According to McKinsey Quarterly in 2014 that US companies spend around $14B annually on leadership development. This proves that the need to improve human capital is a priority for most organizations. Despite the training, however, around 30% of US companies admit that they failed to exploit business opportunities due to “lack of leadership development program.”
Likewise, in its 2017 report, McKinsey Quarterly argues that the knowledge economy which is driven by technology requires organizations to change and demands better leaders. However, most of the CEO respondents believe that there is a smaller percentage that “their companies are building effective global leaders” more so, only 10 percent of the respondents believe that their leadership development program creates an impact on their business.
Why is this the case? Does this mean leadership development program is not serving its purpose of preparing leaders to become perceptive of and responsive to the challenges and uncertainties brought about by change due to globalization, disruptive technological change, and economic uncertainty? Or simply because leaders aren’t fit for these challenges? Or Learning Development Program, somehow, fails to consider factors that connect what leaders know already and what they should know to be cognizant of the future?
These reports in 2014 and 2017 respectively, identify four shortcomings of leadership development program given to leaders. This includes:
- Overlooking context; contextualizing the program based on the organization’s position and strategy,
- Decoupling reflection from real work; designing the program for the transfer of learning
- Underestimating mindset; ensuring reach across the organization,
- Failing to measure results; using system reinforcement to lock in change.
Thus, hiring LDP trainers who facilitate leadership training should be cognizant of these shortcomings and organizations seeking the expertise of a leadership training consultant should consider these pitfalls. Only then can organizations be assured that leader development works for the advancement of leaders and to the advantage of the organization.
Overlooking context. There is no one size fits all blueprint of leadership development program. A leader may be successful in one strategy or organizational culture but may fail in another. Therefore, training that identifies the characteristics of a successful leader, qualities of a successful leader, or successful leaders of the world is not the way to prepare leaders to become better leaders. Thus, should organizations intend to send their leaders on LDP, one question to ask may be, “What precisely is the program for? In this way, organizations can identify leadership competencies that they want their leaders to develop, impact their performance and achieve far better outcomes for the organization. Therefore, LDP should be designed “from-to” so leaders can deliver significant contributions to the organization.
Decoupling reflection from real work. The real challenge of leadership development program is to put into action what has been learned in the training that will create change and impact the organization in a sustainable way. However, adult learning says that only 10% of what they learn stays with them. Thus, the need for LDP that allows participants to practice their skills and apply new approaches in real work situations is imperative. A balancing act between reflection and practice should be a prime consideration in the design of the curriculum. Moreover, LDP should give participants both the opportunity for personal development and integrate leadership development components into action.
Underestimating mindset. To effect change in organization requires a change in behavior and mindset, which also requires the learning of a new habit. However, for change in mindset to be effective, it must be coupled with a significant degree of discomfort for leaders to reach a new level of performance. Thus, how can LDP be an instrument that allows leaders to challenge their own mind-set? How can LDP surface the “below the surface” thoughts, feelings, assumptions, and believes of leaders as precursor for behavioral change? These should be addressed in the LDP curriculum to be able for LDP to fulfill its purpose.
Failing to measure results. How is change in behavior and performance of leaders measured after having gone through LDP? How do organizations quantify the value of their investment for leadership development? Is organizations can track and measure changes in leadership performance overtime? Does leader development guarantee ROI for organizations? The need to measure set targets vis-a-vis their achievement is necessary to trace “successes and failures overtime and make the necessary adjustments” along the way. Therefore, to determine the change in the behavior of a leader, LDP should consider approaches and tools for assessment as important aspect of leader development. This does not only invite commitment for personal improvement on the part of the leader, but also directed towards creating an impact to organizations in the form of breakthrough and innovation.
In relation to future LDP that is geared towards creating value for organizational success, leadership development curriculum should be strategically fit, aligning leadership skills and traits with the context, opportunities for practice, and readjustment of mindset towards the desired change. And to know the effects of LDP to leaders and organizations, they need to be quantified and measured. Only then can organizations claim that LDP is effective; otherwise, it will not serve and fulfill its purpose. Leadership development program, after all, isn’t a one size fits all approach to leader development.
Read also: Where Do You Want to Go: Developing your Vision and Mission Statements
I am actually grateful to the owner of this site who has shared this great article.
Thanks to this article.