Coaching Tip: The Leadership Blog

Designing Better Leadership Programs

As Jay Conger notes in strategy+business (Fall 1996), leadership development programs can and do work well if they incorporate elements from all four learning approaches.  Programs must also provide participants with practice opportunities upon returning to the office.

Conger’s suggestions for an effective program include the following:

1. Bring together all four types of learning programs, with opportunities for personal growth, skill-building, feedback and conceptual learning. A single approach is too narrow.
2. Start with support from the top. Senior management must be involved, either as participants or teachers. Top executives must be prepared to practice the techniques taught in the classroom, leading by example; otherwise, interest and commitment will fade.
3. Build for long-term learning. Leadership development occurs over time; it is not a one-shot program. A three-day program will not transform anyone into a leader. It may create awareness, but that’s the limit.
4. Courses need to be designed in modules, with one week of training followed by six months of on-the-job practice. The next phase is another training session and follow-through on an action plan during the next six months at work. These action projects turn classroom learning into concrete initiatives on the job.
5. Use coaches for accountability. Most bosses don’t have time to help. Send the boss to training beforehand to work on his coaching skills, or arrange for external coaching.
6. Require peer-to-peer feedback and follow-up. One of the most effective methods to lock in learning is use of a system of follow-up and feedback from office peers.

Following Up with Feedback

Effective leadership training must have some type of transfer-of-learning mechanism that translates to real office situations.

Marshall Goldsmith and Howard Morgan conducted one of the most revealing studies on the effectiveness of leadership training programs (strategy+business, Fall 2004). They reviewed programs at eight major corporations.  Each company had the same goal for its leaders: to determine desired organizational behaviors that align with actual practices. Companies, however, used different methodologies: offsite training versus onsite coaching, short versus long duration, internal versus external coaches and traditional classroom-based training versus on-the-job interaction.

As Goldsmith explains: “Rather than just evaluating ‘participant happiness’ at the end of a program, each of the eight companies measured the participants’ perceived increase in leadership effectiveness over time. ‘Increased effectiveness’ was not determined by the participants in the development effort; it was assessed by pre-selected co-workers and stakeholders.”

The participants’ ongoing interaction and follow-up with colleagues was the determining factor that emerged as central to achieving positive long-term change.  Leaders who discussed their own improvement priorities with coworkers, with regular follow-ups, showed striking improvement. Leaders who failed to maintain ongoing dialogue with colleagues showed improvement that barely exceeded random chance.

Can we really Train Leaders?

Which types of developmental activities will have the greatest impact on increasing executives’ effectiveness?  How can leaders achieve positive long-term changes in behavior?  Lured by the promise of instant success, many companies are writing checks without asking critical questions about program design and actual accomplishments.

Leadership programs work very well if they use a multi-tiered approach. Most fall into one of four types: 

 

Personal growth programs

Skill-building programs

Feedback programs

Conceptual awareness programs

 

Personal Growth

 

A simple premise underlies the personal-growth approach: All effective leaders are in touch with their purpose and passions, unafraid of risks and dilemmas; thus, if we teach managers to access their inner callings, they’ll become more successful leaders.  To achieve these results, the personal-growth approach to leadership training relies on intense emotional experiences and adventures that become metaphors for risk-taking.

 

Examples of such leadership-development programs include “survival” hikes, river-rafting trips and bungee-jumping off cliffs. Trainers believe we can create more leaders if we put managers in touch with their passions and power.

 

But can you transfer the lessons learned from jumping off a cliff to the office setting? Research shows these programs tend to improve participants’ personal lives far more than their work lives. Learning can be magnified by risk-oriented experiences that challenge us to act in new ways and see things differently; however, the decision-making skills applied to a cliff jump are quite different from those employed at the office, where problem-solving is more complex.

 

Skill-Building Programs

 

The skill-building approach to training is attractive because it turns leadership into a practical, teachable reality.  Program designers identify a key leadership behavior that can be taught.

 

For example, anoffsite group may participate in exercises or games, with one individual challenged to lead a team through a task, thereby practicing specific leadership skills (perhaps the ability to mobilize others). The task may involve building toy cars or solving a puzzle. The team leader is then graded on how well the leadership skill was put into action.

 

But certain skills are more complex than we realize.  While communication skills can be straightforward, strategic vision proves otherwise.  To truly learn a skill, one needs to spend considerable time studying it, experimenting, receiving coaching and making improvements.  Most programs cover several major leadership skills in just a few days.

 

Despite these shortcomings, skill-building is the most common—and fastest—method of learning and implementing new skills.  It should be incorporated in all leadership training.

 

Programs Based on Feedback

 

Feedback-based programs may also be conductedoffsite and involve team tasks. Team members then grade each other on particular leadership skills, while supervising psychologists simultaneously rate each participant.

 

This type of leadership training embraces the premise that most of us cannot fully see ourselves.  We may be partly aware of our leadership styles, and we possess varying degrees of leadership strength.  We simply require a mirror to view ourselves more objectively, allowing us to act with greater confidence and overcome our weaknesses.

 

For motivated learners, this program produces positive outcomes. One drawback, however, is the risk of being overwhelmed by information.  In addition, one usually self-selects the behaviors on which to work.  While most participants describe a sincere desire to change their ineffective behaviors when they return to work, this motivation dissipates soon after the program ends.  Many report giving up when faced with a lack of support and coaching on the job.

 

Conceptual Awareness Programs

 

This analytical approach uses case studies during training, and it’s a mainstay in MBA degree programs.  Conceptual awareness helps us intellectually understand the distinctions between managing and leading. But such an approach teaches ideas, not skills.

 

As adult learners, we need exercises, experiences and coaches to turn concepts into leadership abilities.  As such, conceptual awareness is beneficial, but only a first step.

 

 

Leadership Development Investments

How to Prevent CEO Disease

Building Your Leadership Brand