PLEASE! NO MORE LEADERSHIP TRAINING!
Kenneth Miller | November 2019
“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones”
As Keynes reminds us, we often find ourselves in the all-too familiar ‘box’ of outmoded ideas and artificial constraints—most always of our own making. Notwithstanding the cottage industry it has spawned, one-size-fits-all leadership training, per se, is an ‘old idea’. That isn’t at all to impugn the value of learning, but training begets little learning. Thus, we would argue—strenuously—for a major overhaul of both the historically prevailing attitudes about leadership and particularly the methods we apply in developing new leaders. In short, we favor a multi-faceted, holistic approach tailored to the characteristics of both the organization and the individual.
So, are leaders ‘born, not made’?
Or are they ‘made, not born’?
We think the correct answer is ‘none of the above’.
Rather, we think leaders are born to be made.
Some might contend that certain people simply enter the world ready to lead—the ‘natural-born leader’. Uh, we don’t think so—even if one substitutes ‘destined’ for ‘ready’—but we do agree that some people come by the greater or lesser aptitude for leadership as a matter of genetics. Others rightly point out that some individuals will never become effective leaders regardless how much leadership training they may be exposed to. So how do we determine who is which?
In many—probably most—organizations, leaders are frequently chosen from the ranks of top performers in other roles. The best engineer, salesman, accountant, etc, is ultimately promoted to a leadership position, resulting most often in the organization losing a great engineer/ salesman/accountant while simultaneously gaining a lousy leader. An all-too-common trade-off that usually leaves both the organization and the newly-anointed leader disappointed—the Peter Principle endures. Perhaps this is at least part of the reason 75% of employees say the worst and most stressful part of their job is their boss. Leadership training is usually part of the mix, but the mutual disappointment is likely to persist. Leaders cannot be simply anointed and expected to effectively act the part. Nor can they be ‘trained’.
To our earlier ‘who is which’ question, we are reminded of one of the many memorable aphorisms coined by the inimitable Yogi Berra, to wit (yes, pun intended):
—John Maynard Keynes
“You can see a lot just by looking around”
“Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others, it is the only means”
US businesses spend more than $150 billion annually on leadership-based curricula, most of it specifically on ‘training’ according to the American Society of Training and Development. An Amazon search for ‘Leadership Books’ yields over 60,000 hits, and if one Googles the same term the number is about two billion. Obviously, this is a popular—and no doubt profitable—subject.
To this we say, enough already!
Let’s face it, most leadership training has devolved into an exercise we might just as well call ‘Death-by-PowerPoint’. The fact is that leaders cannot be trained; they must be developed. Some might say ‘a distinction without a difference’. We think not. The gap between training and development is cavernous. Forbes Leadership Columnist Mike Myatt has gone so far as to write:
“…training is indeed the #1 reason leadership development fails”
The effective development of leaders cannot be accomplished by lectures, seminars, workshops, etc devoted to imparting a monolithic information set, usually characterized as ‘best practices’ and the like. Are ‘best practices’ still even a thing? Really? Why? We should much prefer to grow leaders who are in perpetual pursuit of better practices. Not robotic, static thinkers—we can train those—but innovative, critical thinkers. Those we must develop, but how?
If we accept Einstein’s implicit premise—and we do—that leadership is about influencing behavior, we can extrapolate that developing truly effective enlightened leaders is all about influencing their behavior.
At this point, we should mention that we’re talking here about leadership, not management. Not unlike training and development, there’s a big difference. Management is process; leadership is behavior. Or as the late leadership guru Walter Ennis observed:
“Management is doing things right;
leadership is doing the right thing”
We might add that enlightened leadership is knowing the difference.
To the frustration of many HR managers and the process-driven training industry, there is no stone tablet or single template to guide leadership development. To be effective, it must be collaborative, fluid and tailored to the individual. Generally, it will include some or all of the following elements:
- mentoring under the guidance of one or more experienced leaders within the organization
- coaching—probably from an objective coach outside the organization—to provide regular and frequent guidance, feedback and support, along with regular reminders that if mistakes are not seized as learning opportunities, they’re just mistakes
- special project assignments to provide exposure to unfamiliar roles and perhaps some bit of ‘stretch’ beyond current skill levels—a trip outside the comfort zone can be a growth experience
- rotation through a variety of other job roles and/or departments to provide keener insight and perspective of the enterprise as an integrated whole
- and yes, some amount of targeted classroom training on specific relevant subjects, eg, human motivation, workplace dynamics, organizational culture theory, etc
- perhaps some EQ training and/or self-administered psychometric testing to provide the individual (NOT necessarily the organization) insight into his/her personal characteristics, aptitudes and proclivities—self-awareness is a plus
Clearly, this list is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive. Its purpose is to stimulate thought. The key is that the program—whatever its components—be flexible and creative enough to accommodate the specific development needs of each individual undertaking it. There is no single template.
Edgar Schein, MIT Professor Emeritus, had this to say about leadership:
“The only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture”
It’s beyond our scope here to get too far into the culture weeds, but Dr Schein’s notion is well worth thinking about.
Assuming we accept that leadership is about influencing attitudes, beliefs and behavior, we cannot but consider the direct impact on these attributes exerted by—perhaps defined by—organizational culture. Considering the well-documented pathetic state of workforce engagement these days, it’s clear that leadership is fighting an uphill battle (see The Culture Dynamic). Workplace dynamics will of necessity play an increasingly critical role in achieving successful business and institutional outcomes going forward.
Leaders should be attentive.
Of course, as a fallback, we can always retreat to the definition of leadership attributed to ancient Chinese Philosopher Lao Tzu:
“Leadership is the ability to hide your panic from others”
Maybe so, but……Naahhh!.