Offsite locations with props, toys and hovering consultants. Rules about respectful comments and generous listening. Casual dress. Lots of snacks and drinks.
Leadership training has become a parody of itself. And not because organizations aren't trying. Developing and keeping talent is an urgent priority in an era when intellectual and human capital may be the most valuable assets an enterprise possesses.
The problem, all too often, as the following article explains, is that the inherent contradictions are too obvious to all. Senior management doesnt participate, except, perhaps, to show up for one alcohol-fueled dinner or a round of golf. The lessons learned, such as they are, are not incorporated into compensation and promotion protocols. And despite the brave rhetoric about embracing change and fostering disruption, there is little appetite for costly, career-threatening reorganizations - unless activist investors are demanding it.
So, we loathe leadership training because it's too often a charade, a pat-on-the-head for being a team player but with little evidence that all the earnest, thoughtful palaver will make much of a difference in anyone's work life.
The good news is that it doesn't have to be that way. It can be made meaningful. But that does require that the organizational, behavioral and psychological realities be addressed and then institutionalized, financially and operationally. Enterprises that value such outcomes can and will act accordingly. JL
Sydney Finkelstein comments in the BBC:
Just like the best managers customize how they manage people
on their teams, the same is true about the experience and
content needed to train a generation of leaders. How could it not be?
One size most definitely does not fit all. Focus on the bosses. Can they identify new challenges without being handcuffed by career
ladders that often limit potential? Is that work being integrated into
other leadership activities?