1. Terms & Definitions
1.1. Generally, it's about grooming future c-suite executives.
1.2. Talent vs. High Potential
1.2.1. Talent exists now. HiPo has the potential to be developed.
1.3. HiPo
1.3.1. HiPo Role
1.3.1.1. Who could be in top or senior management?
1.3.2. HiPo Level
1.3.2.1. Who could be 2-levels higher than they are right now?
1.3.3. HiPo breadth
1.3.3.1. Could they handle more responsibilties if developed?
1.3.4. HiPo record/history
1.3.4.1. A history of exceptional performance
1.3.4.2. This one is the least common (only 10% of companies define hipo this way), but
1.3.5. HiPo strategic area
1.3.5.1. Potential to be good at a particular skillset or area that the org needs.
1.4. Leader Emergence
1.4.1. Leader Emergence: Who are regarded as leaders?
1.4.1.1. Extraversion (.33)
1.4.1.2. Conscientiousness (.33)
1.4.1.3. Openness (.24)
1.4.1.3.1. Reliable across studies
1.4.1.4. Neuoticism -.24
1.4.1.4.1. Reliable across studies
1.4.1.5. Agreeableness (.06 [NS])
1.4.1.6. Meta-analytic predictors
1.4.1.7. Really: What makes a person SEEM LEADERLIKE to STRANGERS.
1.4.2. Somebody who is not designated as a leader but emerges as an informal leader of a group.
1.4.2.1. Related: Implicit Leadership Theory
1.5. Bench
1.5.1. A queue of potential leaders
1.6. Leader development vs. Leadership development
1.6.1. Leader development is about the person
1.6.1.1. individual-based knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with formal leadership roles
1.6.1.2. Building human capital (good people)
1.6.2. Leadership development is about the social behaviors of the leader.
1.6.2.1. Building SOCIAL capital (building connections)
1.7. Leadership
1.7.1. Ladership isn't being in charge of others; it's the ability to persuade others to sacrifice that short-term interests in service of a long-term goal that benefits the whole group. (Hogan et al., 1994).
2. What individual differences are associated with leader effectiveness?
2.1. Really depends on the TYPE of leaders you're looking to develop for your organization.
2.2. Tensions
2.2.1. Raw potential
2.2.1.1. More quantity of talents than other peers.
2.2.2. Specific potential
2.2.2.1. Either one talent that would be especially useful to the organization.
2.3. Personality (.39)
2.3.1. We promote hard-working extroverts to leadership roles, but we should be promoting creative extroverts who like people, even if they're not the most detail-oriented.
2.3.2. Leader Emergence
2.3.2.1. Extraversion (.33)
2.3.2.2. Conscientiousness (.33)
2.3.2.3. Emotional Stability (.24)
2.3.2.4. Openness (.24)
2.3.2.5. Agreeableness (.05)
2.3.3. Leader Effectiveeness
2.3.3.1. Openness (.24)
2.3.3.1.1. Listed as #1 because it has a higher standardized beta weight with leader effectiveness than extraversion.
2.3.3.2. Extraversion (.24)
2.3.3.3. Emotional Stability .22
2.3.3.4. Agreeableness (.21)
2.3.3.5. Conscientiousness (.16)
2.4. How much does IQ matter? (.27)
2.4.1. Relationship between G & Leadership is smaller than relationship with extraversion/openness.
2.4.2. (.21) G leadership (both perceived and objective effectiveness)
2.4.2.1. This is controlling for range-restriction, so corr between G and leader effectiveness WITHIN LEADERS is .21.
2.4.2.1.1. Even uncorrected, it's still not big (.27)
2.4.3. Relationship between G and leadership goes up in lower-stress environments.
2.4.4. Correlation between PERCEIVED intelligence and OBJECTIVE intelligence is bigger, so maybe use that as a catchall? It's probably confounded though.
2.4.5. It's curviliniear. Ideal IQ for middle managers is 120.
2.5. (.24) Motivation to lead*
2.5.1. Punchline: People are motivated to lead because they have traits that are commonly associated with both leader emergence and leader effectiveness. Although MTL does show some direct relationships with ultimate leader effectiveness, it's not meant to. It's meant as an indicator of development potential, and accordingly it relates to major antecedents of leader emergence/effectiveness, and to getting more out of leadership training (questionable support for that last bit though)
2.5.1.1. Conclusion: Absolutely include it in a HiPo assessment battery, because it seems to subsume a lot of other leader-relevant traits like learning goal orientation, extraversion, etc.
2.5.1.1.1. If you assess one item in a HiPo battery, consider this. Because it's .53 with leader KSAs (that's a military study, but still > .30 corr with all antecedents of leader effectivness)
2.5.2. What is it?
2.5.2.1. Noncalculative MTL
2.5.2.1.1. You would lead even if there's no direct benefit to you.
2.5.2.1.2. Related to leader agreeableness and especially openness (.40)
2.5.2.2. Social-normative MTL
2.5.2.2.1. You think it's your duty to lead if asked, and that beinga leader is a socially-desirable position.
2.5.2.3. Affective-Identity MTL
2.5.2.3.1. I like being in charge; it's my nature to be a leader.
2.5.2.4. Construct well-validated as relating to leadership potential across cultures.
2.5.2.4.1. Agnostic to different vocational interests.
2.5.2.4.2. Leadership potential = Rated as having high leadership potential by Singapore assessment centers.
2.5.3. What does it predict?
2.5.3.1. (.53) leader KSAs in military sample
2.5.3.1.1. re: design leads to desire. Having the KSAs makes you more likely to have a high motivation to lead.
2.5.3.2. .23 Leader performance in military sample
2.5.3.3. (~.24) with Leadership Effectiveness (perceived)...
2.5.3.3.1. Predicts perceived leadership effectiveness even controlling for personality.
2.5.3.4. High MTL people benefit more from leadership training, and thus become more effective leaders.
2.5.3.4.1. Receptiveness to leadership training
2.5.3.5. Related to other-ratings of leadership potentials
2.5.3.5.1. Above cog ability, personality, and values.
2.5.3.6. Military achievement
2.5.3.7. (.21) Team Effectiveness
2.5.4. What creates it?
2.5.4.1. Foreshadowed by a feeling that you'd be a good leader (leadership self-efficacy is the major antecedent).
2.5.4.2. .40 (Extraversion)
2.5.4.2.1. Reproduced .40 in two different studies.
2.5.4.3. (.50) Leader Self Efficacy
2.5.4.4. (.35-.40) Learning Goal Orientation
2.5.4.5. (.25+) Openness
2.5.5. Why does it matter?
2.5.5.1. MTL can signal the existence of other leader-relevant traits (design leads to desire). Necessary (and maybe sufficient). Leadership-relevant traits create a sense of leader self-efficacy, which motivates you to lead.
2.5.6. Summary Model
2.6. Experience (-.02 to .43, depending on definition...)
2.6.1. Leadership experience has shown a mixed relationship with leadership performance, because people operationalize "experience" differently. Experience does matter to performance, but only if you measure it right.
2.6.1.1. Factors
2.6.1.1.1. Relevance
2.6.1.1.2. Variety of past leadership experience
2.6.2. (.43) Raw experience
2.6.2.1. (defined as "Experience: knowledge, skill or practice derived from participation in, or direct observation of, an activity")
2.6.3. .32 Relevance of previous jobs
2.6.4. .22 (ns) Tenure in organization
2.6.5. .22 (ns) diversity of positions
2.6.6. -.02 Time in position
2.6.6.1. Mere tenure in a leadership position is negatively correlated with leadership effectiveness.
2.6.6.1.1. Probably because you rise to the level of your own incompetency. Good leaders got promoted out of a given role.
2.6.7. More
2.6.7.1. In theory, how does experience affect performance?
2.6.7.1.1. Builds skills.
2.6.7.1.2. Builds perspective.
2.6.7.1.3. Having held more positions may be more valuable than holding fewer.
2.6.7.2. What other kind of leader life experiences lead to effectiveness?
2.6.7.2.1. Examples
2.6.7.3. Correlations with leadership performance.
2.6.7.3.1. Note: Uses a military sample, where promotion is automatic and so role attainment isn't confounded with performance
3. Why does it matter? Stats/sales
3.1. Academic papers
3.1.1. the base rate for managerial incompetence in America is between 60% and 75%
3.1.1.1. people by default select bad leaders
3.1.1.1.1. because they base it on "leaderlike"
3.1.2. only between 31 and 55 percent of large US corporations have a specific framework in place for the systematic identification of lead- ership potential
3.1.3. 40% of HiPo assignments result in failure
3.2. Applied World
3.2.1. 50-70% of organizations feel they have a shortage of qualified leaders.
3.2.1.1. RL example: Talent acquisition & development a major need (with 100% support in Hughes supply)
3.2.2. 67% of companies have some kind of hipo program, but only 15% are satisfied.
3.2.3. 20 best companies for leadership are twice as likely to provide hipos with leadershp training.
3.2.4. Investment in HiPo programs is growing, especially among small businesses.
3.2.5. Anecdote: It takes 3 years to establish strong brand on college campus.
4. #Goals: What should a good PipeLine do for us?
4.1. First ask "potential for what?" Think outside executives. You may have a HiPo customer service rep working in your warehouse.
4.2. Remember: The goal isn't necessarily to find people who are ready to be an exec right NOW, but people who have the POTENTIAL to become one in the future.
4.2.1. Long-term view is essential.
4.3. Raise the quality of org's leaders.
4.4. Build a bench of potential leaders who are READY.
4.5. Get HiPos READY to assume leadership roles
4.6. Time the pipeline to produce the right leaders at the right time.
4.7. Identify people who have a the potential to be highly effective in certain roles.
4.8. Keep hipos committed to the development process.
4.9. Accurately measure potential
4.10. Maximize new talent acceptance rate
4.10.1. Rate of RECRUITED hipos who accept offer to join leadership pipeline.
4.11. Minimize cost to hire
4.12. What are common mistakes to avoid?
4.12.1. Pipelines are usually weak.
4.12.2. First-line managers neglected.
4.12.3. Just promoting a first-line supervisor with good technical skill and likability.
4.12.3.1. doesn't necessarily mean they have the skill to lead.
4.12.4. The biggest pitfall: Confusing leadership emergence with leadership effectivness, falling into the trap that most people who evaluate STRANGERS for leadership potential fall into: Evalutating people for how "leaderlike" the seem. This usually falls back on leader-emergence traits that don't usually correlate with leadership effectiveness.
5. Todo
5.1. Misc
5.1.1. Malik (2017)'s dissertation
5.1.1.1. Identification
5.1.1.1.1. Lack of consensus about defining "potential"
5.1.1.1.2. Agrees with Dries and Pepermans (2012)
5.1.1.1.3. Also notes Silzer & Church's (2009) dimensions
5.1.2. SHL Infographic
5.2. Overall questions
5.2.1. What's the effect of HiPo programs on people not in the program?
5.3. Cognitive predictors
5.4. Non-cognitive predictors
5.5. Experience
5.6. Focus on educational leaders
5.7. Nail down motivation to lead
6. How do you design an effective HiPo pipeline?
6.1. My Recommended Pipeline after all readings
6.1.1. Draft points
6.1.1.1. What do most people do?
6.1.1.1.1. 75 % relying on past performance and 73 % relying on current performance.
6.1.1.1.2. 75 % of participating organizations also used leadership competencies for HiPo identification
6.1.1.1.3. 50 % of them used formal data-based assessment (such as personality, motivation, self-awareness, learning, and cognitive skills)
6.1.1.2. Overall
6.1.1.2.1. Job Performance
6.1.1.2.2. Focus on KSAOs AND building social connections
6.1.1.3. Pitfalls
6.1.1.3.1. Don't mistake current performance for potential. It's not the same thing.
6.1.2. Get buy in buy-in & Catalog vacancies
6.1.2.1. Selling it
6.1.2.1.1. Stats
6.1.2.1.2. Goals
6.1.2.2. WHY: Though not discussed in the literature much, it's a reality that most OD agents need to accept, and is widely accepted in the wider literature on change.
6.1.2.2.1. Need cite on OD effectivness and stakeholder buy-in.
6.1.2.2.2. Stakeholder buy-in is a feature of leadership potential for a reason.
6.1.2.3. Use this time to catalog vaccancies and KSAOs/qualifications desired for various positions/vacancies.
6.1.2.3.1. This can inform the specific/broad talents you need, and also the type of leaders you're looking for.
6.1.2.3.2. Doing a job analysis of avaialble leadership positions, and THEN matching a leader to those KSAs is correlated with higher leadership effectiveness.
6.1.3. Set your goals explicitly
6.1.3.1. Failure = Under-performance in new job role
6.1.3.2. Success
6.1.3.2.1. High performance in new job role
6.1.3.2.2. Well developed leader identity
6.1.3.2.3. Resources and network to be successful
6.1.3.2.4. Experience solving challenges.
6.1.4. Identifying
6.1.4.1. Philosophy
6.1.4.1.1. Take a long-term, developmental view
6.1.4.1.2. Crystal ball problem
6.1.4.2. Past/current performance and peer recs to get you in the door, but shouldn't be the key variable.
6.1.4.2.1. 75 % rely on past performance and 73 % rely on current performance, which isn't necessarily predictive.
6.1.4.3. Use a multi-factor test battery, informed by Dries & Roland to assess potential.
6.1.4.3.1. Add leader identity to see if it's already there.
6.1.4.3.2. Go ahead and get a five-factor, if only to weed-out highly neurotic people.
6.1.4.4. Optional/Maybe
6.1.4.4.1. Mike: I would include a leadership style questionnaire to help me place people in departments given the goals of the department.
6.1.4.5. Collect facet measures of personality.
6.1.5. Development
6.1.5.1. Philosophy
6.1.5.1.1. Build perspective
6.1.5.1.2. Infect them with a strategic percpective on the organization's goals.
6.1.5.1.3. Build networks (social capital resources)
6.1.5.1.4. Build leader identity
6.1.5.2. You can't just focus on the individual, becauese leadership is a social process.
6.1.5.3. 360 Feedback linked to coaching
6.1.5.3.1. Helps with human capital (leader develpment)
6.1.5.3.2. Social capital: Link to coaching
6.1.5.4. Coaching by thoughtfully-selected coaches
6.1.5.4.1. For max coaching effectivness, match coach to leader, and carefully select them.
6.1.5.4.2. Coaching should be aimed at increasing network centrality of individual.
6.1.5.4.3. Increases network ties.
6.1.5.4.4. Use implementation intentions
6.1.5.5. Mentoring/interaction with senior executives
6.1.5.5.1. Helps buy-in to the strategic purpose of the organization.
6.1.5.5.2. Mentoring skill should be developed too
6.1.5.6. Networking
6.1.5.6.1. Builds transactive memory
6.1.5.6.2. Help them see innovation opportunities
6.1.5.6.3. Builds peer relationships across functional areas.
6.1.5.7. Job rotation
6.1.5.7.1. Link job assignments to developmental goals
6.1.5.7.2. Pick ones that "stretch" the individual
6.1.5.7.3. Experience is the best teacher.
6.1.5.7.4. Promotions count as developmental.
6.1.5.7.5. Emphasize challenge and support, to prime a learning goal orientation
6.1.5.8. Action learning w/review
6.1.5.8.1. Don't use lecture-based learning, because no transfer.
6.1.5.8.2. Have them solve real-world problems, then review.
6.1.5.8.3. Emphasize psychological safety
6.1.5.8.4. Align action learning goals with individual goals for meaning.
6.1.6. Goals & Evaluations
6.1.6.1. Failure = Under-performance of the HiPo in a new role.
6.1.6.2. Number of HiPos on bench compared to available positions.
6.1.6.3. Centrality of leader in network (via social network analysis)
6.1.6.4. Transactive memory (who knows what)
6.1.7. Retention
6.1.7.1. HiPo programs can affect commitment
6.1.7.1.1. And maybe also negatively.
6.1.8. Manage program brand within company
6.2. What do academics advise?
6.2.1. Identification
6.2.1.1. Problem solving
6.2.1.2. Dries & Roland (2012)
6.2.1.2.1. Distilled qualities identified in literature to quandrants of traits.
6.2.1.2.2. Also included recommended measures.
6.2.1.2.3. ID (measures listed for each)
6.2.1.3. Personality
6.2.1.3.1. &Team Skills
6.2.1.3.2. &Leader effectiveness
6.2.1.3.3. &Startups vs. Established companies
6.2.1.4. Leader Identity
6.2.1.4.1. Is key to success in HiPo program.
6.2.1.5. You could match the leader to the task type using Hollands's RIASEC job types
6.2.1.5.1. Moving to the level of the work group, R. Hogan and his associates (Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987; R. Hogan, Raza, & Driskell, 1988) showed that teams can be classified in terms of their primary tasks using the Holland model. [Also shows what types of teams match with what types of leaders]
6.2.2. Development
6.2.2.1. You can't just focus on the individual, becauese leadership is a social process.
6.2.2.2. 360 Feedback linked to coaching
6.2.2.2.1. Helps with human capital (leader develpment)
6.2.2.2.2. Social capital: Link to coaching
6.2.2.3. Coaching by thoughtfully-selected coaches
6.2.2.3.1. For max coaching effectivness, match coach to leader, and carefully select them.
6.2.2.3.2. Coaching should be aimed at increasing network centrality of individual.
6.2.2.3.3. Increases network ties.
6.2.2.3.4. Use implementation intentions
6.2.2.4. Mentoring/interaction with senior executives
6.2.2.4.1. Helps buy-in to the strategic purpose of the organization.
6.2.2.4.2. Mentoring skill should be developed too
6.2.2.5. Networking
6.2.2.5.1. Builds transactive memory
6.2.2.5.2. Help them see innovation opportunities
6.2.2.5.3. Builds peer relationships across functional areas.
6.2.2.6. Job rotation
6.2.2.6.1. Link job assignments to developmental goals
6.2.2.6.2. Pick ones that "stretch" the individual
6.2.2.6.3. Experience is the best teacher.
6.2.2.6.4. Promotions count as developmental.
6.2.2.6.5. Emphasize challenge and support, to prime a learning goal orientation
6.2.2.7. Action learning w/review
6.2.2.7.1. Don't use lecture-based learning, because no transfer.
6.2.2.7.2. Have them solve real-world problems, then review.
6.2.2.7.3. Emphasize psychological safety
6.2.2.7.4. Align action learning goals with individual goals for meaning.
6.2.2.8. Cultivate subbordinate feedback and relationships
6.2.2.8.1. Klatt (1985) found that managers who were involved in multirater appraisal systems received significantly higher mean effectiveness ratings than those who received no subordinate feedback
6.2.2.9. Build team-leadership skills
6.2.2.9.1. Campbell (1992) identified eight problems for leadership that affect team performance; six problems are task related and two involve team maintenance. On the task side, successful leaders communicate a clear mission or sense of purpose, identify available resources and talent, develop the talent, plan and organize, coordinate work activities, and acquire needed resources. On the maintenance side, they minimize and resolve conflicts among group members and they ensure that team members understand the team’s goals, constraints, resources, and problems. These team- building tasks obviously overlap with the taxonomy of leader behaviors developed by Yukl et al. (1990)
6.2.3. Evaluation
6.2.3.1. Centrality of leader in network (via social network analysis)
6.2.3.2. Gender differences in financial outcomes
6.2.3.3. Transactive memory (who knows what)
6.2.3.4. Bad outcome measures
6.2.3.4.1. Job performance
6.2.3.4.2. Role occupancy (how high one rose)
6.2.3.5. Team, group, or org performance is the ultimate test, even though it can be contaminated.
6.2.3.6. Subordinate ratings
6.2.3.6.1. McEvoy and Beatty (1989) compared the predictive validity of subordinate evaluations with assessment center ratings and concluded that subordinate ratings were as effective (and less expensive) as assessment center data
6.2.3.6.2. “My supervisor has earned my trust” highly predictive.
6.2.3.7. Derailers
6.2.3.7.1. untrustworthiness, over control, exploitation, micro- management, irritability, unwillingness to use discipline, and an inability to make good staffing or business decisions (or both)
6.2.3.7.2. perceived as arrogant, vindictive, untrustworthy, selfish, emotional, compulsive, overcontrolling, insensitive, abrasive, aloof, too ambitious, or unable to delegate or make decisions (Hazucha, 1991, Kaplan, Drath, & Kofodimos, 1991; Lombardo et al., 1988; McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Peterson & Hicks, 1993)
6.3. What do consultants advise?
6.3.1. PDI High-Potential Experience Cycle (applied)
6.3.1.1. Identify
6.3.1.1.1. 1. Managers nominate.
6.3.1.1.2. 2. Review perf data
6.3.1.1.3. 3. Assess
6.3.1.1.4. 4. Meeting to narrow pool: Talk about talent pool, subjectively select final pool.
6.3.1.2. Development
6.3.1.2.1. 360 performance feedback process
6.3.1.2.2. Establish org-specific goals
6.3.1.2.3. Give hipos successive challenges
6.3.1.2.4. Teach hipos to think about their skills long-term
6.3.1.2.5. Give hipos time with execs
6.3.1.2.6. Help hipos network
6.3.1.2.7. Teach hipos how to learn
6.3.1.2.8. Give a variety of challenges to teach versitility
6.3.1.2.9. Give lots of feedback including personality inventories.
6.3.1.2.10. Online training is coo.
6.3.1.3. Transition
6.3.1.3.1. Make coaching available as hipo transitions into new role.
6.3.1.3.2. Add more targeted dev after 90 days.
6.3.1.4. Road map
6.3.2. SHL & HBR
6.3.2.1. Identifying
6.3.2.1.1. Aspiration, Engagement, Ability
6.4. Case Study: What do businesses actually do?
6.4.1. Hughes Supply
6.4.2. Pipeline
6.4.2.1. 1. Stakeholder Buy-in
6.4.2.1.1. Created empty mission statement
6.4.2.1.2. Got stakeholder buy-in about talent development
6.4.2.2. 2. Planning
6.4.2.2.1. Identify areas of org most in need of leadership development.
6.4.2.2.2. Looked at status of EXTERNAL market and discovered a talent shortage in their field.
6.4.2.2.3. Decided to recruit both internally and externally (college grads) and sell their pipeline as a recruiting pitch.
6.4.2.3. 3. Advertising
6.4.2.3.1. Branded as "Manager in Training" program.
6.4.2.3.2. Timed launch with fall graduation
6.4.2.3.3. Delayed at first by HR team restructring
6.4.2.3.4. Got departments to sponsor recruits
6.4.2.3.5. Identify best campuses and advertise
6.4.2.4. 4. Cataloging vacancies
6.4.2.4.1. Job analysis to determine needed KSAOs
6.4.2.4.2. Asked departments to identify roles that may need to be filled.
6.4.2.4.3. Got PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS from departemtns.
6.4.2.5. 5. Attraction & filtering
6.4.2.5.1. Have them complete DDI Leadership Career Battery”
6.4.2.5.2. Background experience assessed.
6.4.2.5.3. Formal structured interview.
6.4.2.6. 6. Development
6.4.2.6.1. 2-day tour and meet & greet with executives
6.4.2.6.2. 2-week course "Hughs One Intensive"
6.4.2.6.3. 1.25 year trial program
6.4.2.7. 7. Evaluation
6.4.2.7.1. Performance in trial evaluated
6.4.2.7.2. Candidate's career path evaluated.
6.4.2.8. 8. Placement
6.4.2.8.1. Placed in entry-level management positions
6.4.2.9. 9. Retention
6.4.2.9.1. 360 feedback sessions
6.4.2.9.2. Hughes Supply coursework for continuous learning [about the company]
6.4.3. Revisions
6.4.3.1. Started inviting ALL recruits to 2-day event, not just the intiially filtered.
6.4.3.1.1. 26% reduction in acceptane rate
6.4.3.1.2. Reduced cost-to-hire
6.4.3.1.3. [Because meaning?]
6.4.4. Results
6.4.4.1. Positive reaction from stakeholders (probably because of all the buy-in soliciteed along the way)
6.4.5. Notes
6.4.5.1. No evaluation step? No business outcomes listed?
6.5. Outcomes
6.5.1. Organizational trust (.36**)
6.5.2. Affective commitment (.36**)
6.5.3. Turnover (-.26**)
7. What would give somebody high potential for being a university staff leader?
7.1. Motivation to lead in that specific position may be a good indicator.
7.2. Middle managers like academic deans often selected from first-line supervisors, in the basis of likeability (as a proxy for perceived ability to work with senior managers)
7.3. Hegarty (1974) found that university department chairs who received feedback from subordinates improved their performance, both as judged by subordinates and in comparison with control participants who received no subordinate evaluations
8. Executive Presence
8.1. Seems kind of like a cumulative proxy for all the other leader traits.
8.2. Related to being "Perceived as a leader"
8.3. Physically attractive
8.3.1. Especially: Well-groomed.
8.4. Communicates well
8.4.1. Read & command an audience
8.5. Gravitas
8.5.1. Confident
8.5.2. Decisive
8.5.3. [Disagreeable?]