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?

Treating the Multiple Personality Disorder of HR Professionals!

“Those who say theory and practice are two unrelated realms are fools in one and scoundrels in the other”, I came across this quote (from 'Letters of Ayn Rand')  some time ago and it reminded me of a ghost that I have been trying to exorcise for the last 11 years. In 2007, I wrote a post called ‘HR Professionals and Multiple Personality Disorder’, where I talked about many HR Professionals (especially those who have taken their behavior science education seriously) developing multiple personalities to deal with  the conflict between the apparently mundane nature of their jobs and the desire to apply their behavior science knowledge to their work. So, when they are in their Personality 1 (the dominant personality) they carry out their jobs without any application of their behavior science knowledge and when they are in their Personality 2, they go to HR conferences and HR team meetings and talk about applying theory to practice (without ever getting around to implementing what they have discussed). Both these personalities co-exist, without being consciously aware of the existence of the other!

Though this post had triggered quite a bit of discussion in the blogosphere (see here and here apart from the comments section of the post for examples), the post was incomplete in a very significant way. While I did detail out the disorder (and the possible causes for the development of the disorder), the only thing I mentioned on treating this disorder was to get the multiple personalities to talk to one other. While this was a useful first step, it was far from sufficient as a cure. So, the matter of finding a cure was not properly closed (buried) and it created the ghost (that I mentioned at the beginning of this post) that has been haunting me ever since. What follows in this post are some thought fragments based on my struggle with this ghost during the last decade.

Let’s start with a basic question. Is there really anything like ‘HR theory’? This question becomes important as HR is essentially an applied field. Yes, one learns many theories during one’s HR studies. But these theories are mostly borrowed from psychology, sociology and anthropology. We must also remember that HR is a relatively young field even as compared to other social sciences.

Now, let's see what is a theory and how it is different from a law and a model. A scientific law is the generalized (often mathematical) description of an observed phenomenon (e.g. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation). It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory (e.g. Einstein’s theory of relativity). To be useful in the context of our discussion here, a theory should provide predictions that can inform actions, and to be scientific a theory should be falsifiable (i.e. the predictions of the theory can be empirically tested, and the results of the testing can strengthen/weaken the theory or even lead to modification/discarding of the theory). It is interesting to note that when we move outside the realm of scientific law and consider the laws created by an authority (e.g. the government, as in the case of labor laws), these laws are intended to impose order or  create a desired pattern in the behavior (as opposed to just describing a pattern that already exists). A model provides a structural representation of a phenomenon to enable a simplified understanding (e.g. 70:20:10 model of learning).

To be pragmatic, any theory that helps us to understand, predict and possibly influence human behavior at the workplace, we would consider to be an HR theory regardless of its field of origin (e.g. Vroom’s Expectancy -Instrumentality- Valance theory of motivation).

Since I was aware of the risk (of not being able to apply what I have learned; and I did take my behavior science education very seriously), I wanted to ensure that I did something beyond commonsense. So, I learned the various tools and methodologies (job evaluation methodology, change management methodology, tools for competency mapping, tools for data analysis, psychometric instruments, behavioral event interviewing etc.). While it gave me some satisfaction, later I came to realize that what I have become is more of a ‘mechanic’ and not a scientist or even an engineer (See Daydreams of an OD Mechanic). From that point, I made a more conscious effort to apply theory to practice and the following thought fragments are based on my learning from that effort (and from experience of young HR specialists I mentored) during the last decade.

• First, some good news! Contrary to popular belief, most of the business leaders do want us to bring in our specialist expertise to our work (remember, they are paying us higher for our HR expertise). Yes, they want us to bring our expertise to solve the most important business problems (forget 'HR for HR') and that too in such a manner that they can relate to it.

• There is an entire continuum from abstract theory to middle level theory(principles) and models. While it makes sense to understand the entire continuum (so that higher levels can inform the choices at the lower levels), the lower levels are easier to communicate and apply in the business context. For example when it comes to Learning and Development, we have theories of perception (abstract theory), principles of adult learning and 70:20:10 model of learning.

• It is critical to communicate at the appropriate level of abstraction depending on the client/audience. In general, it is much better to bring in theories and principles without using intimidating labels. For example, instead of using terms like Expectancy -Instrumentality- Valance of the Vroom’s theory of motivation, we can simply say that employees would be motivated if we our performance management system can give them the confidence that their efforts would lead to higher levels of performance, that the higher levels of performance would lead to more rewards and that the rewards would be those that the employees are interested in. No, this doesn’t lead to loss of rigor. It definitely takes more effort to crystallize our understanding of the theory. As Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”!

• It makes a lot of sense to understand how and in what context a particular theory was derived (and the underlying worldview, if possible) so that one can make more informed choices on its degree of relevance in a particular context. Also, one should be open to look at the multiple theories that might apply to a particular situation even when they give different predictions. By struggling with the paradoxes arising out of the different predictions provided by the various theories one can develop a certain kind of wisdom (See Wisdom-level consulting) that can help us to make better decisions!

• Theories and models can also be valuable sources of ideas and of the various ways to think about a situation, even when we can’t directly derive a specific recommendation based on the theory (remember, there are other factors that impact decision making like the ‘people management philosophy’ and organization constraints). Like Randy Pausch said, “Life is an Engineering problem” (it is about optimizing within constraints and not about perfect solutions). Hence, if we consciously think through what we can infer from the various theories that are applicable in the particular situation, we can do a much better job of optimizing the decision-making.

• We must be wary of the seductive charm of ‘best practices’. Of course, we can leverage best practices as a source of ideas. Knowledge of ‘best practices’ can easily give us an illusion of expertise (and even that we are applying theory to practice). We must remember that a best practice is a best practice in a particular context and that unless we can figure out what made it a best practice in that context (our knowledge of the applicable theories can help us in figuring this out) we can’t deduce what is ‘transferable’ to our context. Casual benchmarking, like casual sex, is easy but dangerous! Similarly, having a strong understanding of the fundamental theories governing a particular domain, allows us to make better sense of the large number of ‘research findings’ (which are often about some relationship that has been 'found' between two variables) that we come across professional magazines, so that we can make more informed decisions on their applicability to our context (as the theories can explain the ‘’why’ of the relationships between the variables).

• There are many opportunities in organizations (especially when you are facilitating sessions or even when you are part of group interactions) when you can use the data points from the group’s (immediate or historical) experience to highlight patterns predicted by applicable theories. In a way, theories are about predicting probable patterns. By being aware of some of the probable patterns, one is in a much better position to point out the patterns when they emerge. This can lead to insights and actions. Yes, depending on the preferences and learning style of the people involved, one can take a decision on whether or not to use the actual (technical) terminology associated with the theory. In a way, this process also helps us to develop our ability to detect new patterns and explanations and to abstract new knowledge from our experiences that would be helpful to other professionals. To me, HR being essentially an applied discipline badly needs more models and concepts that are derived in the context of the actual practice of the profession.

• While consulting or internal consulting oriented jobs do provide a formal mandate to stand at the intersection of theory and practice(and hence to apply theory to practice), one must resist the temptation to get obsessed with (and hence get stuck at the level of) tools, methodologies and best practices as mentioned above.  

As in the case of many other diseases, ‘prevention is better than cure’ in the case of the Multiple Personality Disorder of HR professionals also. This requires making changes to HR education (e.g. also teaching how and in what context a theory was derived, what sort of empirical validation of the predictions of the theory exists and how the theory is applied in the context of business organizations instead of just teaching the theory, helping the students to 'develop the stomach for theory' that enables one to integrate the various theories applicable in a context or at least to hold the competing theories in mind without going crazy etc.) and to the way we manage the ‘campus to corporate’ transition (e.g. orienting them to the aspects mentioned in the bullet points above, highlighting the possibility of the differentiated contribution they can make to the organization by applying what they have learned, providing them a mentor who can guide them in applying theory to practice etc.). 

Applying theory to practice requires both sensing the emerging patterns in the organization (so that one can identify the most important needs) and understanding the theories and models deeply enough (to figure out what is core and what can be reinterpreted based on the context and how various theories can be combined to address new or complex situations). Yes, testing (piloting) the recommendation in one part of the organization (ideally where the need is very clearly felt and hence there is more appetite to take the risk of trying out the solution) makes eminent sense as it can give confidence to the stakeholders on the applicability of the (theory and the) recommendations in the context of the particular organization and also give the practitioner a greater understanding of how the various nuances play out. Yes, this also needs brushing up one's fundamentals in social research methods (so that one can appropriately set up the pilot and accurately interpret the results of the pilot) and enhancing one's consulting, business partnering and change management skills. 

I must add that 'applying theory to practice' doesn't imply that we don't value the 'practical knowledge'/heuristics(rules of thumb, mental shortcuts) that comes from experience. The idea is to go beyond them and see if we can get deeper insights into the situation at hand by looking at applicable theories. Most effective solutions result when we are able to combine these two types of knowledge (theoretical and practical) in an appropriate manner! Applying theory to practice and deriving theory from practice are two sides of the same coin!  

Let's look at an example here. The thumb rule on 'span of control' says that the span of control should ideally be between 4 and 7. Now, if we also know the theories governing span of control we would have a better understanding of the factors that can either increase or decrease the ideal span of control (e.g. if the team is geographically dispersed then the span of control should be lower, if the tasks performed by the team members are similar then the span of control can be higher, if the degree of supervision required is high then the span of control should be lower, if the amount of administrative tasks that needs to be performed by the manager is high then the span of control should be lower, if the skill level of the manager is high then the span of control can be higher etc.). This would enable us to make better decision in a particular context as compared to what was possible if we just used the thumb rule. The knowledge of the theory/factors impacting span of control can also help us in another way. It enables us to enable higher spans of control (if we want to do so, e.g. for increasing cost efficiency) by modifying the factors (e.g. by increasing the skill levels of the manager and the team members, using information systems to make supervision easier and admin load lesser etc.) 

Since the primary concern of a practitioner is solving a problem in a particular context, and also considering the typical nature of data relevant for HR related problem solving, a 'grounded theory' approach can also be very useful (as the theory is 'grounded' in the particular data set it is derived from). 

It is highly useful to discuss one's thoughts and learnings with other practitioners within the same organization and also outside the organization (without violating any confidentiality requirements) during the various phases of the initiative as it can give new perspectives especially on the context specific aspects of the theory and its applications. Yes, mentoring other practitioners also greatly enhances one's ability to apply theory to practice! I have also found it highly useful to periodically interact with academics who also do consulting work in the domains that I am working on. It is interesting to note that one of the foundational methods in organization development was 'action research' (research with the intent to facilitate action). In a way, all this points to the way of the 'scholar-practitioner' whose work is focused on the most important issues of context he/she is in while being grounded in theory and informed by research!

Having said all this, we must remember that 'applying theory to practice' is not about any sort of compulsion to apply (force-fit) theories to every situation (and definitely not a compulsion to apply one's pet theories). The idea is just to study the situation and critically assess if there are any theories that are applicable to this situation. If yes, we will go on to evaluate the relationships, explanations and predictions provided by the theories/models and use them to inform our decision-making. It is not an algorithmic process and we need to develop the meta-cognitive ability to choose wisely. While we must be careful not to let our attempt to apply theory to practice short-circuit our observation of the situation, we should also remember that 'all observation is theory-laden' (by the unstated theories/ideas in our mind). Hence, there is nothing like 'pure observation' and the best we can do is to be as aware as possible about the biases that can be created by of both the unstated theories in our mind and the stated theories that we are trying to apply. Even if it was somehow possible to remove all the previous knowledge and theories from our mind so that 'pure observation and response' can emerge, the response would be either child-like or childish and nothing in between!

So, these are the thought fragments I have at this point. Now, over to you for your comments/suggestions!