In our last article we argued that leadership development needs to cater for skills, tools methodologies as well as the person who is supposed to apply these tools, techniques and methodologies. And even though many organizations still struggle to strike the right balance between skills training and personality development, there is little fundamental rejection of this perspective. We live in increasingly complex environments and increasingly complex times, which requires a shift in how we lead and collaborate. This shift in how we expect leaders to show up and lead becomes mandatory to stay competitive. And development programs should support this shift.
If organizations follow this line of thinking and are willing to combine the necessary personality development and proper skills training, why do so many development programs still fail? Of course, there can be a variety of practical reasons starting from bad design, wrong timing, insufficient resources or the lack of recognition that change is needed in the first place. But interestingly, even organizations who on a practical level seem to be doing everything right don't see the expected success from these programs. So, the question is – what is missing?
There is an easy yet complex answer to that simple question. The easy part is that failure is not linked to the program itself – always assuming, that the design, the resourcing, and the structure are done properly. The complex part of the answer is that success and failure is more linked to the prevalent organizational culture, which is the tolerated behavior among leaders. Here it can easily become tricky.
Organizations’ leaders, who set the tone and therefore shape the culture rarely openly reject these required behavioral shifts, aware that these lead to a more inclusive collaborative style and respective development programs. Even in rather traditional, hierarchical organizations with a more top-down leadership style, leaders want more collaboration, more accountability and entrepreneurial drive. In a way these attributes allow them to deal with the unknown, something all modern leadership development programs are centered on.
Yet, just saying the right things is not enough, because in our experience, these topics cannot be overcommunicated. If you want a shift in behavior, you must focus your energy on supporting the desired behavior shifts, by explaining what this new behavior actually looks like and what is expected of everyone starting tomorrow. Just having a town hall and a follow-up email will not do the trick. And we know, broadcasting the same message over and over again is tiring for those who deliver these messages. But please believe us – this message is necessary. But this is still not the biggest obstacle of leadership development getting traction. It is what is not being said. Or the side comment delivered in the canteen. Or worst, contradictory behavior by a top leader when he or she feels unobserved or entitled to do this because of their rank, position, or task at hand.
This can range from a sarcastic comment (“yeah, that is the modern way of saying what we did all the time anyway” or “if anybody believes that will change our business, good luck. At the end it is the will to succeed”) to micro-aggressive behavior (“you can try this again – or just go back to the proven ways of doing things, I would know that to do”). The problem with these behaviors is that rarely do they become so visible so that they can be addressed. And secondly, they often are a reflex of a toxic culture where open debate of the best way forward is not rewarded but ridiculed. These environments have been named “psychologically unsafe.” And here we have a catch-22 situation.
If you operate in an environment like this, how can you possibly try something new? And learning by definition means to try something and that comes with the risk of failure. If that is not seen as a way to get to a better place but simply a mistake nothing will change because nobody wants to run that risk.
A good indicator if an organization is ready to embrace this new way of leadership is if the top leaders went through the (new) program themselves. We have seen great programs introduced and supported by the right messages delivered by top leaders but they did not go through these programs themselves. Which sends the signal: We do not need it and we do not need to change as we are already there. Now imagine one of these leaders making a comment like the once described above. How would you in this organization read the signs? Right: Successful leadership is the one remodeled from the top and that is the “old way”, thereby sending the signal that it is okay to stick with the past.
This challenge is a chicken and egg situation. Do I need a culture that allows a new form of leadership to develop OR do I need a new way of leadership to shift the culture that allows change. It must be both. And that means, the top leaders need to acknowledge the need for change. Not on an intellectual level (most leaders we know would truly agree to this) but also on a personal behavioral level, which can be challenging as they need to let go of old beliefs of how “good leadership” works. They need to role model the way that leadership should look. They need to be open and able to change themselves and they need to be extra careful what messages they send – verbally as well as in the way they lead.
This is not a small thing. Not only because it takes a lot of courage from a top leader to admit that they need to learn as well. But also, as all profit organizations need to do these shifts while in a highly competitive environment. Is it like changing tires while driving. And to do this, you need a sound and well thought out leadership development program and also need to be fully aligned with top management about how to deliver this. And you have to be willing to call out bad and contradictory behavior.
So, if you want a leadership development program to gain traction and show results, focus on the required shift in leadership behavior. These shifts need to be constantly and consistently reinforced. Contradictory behavior needs to be called out and in the worst case sanctioned to show the organization what the new normal looks like.
