Practical ideas that tackle the pitfalls of some types of leadership training
An attention-grabbing headline suggested that many leadership trainers are actually hurting their clients, rather than helping them. The article gave five reasons why this was so, but lacked any tangible way of addressing the issues. So in my continuing mission to make the world a better place, I’m here to take her challenges to the next level…
I found myself frustrated by the views shared in an article by Alison Brattle, the marketing manager at a company that provides sales training and leadership development. Her headline suggests many leadership trainers are actually hurting their clients, rather than helping them. Her article gives five reasons why. The reasons themselves are valid: they’re criticisms that could be fairly levelled at many leadership development initiatives I’ve encountered. What frustrates me is that her article lacks any tangible way of addressing these issues. So in my continuing mission to make the world a better place, I’m here to take her challenges to the next level…
Problem No 1: Leadership training focuses too much focus on “being authentic” when we know that successful leaders adapt their behaviour to deliver what the situation demands of them.
I agree. That’s why my book ARC Leadership calls for leaders to find the optimal way to blend authenticity with responsibility and courage. We need to be responsibly authentic, not just lazily authentic. We need to be courageous in challenging our ways of thinking and acting. Saying “Yes, I’m just really uninspiring; I’ve always been that way” isn’t good enough. Being optimally authentic doesn’t mean staying entirely the same. We all evolve and we all need to evolve. If we’d prioritised being our current self forever when we were 6 months old, we’d still be crawling around on the floor, filling our nappies and eating semi-liquid goo for every meal. On our ARC Leadership programme, we often tell leaders that – like it or not – they are always on stage. And we teach them a range of techniques that help them enhance their impact on stakeholders and the people they lead. But these techniques are tools to integrate into their authentic way of doing things. Sure, you can act more personable, but you’ll have far greater impact if instead you draw on the ‘you’ that is more personable, say with your friends and family. That way, you can use assets you already have rather than faking it.
My main concern in Alison’s reference to Jeffrey Pfeffer at Stanford is that she’s encouraging leaders to adapt their beliefs to achieve success. On one hand, this makes sense: dogmatism is an issue for some leaders and we need to be flexible when faced with evidence that contradicts our current views. On the other, we do need leaders who will stand firm for their core beliefs – beliefs about what’s right and wrong.
Problem No 2: Too much leadership development takes place off-site, which reduces the chances of participants transferring their learning to the workplace.
There’s some real truth in this, but it’s not nearly as simple as the research she’s quoting would suggest.
Some of the big questions in leadership do require a time out. Ideally, we’d create this time in the standard working week. The best leaders and organisations are able to create this, but – in my experience – very few do.
Different kinds of development (e.g. of task-based skills, strategic capability, emotional intelligence, mind-set) respond differently to different training techniques and environments. So any decent development programme will be designed specifically to address the ‘step up’ that’s required of participating leaders.
The best leadership development blends off-site and on-site learning. Some approaches use explicit simulations of participants’ working environments. Others bring real current issues into the off-site work, then identify the practical, psychological and systemic levers that’ll need to be pulled if we’re to create significant, sustained improvements back at the office. Others involve observation of teams and individuals in situ, with real-time coaching / facilitation to make and reinforce behavioural change. Others blend bursts of coaching with ‘assignments’ to be completed in the course of the participants’ everyday work.
While it feels like a tougher investment, it’s often best to develop leaders in their existing teams. That way you’re building shared commitment to real change among a cadre of people who work together on a regular, ongoing basis – people who have the power to make or break each other’s efforts to put any learning into practice. When you send individual members of a team on separate courses, months or even years apart, you’re increasing the chances of colleagues actively reducing the return on your investment.
Problem No 3: Sheep-dip leadership development lacks individual focus and fails to recognise participants’ existing wisdom.
Yes, so avoid the sheep-dip. Integrate one-to-one coaching – whether in discrete sessions of 90 mins a piece or in short bursts over a three day module. Have the programme teach participants to coach each other. Resist the temptation to spoon-feed, lecture or pretend that any model or case study provides the answer or that there’s just one way to lead. Offer participants time to draw their own conclusions and integrate what they’re learning with what they already know. Use feedback, psychometrics and other diagnostics (like our High Performing Teams Questionnaire) to provide personalised insights that can generate practical actions. We do all of this in our work and, frankly, I believe it’s unforgivably lazy not to do so.
Problem No 4: There’s far too much emphasis on exceptional leaders as role models or blueprints for leadership.
I couldn’t agree more. That’s why we avoid comparisons with leaders that none of the participants has met. There are huge differences between the qualities people admire in the leaders they’ve seen in the media and the qualities they value in the leaders who have actually led them. So it makes far more sense to focus on the latter when discussing leadership than some near-mythical being who works in a totally different organisation. Not only that, but we rarely get the full story with celebrity leaders. By putting them on pedestals, we’re running the risk of disempowering people who consider themselves average leaders, who work in non-sexy roles or sectors, or who are already suffering from imposter syndrome.
Problem No 5: Too much leadership development expects behavioural change without changing the mind-set that’s keeping the old behaviours in place.
True. We’ve all been on courses where we leave with a list of 3-5 things we’ll do differently. Perhaps some of us even genuinely intended to make those changes. But, all too often, we realise 6-12 months down the line that nothing has changed. That’s why on our programmes we invest heavily in addressing the underlying mind-sets that will block participants’ attempts to change their behaviour. It’s challenging work, intellectually and emotionally. After all, we’re helping loosen sub-optimal ways of thinking and being that have often been in place for decades. But it gets results.
So, yes, Alison Brattle has a point – five good points, in fact. Leadership development can produce a poor investment… if it’s done poorly. Can it harm participants? Perhaps, but rarely – unless you’re using providers who aren’t properly qualified and regulated by relevant, reputable professional bodies. Personally, I believe Alison’s points are most useful when taken as a guide to help organisations design and choose the most effective approach to helping their leaders step up to their current and future challenges.
