–156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DeVeau, R. J. (1976). The
relationships between leader effectiveness of first-line supervisors and measures of
authoritarianism, creativity, general intelligence, and leadership style. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 37(3-A), 1360–1361. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes
affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity
and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 18–164. 30 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No.
1 2000 Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, W. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and
acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747. Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New
approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance.
New York: Wiley. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory,
research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty
years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current
developments in the study of leadership (pp. 1–37). Carbondale, IL: University of Southern
Illinois Press. Fleishman, E. A. (1992). The Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS). Potomac,
MD: Management Research Institute. Fleishman, E. A. (1998). Consideration and structure:
Another look at their role in leadership research. In F. Dansereau & F. W. Yammarino (Eds.),
Leadership: The multi-level approach (pp. 51–60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Fleishman, E. A.,
& Friedman, L. (1990). Cognitive competencies related to management performance
requirements in R&D organizations (CBCS Final Report 90-2). Fairfax, VA: George Mason
University. Fleishman, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1989). Abilities as causes of individual
differences in skill acquisition. Human Performance, 2, 201–222. Fleishman, E. A., Mumford,
M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the
description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership
Quarterly, 2, 245–287. Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human
performance: The description of human tasks. Potomac, MD: Management Research
Institute. Fredericksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in
problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 43, 363–407. Gardner, H. (1995). Leading
minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J.
(1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A literature review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(1), 45–83. Geiwitz, J. (1993). A conceptual
model of metacognitive skills (ARI Tech. Rep. 51-1). Alexandria VA: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of
sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 123–144. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995).
Relationship-based approach to leadership. Development of leader-member exchange

19. theory (LMX) of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. Guastello, S. J. (1995). Facilitative style, individual
innovation and emergent leadership in problem solving groups. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 29, 225–239. Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in
organizations. In P. S. Goodman et al. (Eds.), Designing effective work groups. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. Halff, H. M., Hogan, J. D., & Hutchins, E. L. (1986). Cognitive science and military
training. American Psychologist, 41, 1131–1140. Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1995). Multi-level
information processing explanations of followers’ leadership perceptions. Leadership
Quarterly, 6(3), 265–287. Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to
critical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, K. (1979). A cognitive
model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275–310. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of
leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.
Leadership Skills for a Changing World 31 House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership:
Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 1, 341–423. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81–108. House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the
integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R.
Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–107).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press. House, R. J., Woycke, J., & Foder, E. M. (1988). Charismatic and
non-charismatic leaders: Differences in behavior and effectiveness. In J. A. Conger and R. N.
Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 98–121). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Howard,
A. (Ed.). (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Howard, A., &
Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times. New
York: Guilford. Hulin, C. L., Henry, R. A., & Noon, S. L. (1989). Adding a dimension: Time as a
factor in the generalizability of predictive relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3),
328–340. Isaksen, S. G., & Parnes, S. J. (1985). Curriculum planning for creative thinking and
problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19, 1–29. Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987).
Leadership in complex systems. In J. A. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement,
vol. II: Organizations, personnel, and decision making (vol. 2; pp. 201–245). New York:
Praeger. Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. In K. E. Clark & M. B.
Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 281–295). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of
America. Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1991). Executive leadership. In R. Gal & A. D.
Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of military psychology. Chichester, England: Wiley. Jaques, E.
(1977). A general theory of bureaucracy. London: Heinemann. Jennings, E. E. (1960). An
anatomy of leadership: Princes, heroes, and supermen. New York: Harper. Kabanoff, B.
(1985). Potential influence structures as sources of interpersonal conflict in groups and
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 113–141. Kasof,
J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal,
8(4), 311–366. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations
(revised edition). New York: Wiley. Kim, H., & Yukl, G. A. (1995). Relationships of
managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported and subordinate reported
leadership behaviors from the multiple linkage model. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 361–377.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Academy of

20. Management Executive, 5, 48–60. Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic
leadership and levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 183–198. Komaki, J. L.,
Deselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model
of effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 522–529. Kuhnert, K.
W., & Russell, C. J. (1990). Using constructive developmental theory and biodata to bridge
the gap between personnel selection and leadership. Journal of Management, 16, 1–13.
Lerner, R. M., & Tubman, J. G. (1989). Conceptual issues in studying continuity and
discontinuity in personality development across life. Journal of Personality, 57, 343–373. 32
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 Lewis, P., & Jacobs, T. O. (1992). Individual
differences in strategic leadership capacity: A constructive developmental view. In R. L.
Phillips & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Strategic leadership: A multi-organizational level perspective
(pp. 121–137). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992).
Management behavior dimensions and development orientation. Leadership Quarterly, 3,
355–377. Lord, R. G., Devader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the
relationship between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of
validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410. Lord, R. G.,
& Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information processing models and their implications for
theory research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15, 9–28. MacKinnon, D. W.
(1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484–495.
McCall, M. W., & Kaplan, R. E. (1985). Whatever it takes: Decision makers at work.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow,
J. E. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 37, 46–67. Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., & Frick, J. W.
(1962). The role of intellectual factors in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–
21. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review,
JulyAugust, 66–75. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York:
Free Press. Mumford, M. D. (1986). Leadership in the organizational context: A conceptual
approach and its applications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 508–531. Mumford,
M. D., Baughman, W. A., Supinski, E. P., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. (1993). Cognitive
and metacognitive skill development: Alternative measures for predicting leadership
potential (U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences Rep. No. SBIR
A92-154). Bethesda, MD: Management Research Institute. Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S.
(1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and problem solving in ill-defined
domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 289–315. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (in press).
Creative thought: Cognition and problem solving in dynamic systems. In M. Runco (Ed.),
Creativity research handbook. Cresskill, NY: Hampton. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I.,
Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. (1991). Process analytic models of creative
thought. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122. Mumford, M. D., O’Connor, J., Clifton, T. C.,
Connelly, M. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1993). Background data constructs as predictors of
leadership behavior. Human Performance, 6(2), 151–195. Mumford, M. D., & Peterson, N. G.
(1999). The O*NET content model: Structural considerations in describing jobs. In N. G.
Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), An

21. occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET (pp. 21–
30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mumford, M. D., Whetzel, D., &
Reiter-Palmon, R. (1997). Thinking creatively at work: Organizational influences on creative
problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 7–17. Leadership Skills for a Changing
World 33 Nutt, P. C. (1984). Planning process archetypes and their effectiveness. Decision
Sciences, 15, 221–247. O’Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. E., & Connelly,
M. S., (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A historiometric study. Leadership
Quarterly, 6(4), 529–555. Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and
the finding and solving of real-world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9,
45–53. Orwoll, L., & Perlmutter, M. (1990). The study of wise persons: Integrating a
personality perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and
development (pp. 160–177). New York: Cambridge University Press. Perkins, D. N. (1992).
The topography of invention. In R. J. Weber & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds:
Creativity in technology (pp. 238–250). New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, N. G.,
Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. A., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (1999). An occupational
information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control
of organizations: A resource dependent perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Podsakoff,
M., & McKenzie, S. B. (1995). An examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels-of-
analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 289–328. Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994).
Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Runco, M. A., &
Basadur, M. (1993). Assessing ideational and evaluative skills and creative styles and
attitudes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2, 166–173. Runco, M., & Chand, I. (1994).
Problem finding, evaluative thinking and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding,
problem solving, and creativity (pp. 40–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rusmore, J. T. (1984).
Executive performance and intellectual ability in organizational levels. San Jose, CA: San
Jose State University, Advanced Human Systems Institution. Salthouse, T. A. (1987). The role
of experience in cognitive aging. In K. W. Schaie (Ed.), Annual review of gerontology and
geriatrics (vol. 7; pp. 135–158). New York: Springer. Schneider, B., & Schneider, J. L. (1994).
Biodata: An organizational focus. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford, & W. A. Owens (Eds.),
Biodata handbook: Theory research and use of biographical information in selection and
performance prediction (pp. 423–450). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Schooler, C. (1984). Psychological effects of complex environments during the life span: A
review and theory. Intelligence, 8, 254–281. Schor, D. P. (1983). The reflective practitioner.
New York: Harper & Brothers. Seger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin,
115(2), 163–196. Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural
framework. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 6) (pp. 141–190). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity,
and leadership: Historic inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simonton, D.
K. (1988). Creativity, leadership, and chance, In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of
creativity: Contemporary theoretical perspectives (pp. 386–426). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1990). Personality and politics. In L. A. Pervin
(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 670–692). New York: Guilford

22. Press. 34 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 1 2000 Sinetar, M. (1985). SMR forum:
Entrepreneurs, chaos, and creativity—Can creative people really survive like company
structure? Sloan Management Review, 33, 57–62. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. R. (1984).
Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 347–375. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity
and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627. Sternberg, R. J.
(1990). Wisdom and its relations to intelligence and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Wisdom: Its nature, origins and development (pp. 142–159). New York: Cambridge
University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity
and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–31. Sternberg, R. J, & Wagner, R. K. (1993).
The g-ocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 2, 1–5. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with
leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71. Stogdill, R. M.
(1974). Handbook of Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Free Press. Torrance, P. E. (1971).
Freedom-control orientation and need for structure in group creativity. Sciences de l’Art,
8(1), 61–64. Streufert, S., & Nogami, G. (1992). Cognitive complexity and team decision
making. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp.
127–151). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological
discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,
439–465. Von Clausewitz, C. (1984). On war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Voss,
J. D., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An
analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Fench (Eds.),
Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 119–158). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. Wagner, R. K. (1991). Managerial problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg, & P. A.
Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 159–183).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical
intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 436–458. Weber, R. J. (1992). Stone age knife to Swiss army knife: An
invention prototype. In R. J. Weber & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds: Creativity in
technology (pp. 217–237). New York: Oxford University Press. Whyte, W. H. (1956). The
organization man. New York: Simon & Schuster. Winter, D. G. (1991). A motivational model
of leadership: Predicting long-term management success from TAT measures of power
motivation and responsibility. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 67–80. Woods, F. A. (1913). The
influence of monarchs. New York: Macmillan. Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations
(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. A., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory
and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3) (pp. 147–197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc. Zaccaro, S. J. (1996). Models and theories of executive leadership: A
conceptual/empirical review and integration. Alexandria,VA: U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-
monitoring and trait-based variance Leadership Skills for a Changing World 35 in
leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308–315. Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D.

23. (1991). Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social perceptiveness and behavioral
flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly 2, 317–331. Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M.
A., O’Connor-Boes, J., & Costanza, D. (1995). The nature and assessment of leader mental
models (MRI Report 95-3). Bethesda, MD: Management Research Institute. Harvard
Business Review January-February 1955 SKILLS ofan Effective Administrator Performance
depends on fundamental skills rather than personality traits. By Robert L. Katz Although the
selection and training of good administrators is widely recognized as one of American
industry’s most pressing problems, there is surprisingly little agreement among executives
or educators on what makes a good administrator. The executive development programs of
some of the nation’s leading corporations and colleges reflect a tremendous variation in
objectives. At the root of this difference is industry’s search for the traits or attributes which
will objectively identify the “ideal executive” who is equipped to cope effectively with any
problem in any organization. As one observer of American industry recently noted;
facturing. The literature of executive development is loaded with efforts to define the
qualities needed by executives, and hy themselves these sound quite rational. Few, for
instance, would dispute the fact that a top manager needs good judgment, the ability to
make decisions, the ability to win respect of others, and all the other well-worn phrases any
management man could mention. But one has only to look at the successful managers in any
company to see how enormously their particular qualities vary from any ideal list of
executive virtues.” ^ “The assumption that there is an executive type is widely accepted,
either openly or implicitly. Yet any executive presumably knows that a company needs all
kinds of managers for different levels of jobs. The qualities most needed by a shop
superintendent are likely to be quite opposed to those needed by a coordinating vice
president of manu- Yet this quest for the executive stereotype has become so intense that
many companies, in concentrating on certain specific traits or qualities, stand in danger of
losing sight of their real concern: %vhat a man can accomplish. It is the purpose of this
article to suggest what may be a more useful approach to the selection and development of
administrators. This approach is based not on what good executives are (their innate traits
and characteristics), but rather on what they do (the kinds of skills which they exhibit in
carrying out their jobs effectively). As used here, a skill implies an ability AUTHOR’S NOTE:
This article is hased on a study prepared under a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
‘ Perrin Stryker, “The Growing Pains of Executive Development,” Advanced Management,
August 1954, p. 15, 33 34 Harvard Business Review which can be developed, not necessarily
inborn, and which is manifested in performance, not merely in potential. So the principal
criterion of skillfulness must be effective action under varying conditions. This approach
suggests that effective administration rests on three basic developable skills which obviate
the need for identifying specific traits and which may provide a useful way of looking at and
understanding the administrative process. This approach is the outgrowth of firsthand
observation of executives at work coupled with study of current field research in
administration. In the sections which follow, an attempt will be made to define and
demonstrate what these three skills are; to suggest that the relative importance of the three
skills varies with the level of administrative responsibility; to present some of the
implications of this variation for selection, training, and promotion of executives; and to

24. propose ways of developing these skills. Three-Skill Approach It is assumed here that an
administrator is one who (a) directs the activities of other persons and (b) undertakes the
responsibility for achieving certain objectives through these efforts. Within this definition,
successful administration appears to rest on three basic skills, which we will call technical,
human, and conceptual. It would be unrealistic to assert that these skills are not
interrelated, yet there may be real merit in examining each one separately, and in
developing them independently. Technical Skill As used here, technical skill implies an
understanding of, and proficiency in, a specific kind of activity, particularly one involving
methods, processes, procedures, or techniques. It is relatively easy for us to visualize the
technical skill of the surgeon, the musician, the accountant, or the engineer when each is
performing his own special function. Technical skill involves specialized knowledge,
analytical ability within that specialty, and facility in the use of the tools and techniques of
the specific discipline. Of the three skills described in this article, technical skill is perhaps
the most familiar because it is the most concrete, and because, in our age of specialization, it
is the skill required of the greatest number of people. Most of our vocational and on-the-job
training programs are largely concerned with developing this specialized technical skill.
Human Skill As used here, human skill is the executive’s ability to work effectively as a
group member and to build cooperative effort within the team he leads. As technical skill is
primarily concerned with working with “things” (processes or physical objects), so human
skill is primarily concerned with working with people. This skill is demonstrated in the way
the individual perceives (and recognizes the perceptions of) his superiors, equals, and
subordinates, and in the way he behaves subsequently. The person with highly developed
human skill is aware of his own attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs about other individuals
and groups; he is able to see the usefulness and limitations of these feelings. By accepting
the existence of viewpoints, perceptions, and beliefs which are different from his own, he is
skillful in understanding what others really mean by their words and behavior. He is equally
skillful in communicating to others, in their own contexts, what he means by his behavior.
Such a person works to create an atmosphere of approval and security in which
subordinates feel free to express themselves without fear of censure or ridicule, by
encouraging them to participate in the planning and carrying out of those things which
directly affect them. He is sufficiently sensitive to the needs and motivations of others in his
organization so that he can judge the possible reactions to, and outcomes of, various courses
of action he may undertake. Having this sensitivity, he is able and willing to act in a way
which takes these perceptions by others into account. Real skill in working with others
must become a natural, continuous activity, since it involves sensitivity not only at times of
decision making but also in the day-by-day behavior of the individual. Human skill cannot
be a “sometime thing.” Techniques cannot be randomly applied, nor can personality traits
be put on or removed like an overcoat. Because everything which an executive says and
does (or leaves unsaid or undone) has an effect on his associates, his true self will, in time,
show through. Thus, to be effective, this skill must be naturally developed and
unconsciously, as well as consistently, demonstrated in the individual’s every Effective
Administrator action. It must become an integral part of his whole being. Because human
skill is so vital a part of everything the administrator does, examples of inadequate human

25. skill are easier to describe than are highly skillful performances. Perhaps consideration of
an actual situation would serve to clarify what is involved: When a new conveyor unit was
installed in a shoe factory where workers had previously been free to determine their own
work rate, the production manager asked the industrial engineer who had designed the
conveyor to serve as foreman, even though a qualified foreman was available. The engineer,
who reported directly to the production manager, objected, but under pressure he agreed to
take the job “until a suitable foreman could be found,” even though this was a job of lower
status than his present one. Then the following conversation took place: Production
Manager: “I’ve had a lot of experience with conveyors. I want you to keep this conveyor
going at all times except for rest periods, and I want it going at top speed. Get these people
thinking in terms of 2 pairs of shoes a minute, 70 dozen pairs a day, 350 dozen pairs a week.
They are all experienced operators on their individual jobs, and it’s just a matter of getting
them to do their jobs in a little different way. I want you to make that base rate of 250 dozen
pair a week work!” [Base rate was established at slightly under 7 5 % of the maximum
capacity. This base rate was 50% higher than under the old system.] Engineer: “If I’m going
to be foreman of the conveyor unit, I want to do things my way. I’ve worked on conveyors,
and I don’t agree with you on first getting people used to a conveyor going at top speed.
These people have never seen a conveyor. You’ll scare them. I’d like to run the conveyor at
one-third speed for a eouple of weeks and then gradually increase the speed. “I think we
should discuss setting the base rate [production quota before incentive bonus] on a daily
basis instead of a weekly basis. [Workers had previously been paid on a daily straight
piecework basis. ] “I’d also suggest setting a daily base rate at 45 or even 40 dozen pair. You
have to set a base rate low enough for them to make. Once they know they can make the
base rate, they will go after the bonus.” Production Manager: “You do it your way on the
speed; but remember it’s the results that count. On the base rate, I’m not discussing it with
you; 35 I’m telling you to make the 250 dozen pair a week work. I don’t want a daily base
rate.” ^ Here is a situation in which the production manager was so preoccupied with
getting the physical output that he did not pay mention to the people through whom that
output had to be achieved. Notice, first, that he made the engineer who designed the unit
serve as foreman, apparently hoping to force the engineer to justify his design by producing
the maximum output. However, the production manager was oblivious to (a) the vi^ay the
engineer perceived this appointment, as a demotion, and (b) the need for the engineer to be
able to control the variables if he was to be held responsible for output. Instead the
production manager imposed a production standard and refused any changes in the work
situation. Moreover, although this was a radically new situation for the operators, the
production manager expected them to produce immediately at well above their previous
output — even though the operators had an unfamiliar production system to cope with, the
operators had never worked together as a team before, the operators and their new
foreman had never worked together before, and the foreman was not in agreement with the
production goals or standards. By ignoring all these human factors, the production manager
not only placed the engineer in an extremely difficult operating situation but also, by
refusing to allow the engineer to “run his own show,” discouraged the very assumption of
responsibility he had hoped for in making the appointment. Under these circumstances, it is

26. easy to understand how the relationship between these two men rapidly deteriorated, and
how production, after two months’ operation, was at only 125 dozen pairs per week (just
75% of what it had been under the old system). Conceptual Skill As used here, conceptual
skill involves the ability to see the enterprise as a whole; it includes recognizing how the
various functions of the organization depend on one another, and how changes in any one
part affect all the others; and it extends to visualizing the relationship of the individual
business to the industry, the ‘From a mimeographed case in the files of the Harvard
Business School,- copyrighted by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. 36 Harvard
Business Review community, and the political, social, and economic forces of the nation as a
whole. Recognizing these relationships and perceiving the significant elements in any
situation, the administrator slwuld then be able to act in a way which advances the over-all
welfare of the total organization. Hence, the success of any decision depends on the
conceptual skill of the people who make the decision and those who put it into action.
When, for example, an important change in marketing policy is made, it is critical that the
effects on production, control, finance, research, and the people involved be considered.
And it remains critical right down to the last executive who must implement the new policy.
If each executive recognizes the over-all relationships and significance of the change, he is
almost certain to be more effective in administering it. Consequently the chances for
succeeding are greatly increased. Not only does the effective coordination of the various
parts of the business depend on the conceptual skill of the administrators involved, but so
also does the whole future direction and tone of the organization. The attitudes of a top
executive color the whole character of the organization’s response and determine the
“corporate personality” which distinguishes one company’s ways of doing business from
another’s. These attitudes are a reflection of the administrator’s conceptual skill (referred to
by some as his “creative ability”) — the way he perceives and responds to the direction in
which the business should grow, company objectives and policies, and stockholders’ and
employees’ interests. Conceptual skill, as defined above, is what Chester I. Barnard, former
president of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, implies when he says: “. . . the
essential aspect of the [executive] process is the sensing of the organization as a whole and
the total situation relevant to it.” * Examples of inadequate conceptual skill are all around
us. Here is one instance: In a large manufacturing company which had a long tradition of
job-shop type operations, primarv’ responsibility’ for production control had been left to
the foremen and other lower-level supervisors. “Village” type operations with small
working groups and informal organizations were the rule. A heavy influx of orders
following World War II tripled the normal production requirements and severely 8
Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1948), p. 235. taxed the
whole manufacturing organization. At this point, a new production manager was brought in
from outside the company, and he established a wide range of controls and formalized the
entire operating structure. As long as the boom demand lasted, the employees made every
efEort to conform with the new procedures and environment. But when demand subsided
to prewar levels, serious labor relations problems developed, friction was high among
department heads, and the company found itself saddled with a heav’ indirect labor cost.
Management sought to reinstate its old procedures; it fired the production manager and

27. attempted to give greater authority to the foremen once again. However, during the four
years of formalized control, the foremen had grown away from their old practices, many
had left the company, and adequate replacements had not been developed. Without strong
foreman leadership, the traditional job-shop operations proved costly and inefficient. In this
instance, when the new production controls and formalized organizations were introduced,
management did not foresee the consequences of this action in the event of a future
contraction of business. Later, when conditions changed and it was necessary to pare down
operations, management was again i-mable to recognize the implications of its action and
reverted to the old procedures, which, under existing circumstances, were no longer
appropriate. This compounded conceptual inadequacy left the company at a serious
competitive disadvantage. Because a company’s over-all success is dependent on its
executives’ conceptual skill in establishing and carrying out policy decisions, this skill is the
unifying, coordinating Ingredient of the administrative process, and of undeniable over-all
importance. Relative…