Four Es Leadership Evaluation

---
name: four-es-leadership-evaluation
description: 'Evaluate current or potential leaders against Jack Welch''s five criteria for leadership: Energy, Energize, Edge, Execute, and Passion. "I look for four Es and a P. Energy - do they have it? Energiz...'
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: 1.0.4038
  author: sethmblack
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- four-es-leadership-evaluation
- writing
---

# Four Es Leadership Evaluation

Evaluate current or potential leaders against Jack Welch's five criteria for leadership: Energy, Energize, Edge, Execute, and Passion. "I look for four Es and a P. Energy - do they have it? Energize - can they get others going? Edge - can they make the tough calls? Execute - do they get stuff done? And Passion - do they love what they do?"

---

## When to Use

- Evaluating candidates for leadership roles
- Deciding who to promote to management
- Assessing existing leaders' effectiveness
- Building a leadership bench or succession plan
- Understanding why a leader is struggling
- Request for "is this person a good leader?" or "who should I promote?"

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| person | Yes | The leader or candidate being evaluated |
| role_context | Yes | Current or target leadership role |
| observations | Yes | Behavioral examples and track record |
| peer_feedback | No | Input from those who work with them |
| direct_report_feedback | No | Input from those who work for them |

---

## The Welch Four Es and One P Framework

### Overview

> "I look for four Es and a P. Every great leader I've known has these qualities."

Welch used this framework to evaluate thousands of leaders at GE and believed it was the most reliable predictor of leadership success.

| Criterion | Definition | What to Look For |
|-----------|-----------|------------------|
| **Energy** | High personal energy | Do they have the stamina to lead? |
| **Energize** | Ability to energize others | Can they get people excited and moving? |
| **Edge** | Courage to make tough decisions | Do they make the hard calls? |
| **Execute** | Ability to get things done | Do they deliver results? |
| **Passion** | Genuine enthusiasm | Do they love what they do? |

### Why This Framework Works

The four Es create a complete picture:
- **Energy without Energize** = Individual contributor, not leader
- **Energize without Edge** = Popular but ineffective
- **Edge without Execute** = Makes decisions but nothing happens
- **Execute without Passion** = Gets results but burns out self and others

All five working together create leaders who inspire, decide, deliver, and sustain.

---

## Evaluation Process

### Step 1: Assess Energy

> "Energy is the capacity to go, go, go - to thrive on action and relish change."

**Questions to evaluate:**
- Do they have high personal energy and stamina?
- Do they embrace challenges or avoid them?
- Do they bring intensity to their work?
- Do they thrive in high-pressure situations?
- Do they have the physical and mental stamina for leadership demands?

**Behavioral indicators:**

| High Energy | Low Energy |
|-------------|-----------|
| Arrives early, stays engaged | Low stamina, frequent fatigue |
| Seeks out challenges | Avoids difficult situations |
| Maintains pace during crunch times | Fades when pressure mounts |
| Positive attitude about workload | Complains about demands |
| Creates momentum | Waits for things to happen |

**Energy Score:** [ ] 1-Low [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5-High

**Evidence:** [Specific observations]

### Step 2: Assess Energize

> "Energize is the ability to get others excited about a cause or direction."

**Questions to evaluate:**
- Do people want to work with/for them?
- Can they communicate vision in a compelling way?
- Do they make others feel inspired or drained?
- Do their teams have high morale and motivation?
- Can they rally people through difficult times?

**Behavioral indicators:**

| High Energize | Low Energize |
|--------------|--------------|
| Teams are enthusiastic | Teams are going through motions |
| People volunteer for their projects | People avoid their projects |
| Clear, compelling communication | Confusing or uninspiring communication |
| Celebrates wins, acknowledges contributions | Takes credit, ignores others |
| Creates optimism about future | Spreads negativity or doubt |

**Energize Score:** [ ] 1-Low [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5-High

**Evidence:** [Specific observations]

### Step 3: Assess Edge

> "Edge is the ability to make tough yes/no decisions. Leaders with edge don't wait for consensus - they make the call."

**Questions to evaluate:**
- Do they make difficult decisions or avoid them?
- Do they give honest feedback even when it's uncomfortable?
- Can they say no to popular but wrong ideas?
- Do they address underperformance directly?
- Do they commit fully once direction is set?

**Behavioral indicators:**

| High Edge | Low Edge |
|-----------|---------|
| Makes timely decisions | Delays decisions endlessly |
| Confronts poor performance | Avoids difficult conversations |
| Says no when necessary | Says yes to everything |
| Clear, direct communication | Hedges and equivocates |
| Commits fully once decided | Second-guesses decisions |

**Edge Score:** [ ] 1-Low [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5-High

**Evidence:** [Specific observations]

### Step 4: Assess Execute

> "Execute is the ability to get things done. Lots of people have great ideas. Executors turn ideas into results."

**Questions to evaluate:**
- Do they consistently deliver results?
- Do they follow through on commitments?
- Do they remove obstacles or get stuck on them?
- Do they hold themselves and others accountable?
- Do they know the difference between activity and results?

**Behavioral indicators:**

| High Execute | Low Execute |
|--------------|------------|
| Consistent track record of delivery | Lots of effort, few results |
| Clear accountability for outcomes | Blames circumstances |
| Follows through on commitments | Makes promises, doesn't keep them |
| Removes obstacles proactively | Gets stuck waiting for help |
| Measures and manages results | Measures activity instead |

**Execute Score:** [ ] 1-Low [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5-High

**Evidence:** [Specific observations]

### Step 5: Assess Passion

> "Passion is a deep, authentic enthusiasm for the work and the team. You can't fake it."

**Questions to evaluate:**
- Do they genuinely love the work or are they just doing a job?
- Do they care deeply about the team's success?
- Does their enthusiasm feel authentic or performed?
- Would they do this work even if they weren't paid as much?
- Do they light up when talking about the mission?

**Behavioral indicators:**

| High Passion | Low Passion |
|--------------|------------|
| Authentic enthusiasm visible | Going through the motions |
| Cares about outcomes beyond self | Focused mainly on personal advancement |
| Invested in team development | Treats people as resources |
| Works on mission even off-hours | Strict clock-watching |
| Eyes light up discussing the work | Discusses work as obligation |

**Passion Score:** [ ] 1-Low [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5-High

**Evidence:** [Specific observations]

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria

### Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings

### Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility

## Output Format

```markdown
## Four Es Leadership Evaluation: [Name]

### Evaluation Context

**Person:** [Name and current role]
**Target role:** [Leadership position being considered]
**Evaluator:** [Who is assessing]
**Date:** [Assessment date]

### Scores Summary

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Assessment |
|-----------|-------------|------------|
| Energy | [X] | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] |
| Energize | [X] | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] |
| Edge | [X] | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] |
| Execute | [X] | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] |
| Passion | [X] | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] |
| **Total** | **[/25]** | |

### Detailed Assessment

#### Energy: [Score/5]

**Observations:** [Specific examples]

**Strength/Concern:** [Analysis]

#### Energize: [Score/5]

**Observations:** [Specific examples]

**Strength/Concern:** [Analysis]

#### Edge: [Score/5]

**Observations:** [Specific examples]

**Strength/Concern:** [Analysis]

#### Execute: [Score/5]

**Observations:** [Specific examples]

**Strength/Concern:** [Analysis]

#### Passion: [Score/5]

**Observations:** [Specific examples]

**Strength/Concern:** [Analysis]

### Overall Assessment

**Leadership readiness:** [Ready / Developing / Not Ready]

**Primary strengths:** [Top 2 Es]

**Development needs:** [Areas below 4]

**Recommendation:** [Promote / Develop further / Not suited for this role]

### Development Plan (if applicable)

| Gap | Development Action | Timeline |
|-----|-------------------|----------|
| [E needing development] | [Specific action] | [When] |

### The Welch Test

> "Would I want this person running a significant part of my business? Would I trust them with my best people?"

**Answer:** [Yes/No and why]
```

---

## Scoring Interpretation

### Overall Score Interpretation

| Total Score | Interpretation | Recommendation |
|-------------|---------------|----------------|
| 21-25 | Outstanding leader | Ready for greater scope |
| 17-20 | Strong leader | Ready for current role |
| 13-16 | Developing leader | Needs specific development |
| 9-12 | Significant gaps | Not ready without major work |
| <9 | Wrong role | Not suited for leadership |

### Individual Score Interpretation

| Score | Meaning | Development Need |
|-------|---------|-----------------|
| 5 | Exceptional - role model | None for this dimension |
| 4 | Strong - meets expectations | Minor refinement |
| 3 | Adequate - gets by | Targeted development needed |
| 2 | Weak - noticeable gap | Significant intervention needed |
| 1 | Missing - fundamental issue | Question leadership fit |

### Critical Minimums

No score should be below 3 for a senior leadership role:
- **Energy < 3:** Leadership is physically and mentally demanding
- **Energize < 3:** Cannot lead if no one follows
- **Edge < 3:** Leadership requires difficult decisions
- **Execute < 3:** Results are non-negotiable
- **Passion < 3:** Lack of passion is contagious

---

## Constraints

- Evidence must be specific and behavioral (not impressions)
- Assess for role requirements (what's needed may vary)
- Acknowledge that development is possible (except possibly Passion)
- Consider context (new role may temporarily lower Execute scores)
- Do not confuse personality traits with leadership capabilities

---

## Failure Modes to Avoid

| Failure Mode | Symptom | Prevention |
|--------------|---------|------------|
| **Halo effect** | High performance in one area colors all assessments | Evaluate each E independently with specific evidence |
| **Likeability bias** | Confusing being liked with Energize | Look at team results, not just popularity |
| **Confusing busy with Execute** | Lots of activity, few results | Focus on outcomes, not effort |
| **Punishing introversion** | Low Energy score for quiet but effective leader | Look for results, not personality style |
| **Faking Passion** | Performed enthusiasm vs. authentic care | Watch consistency over time and under stress |

---

## Error Handling

| Situation | Response |
|-----------|----------|
| Insufficient observation time | Flag uncertainty; recommend extended assessment |
| Conflicting feedback | Weight behavioral evidence over opinions |
| New to role (limited track record) | Assess based on prior roles; note context |
| Strong execution, weak energize | Determine if individual contributor or leader |
| Strong passion but poor execution | Passion without results is not leadership |

---

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Example

**Input:** "I need to decide whether to promote Sarah to VP of Engineering. She's been a director for 3 years. Her team delivers, but I've heard mixed feedback about her people skills. How should I evaluate her?"

**Output:**

## Four Es Leadership Evaluation: Sarah [Last Name]

### Evaluation Context

**Person:** Sarah, Director of Engineering (3 years in role)
**Target role:** VP of Engineering
**Assessment date:** [Date]
**Data sources:** Performance reviews, peer feedback, direct report feedback, observable behavior

### Scores Summary

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Assessment |
|-----------|-------------|------------|
| Energy | 4 | Strong |
| Energize | 2 | Weak - Primary Gap |
| Edge | 4 | Strong |
| Execute | 5 | Exceptional |
| Passion | 4 | Strong |
| **Total** | **19/25** | |

### Detailed Assessment

#### Energy: 4/5

**Observations:**
- Consistently works long hours during critical periods
- Takes on additional responsibilities without complaint
- Maintains focus and intensity during high-pressure releases
- Recovered from a failed product launch with renewed determination

**Strength:** Has the stamina and drive for VP-level demands.

#### Energize: 2/5 - CRITICAL GAP

**Observations:**
- Team members describe her as "smart but intimidating"
- Several high performers have requested transfers
- Communication is clear but impersonal
- Does not celebrate wins or acknowledge contributions publicly
- 1:1 feedback: "She tells me what's wrong but not what's right"

**Concern:** This is the primary development need. A VP must build broader following across the organization. Current style may work for a director managing one team but will fail at VP scale.

**The "mixed feedback about people skills" is really an Energize gap.** People follow her because they have to, not because they want to.

#### Edge: 4/5

**Observations:**
- Made difficult decisions about technology direction against popular opinion
- Addressed underperformers on her team (two managed out in past year)
- Said no to a popular feature that would have delayed launch
- Gives direct feedback in performance reviews

**Strength:** Has the courage to make tough calls. Not popular but effective.

#### Execute: 5/5 - EXCEPTIONAL

**Observations:**
- Every major commitment delivered on time
- Her team has the best delivery record in engineering
- Overcame significant obstacles on last major release
- Creates clear accountability and follows through
- Other directors look to her as the model of execution

**Strength:** Exceptional executor. This is what got her to this point.

#### Passion: 4/5

**Observations:**
- Genuinely excited about technical challenges
- Invests personal time in staying current on technology
- Cares about product quality beyond minimum requirements
- Clearly wants the organization to succeed

**Strength:** Authentic passion for the work and the craft.

### Overall Assessment

**Leadership readiness:** Developing - Strong in 4 of 5 Es but critical gap in Energize

**Primary strengths:** Execute (5) and Edge (4)

**Development needs:** Energize is the make-or-break gap

**Recommendation:** Do NOT promote yet. Develop Energize capability with clear milestones.

### The Energize Problem

Sarah is a classic case of "gets results but leaves bodies behind." This works as a director where scope is limited and individual contribution matters more. It fails at VP level where:
- She must lead leaders, not just engineers
- She must build following across the organization
- She must inspire during difficult times
- She must develop the next generation of directors

Welch: "A leader who can't energize others is not a leader - they're just a smart individual contributor with a title."

### Development Plan

| Gap | Development Action | Timeline | Success Criteria |
|-----|-------------------|----------|------------------|
| Energize | Executive coaching focused on inspiration | 6 months | 360 feedback improves |
| Energize | Lead a visible cross-functional initiative | 6 months | Voluntary participation |
| Energize | Mandatory recognition of team contributions | Ongoing | Track frequency |
| Energize | Reverse mentoring from high-EQ leader | 6 months | Behavioral change |

**Reassess in 6 months.** If Energize improves to 3+, promote. If not, she has reached her ceiling as a director.

### The Honest Conversation

Sarah needs to hear:

"Your execution is exceptional. Your technical leadership is among the best in the company. But leadership at VP level requires something you haven't demonstrated yet: the ability to make people want to follow you, not just have to follow you.

The best people want to work for leaders who see them, develop them, and celebrate them. Right now, your best people are trying to leave.

This isn't about being 'nice' or reducing your standards. It's about adding a capability you don't have. If you can develop Energize, you'll be unstoppable. If you can't, you'll be a great director forever."

### The Welch Test

> "Would I want Sarah running a significant part of my business? Would I trust her with my best people?"

**Answer:** Not yet. I would trust her with the hardest technical challenges. I would not trust her with my best people until she demonstrates she can develop and retain them.

---

## Integration

This skill is part of the **Jack Welch** expert persona. Use it when evaluating leaders for promotion, hiring, or development. It pairs well with:
- **vitality-curve-assessment** for team-level evaluation
- **candor-culture-assessment** for ensuring honest feedback is given
- **a-player-hiring** when evaluating external candidates