Domain 4 is assessed across three core competencies.
Competency 1 — Executive Presence & Gravitas
Competence earns respect over time. But executive presence (the combination of physical authority, vocal command, and intentional engagement) creates the conditions for influence. And sometimes, knowing when to say nothing, in a high-stakes context that demands restraint and sound judgement, has the most dramatic impact on your audience.
Assessment statements
I demonstrate executive presence behaviours based on the acceptable cultural practices in the region — including displaying poise, ensuring good posture and confident gait, actively listening, using simple communication in virtual contexts, matching gestures with words to demonstrate conviction, and maintaining eye contact where appropriate.
I elicit trust and credibility with 'open' and 'warm' gestures used organically — not mechanically.
I gauge audience reactions during negotiations and meetings, then adjust my communication style and tone to maintain engagement and effectiveness.
I incorporate strategic pauses of 4–6 seconds for dramatic effect in speeches (in person or virtually) to hold attention, help recall, and amplify points.
Poor (1)
My physical presence is inconsistent and does not project the authority my role requires. My gestures feel mechanical rather than organic, and I rely only on my words to carry the room rather than on both speech and presence. I do not adjust my style to the audience cues during negotiations or meetings, and I am largely unaware of how I am being perceived before I speak. I pause rarely, and when I do, it is accidental rather than deliberate.
Good (3)
I maintain the appropriate physical presence in most professional situations and use warm gestures in familiar settings. I adapt to the audience’s reactions in straightforward settings, but do not demonstrate the cultural range to adjust my behaviours across all contexts. I incorporate pauses into my delivery, but do not use them deliberately for emphasis or gravitas.
Excellent (5)
I understand that before people decide what they think of my communication, they decide what they think of me. I consistently demonstrate a confident gait, good posture, and deliberate eye contact aligned with the cultural context. I read the room in real time, adjust my behaviour accordingly, and match my gestures to my words to demonstrate conviction. My presence precedes my argument and sets the conditions for everything that follows. I deploy strategic pauses of four to six seconds deliberately for dramatic effect, to capture attention, aid recall, and elevate my points.
Competency 2 — Vision, Influence & Change Communication
It is not about you, your depth of expertise, or your varied experiences. If your speech, proposal, or vision statement does not address the concerns at hand, your brilliant content will not be actionable. Your polite audience might listen because of your credibility, but they will not care enough to do anything meaningful. That is why relevance is gold in attention currency. Leaders who master this competency do not simply communicate their vision; they make it impossible for others to ignore it.
Assessment statements
I adopt simple, concise, and clear language to communicate vision in speech and writing to coax support.
I communicate change in speech and writing by deploying Aristotle’s three pillars of persuasion: credibility and experience (ethos), logic and facts (logos), and emotional appeal (pathos) — recognising that emotions, e.g., joy, fear, pride, and anger, drive actions more powerfully than logic alone.
I recount relevant anecdotes and stories to evoke specific emotions, but I always tie them to the big idea — never making a point without incorporating a short, relevant story, and never telling a story that does not support the big idea.
I adopt empathetic, inclusive language in all speech and writing to promote a sense of community. I predominantly use 'We', 'Us', and 'Let’s…'
Poor (1)
My vision communication relies on expertise and authority rather than relevance and emotional resonance. I present facts and logic but rarely integrate storytelling or emotional appeal to drive action. My language is often too complex and jargon-heavy, and my audience disengages before I reach the call to action. I use 'I' where 'We' would build community, and directive authority where inclusive language would build alignment.
Good (3)
I communicate my vision clearly in most situations and use examples to support key points. I understand the principles of Aristotle’s three pillars, but do not consistently use pathos as a deliberate leadership instrument. I occasionally include storytelling, but not as a systematic part of how I communicate change or vision. My inclusive language is improving, yet it remains inconsistent across cultural contexts.
Excellent (5)
I know that relevance is gold in attention currency, so I ensure that everything I communicate in speech and writing is aligned with what my audience needs to hear, not merely what I need to say. I seamlessly integrate Aristotle’s three pillars of persuasion into every high-stakes communication and use storytelling to power pathos and drive action. I never make a point without incorporating a short, relevant story, and I never tell a story that does not serve the big idea. I use 'We', 'Us', and 'Let’s' as deliberate instruments of inclusion, ensuring my vision is championed.
Competency 3 — Accountability, Resilience & Decisive Communication
Effective leadership is about enduring service. It is about consistently articulating a vision and then standing behind it, especially when things go wrong. The leader who says, 'I am accountable for Project Alpha’s current status — here is the revised timeline and the steps I am taking to mitigate the risks', is not simply demonstrating accountability. They are communicating trust. The leader who says, 'We are doing our best to solve the problems', is communicating the opposite. At the highest levels, how a leader handles criticism, manages backlash, and commits publicly to others defines their authority.
Assessment statements
I articulate accountability for outcomes and setbacks, building stakeholder trust and credibility.
I address pertinent issues concisely, point by point, in speech and writing, in person and online.
I apologise to aggrieved parties, take responsibility, and handle criticism and backlash with grace and maturity — responding with measured, professional tones even under pressure.
I handle communication decisively — either by delegating tasks to competent parties or by accepting and committing to the decisions made.
I end with a clear commitment to support others — stating what I will do, for whom, and when.
Poor (1)
When things go wrong, my communication deflects, generalises, or goes silent. I use collective language to diffuse personal accountability, such as 'We are working on it', rather than naming the issue, the owner, and the resolution. Under criticism or public pressure, my tone becomes defensive or evasive. I end meetings and communications without a committed next step, leaving others uncertain about what I will do, for whom, and when.
Good (3)
I take responsibility in most situations and respond to criticism with a reasonably professional tone. I delegate clearly in familiar contexts and close most communications with a reasonable summary. However, I do not use accountability language deliberately as a trust-building tool, and under significant pressure, my composure occasionally falters.
Excellent (5)
When negative outcomes arise, I name them, own them, and state precisely what I am doing to address them: not 'We are doing our best', but 'I am accountable for x, and here is the revised plan'. Under criticism and backlash, I respond with grace, maturity, and measured professionalism, because respectful communication is not a courtesy; it is a strategic tool that preserves trust and protects relationships. I delegate decisively, commit explicitly, and close every high-stakes communication with a clear statement of what I will do, for whom, and when. My words and my actions are consistent.
