The Leadership Impact Analysis

A structured approach to evaluating the human and organizational effects of leadership decisions

Context

In many organizations, leadership appointments and promotions are still primarily based on perceived potential, functional performance, or availability — not on a rigorous assessment of leadership impact. The consequences can be significant: when leadership capability does not align with the scope or nature of responsibility, the effects ripple through teams, culture, and strategy execution.

After recent conversations, it became clear that several people experience disappointment in how leadership decisions are made — and more specifically, how the impact of these decisions is often underestimated. Leadership, unlike purely technical or financial decisions, carries with it profound effects on people, motivation, trust, and organizational climate.

This led me to imagine what would happen if we approached leadership decisions with the same seriousness as environmental ones — through a Leadership Impact Analysis (LIA).

The Concept

A Leadership Impact Analysis would function much like an environmental impact report: before a major decision is made (e.g., promotion, appointment, role expansion), there would be a structured analysis of the potential positive and negative effects on the system — in this case, the human and organizational ecosystem.

Rather than focusing solely on whether someone “deserves” a promotion or “fits” a role, the analysis would examine how this person’s leadership has affected their environment so far, and how that effect might evolve in a new context.

The Core Questions

Such an analysis would systematically answer questions like:

1. Current performance:
   What is the person’s current level of performance — not just in results, but in how those results are achieved?

2. Observed issues:
   What challenges or recurring patterns have been identified in the person’s leadership behavior?

3. Assessment data:
   What do formal assessments (e.g., development centers, 360 feedback, leadership inventories) reveal about their capability, mindset, and readiness?

4. Learning trajectory:
   What is the observable evolution over time? Do we see genuine learning, reflection, and behavioral change — or stagnation?

5. Current impact:
   What is the measurable or observable impact of this person’s leadership today — both positive (engagement, retention, collaboration, growth) and negative (attrition, conflict, confusion, demotivation)?

6. Projected impact:
   Given the context of the new role, what impact — positive and negative — is likely? What systemic effects could this person have on others, on culture, or on strategy execution?

7. Synthesis and advice:
   Based on the above, what is the overall recommendation? Should the person be promoted, developed further, or supported differently?

8. Mitigation and reinforcement:
   Which measures should be put in place to neutralize risks (e.g., coaching, mentoring, team restructuring) and to strengthen potential positive effects?

9. Final judgment:
   To what extent is the appointment desirable, feasible, and responsible in light of the above?

Evidence and Data

A Leadership Impact Analysis should not rely on opinion or intuition alone. It must be grounded in data and observation, such as:

• Feedback from peers, direct reports, and cross-functional partners

• Results from 360s, engagement surveys (e.g., GPTW), turnover analyses, exit interviews

• Performance trends and historical track record

• Qualitative examples (critical incidents, behavioral evidence)

This evidence provides not only transparency but also psychological safety — both for decision-makers and for the person concerned.

Governance and Role of People & Culture

To ensure credibility, such analyses should be multi-voiced. Decisions should not be made unilaterally by a direct manager.

The People & Culture or Leadership Development function should have a formal voice in the process — as a guardian of leadership quality and organizational coherence. In cases of uncertainty or concern, the decision could proceed under the condition of structured follow-up, with explicit developmental commitments and periodic reviews.

Crucially, the analysis and its conclusions must be shared openly with the person involved. Transparency about strengths, risks, and expectations not only builds trust but also supports self-awareness and accountability.

Why It Matters

Leadership appointments are among the most consequential decisions an organization makes. Their effects are often invisible at first, but they determine the tone, health, and trajectory of entire teams.

By institutionalizing a Leadership Impact Analysis, organizations send a clear message:
that leadership is not a privilege or a reward, but a responsibility whose impact must be understood, anticipated, and managed.

Much like environmental stewardship, leadership stewardship requires us to look beyond the immediate gain and consider the long-term balance of the system we are shaping.