The method
The whole approach, movement by movement: what runs now, and what we are building beside it.
By our method we mean the whole approach: the four movements of the Leader Development Center, and what each one rests on. The assessment's method is one part of it.
Here we describe what is done, and why. Where something is still being built, we say so. How each part is done in detail, such as the rubrics' level descriptions and how the analyses are made and checked, we share under a confidentiality agreement, or with clients.
Movement 1
Intake
The role's demands are defined with the organization, in conversation: a step people take, not the AI. Then the person has a spoken interview with the AI interviewer about their own work.
What the interview asks
- 1
The work itself.
What the person does, and what their role asks of them.
- 2
An accomplishment.
Something they achieved, and how they went about it.
- 3
Looking outward and ahead.
What they see around them and coming toward them.
- 4
A commitment.
Something they could take on if they had a mandate, and how they would think it through.
- 5
One more consideration.
One further thing to weigh, drawn from the person's own account.
- 6
Reflection.
Looking back on the conversation.
How it is conducted
- The person is told before it begins that the interviewer is an AI.
- Ordinary language, one thing per question, no framework terms.
- The interviewer reacts to nothing and judges nothing: the analysis happens afterwards, separately.
- The added consideration is one more thing to weigh, not a crisis to handle.
- Interviews are matched to the scope of the role.
We are building
In developmentMovement 2
Assessment
Afterwards, separately, the interview is analyzed. The spoken answers have been turned into text, and only the text is analyzed. Two kinds of work go into it: a measurement, and the analysis.
The measurement
Our own software counts features of the transcript: how sentences are built, causal and conditional links, concrete and abstract language, references to time, and how far a line of thought is followed. It uses standard, openly available language-analysis tools. No generative AI is involved: the measurement writes nothing and judges nothing. Its figures go to the analyses that use them.
The analysis
After the interview, a general-purpose language model analyzes the transcript several times, each time for one job: once for each aspect of the structure of thinking, then once for each skill domain. Each analysis works from one rubric and from instructions our people wrote. The analyses of the structure of thinking are brought together before the skill domains are analyzed.
The rubrics
Version 1Each analysis works from a rubric. Here is each rubric by name, what it analyzes, and the research it draws on. The levels each rubric describes we share under a confidentiality agreement, or with clients.
The structure of thinking
The quality and complexity of a person's thinking shows in its structure: how many considerations they hold and coordinate, and how far ahead and how widely they see. Four analyses look at it, and they are brought together.
Draws on The Model of Hierarchical Complexity (Michael Commons), dynamic skill theory (Kurt Fischer), research on mental capacity (Juan Pascual-Leone, Robbie Case) and on the time horizons of work (Elliott Jaques). Differentiation and integration will draw on the work of Siegfried Streufert.
-
Complexity of coordination
How many considerations a person holds, and how they bring them together in their reasoning.
-
Span of attention
How many things a person keeps in view at once.
-
Tracking distance
How far a person follows a line of thought.
-
Time horizon
How far ahead a person looks.
The five skill domains
How that thinking is applied. Each skill domain is analyzed against its own rubric.
Clarity and argumentation
Framing, making clear arguments, connecting ideas logically, justifying claims.
Working with perspectives
Taking, seeking, aligning and integrating others' perspectives; awareness of the limits of one's own.
Contextual thinking
Causal depth, breadth of scope in space and time, and how culture is treated.
Decision-making process
Deciding how to decide, care in gathering information, weighing trade-offs, learning from outcomes.
We are building
In developmentHow the rubrics were built
Each analysis works from a rubric: a defined progression describing how a capacity or skill looks at successive levels of sophistication. The rubrics draw on developmental research and on long practice with developmental assessments, debriefs and learning programs. The analyses of the structure of thinking draw on the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (Michael Commons), dynamic skill theory (Kurt Fischer), research on mental capacity (Juan Pascual-Leone, Robbie Case) and on the time horizons of work (Elliott Jaques). The rubrics have been built up, used in real reports and debriefs, revised and combined over time, and they continue to be refined.
Checking
What checks the analyses now:
- Each skill domain is analyzed separately, after the interview.
- The analyses of the structure of thinking are brought together.
- The development mentor reads the whole report before the person sees it.
- The person tests the report against their own experience, in debriefing with the mentor.
- Research and development to make the assessment more robust continue.
The report
The person receives a layered report: a summary first, then each skill domain with examples from their own interview, practices to try, and space for their reflections. The development mentor reads it before the person does, and then they explore it together.
Exploration and skill development
Movement 3
Exploration
Debriefing with the development mentor: conversations that test the report against the person's experience, as a hypothesis rather than a verdict. When the assessment serves development, the person chooses a skill or two to work on.
We are building
In developmentMovement 4
Skill development
Learning loops in the person's own work: short, repeatable cycles for practicing one skill, designed by a development mentor working with an AI design partner. What the loops reveal informs the next round.
We are building
In developmentThe clearest way to see the method is to take the assessment yourself.
Ask to try the assessment →