What people skills do you use most during work or other everyday activities? What are the competencies you use less but should? The “Leadership Skills Profile” is the award-winning, ultimate FLIGBY assessment designed along Prof. Csikszentmihalyi’s guidelines and insights.
The following summary shows how these 29 skills are distributed on average in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Armenia.
Most recent data can be found on: https://flowleadership.org/publications-on-leadership-development-and-management-skills/
Leadership Skills in Kazakhstan
Traditionally leadership skills were assessed by self-reporting questionnaires or by so-called expert third-party evaluation processes. More recently, however, serious games have been successfully applied in the assessment of deep (“soft”) skills, that are key leadership competencies (Almeida & Buzady, 2022). For a comprehensive analysis of the 29 leadership skills and their correlations see Buzady et al. (2022).
The exclusive dataset of FLIGBY, a serious game applied widely in a number of countries in the former Soviet Union countries, for the measurement of 29 leadership skills in the business and management context.
The findings indicate a large correspondence between the leaders’ skills across the globe studies, however, some remarkable national differences have occurred. The full set of new data on 29 leadership skills for hundreds of executives and managers are presented below. Beyond the data for Kazakhstan, the focus country of our book chapter, the authors have also added other relevant data from highly topical countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia.
The top leadership skills measured via non-intrusive methodology based on actual behavior demonstrated during 150+ decisions that local executives and managers had to take in a video-simulated, multi-dimensional decision-making context show the following overall cumulative performance:
The strongest leadership side of Kazakh managers is a high degree of personal involvement by the leaders in their organizations and teams. The national score is 69.5 %, compared to the 71% of the global benchmark which comprises 12 000+ managers’ leadership scores in over 50 countries.
Male/female scores do not differentiate. The second top score of Kazakhstanis is the information gathering skill (70%), which is 2.56% points below the global average score. Third, the top skill is Emotional intelligence, the score is 69.4%, which is significantly 3.85% below the global benchmark data.
The 3 most-to-be-developed skills of local managers in Kazakhstan are time management skills (57.8%) compared to the global benchmark (56.8%) thus 1% points lower. Westerns often complain that their local partners often do not reply to crucial questions – mostly due to complex internal communications and hierarchies – and then finally, when a whole set of decisions is being made, they experience a constant adjustment of the earlier reached decisions, as the implementation of the process, deal or agreements begins to unfold. It is arguable that this leadership behavior is concrete evidence of the above presented very high national cultural score on Uncertainty avoidance. Here it is interesting to note that Kazakh men scored 2.6 % above the global average and women 1% below that. Time Management means that the action is taken to advance the course of actions, by facilitating the group dynamics and organizing the next process steps. The second lowest leadership score is assertiveness (56.2%), compared to 57,49% of all other managers’ results. In Kazakhstan, it is common to observe that women acquiesce to the male managers’ decisions, while women managers tend to care too much about everybody’s well-being, and opinion. Men tend to err in the opposite direction: they are over-assertive and ignore others’ interests. The lowest leadership score measured in Kazakhstan is the skill to prioritize, between what is urgent and also important at the same time (56.1%) compared to a 56.7% score globally – the difference for men is +0.3% and -1.6% for women.
Hejkrlik et al. (2021) found in their study of the role of transformational leadership and leaders’ skills for new agricultural cooperatives in post-soviet countries that there is a need to be ‘trained particularly in technical skills (e.g. book-keeping, marketing and management strategies), human skills (e.g. motivation techniques, communication skills, organizational skills), and conceptual skills (e.g. design thinking)’. They recommend that focused leadership development would be an effective method to accelerate growth. Leadership education or development, however, is an almost non-existing educational segment in Kazakhstan. Younger leaders are open to self-guided learning and online courses, but structured or organization-wide leadership programs are still to be developed.
COUNTRY-LEVEL LEADERSHIP SKILLS ANALYSIS FOR KAZAKHSTAN n= 355 executives & managers | ||||||
| Kazakhstan | Skill name | GLOBAL BENCHMARK % Average | NATIONAL TOP Skills Scores % Average | Difference in % points | MALEDifference % points to Global Benchmark Av. | FEMALEDifference % points to Global Benchmark Av. |
| Top skill 1 | Involvement | 70.96 | 69.49 | -1.47 | -1.48 | -1.46 |
| Top skill 2 | Information gathering | 72.02 | 69.46 | -2.56 | -2.35 | -2.81 |
| Top skill 3 | Emotional intelligence | 73.22 | 69.37 | -3.85 | -3.7 | -4.02 |
| Lowest skill 1 | Time management | 56.83 | 57.79 | 0.96 | 2.6 | -1.02 |
| Lowest skill 2 | Assertiveness | 57.49 | 56.19 | -1.3 | -1.41 | -1.17 |
| Lowest skill 3 | Prioritizing | 56.72 | 56.13 | -0.59 | 0.28 | -1.63 |
Table above: Selection of leadership skills scores measured in Kazakhstan, in comparison to the global reference benchmark – Authors’ own compilation,
Source: Zoltan Buzady, 2023, https://flowleadership.org/globalleadershipskills/
| COUNTRY-LEVEL LEADERSHIP SKILLS ANALYSIS FOR KAZAKHSTAN | ||||||
| KAZAKHSTAN | Skill name | GLOBAL BENCHMARK % Average | NATIONAL TOP Skills Scores % | Difference in % points | MALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. | FEMALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. |
| Top skill 1 | Involvement | 70.96 | 69.49 | -1.47 | -1.48 | -1.46 |
| Top skill 2 | Information gathering | 72.02 | 69.46 | -2.56 | -2.35 | -2.81 |
| Top skill 3 | Emotional intelligence | 73.22 | 69.37 | -3.85 | -3.7 | -4.02 |
| Lowest skill 1 | Time management | 56.83 | 57.79 | 0.96 | 2.6 | -1.02 |
| Lowest skill 2 | Assertiveness | 57.49 | 56.19 | -1.3 | -1.41 | -1.17 |
| Lowest skill 3 | Prioritizing | 56.72 | 56.13 | -0.59 | 0.28 | -1.63 |
| COUNTRY-LEVEL LEADERSHIP SKILLS ANALYSIS FOR UKRAINE | ||||||
| Ukraine | Skill name | GLOBAL BENCHMARK % Average | NATIONAL TOP Skills Scores % Average | Difference in % points | MALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. | FEMALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. |
| Top skill 1 | Emotional intelligence | 73.22 | 74.03 | 0.81 | 0.9 | 0.65 |
| Top skill 2 | Information gathering | 72.02 | 73 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 1.01 |
| Top skill 3 | Motivation | 69.85 | 72.46 | 2.61 | 2.67 | 2.5 |
| Lowest skill 1 | Time-pressured decision-making | 60.45 | 61.68 | 1.23 | 1.64 | 0.48 |
| Lowest skill 2 | Prioritizing | 56.72 | 58.66 | 1.94 | 1.49 | 2.77 |
| Lowest skill 3 | Assertiveness | 57.49 | 58.07 | 0.58 | 0.44 | 0.84 |
| COUNTRY LEVEL LEADERSHIP SKILLS ANALYSIS FOR RUSSIA | ||||||
| Russia | Skill name | GLOBAL BENCHMARK % Average | NATIONAL TOP Skills Scores % | Difference in % points | MALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. | FEMALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. |
| Top skill 1 | Emotional intelligence | 73.22 | 74.16 | 0.94 | 0.16 | 1.8 |
| Top skill 2 | Information gathering | 72.02 | 72.81 | 0.79 | 0.7 | 0.88 |
| Top skill 3 | Involvement | 70.96 | 72.58 | 1.62 | 1.32 | 1.97 |
| Lowest skill 1 | Time management | 56.83 | 58.62 | 1.79 | 4.38 | -1.12 |
| Lowest skill 2 | Prioritizing | 56.72 | 58.13 | 1.41 | 3.51 | -0.93 |
| Lowest skill 3 | Assertiveness | 57.49 | 54.93 | -2.56 | -1.51 | -3.73 |
| COUNTRY-LEVEL LEADERSHIP SKILLS ANALYSIS FOR GEORGIA | ||||||
| Georgia | Skill name | GLOBAL BENCHMARK % Average | NATIONAL TOP Skills Scores % | Difference in % points | MALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. | FEMALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. |
| Top skill 1 | Information gathering | 73.22 | 75.76 | 2.54 | -5.03 | -2 |
| Top skill 2 | Assertiveness | 72.02 | 71.29 | -0.73 | 3.23 | 4.2 |
| Top skill 3 | Teamwork management | 71.1 | 70.5 | -0.6 | -9.1 | -5.21 |
| Lowest skill 1 | Motivation | 57.49 | 57.5 | 0.01 | -1.43 | -2.6 |
| Lowest skill 2 | Active listening | 56.83 | 55.44 | -1.39 | 11.36 | 8.95 |
| Lowest skill 3 | Conflict-management | 56.72 | 54.06 | -2.66 | 2.34 | 0.78 |
| COUNTRY-LEVEL LEADERSHIP SKILLS ANALYSIS FOR ARMENIA | ||||||
| Armenia | Skill Name | GLOBAL BENCHMARK % Average | NATIONAL TOP Skills Scores % | Difference in % points | MALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. | FEMALE Difference % points to Global Benchmark Av. |
| Top skill 1 | Recognizing personal strengths | 69.97 | 76.65 | 6.68 | 6.84 | 6.53 |
| Top skill 2 | Feedback | 71.1 | 75.68 | 4.58 | 5.15 | 4.07 |
| Top skill 3 | Organizing | 67.71 | 73.79 | 6.08 | 5.98 | 6.18 |
| Lowest skill 1 | Assertiveness | 57.49 | 59.06 | 1.57 | 1.14 | 1.95 |
| Lowest skill 2 | Time management | 56.83 | 57.91 | 1.08 | 3.11 | -0.72 |
| Lowest skill 3 | Prioritizing | 56.72 | 57.41 | 0.69 | 1.22 | 0.22 |
References:
Abdrazakova, A., Buzady, Z. & Poór, J. (2015). A chapter on ‘Kazakhstan’, In: Poór, J., Engle, A. & Brewster, C., HRM in transition-practices of MNC-Subsidiaries in Central and Eastern Europe Russia and Kazakhstan, 119-143, Selye János University (SK).
Almeida, F., & Buzady, Z. (2022). Development of Soft Skills Competencies Through the Use of FLIGBY. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 31 (4) 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2058600
Bakacsi, Gy., Takács, S., Karácsonyi, A., & Imrek, V. (2002). Eastern European cluster: tradition and transition, 37 (1), 69-80.
Buzady, Z., Wimmer, A., Csesznák, A., & Szentesi, P. (2022).Exploring flow-promoting management and leadership skills via serious gaming. Interactive Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2098775