11Schroder.qxd


Harold M. Schroder was professor of psychology at Princeton

University when he conducted most of the basic research on the

High Performance Leadership Competencies. Their validation

across public and private organizations was carried out by

Schroder and his colleagues while he was Professor of

Management at the University of South Florida. He is currently

involved in organizational consultancy and research: No 10

Kings Gardens, London, NW6, 4PU, UK. 

The stated aim of a recent article in the South African Journal of

Industrial Psychology by Spangenberg, H.H. and Theron, C.C.

was to investigate “The Validation of the High Performance

Leadership Competencies as measured by an Assessment Centre

In-Basket “. In designing such a study, one would expect that the

authors would select the most valid measure of the Schroder

Leadership Dimensions, namely the High Performance

Leadership Competencies (HPLCs), based on the research

evidence. It is therefore puzzling to understand why the authors

selected in-basket based measures of the 10 HPLCs when the

existing evidence clearly failed to support this choice.

The authors themselves state that on the basis of previous

research which investigated relationships between in-basket

based measures of leadership and performance, its “validity was

at best marginal”. In addition, the major founding research

publication on the validity of the HPLCs (Schroder, 1989), clearly

presented data showing that measures of the HPLCs based on in-

basket responses alone were only marginally correlated with

hard measures of unit performance.

The in-basket exercise cannot be used as a complete measure of

leadership and therefore cannot be used alone as the basis for

investigating the validity of the HPLCs. This is not surprising

when we understand that managing is a job which requires

interaction with others to achieve outcomes, like inspiration and

the highest levels of collective thinking and action. Measures of

leadership based on the in-basket alone view it from one

dimension only. It is an incomplete picture and will remain so,

no matter how much refining of the in-basket we do.

A more valid and complete measure of leadership dimensions

requires multi-dimensional observations of managers in a broad

range of situations, either in the work place (Cockerill, 1989) or

across several different exercises which simulate the breadth of a

leader’s work (Schroder, 1989). A number of comprehensive

studies in the USA and UK (Schroder, 1989; Cockerill, 1989;

Cockerill, Schroder and Hunt, 1993 and Chorvat, 1997) and

preliminary observations in South Africa demonstrate the

construct and criterion validity of the HPLCs. In all assessment

centre based validity studies, the HPLCs were measured on the

basis of four exercises; the in-basket plus three interaction

exercises. In line with other studies, our research over many

years attests to the wisdom of using multi-dimensional

observations as a basis for measuring leadership. The validity of

the HPLCs is also supported by other research using different

methods to measure leadership dimensions similar to the HPLCs

(Schroder, 1975; Streufert and Swezey, 1986; Boyatzis, 1982; Huff,

Lake and Schaalman, 1982). For a summary of the relationships

between these bodies of research see Schroder (1989). 

Therefore the design of the Spannenberg/Theron study was

inappropriate for investigating the validity of the HPLCs and the

title itself is inappropriate and misleading. More accurately it

was a study of the validity of in-basket based measures of

leadership dimensions. As we would expect, their results were in

line with a number of earlier studies showing that the in-basket

used alone is only marginally correlated with performance.

So does the in-basket have a place in management development

and research? Indeed, it does. While it is inappropriate to use it

alone when more accurate measures of leadership are demanded

in research and assessment, these measures: 

(1)are needed to round out our picture of leadership based on

multiple exercises; and 

(2)provide an efficient and effective vehicle to offer “hands-on”

experience for leadership development programmes.

Feedback on dimensions of leadership measured by non-

interactive methods like the in-basket can be used to

demonstrate the dimensions and as a basis for coaching. They

can be used on a pre-post basis to plot developmental

progress in non-interactive aspects of leadership which will

build the readiness of participants to transfer this to the

broader job of leading.

REFERENCE 

Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The competent manager. New York, Wiley &

Sons.

Chorvat, V. (1994). Toward the construct validity of assessment

centre leadership dimensions. Tampa, Florida. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation.

Cockerill, A.P. (1989). Managerial competency as a determinate of

organizational performance. Universit y of London,

unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Cockerill, A.P., Schroder, H.M. & Hunt, J. (1993). Validation study

into the High Performing Managerial Competencies. London

Business School Publication.

Huff, S. Lake, D. & Schaalman, M.L. (1982). Principal differences:

Excellence in school leadership and management. McBer &

Company: Boston, Mass.

Schroder, H.M. (1975). The development of information processing

capability. In H.W. Krohne (ed). Advances in Educational

Psychology. Munchen, Germany. Ernst Reinhardt Company.

Schroder, H.M. (1989). Managerial competence. Debuque, Iowa.

Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Streufert, S.S. & Swezey, R.W. (1986). Complexity, managers and

organizations. Academic Press, New York.

THE FALLACY OF USING IN-BASKET BASED MEASURES FOR THE

VALIDATION OF LEADERSHIP DIMENSIONS

Requests for copies should be addressed to: Harold M Schroder, Department of

Industrial Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, 08544, USA

106

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2004, 30 (2), 106

SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2004, 30 (2), 106

HAROLD M SCHRODER
Professor of Psychology

Princeton University