The Effects of Core Energy™ on Leadership Competencies Energy Leadership Index™ 360 Study

Abstract

The Energy Leadership Index™ 360 is a scaled assessment that measures a person's Average Resonating Level of Core Energy™ (ARL), leadership skills and traits, and life/work satisfaction. Baseline assessment data from one hundred eighty-four business leaders were analyzed to determine whether their level of Core Energy was significantly correlated with leadership competencies and satisfaction at work. Colleagues completed a parallel assessment to provide additional perspectives on the leaders' capabilities. The results indicated that leaders with a higher ARL and more constructive, anabolic energy were more confident in their leadership skills, more engaged at work, and experienced a higher level of overall satisfaction than leaders with a lower ARL and more constrictive, catabolic energy.

Full text

THE EFFECTS OF
CORE ENERGY™
ON LEADERSHIP
COMPETENCIES
ENERGY LEADERSHIP INDEX™ 360 STUDY
Lynn Waldorf, Ph.D., CPC

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
Leadership is a topic of great interest in the business world because it is considered a central factor in an
enterprise’s success or failure.1 According to American General Colin Powell, great leaders are made, not born.
In an address to Stanford University business students, he remarked that one becomes an effective leader
through trial and error and from experience.2 Research on the topic also suggests that although someone may
be born with certain neurological, intellectual, and social attributes that lend themselves to the role, leadership
must be learned.3,4 While there is no consensus on what constitutes effective leadership,5 there are a number of
skills and capabilities that are commonly recognized as influential factors. Among these are emotional
intelligence, personal influence, clear communication, conflict management, ability to problem solve,
strategizing, time management, engagement, and productivity.
Just because leaders possess these skills, however, doesn’t mean that they put them into action. To do so, they
need energy. Energy is the power and capacity to do work, which is constantly being affected by a host of
internal and external factors. As energy is essential for accomplishing almost anything, it is considered to be at
the heart of what drives performance. According to Bruce D Schneider, founder of the Institute for Professional
Excellence in Coaching (iPEC), there are two different forms of energy: anabolic and catabolic.
The Energy Leadership Index™ 360 is a scaled assessment that measures a person’s Average
Resonating Level of Core Energy (ARL), leadership skill and traits, and life/work satisfaction.
Baseline assessment data from one hundred eighty-four business leaders were analyzed to determine whether
their level of Core Energy was significantly correlated with leadership competencies and satisfaction at work.
Colleagues completed a parallel assessment to provide additional perspectives on the leaders’ capabilities. The
results indicated that leaders with a higher ARL and more constructive, anabolic energy were more confident in
their leadership skills, more engaged at work, and experienced a higher level of overall satisfaction than leaders
with a lower ARL and more constrictive, catabolic energy.
2
1 Nixon, P., Harrington, M., & Parker, D. (2012). Leadership performance is significant to project success or failure: a
criticalanalysis, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 61(2),204-216.
2 Stanford GSB Staff (2005). Colin Powell: “Never show fear or anger.” Downloaded from Stanford Graduate School of
Business website on 9/21/18. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/colin-powell-never-show-fear-or-anger.
3 Arvey, R., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B., & Krueger, R. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy
among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 693-706.
4 Keating, K., Rosch, D., & Burgoon, L. (2014). Development Readiness for Leadership: The differential effects of leadership
courses on creating “ready, willing, and able” leaders. Journal of Leadership Education. 13(3). 1-16 .
5 Kumar, S., Adhish, V., & Deoki, N. (2014). Making sense of theories of leadership for capacity building. Indian Journal of
Community Medicine , 39(2), 82-86.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
Anabolic energy is constructive, expanding, fueling, healing, and
growth-oriented.
It is the energy behind creativity, intuition, cooperation, compassion, and caring. Anabolic
energy fuels people’s minds and bodies, positively affects their interactions with others, and
helps them move forward and achieve goals; it is described as the cornerstone of high
performance and is accompanied by a heightened sense of self-awareness.
Catabolic energy, on the other hand, is described as draining, resisting, and
contracting, and often arises out of self-protection.
It is unconsciously and appropriately evoked in short-term, stressful situations to enable a
fight-or-flight survival response. Remaining in a catabolic state for long periods of time,
however, can be mentally, emotionally, and physically destructive. When people are in a
stressful, catabolic energy state, their self-awareness and ability to see potential options is
diminished, resulting in missed opportunities.
Schneider’s model proposes two levels of catabolic energy and five levels of
anabolic energy.
As leaders become consciously aware of the level of their energy and what affects it, they
can develop better control over their thoughts, emotions, and behavior, raise their overall
energy, and increase their ability to achieve the results they ultimately desire from a given
situation. The influence of energy on leadership is a growing area of research. Previous
studies have revealed the significant and positive relationship between a leader’s Average
Resonating Level of energy and their level of life satisfaction, as measured by iPEC’s Energy
Leadership IndexTM assessment (ELI).6,7 This study extends the work to examine the
relationship between a person’s energetic makeup, their perceived effectiveness as a
business leader, and their level of satisfaction at work using a 360 version of the ELI
assessment. The ELI 360 allows leaders to rate themselves on a set of key leadership
competencies and provides a way for their colleagues to rate them as well.
The research was sponsored by iPEC to determine whether a leader’s energetic make-up
was an indicator of their leadership competencies, as viewed by themselves and others. The
study also looked at whether a leader’s perception of their key leadership competencies
affected their sense of satisfaction with factors commonly associated with work
environments, such as levels of engagement, relationships, communication skills, and
productivity. To conduct the study, data were analyzed from ELI 360 assessments that had
been completed by one hundred eighty-four C-suite executives and managers between
March 2015 and January 2018. The data included the ratings of a total of 4,008 of their
colleagues as well.
6 (2014). Zajonc Corp. Replication Study: Factor Revealed for Determining Success in Work and Life. (K.
Barrington & J. Park)
7,8 (2018). iPEC. Your Core Energy Determines Your Life Potential. (L. Waldorf).
3

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
THE ENERGY LEADERSHIP INDEX 360
The ELI 360 is a four-part assessment system that provides a
multi-dimensional perspective on leadership.
The first part is the standard ELI, which contains seventy self-rating questions used to
determine a leader’s energetic make-up. The questions measure aspects of the seven
levels that make up a person’s Core Energy. The prevailing state of mind that correspond
with each level are:
(1) apathy (5) peace
(2) anger (6) joy
(3) forgiveness (7) absolutely passion
(4) compassion
Levels 1 and 2 represent the catabolic or destructive and draining energy states. Levels
3 through 7 represent increasingly anabolic or constructive energy states. The ELI
measures a leader’s Average Resonating Level (ARL), providing a picture of his or her
current level of consciousness and ability to create what she or he wants from life. The
questions have a five-point rating scale ranging from (1) Completely Untrue to (5)
Completely True.
The second part of the ELI 360 consists of fourteen questions that measure peoples’
current level of satisfaction with factors related to their personal and professional lives.
The items have a six-point rating scale ranging from (1) Completely Dissatisfied to (6)
Completely Satisfied . The third part consists of thirty-six items that measures a leader’s
perceptions of their own leadership capabilities. Two five-point rating scales are used
ranging from (1) Very Poor to (5) Excellent, and from (1) Never to (5) Always.
The final part of the system is a thirty-six-item parallel assessment that measures the
leader’s colleagues’ perceptions of their leadership. Given that people may be in
leadership roles at work, at home, or in community life, their colleagues might include
supervisors, peers, direct reports, customers, constituents, or close friends and family
members.
A 2018 factor analysis of the ELI 360 assessment system indicated that the
assessment is a valid and reliable tool for measuring Core Energy, work satisfaction, and
leadership competencies. The items on all four parts of the system were found to meet
or exceed the minimum acceptable coefficient for response reliability, using Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.70. The global
Average Resonating Level of Core Energy based on 29,717 ELI respondents was 3.23
(standard deviation ( SD ) = 0.33). Factor loadings for the seventy-item ELI section were
all above the acceptable level of 0.30, confirming construct validity.
4

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
Figure 1 shows that the leaders’ self-ratings of the thirty-six leadership items had a normal distribution, (skew
value of -0.06), indicating they provided a reasonable and sincere assessment of their leadership competencies.
Figure 2 shows that when the colleagues rated their respective leaders on the same items, the data had a more
notable skew value of -0.42. The skew indicated the raters were more generous with their assessment of the
leaders’ skills than the leaders were of themselves. Descriptive statistics for each group verified that the leaders’
overall mean self-rating was 3.84 on a five-point scale and their colleagues’ mean rating was 4.12.
A visual comparison of the data revealed that the colleagues, as a group, had rated the leaders higher on every
competency. Figure 2 reveals that average rating for each of the thirty-six leadership competencies was either a 4
or a 5 (on a five-point scale). The highly positive ratings were responsible for the skew in the distribution of item
responses.
Based on these results, extremely positive or extremely negative ratings were removed
from the dataset before further analyses were conducted. This had the effect of
lessening the impact of the skew, which allowed any trends in the ratings to emerge.
Fig. 1: Self-Ratings on 36
Leadership Competencies
Fig. 2: Colleagues’ Ratings of
Leaders’ Competencies
5

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
6
Table 1 contains the demographic characteristics of the one hundred eighty-four leaders included in the study.
Forty-five percent of the leaders were female, and 55 percent were male. The leaders were all between the ages
of twenty-five and sixty-five and employed full-time. Income levels ranged between $25,000 and $300,000, with
half (53.5%) earning between $75,000 and $150,000. All respondents were either C-Suite executives (29.9%) or
managers (70.1%). Eighty-nine percent resided in the US, and eleven percent resided in other countries, including
Jamaica, Canada, United Kingdom, Israel, and Serbia. Before analyzing the assessment data, personal identifiers
were removed to protect the privacy of each respondents.
Characteristic Number %
Gender
Female 82 44.6
Male 102 55.4
Age
26-35 y 29 15.8
36-45 y 71 38.5
46-55 y 55 29.9
56-66 y 29 15.8
Income Range
$25,000 - $49,999 11 8.5
$50,000 - $74,999 17 13.2
$75,000 - $99,999 20 15.5
$100,000 - $149,999 49 38.0
$150,000 - $199,999 15 11.6
$200,000 - $299,999 17 13.2
Did not disclose 55 ---
Role Level
C-Suite Executive 55 29.9
Manager 129 70.1
Country of Residence
United States 163 88.6
Other 21 11.4
TABLE 1. LEADER DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
LEADER DEMOGRAPHICS

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
7
The ELI 360 Study investigated two research questions:
1. What is the relationship between the leaders’ Average Resonating Level of energy (ARL), their perception of
their leadership competencies, and how others perceive them?
2. What is the relationship between the leaders’ ARL, their perception of their leadership competencies, and
their level of satisfaction with other aspects of work?
To investigate the relationships between energy and leadership competency ratings, nonparametric tests were
conducted to determine the statistical relationship between the leaders’ ARLs, their leadership self-ratings, and
their colleagues’ ratings. Between four and 34 colleagues completed the parallel assessment for each leader
(mean (M) = 11). To address the second research question, nonparametric tests were used to compare the
leaders’ ARL values, leadership self-ratings, and their ratings on six life satisfaction factors commonly associated
with work: leadership ability, working relationships, level of engagement, communication skills, productivity, and
work/life balance.
Tests of normality. Once the dataset was cleaned of cases with missing data, tests of normality were conducted
on the four parts of the ELI 360 assessment system. As indicated by the figures in Table 2, the ARLs of the
leaders showed a normal distribution of responses, with a skew value close to zero (-0.01). The fourteen life
satisfaction items had a significant negative skew of -0.39 because the leaders, as a group, reported having a
higher than average level of life satisfaction (M = 4.49 on a six-point rating scale).
ELI 360 Assesment
(4 parts) iMean
Rating
Highest
Possible
Rating
Standard
Deviation Skewness
Std.
Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Error of
Kurtosis
1. ELI: Leader ARLs 70 3.28 7.0 0.25 -0.01 0.18 -0.29 0.36
2. Life Satisfaction: Leader
Self-Ratings 14 4.49 6.0 0.49 -0.39 0.18 1.14 0.36
3. Leadership Competencies:
Leader Self-Ratings 36 3.84 5.0 0.36 -0.06 0.18 0.12 0.36
4. Leadership Competencies:
Colleague’s Ratings of Leaders 36 4.11 5.0 0.35 -0.42 0.18 0.50 0.36
TABLE 2. ELI 360 TESTS OF ITEM RESPONSE NORMALITY
DATA ANALYSIS

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
The results from the analysis of the relationship between each leader’s Average Resonating Level of Core Energy
(ARL) and their leadership competencies are described first. The results of how colleagues rated their leaders are
presented next. Finally, the correlations between each leader’s energy level, their leadership self-ratings, and their
work satisfaction ratings are explained.
COR.E Energy and Leadership
The mean value of the leaders’ ARL on the ELI 360 was 3.28 ( SD = 0.25) with a normal distribution of rating
responses. Bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between
each leader’s ARL and their leadership competencies, as recognized by the leaders and their colleagues. The
statistically significant correlations indicated that the higher the leaders’ ARL, the higher they rated their own
leadership skills and traits ( r s = 0.47, p < 0.01) and the higher those competencies were rated by their
colleagues ( r s = 0.21, p < 0.01). In addition, the higher a leader’s ARL—the more anabolic the leader’s energy—the
more aligned their self-ratings were with those of their colleagues ( r s = 0.40, p < 0.01). The scatter plot in Figure
3 shows the linear relationship between each leader’s ARL and their leadership ratings.
Leader ARL and Leadership Self-Ratings 0.47**
Leader ARL and Collegue’s Ratings 0.21**
Leadership Self-Ratings and Colleague’s Ratings 0.40**
TABLE 3. SPEARMAN’S CORRELATIONS FOR ARL AND LEADERSHIP RATINGS (N = 184)
** Significant at the p < 0.01 level
8
FINDINGS
Fig. 3: ARL and Leadership Self-Ratings

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
A follow-up analysis was conducted to compare the rating patterns on the 36 leadership items among leaders
with significantly different Average Resonating Levels of Core Energy. One group included twenty-nine leaders
with ARL values that were at least one standard deviation above the mean, (3.53 or higher). The comparison
group was twenty-nine leaders with ARLs at least one standard deviation below the mean (3.03 or lower).
The results showed that the leaders with higher ARLs and more anabolic energy rated
themselves higher than the other group on every leadership competency.
In over eighty percent of the cases (83.3%), there was a notable difference of more than one standard deviation
between the two group’s ratings. On more than one-third of the competencies (36.1%), the difference was more
than two standard deviations and statistically significant.
The scoring pattern was visible in the colleagues’ ratings of the leaders’ competencies as well. On average,
colleagues also rated the more anabolic leaders higher on every leadership competency, though the differences
between their ratings of the two groups of leaders were not as pronounced. While their ratings were in close
agreement with how the more anabolic leaders perceived themselves, the colleagues tended to be more
generous in their ratings than were the more catabolic leaders in rating themselves.
The most significant differences between the colleagues’ ratings of the more anabolic
leaders and the more catabolic leaders were in the areas of engagement, communication,
relationships, and problem-solving abilities.
The anabolic leaders were perceived as:
●More enthusiastic about their role and responsibilities and more likely to be recognized by others as
contributing to a positive work culture.
●Better at listening to others and demonstrating an understanding of the significance of what was said.
They more readily encouraged others to share their ideas and concerns and were more likely to offer
meaningful feedback.
●More supportive of other people’s development and responded more effectively to the emotions and
stress levels of others. They were better able to motivate, inspire, and boost the energy of others around
them.
●Better at addressing challenges openly, seeing opportunities in challenging situations, and were more
easily adaptive to change. They were also viewed as calmer and better at keeping their composure
when confronting challenges.
9

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
10
Core Energy and satisfaction with other aspects of work. There were six work
satisfaction factors that correlated with the leader’s Average Resonating Level of Core
Energy (ARL) at the p < 0.01 level (see Table 4). These included perceived leadership
ability, level of engagement at work, communication skills, work relationships,
productivity, and work/life balance. The exception was time management ( r s = 0.05),
which appeared to have almost no relationship with the leaders’ mean ARL. However,
time management was significantly correlated with the other work satisfaction
factors. The results suggest that the higher the leaders’ ARL, the more satisfied they
were with their ability to lead, have productive relationships, and be engaged and
productive. An analysis of the relationship between the leaders’ mean ARL and their
mean life satisfaction ratings revealed a statistically significant correlation of 0.46, p <
0.01. The results suggest that leaders with more anabolic energy experience more
overall life satisfaction as well.
The ELI 360 study revealed several findings about the relationship between Core Energy
and leadership.
The data analysis showed that the higher the leaders’ ARL and the more
anabolic their energetic makeup and outlook, the higher they rated their
own leadership competencies and the more their colleagues agreed with
them.
Conversely, leaders operating at lower, more catabolic levels of Core Energy were less
confident in their leadership skills and were, in turn, viewed as less competent by their
colleagues.
Leadership
Ability
Level of
Engagement
Communication
Skills
Work
Relationships Productivity Time
Management
Work/Life
Balance
0.41** 0.40** 0.21** 0.25** 0.25** 0.05 0.20**
TABLE 4. Spearman’s Correlations for ARL and Work Satisfaction Factors (N=184)
**significant at the p <0.01 level
DISCUSSION

Copyright © 2010 - 2022 iPEC. All rights reserved
11
As a result, it was not possible to identify any differences in how a
direct report might have rated a boss, or a spouse might have rated
their partner, or how a supervisor might have rated a subordinate.
Collecting this information would provide a clearer picture of how the
ELI 360 assessment functions as a measure of leadership, whether at
work or at home.
Most importantly, the skew in the colleagues’ response data might
indicate that as a group, they were not completely honest in their
ratings of their respective leaders, possibly because they were asked to
identify themselves when they completed the assessment. While they
were informed in advance of the intended confidential handling of the
data, some may have been wary of expressing a candid opinion of a
colleague or supervisor, especially those with lower ARLs who may
exhibit more catabolic behavior (e.g., anger, blame, victimization, or
defeatism). It is equally possible that the colleagues were sincere and
accurate in their ratings, while the leaders with the lowest ARLs rated
themselves more harshly and were less aware of how they were
actually perceived by those around them.
The results of the Core Energy study conducted earlier this
year suggest that if leaders were to participate in a model
of coaching that increased their conscious awareness of
how their thoughts affect their emotions and behavior, their
Core Energy could then shift and expand in an anabolic
direction.
According to the data examined in this study, even a seemingly small
increase in Core Energy could have a notable impact on a leader’s
ability to function more effectively, enjoy work more, and have those
improvements noticed by others.