1. Corporate Research Forum
A Scientific Approach to Leadership and Leadership Development for Superior Performance
David Burnham
Corporate Research Forum
23rd November 2010

2. Defining Superior Leadership
Top quartile business results within an industry over a five year period
High employee morale as measured by the Burnham Rosen Group Organisation Culture Survey
A culture of shared accountability

3. The Science of Leadership
Asks the questions:
What distinguishes superior leaders from strong leaders?
From what we have discovered about superior leaders, is it possible to predict performance?
Can people learn how to become superior leaders?

4. How do motives work? Motives (thoughts) Behaviours (actions) Outcomes
drive
create

5. Pendulum Exercise
You will need:
North
South
West
East

6. Research Studies

7. The Social Motives
n - achievement
n - affiliation
n - power

8. Most Frequently Occurring Motives
Achievement
A concern with competing with your own performance or the performance of others. Achieving goals yourself through your own efforts.

9. Most Frequently Occurring Motives
Affiliation
A concern with being liked, being accepted as part of a group.

10. Most Frequently Occurring Motives
Power
A concern with influence and influence relationships.

11. Stages of Power Development
Source of Power
OTHERS SELF
SELF
OTHERS
Stage I. Dependence
Stage II. Independence
Target of
Power
Stage IV. InterActive
Stage III. Imperial
A. Personal
B. Institutional

12. Results of Research Study: 12 Year Leadership
Motivation Key
*Business Performance and Employee Morale
Burnham Rosen Group, 2005

13. Leadership Comparison: Motives
The InterActive Leader
The Institutional Leader
We motivate each other to perform
I motivate you to perform
(self other)
(other other)

14. Leadership Comparison: Motives
The InterActive Leader
The Institutional Leader
I am accountable for the performance of my group
Others are responsible for delivering performance
Leader’s job is to set direction and provide vision
Individuals alone make the difference (80/20 rule)
Leader must ultimately provide the right answers
We are accountable for performance of our group
We are all responsible for delivering performance
Job is to ensure group sets direction & common purpose
Group is greater than the sum of its parts
Group must ultimately find the answers

15. Leadership Comparison: Motives
The InterActive Leader
The Institutional Leader
When people cannot agree, the leader decides
Interpersonally skillful; Uses skill to motivate others
Visionary, charismatic, seeks & receives admiration
Leads by consensus but is ultimately clearly in charge
Implements through a focus on short-term results
When people cannot agree, leader requires it
Encourages other to motivate themselves
Lives by their values. Helps others find their purpose
Leads by consensus. Insists the group take charge
Relates short-term results to long-term goals

16. InterActive Leadership
Understand
your own
thinking
(Self-awareness)
Understand
its impact
on how
you lead
Change thought
and make
a plan

17. Gain Over Market by Sales People Reporting to Sales Managers
No Training
Skills Training
Motive Training – InterActive Leadership
Improved Balanced Scorecard Ratings
Internal Study, UK Retail Bank, 3 Year Performance Period

18. Impact of Motive Training on Sales Performance
Intervention *
Retail Bank Report, 2005.
* Group restructured.

19. Sales Leadership Primary Differentiators for Superior Performance: Power Motive with InterActive Power Stage by Performance 2008
Power Motive Dominance
InterActive Power Dominance
Power Motive Dominance with InterActive Power Dominance
Superior
Superior
Superior
Average
Average
Average
n= 5
n= 15
n= 9
n= 14
n= 1
n= 14
This result is statistically significant, with Chi Squared probability of less than 0.001%. The Phi Score of strength of correlation was .89, very close to perfect correlation.

20. Contacts Boston Office: President: David Burnham
UK Office:
Director: Katy Weston
(0)
Lead Consultant: Rob Jackson
+44 (0)
Website: