Leadership and Learning Agility: A Lifelong Journey for W. Warner Burke

LA From Lombardo to Burke

LA is a relatively new concept, largely brought to our awareness by the early work of Lombardo and Eichinger (2000). Lombardo and Eichinger defined LA as the “willingness and ability to learn new competencies in order to perform under first time, tough, or different conditions” (p. 323). The concept captures an important aspect of what has been missing in the way we select and develop individuals in our organizations.

The first attempt to measure LA resulted in Lombardo and Eichinger’s multirater tool, Choices. The tool included four measures of LA: People Agility, Change Agility, Results Agility, and Mental Agility. Around 2011, Korn Ferry began publishing the viaEdge measure of LA. The assessment tool was a spinoff of Choices, developed by Eichinger and others (DeMeuse et al., 2011). With the publication of viaEdge, a fifth dimension of Self Awareness was added.

DeRue et al. (2012) described LA as consisting of two components: flexibility and speed. Flexibility involves abandoning behaviors that have worked in the past for new behaviors that are more effective today. Flexibility refers to unlearning as much as it does learning. Speed, however, has to do with how quickly an individual can change course in behaviors as well as how quickly an individual can read the situational cues to form a plan of action. Individuals who demonstrate behaviors related to speed can change their position during a discussion in response to social cues, or immediately change behavior after a learning experience to adjust to the new knowledge.

Burke’s own research (Burke & Smith, 2019) confirmed DeRue et al.’s (2012) conclusions and identified two other factors affecting LA: skill and motivation. By skill, Burke and his team identified 38 unique behaviors that contribute to LA. These items make up his new measure of LA. Motivation, on the other hand, involves the willingness to take risks and, from time to time, move beyond one’s comfort zone.

Burke’s Research Leading to the 38 Items

Around the time of DeRue et al.’s (2012) article, Burke began taking a critical look at how LA was conceptualized and measured. His initial concerns were about LA in the context of leadership. Much of his work has led to assessing individuals for leadership potential. Driven by the high failure rate of those in leadership positions, Burke began to create his own line of research. Quoting from Burke and Smith’s technical report (Burke & Smith, 2019) for the Burke Learning Agility Inventory,

Executives tend to develop skills through the accumulation of challenging experiences (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988; McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlot, & Morrow, 1994), and individuals vary in their ability to learn from such experiences (Howard & Bray, 1988; McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Morrison & Brantner, 1992).

This all seems to point to what we know today as LA.

So how does one adequately measure LA? In the early 2010s, Burke felt that he could improve on current-day measures. Burke began by searching for a better, more parsimonious definition of LA, believing that LA can be explained by one factor, not five. He did not feel that there are multiple “types” of LA, rather one singular concept. In Burke’s model, all nine dimensions are necessary for a person to be learning agile. Burke’s approach was to look at LA from a behavioral perspective. He recognized that one cannot see cognitive processes taking place in learning; but by outlining the behaviors associated with learning, we can better understand how individuals learn in organizations. As a result, the 38 items that make up the Burke measure are behavior based and observable.

The 38-item LA inventory, created by Burke and his research team at TC, has been given the name “Burke Learning Agility Inventory” (Burke LAI). The 38 items clustered into nine independent dimensions:

Burke’s review of relevant literature and hands-on research (Burke & Smith, 2019) positions LA as a multifaceted concept and is demonstrated by a range of behaviors that broadly allow individuals to seek out, manage, understand, and ultimately learn from new and challenging experiences. His review suggests that learning agile individuals display an enthusiasm for learning, proactively seeking out challenges, new experiences, and feedback from others. Furthermore, an individual must also be able to effectively take in and process relevant information, integrate new ideas with previous perspectives, reflect on new insights, generate multiple solutions to problems based on data, and experiment with new ways of doing things. Finally, for this learning to be possible, an individual must be able to effectively manage the situation at hand, creating conditions that will allow learning to occur. Such individuals will persist even when outcomes are unclear, remain calm when faced with challenging situations, stay positive when confronted with failure, and ultimately perform well under new conditions.

Scientific Rigor: Refining the Measurement of LA

Burke’s research team took a comprehensive approach in the development of their instrument, beginning with a thorough look at prior research, conducting item development, internal consistency assessment, intercorrelations of dimensions, confirmatory factor analysis, and convergent/discriminant validity analysis. The 38 items were studied across three different samples, beginning with midlevel managers participating in the Center for Creative Leadership’s leader development programs. Further samples included U.S. and non-U.S. individual contributors, managers, and executives. Criterion validity studies were conducted finding significant correlations between Burke LAI scores and leader potential and performance (Burke & Smith, 2019).

The Burke LAI succeeded in maintaining a parsimonious approach to measuring LA. With its 38 items, it is an efficient and a thorough measurement of LA. The assessment’s behavioral approach in both measurement and reporting has made the Burke LAI attractive to organizations for use in selection, development, succession planning, and other applications, globally.

Delivering the New Assessment

Burke did not stop there. He ensured that a delivery engine was built to make his assessment accessible to organizations and individuals who could benefit from measuring LA. Burke sought the help of David Hoff, COO (chief operating officer) of a consulting and test publishing company. Over a few months, the inventory was programmed for “test takers.” An automated assessment report was written for a measure of overall LA, each of the nine dimensions and the 38 test items. Since Burke’s tool was behavior based with simple, straight-forward questions, the report followed the same elemental pattern. Human resources officers, other leaders, and test takers find the report straightforward and logical. They commonly comment on how easy it is to use the results in hiring decisions, promotion processes, and development practices.

The TC Connection

The road to publishing Burke’s new test has an interesting history. It began at a dinner hosted by the Board of the American Society of Training and Development, where Burke, TC professor, and Hoff, a TC alumnus, found themselves seated together. Over the course of the evening, the two learned of their common interests and connections.

That evening, which was almost 40 years ago, Hoff told Burke that his graduate work was at TC, in Applied Human Development. They determined that Hoff left TC just before Burke joined the faculty. Burke later reorganized and renamed the Applied Human Development program, the Department of Organizational Psychology. At the time, Hoff was working in talent management for Anheuser-Busch Companies.

After their meeting, Burke and Hoff stayed in touch over the next several years. They reconnected at the 2007 Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychologists Conference in New York. Burke was still at TC. Hoff had gone on to become a principal at the consulting and test publishing company, E.A.S.I.-Consult. Their conversation led to Burke’s work on a measure of LA and Hoff’s interest to represent the ultimate assessment.

For 5 years, there were periodic exchanges between Burke and Hoff about the progress being made, but there was no finished product. Hoff was not sure this measure would come to life during his or Burke’s careers. According to Hoff, “One day I received a call and the voice at the other end of the phone (which I recognized as Burke) said ‘I’ve got it.’” Hoff replied, “You’ve got what?” Burke informed him that the new set of questions to measure LA from a behavioral basis was ready for use. Shortly thereafter, Hoff, his CEO (chief executive officer), and Burke began the process of defining a relationship between the two entities to operationalize the Burke LAI.

Criterion Validity Studies

From the beginning, it was paramount to Burke that his new LA instrument should be founded in scientific rigor. To date, his research still goes on with the Burke LAI. Much of the focus is on how well the assessment predicts leader potential and leader performance. Several opportunities have allowed for a “test of the test” in this respect. Criterion validity studies within large organizations helped confirm the predictive value of the Burke’s LA assessment.

The first of these was a look at leadership potential conducted with candidates for executive-level positions in the wealth management industry (Burke et al., 2016). In this study, the Burke LAI (at that time the Burke LAI was titled “LAI”) was a strong predictor of ratings of the probability of job success in an executive position as provided by an executive recruitment firm.

The effectiveness of the assessment tool to predict leader performance was further demonstrated in cooperation with a large Midwestern health care organization. Participants who were enrolled in a leadership program were rated by their supervisors, using the organization’s competency model. Again, the Burke LAI correlated with supervisor ratings (Burke & Smith, 2019).

The predictive value of Burke’s work was tested again in a study with the help of an international beverage company (Burke & Smith, 2019). A senior vice president at the company had an interest in trying out the test as an addition to its well-established leader potential program. The beverage company had been said to have one of the best leadership and talent management programs in place. For years, the company has invested millions of dollars in scientific approaches to identify and develop its leadership talent throughout the enterprise.

In the study, participants completed the Burke LAI. Their test scores were compared with their supervisor’s ratings of them using the company’s leadership competency model. Those who scored higher on the Burke LAI were also rated higher by their supervisors on key leadership competencies. The instrument showed predictable relationships across the company’s leadership competencies.

With Burke’s international connections, additional criterion studies are planned. Initial results are strong and encouraging. The Burke LAI appears to be an efficient predictor of leadership potential and performance and will have enduring impact on organizations in the future.

Growth and Support of the Original Assessment

Responsibility to the science of assessment and to potential organizations (users of the Burke LAI) did not stop for Burke after his work of developing and disseminating the instrument. In discussions with Hoff, a certification process was developed for those who would administer, and report results of the assessment to organizations and individuals.

Early attempts focused on efficient technologies to administer the certification training virtually. A half-day, online certification session was developed and piloted. After several attempts, it became clear that this was not sufficient. A full understanding of LA, its usefulness and limitations, and potential utilization across different applications such as selection, leader development, and succession planning could not be adequately covered in a half-day session. Equally important, it was felt that face-to-face group sessions would offer essential benefits of learning. Thus, the certification process was redesigned into a 2-day in-person program.

Changes to certification led to an increase in assessment interests, and those were coming from a more global audience. To date, individuals who have been certified to administer assessments and deliver the results to organizations and individuals reach from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia, covering more than 25 countries. With today’s emphasis on virtual delivery of learning content, the online option has been substantially revised and is being employeed effectively.

Expanding the Burke LAI

The initial data on which Burke’s (self-report) instrument was normed was based primarily on a U.S. population. The more widespread the use of the tool became, there was increasing opportunity to re-norm the assessment. This occurred in October 2019 using a more global data base. Larger global organizations have asked to summarize data for subpopulations within their organization to help drive the LA implications. This is in process now.

When Burke developed his set of researched questions to measure LA, it was clear that he intended for the assessment to be a self-report measure and this is the primary tool offered today. Early on, there were some concerns that test participants would inflate their ratings given the behavioral basis of the assessment. However, as more and more data were collected, the results did not support this phenomenon. The distribution of test scores continues to resemble a normal distribution.

Inquiries by some customers of the assessment, wanting different options, led to the development and deployment of Burke’s 38 items into multirater (180° and 360°) feedback tools. Once again, Burke has found another way to offer organizations and individuals with opportunities for growth.

Most recently, there have been several requests for a version of the Burke assessment that could be used to measure a team’s functioning around LA. This is something currently being developed that has exciting implications. The solution will take time and effort to create and is targeted for this upcoming year.

Users/Applications

So how are the Burke assessment tools received and used in the marketplace?

Next Steps

Looking back over the past few years, what has been learned about LA has increased exponentially. Thanks to Dr. Burke, we have a strong, behavior-based tool to measure LA. With each additional answer to an aspect of LA, a new question emerges. Burke’s original focus was with a set of questions to measure LA at the individual level. That emphasis is shifting to a combination of individual and organizational focus. A growing area of emphasis is working with individuals to develop those capabilities not just at the dimension but at the item level.

There is an approach to software development called “sprints” where significant progress is made through short bursts of effort by individuals. Hoff is looking at applying that approach to accelerate individual LA development. Those learnings could then be mass deployed within an organization.

For example, two organizations, one from the pharmaceuticals industry and one from the health care industry, have created full-day simulations focused on LA. People are exposed to the concept of LA focusing on Burke’s nine dimensions, they receive individual feedback on the assessment tool and then are given a series of challenges. The expectation is that some combination of LA capabilities will lead to the optimum solution. Participants discuss which aspects of LA they used or could have used. Individual and organizational goals are then determined along with follow-on reinforcement sessions. As organizations begin to accumulate LA data of their employees, they will want to use it to drive decision making.

There has been interest expressed in a team-based measure of LA. Burke is rewriting the original LA items to measure LA at the team level. He is having conversations with people at the high school and college level who see how important it could be to assess and develop LA during these development windows for individuals. Some of the items would need to be revised to use with those populations.

An obvious opportunity is to translate the existing assessments into other languages. While English is the international language of business, people would prefer to take an assessment in their first language. Discussions are evolving with regard to translating the Burke assessments into Dutch, French, Portuguese and Spanish.

At its core, the Burke versions of LA are based on research, and Burke continues to see ongoing research as a priority. He continues to look for opportunities to research the relationship between emotional intelligence and LA. Are there implications in the relationship between LA and age? Are there gender implications to LA? We talk about the importance of context as it relates to LA. Can we measure the impact of context? Does the impact of context increase as your level in the organization increases? Are there implications for aspects of LA by industry? There has been significant interest from health care regarding LA. Is there an LA profile by industry that would lead to better results? How would results be defined? Financial? Innovation? Both? This is being written in the middle of a pandemic. Are there some organizations that thrive in this kind of uncertainty?

Summary

Studies of leadership have shown us that up to two out of three leaders fail in their jobs. J. Hogan et al. first reported the issue in 2009. Technical knowledge has weighed highly in promotion decisions, and unsurprisingly, new leaders have been unsure what to do in unfamiliar situations. Burke believes the missing component is LA.

Lombardo and Eichinger’s multirater tool for leader development was a good start, but Burke recognized the need for further research. DeRue et al. (2012) helped focus readers in their review of LA. They identified flexibility and speed as the drivers of LA. Burke built on DeRue’s work while looking for a parsimonious measure of LA and its behaviors. Burke led his team’s research identifying 38 items for measuring LA, which incorporated DeRue’s speed and flexibility. Burke identified nine categories or dimensions. The behaviors under the categories describe capabilities such as an enthusiasm for learning, proactively seeking out challenges, and looking for feedback from others.

Burke’s initial tool was a self-report measure and is now complemented with a 180° and a 360° multirater assessments. Burke wanted to ensure responsible use of his assessment tools and supported certification efforts. This has resulted in consistent, fair, and reasonable use of Burke’s assessments. These are currently being used for selection, development, coaching, and succession planning in the United States and various regions of the world.

Burke’s work on LA satisfies his passion to identify and develop better leaders. He was not just interested in refining a definition of LA but in creating a better way to measure it. Burke strove to make his assessment tools readily available to organizations to better their selection and development of leaders. At the same time, in a selfless gesture, he arranged for his profits from commercializing the Burke LAI to be donated to the Social-Organizational Psychology Program at TC. In a recent exchange with Burke, Hoff recounted a conversation with another TC alum who had just turned 103 years old. Burke said, “Well I am not going to live to 103, so I better get going.” Whether he lives to be 103 years old or not, his legacy and contribution to the field of leadership and LA will far outlive him.