Results-based leadership judges leaders by the results they deliver, not only by their traits. The term comes from the 1999 book Results-Based Leadership by Dave Ulrich, Jack Zenger and Norm Smallwood, which names results for employees, the organisation, customers and investors.
A second model with the same name, the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Results Count approach, is used in the social sector. This guide explains both, how transformational leadership fits alongside them, and how to build them into a management system with records.
Where does the term results-based leadership come from?
Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood argued that gauging leaders by personal traits such as character, style and values is not enough. Effective leaders connect those attributes to results. The RBL Group's page on the book lists the four result areas: employees, the organisation, customers and investors.
The practical shift is in the question asked about every leader. The old question was which qualities a leader should have. The added question is which results this leader must deliver, and how you will know.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation uses "results-based leadership" for its own leadership development approach, called Results Count. It aims at measurable improvements for children and families, and is built on five competencies, two frameworks and two skills, which Casey calls the 5-2-2.
The five competencies are being results-based and data-driven, acting on disparities, using oneself as an instrument of change, adaptive leadership, and collaborating with others. The two frameworks are the Theory of Aligned Contributions and the Person-Role-System framework. The two skills are Results-Based Accountability and Results-Based Facilitation.
Which model you follow depends on your sector. Companies tend to start from Ulrich's four result areas. Public bodies and NGOs working on population outcomes often find Casey's model closer to their work.
How does transformational leadership fit with results-based leadership?
Transformational leadership describes how leaders engage and develop people, while results-based leadership describes what they must deliver. Many organisations want both, so that targets are met without burning out the team.
One established measure is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio, published by Mind Garden. Its transformational scales are idealised attributes, idealised behaviours, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration.
The MLQ also measures transactional leadership, such as contingent reward and active management by exception, and passive or avoidant behaviour. It is part of what its authors call the Full Range Leadership model.
One caution. The MLQ is a licensed instrument sold by its publisher. Buy the questionnaire if you want to use it, and do not copy its items into your own forms.
How do the three models compare?
The table sets the three side by side. The last column is AGS's practical suggestion, not wording from the authors.
| Model | Source | Core idea | What a system would record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Results-based leadership (business) | Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood, 1999 | Leaders connect attributes to results for employees, the organisation, customers and investors | Each leader's objectives in the four areas, with indicators and results achieved |
| Results Count (social sector) | Annie E. Casey Foundation | Five competencies, two frameworks and two skills aimed at population-level results | Agreed population results, each partner's contribution, meeting actions and progress data |
| Transformational leadership | Bass and Avolio, measured by the MLQ | Leaders inspire, challenge and develop people as well as manage transactions | MLQ or 360-degree results, coaching plans, engagement data |
How do you build results-based leadership into a management system?
None of these models is a certifiable standard. A management system gives them structure, so that leadership is planned, done, checked and improved like any other process.
Start with a results chain. Write down the results the organisation needs, then the outcomes and outputs that lead to them. Give each one an indicator, a baseline, a target and a data source.
A logframe matrix is a common format for this. Our guide to results-based management explains results chains in detail.
Then cascade. Each leader gets objectives drawn from the chain, with an owner and a date. Set a regular performance conversation, monthly or quarterly, that looks at evidence, obstacles and the next actions.
Assess leaders on both what and how. Results against their objectives cover the what. A behaviour measure, such as a 360-degree review or a licensed instrument like the MLQ, covers the how. Feed both into development plans and succession decisions.
Close the loop with internal audit and management review.
If you already run ISO 9001, leadership sits in its clause 5. Certification body summaries of ISO 9001:2026, published in September 2026, report a new emphasis on quality culture and ethical behaviour there. Our ISO 9001:2026 guide covers the changes.
What records show that leadership is producing results?
A reviewer, auditor or board will look for evidence that the cycle actually runs. In AGS's practical view, these records do most of the work:
- The results chain or logframe, with indicators, baselines and targets.
- Each leader's objectives, traced to the organisation's results.
- Notes of performance conversations with agreed actions.
- Leadership assessments covering results and behaviours.
- Development plans and evidence that they were carried out.
- Management review minutes that compare leadership results with organisational performance.
Measure indicators the same way each period. Changing definitions mid-year makes results impossible to compare.
What changes if you run a programme that assesses or certifies leaders?
Some organisations go further and run a leadership academy or programme that trains, examines and certifies individuals. That adds a second set of controls on top of the leadership content.
You need eligibility rules, a fair assessment method with marking criteria, and a certification decision made by someone who did not assess the candidate. You also need impartiality declarations, rules for surveillance and recertification, and a complaints and appeals process.
The international standard for bodies that certify persons is ISO/IEC 17024. Its third edition was published in March 2026 and replaced the 2012 edition. Accreditation to it is optional unless a client, regulator or partner asks for it.
How AGS can help
AGS has two leadership kits, both editable Microsoft Word documents written for organisations that assess and certify leaders:
- Results-Based Leadership Management System: 48 documents, including procedures for RBL assessment, certification decisions and results monitoring, a results logframe matrix and a competence score sheet.
- Results-Based & Transformational Leadership (RBL & TL) Management System: 38 documents, including procedures for training delivery, examination and certification, and a curriculum outline.
Frequently asked questions
Is results-based leadership the same as results-based management?
No. Results-based management is a way of planning and tracking programmes against results. Results-based leadership applies the same focus to how leaders are developed and judged.
Can an organisation be certified for results-based leadership?
There is no international standard for it. Individuals can hold certificates from training programmes, and organisations can cover leadership within an ISO 9001 system.
Do I have to use the MLQ to measure transformational leadership?
No. It is one established instrument, and other validated behaviour measures also work. Whatever you use, apply it the same way each time.
Does buying documentation improve leadership results?
No. Documents give the system a structure. Results depend on how leaders use it every day.
AGS provides independent documentation toolkits. The RBL Group, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Mind Garden, ISO and IEC are named for identification only. AGS is not affiliated with, endorsed by or approved by any of them, and no kit guarantees any certification or performance outcome.
Reviewed October 2026. Facts checked against the sources current at publication.
