Why leadership development programs fail

Why leadership development programs fail

Organizations spend a prince’s ransom every year in developing leaders in their rank and file. Their future depends on giving maximum leverage to their top people. And on spotting and nurturing the next generation of business champions… today. To create leaders, organizations will try any new method and spend any amount of money. Some leadership development programs are known to cost as much as $100,000. And yet, the effectiveness of such programs is not guaranteed. That is the reason there is a high focus on why leadership development programs fail?

A recent article posted on the McKinsey website revealed four reasons why leadership development programs fail:

1. Context was overlooked
2. The learning was not embedded in real organization work
3. Mindsets of participants were underestimated
4. There was a failure in measuring results

Let’s take a deeper look at what is happening in those leadership development programs that fall flat.

Why Leadership development programs fail – Reasons for failure

Any such program will fail due to one or more of the following reasons:

1. Generalizing leadership traits

Even top universities and colleges will focus on “must have” leadership traits which are derived from various leadership surveys. This approach belittles the truth that leadership comes in various shapes and sizes.

By making leadership an inflexible monolith, these programs might end up teaching the participants they are innately inadequate to become a great leader and also force them to fit into the mould. As a result, one might not find the diversity of thought and personalities that are required at the top of an organization to combat any and every challenge that comes their way.

2. Using wrong tools

In a desire to avail the latest and greatest tools, organizations might seek guidance from top universities and colleges. These institutions would promote assessment and training tools developed by certain organizations – organizations that offer them grants and funding. Instead of offering tools that are best suited for the participants, the university/college ends up offering tools that are best for their funding needs.

In my own experience, a senior leader I met was assessed using one such “leading” personality assessment tool during a leadership development program.  The assessment generated a 20-page detailed report filled with fancy graphs and charts. The leader was astonished to see the results: he was asked to improve aspects he already excelled at while he was deemed exceptional in other aspects in which he was decidedly mediocre. This experience brings into focus the suitability, relevance and scientific accuracy of the assessment tools used. If these are not resolved, they will cause more harm than good.

3. Little focus on outcomes

This is a cardinal sin. Wouldn’t programs work better if every participant is allowed to determine the outcomes they want to derive out of the program – preferably in a specific work context – so that they can constantly align the training content with these outcomes?

Instead, generic outcomes are set either by the top executive championing the program or, worse, by the organizers of the training program. Sometimes, a content development company will be employed to create the program content. Since these companies are clueless about the outcomes required, they will err on the side of caution and keep the exercises at a very high level. As a result, what could have been a great learning experience becomes a rehash of the known and the insipid.  This is one of the main reasons why leadership development programs fail.  The participants would probably benefit more by attending a Behavioral training program like a Certified NLP Practitioner program, Emotional Intelligence, NeuroScience based behavior change program.

In addition to the participants, the organization, too, suffers.

4. Uninspiring delivery

The traditional approach of using PowerPoint presentations to convert high-functioning personnel into mere listeners does not work. What’s more, the experience could be demeaning. Yes, some amount of liveliness and relevance can be introduced using experiential activities. However, even here, such activities might be highly irrelevant to some or many of the participants, Why? Because of the generic nature of the content as discussed above.

5. Unsuitable structuring

A participant might have the necessary the intellect, knowledge and attitude to excel, but might be wrestling with strong internal battles – stemming from the state of his personal life, self-limiting beliefs or unpleasant memories of the past. These aspects of nurturing leadership may not be covered in the program. In the rare instances when they are covered, a frank discussion of issues may not be possible in an open classroom where peers are present. As a result, even moments that could lead to huge inner transformations are frittered away.

But a well-structured leadership development program will have an “offline” component, where 1-on-1 conversations can be had with one of the best executive coach. In fact, true blue programs will create an ongoing Executive Coach/Coachee relationship with such a mentor so that growth can become a constant endeavour.

6. Results not measured

This is the most obvious, and perhaps the most significant, flaw in these programs. Even programs that are well-structured and have desirable impact in the short-term might fail to produce long-term results without follow-up activities or actions. As familiar environmental factors creep in, leaders then tend to revert to old ways of behaviour – like anger issues, refusal to collaborate etc.

A transparent and accountable framework needs to be created wherein leaders would be responsible for sustaining the desirable new behaviour and the organization will be responsible for creating a changed ecosystem where such a behaviour can be promoted.

In summary

The McKinsey article on why leadership development programs fail summarizes the lessons well. Organizations must look at specific leadership skills in the specific contexts that exist within the ecosystem. Insights and learning from the programs must be tested and applied in real-time.

One needs to acknowledge the diversity of thinking among leaders and provide flexibility in the program to address every individual’s needs.

And last, but not the least, Short Group Coaching sessions or Individual Executive Coaching sessions not only augment the learnings but also keep them fresh