Unlocking Leadership Potential with Science

Why Leadership Testing Matters

Claire Monroe: Okay, so Edwin—I gotta start with something I keep hearing from managers in my network. This idea that you can just tell who the real leaders are. Like, there’s this myth that if you’ve got good instincts, you’ll just “know.”But honestly? That gut feeling doesn’t always land. Why is leadership testing becoming such a big deal now?

Edwin Carrington: You’re not wrong, Claire. Intuition has its place… but when you’re choosing leaders? That’s high-stakes. And too often, we mistake confidence for competence—or we miss quieter strengths altogether.That’s where leadership testing comes in. It turns guesswork into data. It gives you a real read—not just on someone’s experience, but on how they think, how they lead, and whether they inspire others to follow.And the research backs it up. Structured assessments lead to better leadership picks. They help you spot future stars before they’ve got the title—and that’s huge for planning, retention, all of it.

Claire Monroe: Right—and you’re talking about those tools that get into things like emotional intelligence and communication habits, yeah?I remember the first time I got promoted—thought I was crushing it as a communicator… until I took this behavioral assessment during onboarding.Turns out? I was, like, totally missing the mark. People were reading me completely differently than I intended. It was awkward. But also? Kind of the best feedback I ever got. It gave me something concrete to work with—more than just “be clearer.”

Edwin Carrington: Exactly. That gap—between how we think we come across and how others experience us—is often where the real learning lives.Tools like the Hogan Assessments or MBTI can map your default settings. Then emotional intelligence tests take it further—they show how well you manage relationships, stress, even conflict.It’s not just about checking if someone has “potential.” It’s about what kind of potential—and how to grow it.

Claire Monroe: Yeah, and speaking of potential—I always wonder about leadership style. Like, is that actually measurable? Or is it just another HR buzzword we throw around?

Edwin Carrington: It’s more concrete than people think. Leadership style assessments look at decision-making, delegation, communication—your go-to behaviors under pressure.For instance, do you default to control, or collaboration? That’s not just a personality trait—it shapes team culture.So when organizations understand those patterns, they can match leaders to the right roles—or help them flex in new directions.

Claire Monroe: So basically, it’s not about slapping a label on someone. It’s about giving them the awareness to lead better?

Edwin Carrington: Exactly. You can’t grow what you can’t see. The best assessments don’t just spot gaps—they hand you a roadmap for development.

From Autocratic to Democratic: Leadership Styles in Action

Claire Monroe: Okay, let’s stir the pot a little. One of my favorite debates: autocratic versus democratic leadership.You and I have both seen how those styles affect team morale—but do the studies actually back up the stereotypes?

Edwin Carrington: They do—and pretty clearly. Autocratic leadership—the command-and-control style—works in emergencies. Speed, clarity, no debate. But over time? It stifles morale.People go quiet. Innovation dries up. And performance drops.Democratic leaders, on the other hand—those who involve their teams in decisions—tend to see higher engagement, better collaboration, and stronger project outcomes.One study I remember found that the most successful leaders foster environments with clear goals and space for initiative and feedback. That’s not fluff—that’s a strategic edge.

Claire Monroe: Totally. I remember that tech client you worked with… didn’t they have some big “aha” moment around this?

Edwin Carrington: They did. On paper, their leadership team looked strong—experienced, decisive. But their turnover was spiking and projects were dragging.Once they used behavioral assessments, the real story came out: employees felt micromanaged, unheard, and drained.The solution wasn’t more discipline—it was less control.So they trained their managers to ask better questions, open up feedback loops, and share ownership. The culture shifted—and performance followed. It was a clear before-and-after.

Claire Monroe: That’s such a hard shift to make though—like, going from “I make the calls” to “let’s solve this together.”Does that always work? Or is there, like, a magic mix of styles that works best?

Edwin Carrington: There’s no one-size-fits-all. But the best leaders? They adapt.Assessments help surface someone’s default style—especially under pressure—and then you can coach from there.It’s also about fit. A leader might be ready for promotion, but the real question is: does their style match where the organization is heading?

Claire Monroe: So it’s not just about skills—it’s about timing and context too?

Edwin Carrington: Exactly. And when you get that alignment right? You don’t just fill roles—you unlock potential.

The Science and Best Practices of Developing Leaders

Claire Monroe: Okay—nerd time. Let’s zoom out and talk standards.Every HR tech platform out there has their own “ultimate leadership framework”… but like, what actually counts as best practice?

Edwin Carrington: Great question. Leading bodies like SHRM and ATD agree on this: the most effective leadership assessments blend multiple data points.So instead of relying on one test, they combine behavioral, cognitive, and personality tools to create a full picture.That’s how you spot things like strategic thinking, adaptability, communication style—and emotional intelligence.Leadership isn’t one trait. It’s an ecosystem of capabilities—and best practice means measuring across that whole spectrum.

Claire Monroe: Okay, I’ve gotta say—I used to roll my eyes a little at emotional intelligence… but now, I get it.You can’t just out-strategize your way into being a great leader. EQ is, like, the glue.

Edwin Carrington: Absolutely. Emotional intelligence is what separates people who manage tasks from those who lead people.It’s empathy, self-regulation, relationship skills. And the data shows—teams with high-EQ leaders trust more, perform better, and stay longer.The best part? EQ isn’t fixed. With awareness and feedback, it can be developed. That’s why it matters so much.

Claire Monroe: So let’s get practical—if someone’s listening and thinking, “Okay, I want to grow as a leader,” what does that look like beyond just taking a test?

Edwin Carrington: It’s a journey. The strongest organizations start with robust assessments—but they don’t stop there.They build in coaching, feedback, and stretch assignments.Those are the real proving grounds—challenging projects where leaders have to level up in real time.Add in peer feedback, regular check-ins, and alignment with strategy—and leadership becomes a muscle, not a milestone.

Claire Monroe: That’s kind of comforting, actually. Like—it’s not about having all the answers. It’s about being willing to keep learning.

Edwin Carrington: Exactly. And when you create a culture where people can grow like that? You don’t just build better leaders—you build a better organization.

Claire Monroe: Alright, final thought—if someone’s listening and wondering how to actually use these ideas in their own company… where should they start?

Edwin Carrington: Well, if you're curious about applying this—OAD has tools that make the process simple.You can test out their behavioral assessments for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i. It’s a straightforward way to improve hiring, support leadership development, and match people to the right roles.

Claire Monroe: Perfect. Thanks Edwin. I feel like we just opened a whole new window into what leadership can look like when it’s guided by data—not just gut feelings.

Edwin Carrington: Always a pleasure, Claire. See you next time.

Claire Monroe: Take care, everyone. We’ll catch you on the next episode of The Science of Leading.