In Bitesize 19 we looked at the relentless growth in the popularity of coaching. This is probably only matched, in terms of growing interest, by the multitude of leadership programmes on which organisations seem determined to spend huge sums of money.
Usually they prove to be a classic case of hope triumphing over experience. There is no commonly accepted definition of what constitutes leadership, the debate about the relative influences of nature versus nurture has never been satisfactorily resolved and if you ask any leadership ‘expert’ to produce an example of the leaders they have developed usually they are nowhere to be found.
Yet we all know that effective and inspirational leaders are worth their weight in gold so the search is perpetuated. So maybe business partners have to resort again to the sort of fresh paradigm introduced in Bitesize 19.
The real need for better leadership can be seen in mediocre results, complacency with average performance and a resistance to change and innovation. In other words, it is relatively simple to articulate the need for leadership in terms of what impact we expect it to have. So business partners should not support ‘leadership programmes’, per se, regardless of what management schools tell us.
Organisations only need leaders because they constantly face the challenge of trying to get better and better results. Attempts to develop leadership might be part of the solution but they cannot exist in a vacuum. People who believe they might be candidates for such programmes should be asked to articulate what this might mean to the way they and the organisation might perform. Business partners can play a key role in helping them to make the connections.
For me I think this article embodies that most important question - What do you want things (including results/KPIs!) to look/feel/sound like once this is all over?
I know of a large public sector organisation that, like many others, is rolling out a leadership development programme for all its managers, starting at the very top - all very laudable. What I can't see is how the wonderful competence framework, the coaching, the psychometrics etc, is going to make the provision of public services any better than if they hadn't bothered at all. Afterall, when you add up the cash spend, the time spent by the delegates etc, you are soon talking lots of money and time. As a tax payer I am singularly unimpressed. It's a shame, because it COULD be something fantastic, if only it was well rooted. Instead it's lilkely to sully the name of training even more with hard-pressed, lowly paid front line staff.
Yes, the need for all training should be substantiated before, during and after the experience. That's the purpose of performance management processes.
Leadership development is no different, although it depends what you mean by leadership. Team leading skills can certainly be taught and learned as can line management.
Leadership is not just the acquisition of skills though. Indeed, it may be more to do with having the necessary conviction to cast aside those skills at the time that leadership is actually needed. But, of course, you have to have them in order to deny them. John Hughes
joan staples , 04-Oct-04 Leadership programme design and its challenge to the trainer's own leadership skills.
How refreshing to read something I have been struggling with in my personal development practice for so long, that is relating the concept of leadership to the organisation culture in which it is required to flourish. I have supported so many middle level executives trying to lead change initiatives using the skills and challenge of 'inspirational' external leadership programmes. We need real embedded development programmes which are sponsored and understood by the existing organsisation leaders. An altogether slower and more chellenging process for the trainer/facilitator than tick box leadership training. It often requires all the leadership skills the trainer personally can muster!
