Why leadership-development programs fail

In the January 2014 McKinsey Quarterly Gurdjian et al., cite studies showing that only 7% of senior managers think that their companies develop global leaders effectively; and around 30% of US companies “admit that they have failed to exploit their international business opportunities fully because they lack enough leaders with the right capabilities.” Accordingly the authors’ then researched why leadership-development programs tend to fail along with reviewing some best-practice “solutions” to the common problems.

Here’s why leadership-development programs fail along with further considerations (“et alors”):

Why leadership-development programs fail

The authors’ research identified 4 common mistakes with leadership-development programs. Here they are along with possible solutions:

Overlooking Context

Problem: A brilliant leader in one situation does not necessarily perform well in another. In terms of leadership-development, “one size does not fit all.”

Solution: The company should consider exactly what they need their leaders to learn whilst encouraging diversity of leadership styles.

Example: If the company needs to consider operating in a more project-based transversal environment, leadership-development might focus on the art of influencing…

Decoupling Reflection from Real Work

Problem: Whilst off-site seminars allow time for reflection, “adults typically retain just 10% of what they learn in the classroom versus nearly two thirds when they learn by doing.”

Solution: The company should “tie leadership development to real on-the-job projects that have a business impact and improve learning.”

Example: One large international engineering company built a multi-year leadership program that included real business projects for participants to work on between modules.

Underestimating Mind-sets

Problem: Just “adding-on” more leadership skills does not address underlying behaviours which may continue, despite needing to be changed.

Solution: The company should identify some of the “deepest ‘below the surface’ thoughts, feelings and assumptions” of leaders and consider what needs to be changed.

Example: One company had difficulty improving their leaders’ ability to delegate until they realised that the typical participant was very “controlling”. The program was then subsequently  adapted.

Failing to Measure Results

Problem: Companies do not quantify the value of their investment in leadership development instead relying all-too-often on participant feedback.

Solution: Measure before and after effectiveness with reference to leader behaviour; team performance; or career development.

Example: One company used 360 degree feedback for leaders both 6 months before and 6 months after to assess if program participants had achieved constructive behaviour changes.

Et alors

On a personal note I was pleased to see three out of four best practices in place for the leadership-development programs for which I am responsible. The one where the challenge appears to remain open (according to McKinsey references) is “failing to measure results!” Reviewing the career development of participants is difficult if only because of the challenge of separating cause and effect: were the participants promoted because they were on the course, or were they on the course because they were going to be promoted and needed to develop into the new role? It is arguable that 360 degree feedback is more effective as a development tool rather than an assessment tool; and measuring team performance before and after is challenging not least with so much global diversity!

Three solutions are therefore adopted (which are not included in the McKinsey article). The first is related to the fact that participants on the course are not the clients; in fact, they are the “product” with the client being the hierarchy and/or the HR manager. These are the “real” clients whose satisfaction can be measured after the course according to how well their staff have developed as leaders. Second, behaviour diagnostics (similar to 360 degree feedback) can be captured on a “junior” leadership course and then again on a “senior” leadership course so that both the participant and the company can measure progress during the two courses. Finally, the “real” business projects can be measured in terms of actual business impact whether that is in terms of cost-savings or the amount of new business captured. With these three levers, the impact can be seriously captured!