Matthew Richter posts daily comments in LinkedIn—well, almost daily. You can follow him and join the conversation by going to http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-richter-0738b84.
For the benefit of our readers, we decide to compile and reprint some of his provocative pieces from the past. Let us know what you think.
Leadership
Why do we run leadership development programs? What is the objective? As I have claimed in previous posts, leadership is nebulous and often difficult to define. Yet, companies spend millions on leadership development, often with little demonstrable return on investment. The most earnest of us say they do it to give high potentials the opportunity to grow into leadership roles. Others do it because it looks good to offer high-level development. Still others do it, ironically, because they were told to do so. I challenge anyone to conduct an authentic ROI and efficacy study on any leadership development initiative and determin wheteher leadership was the actual yield. Most people I talk to say LD is difficult to measure because the results arrive years later or the impact is unique and customized to each individual. This is problematic when considering the budgetary investment. Why spend so much to develop leaders when we are so unclear how to do so and whether what we do provide actually works? I propose instead, we break it down. If being visionary is one of the leadership competencies you want, only train how to do that. Teach financial analysis. Teach decision making. But don’t call it leadership.
More on Leadership
There are many problems with conducting leadership development, but the biggest is how to measure its efficacy. We want to measure that leadership delivers the result our intervention claims. To do this, we have to succinctly define what leadership is. Take any definition, and the issues remain. Generically, a leader defines and communicates a vision, influences people to coalesce behind that vision, and while operating under a set of values inspires mobilization toward that vision. What does that all mean in terms of metrics? What are the qualities of a vision? Is it the right one? How does the leader communicate that vision inspirationally? Espousing and living values are two different things and having the right values for the right time is spotty at best. Participants may demonstrate doing these things in a simulated fashion, but can they do it effectively in the real world? And, if they do, is it a fluke? Do all participants succeed back on the job? What if only one succeeds? Did our program then work? In any other industry, we would be held accountable for success criteria. Billions are spent on vague and immeasurable interventions claiming better leaders. We need to do a better job and avoid being snake-oil salespeople.
Still More on Leadership
History, legend, and popular culture are in direct contrast with the concepts we use to teach leadership. The great leaders in business and politics seemed to have exhibited leadership behaviors we abhor. Steve Jobs was not nice to his employees. Conductor Fritz Reiner made musicians tremble. George Patton instilled fear. FDR lied and manipulated people. Sure, there are examples of great leaders who did exhibit the characteristics we espouse, but there are just as many whom we admire and did not. What does this mean? Well, for one thing... models and theories of leadership are at best unpredictable and don’t explain everything. Secondly, the times and contexts of these past leaders dictated their effectiveness as much as they did. And, today’s leaders must work within the same contextual constraints. And, this is why leadership development is problematic. What are we exactly teaching for what people and to solve what problems? Effective leadership development needs to be contextual, adaptive, and focused on the needs and issues present. A prescription is fine, but less likely to work. More effective is focusing less on leadership skills and behaviors and more on solving the strategic and business problems facing organizations and communities.