the science behind flowprofiler®

The flowprofiler Global Limited flowprofiler® product family are a range of online self-report questionnaires that measures the emotional and social intelligence of an individual, as well as how they cope when faced with challenge or setbacks and how they are motivated at work. There are four products within the flowprofiler® family, these are:

• the flowprofiler®
• eqflow®
• resilienceflow®
• motivationflow®

The flowprofiler® measures 18 dimensions of emotional intelligence, resilience and motivation, whilst the sub questionnaires, eqflow®, resilienceflow® and motivationflow® look at these factors in isolation. The questionnaires produce a computer-generated report that can be used as part of the assessment process for recruitment, development or coaching.

flowprofiler® assessments are state based. The dimensions measure observable behaviours. These behaviours are situation based and driven by preference. For example, behavioural traits such as sociability will likely show a preference and impact a person’s ‘regard for others’. Like all intelligences, the dimensions measured both change and develop over time. As a result, we recommend that the questionnaire has a 12-to-18 month shelf-life and that the assessments should be retaken after this time. This family of assessments are also available in a verbal format.

A history of emotional and social intelligence,
resilience and motivation research

The development of flowprofiler®

The flowprofiler® normative questionnaire

A global population of 522 Managers and Professionals completed the trial normative version of the flowprofiler® questionnaire over a 3-week period. Table 2 shown example questions asked within the questionnaire.

The flowprofiler® product family utilises both direct and reverse worded items because this has found in previous research to mitigate response bias (Barnette, 2000).

The normative questionnaire utilises the following scale:

 

The validity of the questionnaire has been ensured by:

• Creating the questionnaire items with a neutral tone and with a positivity bias in mind. In this sense, individuals should not feel that any particular item is preferable, rather allowing themselves to consider how they actually are.
• Using a 7-point rating scale from “1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree” that is fully labelled to reduce positive bias and to ensure that the respondents understand the meaning at each point of the scale. A seven-point rating scale was also selected to reduce central tendency bias (Potter, 1995).
• Including items which have been written in the opposite direction to each targeted motivation in order to reduce respondent complacency.

When interpreting the results of an assessment it is often useful to know how each individual score compares to scores achieved by others. Knowing whether a score is high, low or average compared to others requires that we have a norm group. Norms allow for a comparison of an individual’s score on an assessment to a relevant comparison group. The use of norms ensures that, when comparing the scores of different individuals, you can be sure you are comparing like with like. There are various standard scales that could be used to assess individuals on aptitude and behavioural style assessments. Often different scales are used for aptitude and behavioural assessments to allow for a common, simple language on behavioural style and aptitude tests, ‘Sten’ scores are available. ‘Sten’ stands for ‘Standard to ten’, they provide a score which ranges from 1 to 10 with 5 and 6 straddling the average (mean) score. While this provides a simple scale for users, it is also useful to understand how these scores relate to percentiles in the normal distribution.

For simplicity for users the figures in the above table are rounded to give whole number percentiles (positive integers). Where possible they are provided as multiples of 5 or 10, which are near the centre of each Sten score, this avoids creating the perception of over accuracy in the score particularly as Stens are bands of scores which are subject to a degree of error.

Sten scores are calculated from a person’s raw scores on an aptitude or behavioural styles assessment. To work out a person’s Sten score, you first need to calculate the Z-score. The Z-score represents how far away a person’s score is from the group mean in standard deviation units. The formula to calculate a person’s Z-score is as follows:

Individuals Raw Score – Mean of the Group

Z-score = ___________________________________________

Standard Deviation

X – X

Z-Score = _______________

SD

From this you can work out a person’s Sten score. The formula for calculating Sten scores is given below:

Sten score = (Z-score x 2) + 5.5

A Sten score gives a rounded representation of a person’s score against a benchmark comparison group. One Sten score covers half of a standard deviation from the bottom of the score to the top of the Sten score.

The reliability of flowprofiler®

According to Hulin, Netemeyer and Cudeck (2001), a Cronbach Alpha value of 0.6-0.7 demonstrates an acceptable level of reliability, and 0.8 or above demonstrates a very good level of reliability.

Measures of test approach

leadershipflow® 360

The leadershipflow® 360 provides feedback across the 40 competencies that underpin the 5 power skill domains of leadership.

These are:

• Emotional Intelligence
• Influence
• Decision Making
• Drive
• Mindset

Emotional Intelligence

Emotionally intelligent leaders stay composed (Humphrey et al., 2008), exhibit consistency, and respond appropriately to others’ emotions (Robbins, 2005). They are self-assured, approachable, contribute value to their teams, and recognise their strengths and weaknesses (Showry & Manasa, 2014). They align their leadership with the organisation’s culture and values, creating a positive work environment (Horner, 1997), (Tran, 2017).

Emotional intelligence (EQ) is a commonly used term to describe an individual’s awareness and capacity to regulate and express their emotions. Leaders who exhibit high emotional intelligence maintain a composed demeanour, demonstrating a consistent and appropriate response to the emotions of others (Schulze & Roberts, 2005). Some scholars propose that EQ surpasses IQ as a requirement for successful leadership, arguing that even with training, innovation, and a highly analytical mind, without EQ one would still not be a great leader (Robbins, 2005). Historically, it has been recommended to keep emotions out of the workplace. However, over the last few decades researchers and leaders alike have begun to realise the value of emotions and how they can be harnessed to have positive effects on performance (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Ronald Humphrey is a distinguished professor of leadership who has long been an advocate of the importance of emotions in the workplace. Through almost 40 years of research, he has highlighted emotional intelligence as a crucial tool in leadership (Humphrey et al., 2008), as well as displaying the overarching relationship between EQ and job performance (O’Boyle et al., 2011).

Emotionally intelligent leaders possess self-assurance and approachability, actively contributing value to their teams, all while displaying a keen awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses. Showry & Mansa (2014) propose that the foundation of effective leadership is self-awareness, a central factor of EQ. They highlight the value of understanding how one’s own behaviour impacts others and utilising this to boost performance, with this being a competency that organisations increasingly seek.

Furthermore, emotionally intelligent leaders align their style with the organisation’s culture and values, fostering a harmonious and positive work environment. A literature review examining trends and changes in leadership over time identified that leadership is less about a specific set of behaviours than it is about creating a positive and productive environment (Horner, 1997). They conclude that by creating an environment in which people feel involved and motivated, leaders are more able to effectively influence and direct others. This is reinforced in later work by Tran (2017) examining culture, leadership and management as contributing factors to the success of Google LLC. Their evaluation found that organisational culture is what employees consider most when applying for a job, and that culture becomes ‘the most important factor to the success of the development of a business’.

There are 8 behavioural competencies that underpin Emotional Intelligence in the leadershipflow® 360:

Influence

The ability to influence others begins with an appreciation of others’ contributions. This path entails actively seeking and valuing opinions, thus instilling confidence in stakeholders and fostering an environment of collaboration. Fisher et al. (2005) evidenced this by developing a questionnaire to investigate perceptions of leadership skills and behaviours. ‘Showing respect for others’, ‘showing concern for others’ and ‘building relationships’ emerged as some of the most important skills, demonstrating the need for leaders to value and recognise others in order to increase their influence.

Influence is marked by clear and compelling communication that motivates people into action, and the ability to make a positive impact on others. Through conducting in-depth interviews with 18 business leaders, Tait (1996) found these qualities and skills to be essential to successfully leading a large organisation.

As highlighted by Clutterbuck and Hirst (2002), effective leaders excel in conveying their expectations with precision, while also demonstrating an active and empathetic listening skill set. This report states that in order to successfully influence others, leaders must set mutual expectations and ensure that everyone has clear objectives, reinforcing understanding and providing support through regular communication. Furthermore, successful leadership relies on the foundation of a shared vision and fostering a sense of cohesion among team members, echoing the insights presented by Bennis and Nanus (1985). They emphasise that maintaining an overall vision is a core responsibility of a leader, and that it should be developed with contributions from key members of the organisation.

Adept and influential leaders, as detailed by Boyatzis & Ratti (2009), possess the capability to address conflicts with finesse when circumstances necessitate it, thereby ensuring the maintenance of a positive and productive team environment. He found that this ability was a social intelligence competency that distinguished the higher level executive from middle level managers.

There are 8 behavioural competencies that underpin Influence in the leadershipflow® 360:

Decision Making

The essence of decision-making is defined by the practice of objective and rational thinking, a process that encompasses a deliberate separation of emotions from facts and a rigorous testing of assumptions. Strong leaders must be analytical in their decision-making process, carefully considering options and seeking contributions from others, while upholding confidence in their abilities and final decisions (Ejimabo, 2015).

Effective leaders, as highlighted by Siebert et al. (2020), actively embrace a proactive approach to decision-making. This research found that proactive decision-making drives goal-directed behaviour, which in turn increases self-belief and rates of satisfaction – both with one’s decisions and in general life. They further evidenced the importance of ‘generating alternatives’ during the decision-making process, suggesting that successful leaders seek diverse viewpoints, are continually driven by a results-oriented mindset, and are unceasingly committed to the pursuit of improvement.

In addition, strong leaders adopt an evidence-based approach to decision-making, assessing critical factors. Selart (2010) states that skilled leaders conduct a comprehensive evaluation of their team’s readiness and the task at hand, identifying who should be involved in the process at which point and defining problems that are of strategic importance. Proficient leaders would also thoroughly consider financial implications, conduct a meticulous analysis of task complexity, predict completion time, and carefully examine the organisational challenges at hand.

Research further suggests that leaders who make decisions tailored to organisational success are aware of the potential biases that may affect their judgement. McKenzie et al. (2011) developed a maturity model for assessing and improving organisational status in decision making, within which they identify a range of potential decision-making biases and provide corresponding moderating governance processes. These include mental biases such as anchoring (giving disproportionate weight to the first information received), sunk-cost (making decisions that justify past choices), and preference for outsiders (valuing knowledge from external sources more than from internal ones). This highlights the analytical mindset and self-awareness that effective leaders implement in their decision-making.

There are 8 behavioural competencies that underpin Decision Making in the leadershipflow® 360:

Drive

Drive is synonymous with a desire to effect positive change, being motivated by one’s role, and exhibiting a skilful navigation of uncertain terrain (Goleman, 2004). Goleman further identifies leaders as individuals that are motivated by the desire the achieve rather than wholly by external rewards, demonstrated by an energy and passion for their role.

Through interviews with prominent business leaders, Tait (1996) found drive to be explicitly recognised as one of the necessary qualities in business leadership, particularly in large organisations. Former Chief Executive and Chairman of ASDA referred to the need for a ‘driving energy’ to facilitate organisational success, with there being a consensus among interviewees that a sense of drive motivates the long hours and hard work necessary for successful business leadership.

Driven leaders have the capacity to maintain a sharp focus on immediate tasks, empowering both themselves and others through unwavering persistence and intrinsic self-reliance. In a review integrating current knowledge about leadership effectiveness with historical accounts and theories, Chemers (2000) proposes that in order to productively utilise the skills and abilities of their team, leaders must first create a sense of self-assurance and empowerment that inspires others to tap into their fullest potential. He found it to be well-established that confidence in one’s capabilities is a reliable marker for competence, with many leadership theories and models emphasising that outstanding leaders demonstrate increased levels of self-confidence and reliance (House, 1977).

Leaders with a sense of drive and purpose proactively take control in the face of challenges, motivating and encouraging others through their ability to rebound resiliently from setbacks. The value of this competence is underpinned by the insights of Coutu (2002), who found substantial research evidence for a strong relationship between resiliency and the capacity to function effectively in various life situations. This is reinforced in later work by Northouse (2015), who states that leaders with drive and determination are willing to proactively assert themselves whenever it’s required and have the capacity to persevere in the face of obstacles.

There are 8 behavioural competencies that underpin Drive in the leadershipflow® 360:

Mindset

Leaders characterised by a strong mindset actively welcome opportunities for growth and development. American Psychologist Carol Dweck, widely known for her development of Mindset Theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), proposes that having a growth mindset is critical to the success of a company. Through numerous studies on mindset and motivation, she concludes that growth-minded leaders harness the company as an engine of growth and improvement, rather than a means for personal gain, resulting in elevated organisational success (Dweck, 2006).

An effective leadership mindset is also displayed through the ability to identify strengths both within oneself (Showry & Mansa, 2014) and in one’s team members. After reviewing decades of Gallup data surrounding public opinion on effective leadership, Rath & Conchie (2008) concluded that the most successful and admired leaders invest in the strengths of their team members. They found that when a company’s leadership maximises and on the strengths of individuals, the odds of employee engagement increase eightfold, manifested in substantial organisational gain and increased employee wellbeing.

Proficient leaders maintain an optimistic outlook under pressure and are enthusiastic about potential opportunities, which Niyogi & John (2017) propose to be critical when organisations are focused on long-term return and are facing uncertain situations.

They consistently exhibit a strong sense of purpose, utilising their goal-focused mindset and self-awareness to encourage a culture of accountability and excellence. Botwin (2021) highlights the importance of accountability in leadership, stating that it facilitates better internal communication and a productive workflow. He proposes that in being accountable for their actions, leaders are proactive in recognising high performance across the organisation.

Mindset forms the foundation of a proactive and goal-driven culture, which is associated with enhanced employee performance (Kim et al., 2017). Leaders with a positive and resilient mindset often display a strong work ethic, which is identified by Vimba, Coetzee & Ukpere (2013) as one of the six fundamental themes contributing to organisational efficacy.

There are 8 behavioural competencies that underpin Mindset in the leadershipflow® 360:

Respondent ratings link directly to the verbs (develop, activate, maintain and manage) and zones found in flowprofiler® scale (underusing, solid base, flow zone and overusing).

The verbs provide the leader with actionable feedback and ensure that the leadershipflow® 360 report is meaningful and easy to use. Respondents are encouraged to leave evidence-based comments and examples.

The leadershipflow® 360 draws on the validated research conducted in 2018 by the team of psychologists at Zircon Consulting Limited overseen by Chief Psychologist, Amanda Potter, PHD.

The leadership competencies measured are observable behaviours. These are treated as skills, abilities or intelligences that can be developed. This means that the leader can affect meaningful and appreciable change in their leadership performance.

The leadershipflow® 360 reports dovetails with the leadershipflow® report (generated from the leader’s flowprofiler® assessment results).

flowprofiler® assessments do not assign a ‘type’ or a leadership ‘style’ rather they are state based leaving the leader empowered to adapt and respond appropriately based on the situation.

References

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the Workplace: A Reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97-125.

Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, supl., 13-25.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J., Gebauer, L., Arslan, R., Rentfrow, P., Potter, J. & Gosling, S. (2016). Gender Differences in Self-Esteem: A Cross-Cultural Window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 396-410.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego resiliency in the organization of behaviour. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Botwin, A. (2021) The Importance of Accountability in Leadership and Business. [Op Ed] Strategy People Culture Consulting.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). Handbook of emotional intelligence, 99(6), 343-362.

Boyatzis, R.E. and Ratti, F. (2009). Emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies distinguishing effective Italian managers and leaders in a private company and cooperatives. Journal of Management Development, 28(9), 821-838.

Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership Research and Theory: A Functional Integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 27-43. doi: 10.1037//1089-2699.4.1.27.

Chui, H. & Diehl, M. (2016). Age Differences in the Effects of Self-Esteem. GeroPsych, 29(4), 189-200.

Clutterbuck, D., & Hirst, S. (2002). Leadership communication: A status report. Journal of Communication Management, 6(4), 351-354.

Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review. 46–55.

Daniels, D. (1998). Age Differences in Concepts of Self-Esteem. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44(2), 234-258.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. Springer Science & Business Media.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 1(2011), 416-433.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256-273.

Ejimabo, N. O. (2015). The Influence of Decision Making in Organizational Leadership and Management Activities. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Organization Management, 4(2). doi: 10.4172/2169-026X.1000138

Fisher, D. K., Russell, K., Nottingham, L., & Field, J. R. (2005). Characteristics of Effective Leaders in Economic Development: An Exploratory Study. Southern Business Review, 31(1), 13-27.

Fletcher, D., & Scott, M. (2010). Psychological stress in sports coaches: A review of concepts, theory and research. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 127–137. doi: 10.1080/02640410903406208

flowprofiler® Global (2019). flowprofiler® technical manual

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26(4), 331-362.

Galli, N, & Vealey, R. (2008). “Bouncing Back” from Adversity: Athletes’ Experiences of Resilience. Sport Psychologist, 22(3), 315-335.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence.

Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 82, 82-91.

Horner, M. (1997), “Leadership theory: past, present and future. Management. 3(4), 270-287.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. (189-207). Southern Illinois University Press.

Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R., and Cudeck, R. (2001). Can a Reliability Coefficient Be Too High? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1), 55-58

Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., & Hawver, T. (2008). Leading with emotional labour. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2).

Jacobson, L. I., Kellogg, R. W., Cauce, A. M., & Slavin, R. S. (1977). A multidimensional Social Desirability inventory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9(2), 109-110.

Kim, D., Choi, D. & Vandenberghe, C. (2018) Goal-Focused Leadership, Leader-Member Exchange, and Task Performance: The Moderating Effects of Goal Orientations and Emotional Exhaustion. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 645–660.

McKenzie, J., Van Winkelen, C., & Grewal, S. (2011). Developing organisational decision‐making capability: a knowledge manager’s guide. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 403–421.

Niyogi, S., & John, S. (2017). Impact of Optimism on Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Literature. International Journal of Management , 8(6), 8–14.

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practise (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

O’Boyle Jr, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788-818.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait Emotional Intelligence: Psychometric Investigation with Reference to Established Trait Taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.

Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British journal of psychology, 98(2), 273-289.

Potter, A. (2003). Should we abandon Type A in favour of the Big Five Model? Unpublished PhD Thesis

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.

Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow. Simon and Schuster.

Robbins, S. (2005). Organizational behaviour. (11th Ed). Pearson Prentice Hall.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9(3), 185-211.

Schulze, R., & Roberts, R. D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence: An International Handbook. Hogrefe Publishing GmbH.

Selart, M. (2010). A Leadership Perspective on Decision Making. Cappelen Academic Publishers.

Showry, M., & Manasa, K. V. L. (2014). Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 8(1), 15–26.

Siebert, J. U., Kunz, R. E., & Rolf, P. (2020). Effects of proactive decision making on life satisfaction. European Journal of Operational Research, 280(3), 1171–1187.

Tait, R. (1996). The attributes of leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(1), 27–31.

Tran, S. K. (2017). Google: a Reflection of culture, leader, and Management. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2(1), 1–14. Springeropen.

Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of educational research, 42(2), 203-215.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY, US: Cornell University Press.

Vimba, M. C., Coetzee J. E. & Ukpere, W. I. (2013) A Relationship between Leadership Work Ethic and Organisational Performance in the Public Sector. Journal of Social Sciences, 35(2), 169-180, DOI: 10.1080/09718923.2013.11893157

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Download Our Brochure