by Charles Plant | Jan 21, 2014 | Leadership Development
I promise that this isn’t a rant that I’m on this week. It’s just that I haven’t finished with McKinsey Quarterly’s article on Why Leadership Development Programs Fail. If it turns into a rant I know you’ll tell me.
Another surprise I had on the list of reasons that programs fail is that there is a difficulty of changing mindsets. This is something I hadn’t thought out fully although Mike Tobias of Mercanix has been bending my ear on the subject for several months.
I’m not sure about whether this is silly or not to put on the list. After all, changing mindsets is the purpose of leadership development programs. If you don’t change leadership mindsets then what are you doing?
To say that these programs fail because it is hard to change mindsets, is the same as saying that people fail at math because it is hard. That’s why the training is there in the first case. If changing mindsets was easy then people would do it just cuz someone said so.
The thing is, I don’t think that the purpose of training should be to change mindsets. It should be to make people aware of other ways of thinking and to give them an opportunity to change if they so desire. Training can change skills but changing behaviour doesn’t work that way.
Perhaps that’s why leadership development programs are problematic to begin with.
If this blog seems confusing then I’m not surprised. I’m trying to attack this issue of changing mindsets and I’ve got myself into one of those circuitous agruments that can be tormenting. If I manage to unconfuse myself, I’ll let you know.
by Charles Plant | Jan 20, 2014 | Leadership Development
McKinsey Quarterly has another good article on Why Leadership Development Programs Fail. Essentially, their proposition is that these programs fail due to:
- Poor context setting.
- Decoupling programs from real work.
- The difficulty of changing mindsets.
- Failing to measure results.
I’ve blogged about several of these issues, particularly to problem of not integrating programs with work and failing to measure results. The other two are interesting issues though and deserve some examination.
In terms of context setting though, I was surprised to see this one in the list. The article states that “A brilliant leader in one situation does not necessarily perform well in another.” I suppose the author is a believer in Situational and Contingency theories of Leadership.
I guess the reason I was surprised is that different contexts may not require different leadership skills but would definitely require different management skills. I think the difference between these two is important. If management is about logic and leadership is about emotion, then different contexts require different management skills, not different leadership skills.
The problem then is that we are teaching people how to lead instead of how to manage. If leadership is a behaviour that is hard to change but management skills are easier to acquire then trying to improve leadership is very much a problem when what you should be improving is management.
by Charles Plant | Jan 10, 2014 | Leadership Development
As long as we’re on the subject of truth-telling, we should give a little attention to those among us who are regular liars. I’ve run into a few at work who consistently lie and never admit that they have. But those of us who work with them know them to be consistent liars.
I’m never sure whether these liars just don’t see that they’re lying, whether they have distorted reality to such an extent as to think they are telling the truth. Or do they know that they are lying and figure they won’t be challenged.
I suspect that liars really don’t recognize that they are lying. I think that they twist reality to their own devices and go with it. Or maybe they have bad memory and so they “remember” things in a way as to fit the future situation.
Thing is, nobody gets called out for lying. Since the things that most people lie about are subject to interpretation the liar is seldom challenged and more reasonable people are willing to let the situation drop instead of challenging the liar.
Thus without a challenge, the liar goes on lying and probably frequently benefits from having done so.
by Charles Plant | Jan 9, 2014 | Leadership Development
Have you ever been asked the question, “Do these jeans make me look fat?” If you’re being truthful you could easily answer “No, those jeans don’t make you look fat.” (After all it isn’t the fault of the jeans but more likely the fault of one too many cookies piling up of the posterior of the wearer that is making the questioner look fat.)
If you are being honest though you might say “No, you look fat whether or not you are wearing the jeans.” (Of course I wouldn’t want to be around when you actually say this.)
This is the difference between truth and honesty. You can be truthful without being honest.
As a leader, the question is, should you be truthful or honest. I really don’t have an answer to this question.
All I know is that this week, I was repeatedly “truthed” by people who could have been honest. It would have been more difficult for them to be honest but I would have been much happier with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or in other words, brutal honesty.
by Charles Plant | Dec 23, 2013 | Leadership Development
With all of the debate about leadership these days, I thought it would be useful to examine the leadership capabilities of Santa Claus. After all, he is universally recognized as a doer of good deeds but have we ever turned a critical eye to what makes him effective as a leader?
Visioning
In keeping with my new three part leadership classification system, I’ll turn first to his qualities as a visionary. In this area there are mixed reviews. He is universally acknowledged as promulgating a cogent and inspiring vision for children under the age of eight. However for the rest of the population, he just doesn’t cut it. What kind of visionary only appeals to those under eight and why does his vision not work for those of us who are past our prime? As a visionary, he is a bit of a failure for his inability to connect with those over eight.
Leadership
As to his ability to make strong emotional connections, I think we must give him good marks. After all, why would we put up with all of that terrible Christmas music year after year? Even when his vision fades for those of us old enough to know better, he maintains a strong emotional force field that fuels the economy every year.
Management
Yes, I know that there are those of you that say that Management isn’t Leadership but this is my blog so I’ll include it if I want to. As to management capabilities, he is a bit of a bust. Who among us hasn’t been disappointed at not getting that perfect gift we wanted so much? And as for being able to contain costs, this becomes an annual struggle that is usually exceeded. As for project management though, the guy is a master. All those presents delivered on time every year. Don’t we wish that Air Canada was half as good?
Conclusion
So there you have it, another profile of a flawed character, trying so hard to be a good leader but missing in critical dimensions, just like the rest of us.
I promise that this isn’t a rant that I’m on this week. It’s just that I haven’t finished with McKinsey Quarterly’s article on Why Leadership Development Programs Fail. If it turns into a rant I know you’ll tell me.
