Monday, July 24, 2023

Of Leadership Development, Business Schools and Consulting Firms

“Our professors bring in the latest academic research to the program delivery. Based on their deep understanding of the topic, they can facilitate first principles thinking which can lead to profound insights. We don't want our faculty members to become trainers!", remarked the executive education lead in a reputed business school.

“To what extent the professors are able to bring in actionable insights for the practitioners based on academic research is debatable. The professors who have a teaching style that is similar that of trainers often get the best feedback scores from the participants. Deep expertise coupled with an accessible kind of program delivery facilitates skill building and makes the program content easier to understand and implement!”, observed the leadership development lead of a large firm.

“We need the leadership development programs to be customized to our context. We prefer to partner with consulting firms as they do a much better job on customization as compared to business schools. It is not that the business schools don’t do a diagnostic study. It is just that the professors often end up teaching whatever they originally wanted to teach irrespective of the findings from the diagnostic study!”, remarked the Chief Learning Officer of an Indian Business Group.

“Why should we try to customize the leadership development programs? We should partner with the best of the business schools and let them teach what they think is the best. We should even look at open programs as they help our people to get a much better exposure because they provide the opportunity to interact with leaders from other companies. Leadership development programs at the top management level are more about helping our leaders to expand their mental horizons and not about skill building!”, said a senior business leader.

I often hear statement likes these in the context of leadership development. They bring my attention to a question that people who are responsible for leadership development in organizations frequently grapple with - "when it comes to leadership development programs for senior leaders, is it better to partner with reputed business schools or with reputed leadership development consulting firms?" There are many perspectives here – that too along multiple dimensions. Let's look at some of them here.

Customization

In general, consulting firms can offer highly customized executive education programs tailored to the specific needs and challenges of an organization. They can develop bespoke content and case studies that directly address the context-specific learning needs. Business schools tend to have less flexibility in customizing their programs to meet the specific needs of an organization.

Incorporating insights from research

Business schools can bring in the most empirically validated research findings. While the consultants do have some understanding of the latest research findings, they are unlikely to have the deep understanding that can come from a systematic literature review or a meta-analysis. One key challenge in incorporating the latest research into executive education programs is that of keeping up with the pace of change in the business world. Some research findings may become outdated relatively quickly, especially in fields that are rapidly evolving. Of course, ensuring that the research is communicated in a way that is accessible and practical for executives is indeed challenging.  Business schools must work to translate the research findings into practical insights that executives can apply in their day-to-day work.

Domain expertise

 Premier business schools typically have a strong foundation in academic research and theory, which can provide a solid base for executive education. They have faculty with deep expertise in various management disciplines. Consulting firms often bring in domain expertise derived from practice. The best results are obtained when the faculty/facilitator can 'stand at the intersection of theory and practice' though it is indeed a tightrope walk (please see 'Treating the Multiple Personality Disorder of HR professionals' for a related discussion).

Industry knowledge

Consulting firms often have extensive experience working with clients in various industries, which can enable them to provide industry-specific insights and best practices. They also have a better understanding of the paradoxes and dilemmas that senior leaders face in the context of their jobs and this enables the consulting firms to be more helpful in equipping the leaders to cope with these paradoxes and dilemmas (please see 'Problems that refuse to remain solved' for a related discussion). Professors also do some amount of consulting work. Of course, if the professor has written a case study on one of the most reputed companies in the industry that the firm operates in and leverages the same for the program for the participants from the firm, it can be perceived as highly valuable.

Application focus

Consulting firms generally have a stronger focus on practical application and problem-solving. This can lead to more actionable insights and strategies that the senior leaders can implement in their organizations. Business schools, particularly premier ones, often emphasize theoretical knowledge and research-backed learning. These schools also provide case studies to practice leadership skills. Leadership training firms, alternatively, are often more focused on practical, real-world application, with a heavy emphasis on experiential learning. Consulting firms may also provide better support in facilitating transfer of learning.

Bringing in outside experts/industry leaders

Consultants often can bring in top industry leaders through their contacts. The top academic institutes can also do this to some extent. Senior business leaders tend to value the opportunity to interact with top industry leaders very much. 

'Zeitgeist'(Intellectual atmosphere)

When the programs are delivered on the business school campus, it often puts the participants in a frame of mind that is more conducive for learning as compared to what happens when the program is organized in a hotel. Many of the participants consider the professors as ‘gurus’ and that might further enhance their openness to learning – especially in those cultures that put the teachers on a pedestal. This works even in the case of participants who are senior business leaders. Facilitators from consulting firms do get the respect they deserve from the participants for their expertise. However, the participants might still look at them more as ‘service providers’ as opposed to ‘gurus’.

Prestige

Top business schools have a strong reputation and brand value. Hence the participants often attach great value to the program certificate issued by the premier business schools. A certificate from a leadership training firm may not carry the same weight, unless it is a certification based on a proprietary methodology of the consulting firm (e.g., certification on the proprietary Job Evaluation methodology). However, such certifications from consulting firms tend to be less relevant in the case of senior business leaders. 

Cost/investment

Customized executive education programs at the top business schools can be relatively more expensive. However, based on the teaching methodology used (e.g., case studies) they might be able to support larger batch sizes and thereby bring down the per participant cost. As compared to this, leadership development consulting firms tend to use a more interactive and practice-oriented methodologies that work better with relatively smaller batch sizes. Yes, it is often possible to engage the professors directly (without going through the business school). However, the institute brand/ certification won’t be available in such cases.

Best of both worlds?

 There are consulting firms that have close tie-ups with premier business schools. In those cases, the consulting firms do the business development and the diagnostic study, and they bring in the professors at the program design and delivery stage. Here the key success factor is the extent to which the data and insights from the diagnostic study are incorporated by the professors in the program design and delivery. This is often a problem area.

Business schools also have ‘Professors of Practice’ who often have significant industry experience before they moved to academics. Whether they end up bringing in the ‘best of both words’ or the ‘worst of both worlds’ or ‘something in between’ in the context of a particular leadership development program is quite unpredictable!

In lieu of a conclusion

Let’s go back to the question that we started this post with- "when it comes to leadership development programs for senior leaders, is it better to partner with reputed business schools or with reputed consulting firms who focus on leadership development?

As we can see from the discussion above, both the options have their own advantages and disadvantages and hence the answer becomes highly context specific. The best choice depends on the specific goals of the organization and the factors (e.g., from the list above) are relatively more important keeping those goals in mind. This is complicated by the fact that capability building programs (including leadership development programs) serve many purposes - including those that are not directly related to capability building (please see 'The many lives of capability building programs' for the details). Yes, the return on the learning investment is most important. The point is just that this 'return' need not be only in terms of increase in capability and change in on-the-job behavior/the business impact of the change in behavior. 

Also, all the premier business schools and all the leadership development consulting firms are not created equal. There are business schools that have a special focus on executive education. They tend to have teams that focus on diagnostic studies and instructional design in addition to the professors who focus on program design and delivery. There are also professors who invest time in doing a detailed diagnostic study. Similarly, there are specialized leadership development consulting firms that conduct primary research in the domain of leadership development. This brings in an additional set of considerations that are entity specific. In addition to the entity-specific aspects, there are also individual-specific aspects. Afterall, program delivery is a 'performance art'. There are also the aspects of the depth of the partnership between the organization and the learning partner and that of the 'chemistry' between the particular individuals involved. Having said this, we can still make a couple of general observations.

If customization is less important as compared to domain expertise, premier business schools often have an advantage over the consultants especially in the case of ‘standalone instructor-led programs'. In the case of highly customized and application-oriented programs, consultants often have an advantage especially in the case of ‘learning journey programs’ (that integrate multiple program components like instructor-led learning, executive coaching and action learning and require extensive program management and transfer of learning support).

Any comments/ideas?

12 comments:

  1. Brilliant analysis and I fully agree with the conclusions ! Given the increasing ask from the business to show impact of Leadership development, what would tilt the favour towards any one of the above options is a pragmatic approach to ascertaining that! Indeed, that would remain the key challenge for all in this industry !

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wonderful analysis sir! As always, I fully agree with the conclusions. I strongly believe that learning is a staged process. First, learn from fundamentals, core concepts and theories. Second, back it up with practical experience from various industries, not just yours, but global best practices. And third, customize it during application to suit your business need. If we start with the third step directly, we may be limiting ourselves and might not bring the innovative perspective, which is a better combo of steps 1 and 2. I have seen LnD Leaders focus too much on customization and contextualization right at the beginning, which in my view might not always give the best results.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you very much, Srividya! Agree with the stage-wise process that you had outlined. If we try to specify what will work in our context without understanding the underlying principles and the possibilities, we are likely to be limited by our knowledge and make suboptimal choices.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you very much Deb! Yes, the impact that the business is looking for from the program should be the starting point and the choice of the program partner should be done in alignment with that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My thoughts:

    The right business school or the right consulting firm to fit the right need your company has at the time. Having worked for a top-tier management consulting firm, a research-focused firm, and now a business school, I have made all the pitches Prasad describes, and have delivered what the salesperson has promised in several contexts. Some of the specifics can be had no matter whom you speak with -- for example, with the right school and faculty mix, industry leaders are more than happy to engage to be associated with the school.

    There are great firms, great schools, and poor examples of each. Also, cases where each is leaning on their brands and reputation vs the work they do today. I've been on all sides of that equation as well.

    Choosing a provider who is willing to partner, do the work to deliver a program focused on outcomes you wish to achieve, and sees your needs as greater than their own remains true no matter which avenue is pursued. Consider also the business model. What is the motivation of each entity to educate? Where are the long-term benefits of each entity on a continued relationship with the company? Everyone of course wants the next and larger engagement. For the firm and for the L&D professional, which entity provides the best longer-term view and relationship? If the firm seeks specific answers for today's market, a consulting engagement (with a firm or a school) is the way to go. If the company is looking to build a leadership cadre and create a culture and success for the future, a business school can provide more foundational learnings.

    There is a previous comment on determining the business impact. Find that answer and your path forward will become fairly clear.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you very much, Rohit. Honored to see your comment!

    Great to see the multi-dimensional perspective you have brought in based on your extensive experience in this domain – that too in various roles. I agree! Especially, the following excerpt from your comment very much resonated with me “Choosing a provider who is willing to partner, do the work to deliver a program focused on outcomes you wish to achieve, and sees your needs as greater than their own remains true no matter which avenue is pursued. Consider also the business model. What is the motivation of each entity to educate?” Yes, the fit between what the organization is trying to achieve, and the strengths/core expertise of the partner is most important!

    ReplyDelete
  7. A very well-written blog which carefully balances the perspectives from both sides of the Education spectrum. In today's world of leadership development, especially in a country like ours where 'scaling up' is the mantra, there is space for all education models. I also think the in-house learning teams play a significant role in shaping the leadership thought process. In fact, many large organisations are investing in a strong pool of highly qualified & experienced L&D professionals to strengthen their leadership talent. In this day and age of information overload, the lines between practice and tenure are blurring. However, what differentiates one educator from the other (regardless of their professional background) is their willingness to design their content around the learner. This does not mean customisation or the lack of it; it is simply possessing a deep understanding of your learners and offering what is necessary and important for them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you very much, Arun. Yes, making the content aligned to what the learners want to learn, and their learning preferences is most important. There can be a bit of a dilemma here as the program is often paid for by the companies (making them the 'customer' for the learning partner) though the actual 'consumers' are the participants and the interests/preferences of the 'customers' and the 'consumers' might not necessarily be fully aligned. However, trying to facilitate this alignment can be one of the important 'value-add' from the learning partner - especially when the learning partner does a detailed diagnostic study and attempts 'customization' based on that. This also highlights the importance of including the learners in the diagnostic study. Yes, multiple partnership models can peacefully coexist. Yes, in this domain also 'make' vs 'buy' is a key decision that the organization needs to make!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Prasad

    I enjoyed reading your blog - it provides a comprehensive and balanced perspective.
    I also liked what Arun and Rohit have written.

    Reading your blog makes me wonder about the aspect of 'comfort' the L&D professional has with the Partner/ Professor. Comfort for me brings to the surface dimensions of
    - Success of previous interventions delivered
    - Credibility/ Credentials personally important for the L&D professional
    - Personal style of engaging

    PS: Thank you for providing a link to your previous blogs. Enjoyed reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you very much, Akansha! I agree! The 'comfort' with the partner/faculty is very much important! Leadership development programs for senior leaders can be high-visibility and high-risk endeavors for the company L&D leads. The 'comfort' factor also helps reducing that perceived risk.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks so much Prasad for another and brilliant post . I agree with your observations completely on all the dimensions. After operating on both sides (consulting vs business schools) , I feel the criteria above is well laid out . The only other thing I would add is the degree of need of learning personalization . The issue of customization is also a participant issue as some senior leaders also want and need a journey personalized to them . If the need is on learning personalization than the consulting firms can offer more deeper support . Infact , I feel that over a period of time personalization will become a requirement rather than good to have .

    Apart from others , what is needed from either type of partners is sincere commitment to adapt what they do to bring value to the participants. That to me is a critical core !

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you very much Sumit for your kind words. Yes, individual level customization requires a much deeper involvement from the partner and consulting firms might have an advantage on that aspect. Yes, the commitment to adapt in order to deliver the maximum value to the participants is a critical factor!

    ReplyDelete