The problem with HR doing leadership development
The more I deal with HR departments in various companies the more I have come to understand that if it is HR that is entrusted with leadership development (and it usually is) the more it is likely to fail. Let me explain what I mean by this.
Most leadership formation programmes I have encountered either are not working or will certainly fail to produce the kind of leaders needed in a connection economy. My concern is that even amongst the ‘professionals’ – the business schools – that several companies entrust with their leadership formation programmes, are also following down the same ‘dead-end’ path.
A helpful framework to understand leadership development is that of paying attention to the role of three things: Content, process and outcomes. Traditionally the focus has been on ‘content’ and programmes that keep this as their focus are, in my opinion, doomed to failure. The emphasis has to shift to process and outcomes. Leadership programmes need to become leadership processes. It is an important shift as the traditional tools of measurement used in a programme / content approach won’t work in a process orientated approach.
Goleman (Emotional intelligence) writes in his latest offering, ‘The New Leaders‘ that “For leadership development to succeed, top management needs to demonstrate that commitment comes from the top…Leadership development typically becomes the mandate of the HR department. But despite their technical expertise and, in many cases, their contribution to strategy, HR people cannot, on their own, drive significant change in behavior or culture.” (p297)
Understanding how to prepare leaders for the emerging connection economy will involve recognizing that the implications for the present culture of the organisation could be huge. Burning old boats and building new ones in such voyages of discovery is required…not merely shuffling the chairs on the deck around as most programmes are content to do. Savvy leaders immerse themselves in the heart of such process, aided by the expertise and skills offered by those in HR.
HR needs to be redefined. And it is leaders who need to do the re-scripting of the text if scope is to be given to really develop leaders who can lead in a connection economy. I believe that companies who get this right will develop ‘programmes’ for leadership development that look nothing like those which currently populate the landscape.
So how does your company develop leaders? What has been you experience in this area?
Related posts:
- From Hawaii: What Survives? Education is what survives when what has been learnt has...
- CEO’s views on leadership in Tough times Here are some quotes from the CEO’s of leading companies...
- Life Training: Training that develops effective people VS effective employees will hold the fabric of your organisation together Traditional skills programmes can’t be applied to everyone within a...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I suppose that the majority of HR folk are seen as puppets of the leadership carrying out administrative functions that waste paper and productvity time. If this is true, HR people and departments loose something of great importance if they are to lead and develop leaders … credibility.
I’m a firm believer that you cannot manufacture leadership i.e. you cannot tell an HR administrator, generalist, manager, director to lead well. Leadership is not granted or bestowed on by some higher power (CEO?). So I’m in full agreement with Goleman, and I think the principle extends to other “intangibles”.
Corporate/company culture. Who drives it? Who creates it? How does it change? How does it develop? There’s no simple answer, but I see the responsibility for a company’s culture (oxymoron at the best of times) being put in the laps of the HR people. Surely responsibility needs to be shared, taken up be everyone in the company. Otherwise, it will lack … credibility.
So Keith, how will these new ‘programmes’ look in your opinion?
The fact that leadership programmes are driven by the HR folk is because of the convenience and not necessarily from a strategic perspective. The other possible reason is because leadership is seen as a “new programme” and is the “new” buz word. Leadership needs to be owned and driven from the top and needs to be understood. Often one sees leadership programmes being undertaken with no latitude for accountability, responsibility and role clarity been provided. The appraoch is that you can lead as long as I still make the decissions. All the issues noted in respect of culture, drivers, change etc is very relevant. The HR folk are often brought on board without the necessary support from the top and this is where I believe the problem starts.