Leadership Development Programs: Worthy or Bunk?
[In my August 2007 newsletter editorial I challenged whether the billions spent on leadership development was being wasted. Colorado consultant Michael Cushman responded the same day (see his email below) and it looked like this exchange could be of interest to more people. Hence, he agreed to engage with me on the subject publicly, here in the blogesphere. I suggest you read my editorial (see link above) then our first exchange (below). - JR]
Becoming a Conscious Leader...a few thoughts and ideas for your action. Click here to listen
Hi John
Thoughtful message and thought provoking. Thank you for sharing.
I agree with the overall view and comment, and a few nuances came to mind.
1. I agree that currently, much of the money is wasted, but I'm not so sure I'll go all the way and say training itself is useless. Much of the training on leadership is within companies and it focuses on technique because they don't want disruptive leaders, they really want manager--followers who work within the system and maintain the status quo leadership team. The goal isn't really leadership, or leadership training what do you think?
2. What's the role of context? Mother Teresa as President of Russia? Most likely she would flop. Churchill was great in war leadership and horrible in peace.
3. That raises the issue of personality. Different personalities work or fail in different circumstances, isn't that so?
3. Values...the term "values" is much used, but seldom defined. I use to be a proponent of values in leadership, but I've come full circle. The leaders you mention have a passionate purpose and stay authentic to their purpose. And by the way, their purposes are noble. Hitler, Stalin, Mao...had many followers (# of followers being an objective standard of leadership ability), but didn't, in the end, obtain noble results. Our judgment of Leadership ability seems to be influenced by cultural morality; it's not really objective, and without objectivity, can we really come to know what leadership and followership really are?
4. My own area of expertise is the biological basis for group dynamics, and naturally leadership is a part of that. All leaders, in my opinion, raise the status of the group, whether that's the poor, blacks in SA, the Britons, Woman, Communists, Germans, etc. It is obvious when you think about it. However, without seeing leadership and followership as a system, with roots in evolution, the obvious escapes observation.
Anyway, your newsletter is well written and stimulating. I always take the time to read it fully.
Regards,
Michael
_________________
Michael, allow me to respond in the same sequence.
1. Knowing how systems tend to behave, it shouldn't surprise us that the system gets what it wants unless someone is conscious of its quirckiness and savvy to its insidious nature. So of course an unobserved or unexamined system is likely to make sure it doesn't breed any leaders who might upset the status quo. The respondents in Heil-Kyle's survey admitted they were folliwng the whims of the culture, not their own aspirations. This should be pretty clear...the system wants people who conform, like you say. I would also add that i did not mean to suggest ALL monies are a waste, only MOST.
2. Context is very important, of course.
3(A). So is personality, as is circumstance. It is the qualities demonstrated that serve as aspirations for most would-be leaders.
3(B). Values is so abused these days. Each side of the many chasms between people claims they have values, implying or even accusing the other side of having none. That's bunk too. Osama bin Laden has strongly held values. So did Hitler. But they are DIFFERENT values that we might hold dear. Values, like taste and preference is individual not absolute. I suspect nobility is the same so one person's noble cause is another's sin against the world. Leadership is a skill or an art but it doesn't come with a conscience as far as I can see. That's why most of my writing about it is "conscious leadership" defining a set of values and priorities that accompany the skill.
4. I would contend your definition could be better stated as "All leaders, who share my values, raise the status of the group..."
I look forward to your comments,
John
