Of Espoused Competencies, Enacted Competencies and Janus-faced Leaders

"All models are wrong, but some are useful!"

We often talk about espoused values (professed/stated values of the organization), enacted values (the values the organization actually lives by) and the ‘cognitive dissonance’ that the employees/stakeholders experience because of the difference between the two (Please see ’Of espoused values and enacted values’ for more). A similar point can be made in the case of leadership competency frameworks also.

Most of the companies have leadership competency frameworks. They are supposed to outline the competencies that will make one successful as a leader in the organization (see 'Of competencies and carbohydrates' for more on competencies). They also serve as the basis for leadership development, leadership hiring, leadership succession and performance management for leaders. 

The above mentioned ‘cognitive dissonance’ occurs here also when one compares the ‘demonstrated/enacted competencies’ of the successful leaders in the organization (what is actually required to be successful as a leader in the organization) with the competencies mentioned in the leadership competency framework (the stated competencies) and find that there are significant differences between the two. 

In addition to causing confusion, this also implies that leadership hiring, leadership development, leadership succession, performance management for leaders etc. are being done based on wrong assumptions. This can adversely affect organization effectiveness, apart from wasting time and money and causing avoidable human suffering in organizations. Therefore, we need to look into this in a bit more detail.

Organizations meticulously craft leadership competency frameworks that delineate the behaviors considered vital for a leader’s success in the organization. These frameworks are replete with ideals such as integrity, communication, strategic thinking, and empathy. However, beyond these polished documents, lies an unspoken truth: leaders who are most 'successful' in the organization (as indicated by rewards and career growth) often exhibit traits that are sometimes contrary to these prescribed competencies. This situation can arise from problems in the approach used to arrive at the leadership competency model. For example, the leadership competency model might have been created based on a 'wish list' of competencies as opposed to developing it through on a structured competency mapping exercise based on the actual leadership behaviors and their degree of success in the organization. This can make the leadership competency framework more of a 'convenient collective delusion'.   

Now let's come to the leaders who are very successful in the organization, without demonstrating most the competencies outlined in the leadership competency model. One interesting category among these leaders are the 'Janus-faced leaders' – those who embody dichotomies in their leadership styles and are rewarded for it. These kinds of leaders are most commonly found in hierarchical organizations. Janus, the Roman god with two faces, one looking to the future and one to the past, provides a fitting metaphor for this kind of leadership. In modern terms, Janus-faced leaders adeptly navigate upward and downward relationships in dramatically different manners. They may present a facade of deference and subservience to their superiors while simultaneously displaying a demanding and exacting approach to their own teams (please see 'Followership behaviors of leaders' for more)

These leaders are often perceived as highly effective by their superiors because they create the impression that they are ‘squeezing out maximum performance from their team’ and because they shield upper management from unpleasant realities of organization life. They are also amazingly good in taking credit when something good happens and blaming their team (or restructuring their team) when something goes wrong. Of course, this comes at the cost of team morale and trust. However, if the Janus-faced leader is able to create the impression that the team is not competent and are being to deliver only because of the ‘tough love’ of the leader, this might not matter to the senior leadership.

Another unacknowledged 'competency' that often characterizes successful leaders is the ability to "suffer in silence". Leaders are expected to bear the weight of responsibility without complaint, to absorb the pressures of high-stakes decision-making, and to manage their own stress without it spilling over onto their teams or affecting their performance. This stoic disposition is seldom featured in leadership models, but it is an unspoken expectation and a reality for many at the top. This can lead to emotional labor and even to 'smiling depression' among the leaders. 

The irony here is not that these unspoken competencies exist, but rather that organizations continue to espouse frameworks that do not fully capture the reality of leadership success. There is a need for a more holistic and perhaps more candid conversation about what effective leadership really entails – including both the noble and the ignoble traits (the bright and the dark sides of leadership).

Having highlighted this, let’s look at a couple of counter arguments. It can be argued that that the competencies mentioned in the framework are aspirational/futuristic – competencies required to be successful as a leader in the future. This is sort of ‘what got you here won’t get you there’ kind of argument. The problem happens when the ‘future’ never arrives!  Another counter argument is that we shouldn’t reinforce negative aspects of successful leadership in the organization, by highlighting them (or 'institutionalizing them' by including them in the leadership competency framework). This definitely has merit. The problem is just that by pushing these negative aspects of successful leaders under the carpet, we reduce the chance that they will ever be addressed! Of course, this requires a deep and often tricky intervention to address (See 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for an approach that might be helpful in this context).

It is time for organizations to reflect on the complexity of leadership and recognize that the sanitized version presented in competency frameworks is often at odds with the less savory – yet effective – traits and behaviors that contribute to a leader’s success. Until we can openly discuss and integrate these aspects, we will continue to hire/ prepare leaders for an idealized world that is far removed from the one they actually inhabit.

 Any comments?

Of leadership development and articulating the unarticulated

It was Carl Jung who said, "Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate". Something similar holds true in the case of leaders and leadership development also. 

The tacit definitions of leadership in the minds of the leaders influence how they lead. This implies that one of the important ways to enhance the effectiveness of the leaders is to enable them to identify the tacit definition of leadership they have in their minds and the impact of that definition on their actions and effectiveness as a leader. This is an aspect that doesn't get adequate attention in leadership development initiatives and hence it significantly takes away from the potential impact of initiatives like leadership development programs and leadership coaching. 

It is also useful to help the leaders understand how the idea of leadership has evolved and the possibilities offered by the newer definitions of leadership. Over the last few decades, the definition of leadership has gravitated towards a 'meaning making oriented one', as the process whereby one motivates others to contribute to the achievement of collective goals by shaping beliefs, values, and understandings rather than by controlling the behaviors through rewards and punishment. 

Humans are meaning-seeking creatures and leaders are architects or even merchants of meaning. This also means that the leaders' ability to facilitate meaning-making for their followers is a pivotal contributor to leadership effectiveness. Hence, there is a need to help the leaders to 'articulate the unarticulated definitions of leadership' that they around in their heads and to update them if required.

This also has a direct impact on leadership development. It is a good idea to have a clear understanding of what exactly one is trying to develop through leadership development! If the leadership development is attempted without paying adequate attention to the underlying definition of leadership, it can easily miss the mark. Leadership development programs often focus on the shiny surface of leadership—the concepts, models and behaviors that look great on paper—but they rarely dig into the messy, sticky, psychological goo where those tacit definitions in the minds of the leaders live. As a result, we end up with leaders who 'talk the talk' about enabling meaningfulness but 'walk the walk' of someone who's just looking for the next opportunity to dangle a carrot or wield a stick. This will make 'meaning based leadership' some sort of a 'con game'! This can also push leadership development efforts further into the realm of 'corporate rain dances'.  

Let's take a closer look at these tacit definitions. Tacit definitions of leadership are the deeply ingrained beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions that individuals hold about what constitutes good leadership - 'on what good looks like'. These definitions are often shaped by personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, organization context and even collective delusions. They can significantly influence how leaders perceive their roles, interact with their teams, and make decisions. While tacit definitions of leadership can provide a valuable foundation for leaders, they can also act as blind spots, limiting their effectiveness in a changing world.  

However, surfacing, examining and modifying these tacit definitions can very difficult. This process involves reflecting on one's beliefs and assumptions, seeking feedback from others, and staying open to new ideas and perspectives. Leadership development programs can play a crucial role in helping the leaders to surface and examine their tacit definitions of leadership. 

So how exactly do we accomplish this? Leadership development needs to get more personal, delving into the shadowy recesses of leaders' minds. We need to coax out those ancient definitions, hold them up to the light, and ask, "Is this really the best we've got?" Facilitating deep self-reflection during leadership development programs and providing personalized support in terms of leadership coaching can be very helpful! Seeking feedback from the significant others at work (including the team members), who have a ringside seat to see the tacit definition of leadership playing out in terms of leadership behaviors, and, using that feedback as an input to coaching can also be very useful.

To be able to lead through meaning-making, leaders should be able to imbue goals with meanings. They should be able to provide the followers with a sense of coherence (feeling of comprehension or that actions/events fit into a pattern/make sense), purpose (feeling that the proposed actions are in line with the pursuit of larger goals that the employees consider to be valuable) and significance (the feeling that the employees and their action matter/make a difference). This requires leadership development programs to focus more on aspects like visionary leadership, leading through purpose, corporate storytelling, use of generative metaphors, social construction of reality, empathy, authentic leadership etc.  

In short, while the explicit definitions of leadership in the leadership research/leadership discourse have evolved into something that is meaning-oriented, many leaders are still unconsciously clinging to the 'carrots and sticks' of rewards and punishments to shape employee behavior at the workplace. It's time to bring those tacit definitions into the 21st century, dust them off, and maybe, replace them with something a little more enlightened. Yes, we also need to develop the enabling skills in the leaders to help them to reflect the new definitions of leadership in their behavior at the workplace. With enough work, we might create a workplace where leaders are as good at sculpting minds as they once were at doling out carrots and brandishing sticks.

Any comments?

Selling ice to Eskimos? - Leadership development in very successful organizations

How do we sell leadership development solutions to an organization that has been very successful without having invested in leadership development? Should we even try to do that? Wouldn’t tinkering with the leadership capability and/or style of such an organization risk ruining the 'alchemy of the magic' of the organization’s success? If an organization has been very successful, shouldn’t we be learning from it instead of trying to change it? 

These questions are very important both for external consultants and for internal learning partners. They can also be quite tricky to answer, though many answers are indeed possible. Let’s look at seven of them.

• “What got you here won’t get you there” kind of answers – They argue that the game is changing and hence you need a different set of leadership capabilities or at least a much higher level of the current set of leadership capabilities to achieve your vision or even to sustain the current position. 

• "Good to great" kind of answers  - This is more of a 'there is always room for improvement' kind of argument, while fully acknowledging the consistent record of success so far. While the customer is unlikely to disagree with this philosophically, it might not be compelling enough to prompt action on the part of the customer, especially when the customer is already 'great' (or quite close to it) in their own opinion.       

• “Success sweeps a lot of things under the carpet” kind of answers – Here the basic argument is that while the organization has been successful there are still a lot of things to fix in terms of the leadership capability and/or leadership style. For example, the leadership style might not be aligned to the espoused values or the target culture of the organization. Warning : If this is not  done very skillfully, it can degenerate into an unpleasant conversation with the customer very quickly (unless the customer has a very high levels of self-awareness and humility or has masochistic tendencies)!  

• “A few great men and women” kind of answers – They argue that the success of the organization has been because of a particular set of leaders and that the others in the organization can benefit from leadership development inputs.  If the person who buys the leadership development solution considers himself/herself to be part of the ‘a few great men and women group', it works even better!

• "We are just making you scalable" kind of answers - In this case, the argument becomes more like 'we are just helping you to decode your own success so that it becomes scalable'. This argument works best when the organization is growing rapidly. The advantage of this answer is that it avoids the concern related to tampering with what made the organization successful. 

• “Let good thoughts come to us from all sides” kind of answers – They argue that while the organization might not need the skill building aspect of leadership development, just listening to the latest ideas/thinking can be useful or at least entertaining. It can also give the satisfaction that “we have implemented all these ‘latest’ ideas a million years ago”!

• “Leadership development serves many purposes” kind of answers – Here the essential argument is that leadership development interventions serve many other useful purposes in addition to building leadership capabilities. Please see ‘The many lives of capability building programs’ for a comprehensive list of the ‘alternative uses.

Of course, many more such answers are possible. The all-important question is:  How will a particular organization respond to a particular answer/a particular line of argument? To a great extent, the response will depend on 'what the organization attributes its success to' and 'if the answer is in alignment with that attribution'.

So, where do all these leave us?

It is indeed possible that an organization has got many pieces of the leadership development puzzle right, even if they haven't formalized them as 'leadership development solutions'. For example, they might be using 'action learning projects', 'crucible roles' and 'on the job coaching' even when they are not using these terms. Therefore, a bit of 'Appreciative Inquiry' won't hurt. Afterall, humility is as relevant to the learning partners (internal/external) as it is to their clients!  We must also remember that leadership development is not mainly about 'leadership training programs' though they are the most visible part. I would even say that, in some instances, leadership training efforts are more like 'corporate rain dances'!

Logically speaking, the most important aspect here is the 'perceived net value' that the leadership development solution can add - in the short term and in the long term. This perception of value need not necessarily be purely rational (See 'Of reasons, rationalizations and collective delusions' for details). However, the point remains that 'what is valuable is defined by the customer'. Similarly, unless the customer acknowledges the 'need' or the 'opportunity' the discussion on the solutions (including leadership development solutions) can't really start. Of course, while highlighting the 'net value' that the leadership development solution can add, it is equally important to anticipate/address any stated or unstated concerns the customers might have about the leadership development solution or its implementation. 

Organizations, especially the successful organizations, have a tendency to think that they are unique and that they have figured out a unique way to be successful. Yes, it is possible that an organization has been successful because of, irrespective of or even in spite of the leadership capability it has. Also, attribution errors are quite common (for example, attributing success to internal factors and attributing failures to external factors). Yes, ‘time will tell’ – but it might be too late for the people who are trying to sell leadership development solutions to a particular organization! 

Chris Argyris in his seminal article ‘Teaching smart people how to learn’, argues that people who have been consistently successful tend to become very good at ‘single-loop learning’ and that they don’t develop the capability for ‘double-loop learning’ which becomes essential when the fundamental assumptions they have been using for problem solving/responding to the environment are no longer valid. I guess, it applies to organizations too! Therefore, 'facilitating double-loop learning' kind of approaches do have their place in this context also! In the case of internal consultants, 'acting as some sort of a 'court jester in the corporate context' can also be helpful in this endeavor (See 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for details)!

Can you think of any other answers to the question that we started this post with?

Any other comments/ideas?  

Of learning and legitimacy

Almost all the organizations say that they ‘value’ learning. Some of them even claim to be a ‘learning organization’.  The trouble starts when we look at the extent to which this ‘proclaimed importance’ of 'learning' gets reflected in the ‘actual way of working’ or the ’decisions made’ in the organization.

The answers to the following questions can throw some light on the importance (or lack of it) of learning in an organization:

• Is ‘learning’ supposed to be something that one should do only when one is ‘free’ (from the demands of other work activities)?
• Are the capability building programs conducted on regular working days or on holidays/ weekends?
• Do the senior leaders participate in capability building programs? Do they 'teach' in the capability building programs that their team members attend? Do they ensure that their team members don’t get pulled out of the capability building programs when some important work comes up? Do they demand/facilitate/track the transfer of learning/newly learned behaviors to the workplace? 
• Is learning considered to be mainly a 'cost' or an 'investment'? Do the learning budgets get cut at the 'slightest provocation'?
• Is ‘learning’ a ‘cherished presence’ in the organization or is it is just a ‘tolerated presence’?

Of course, the answers to these questions are not binary – they are indeed a matter of degree – with each organization finding their equilibrium point between the two polar opposites.

This choice of the equilibrium point does have implications. For example, it is one thing to make world class anytime learning (e-learning) solutions available to the employees. It is entirely a different matter to make it ‘culturally acceptable’ to do an anytime learning course during office hours. Hence, even when two organizations in the same industry make the same set of anytime learning solutions available to their employees, how the employees perceive them (and the utilization of those programs) can be very different. Similarly, if two organizations, with one working Monday to Friday and the other working Monday to Saturday, nominate their employees to a capability building program that takes place on a Saturday, the employees might perceive it quite differently.  

 I must say that I have had a very lucky start when it comes to this aspect. Before I made the ‘quantum jump’ to the management domain with my MBA, I had started my working life as an Aerospace Engineer/Scientist with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). VSSC had very big library with books/journals/magazines on a wide range of subjects and we (the employees of VSSC) were encouraged to spend as much time as possible in the library during office hours. Since this was my first job, I assumed that this is how all organizations (at least organizations in knowledge-intensive industries) work and I was promptly proved wrong once I started my career in management. Of course, this was not the only wrong assumption I had made while I made this transition (please see 'The why of a book: Life in Organizations - Paradoxes, Dilemmas and Possibilities'). However, my 'early career experience' did have an impact of my definition of 'what good looks like'.  

Now let’s come back to the title of this post. Does the organization consider 'learning' to be a legitimate 'business activity'? 'Business activities' can be defined as activities that a business engages in for the primary purpose of making a profit. Hence, the core issue here is whether learning is considered to be an activity that adds substantial net positive value to the business and hence worth investing in. If the answer is a clear ‘yes’, then prioritizing and investing in learning should happen naturally. If not, investment in learning is more of a 'necessary evil' or a requirement for the 'license to operate' or a 'nice to do (and not a must do) thing'. 

Of course, 'learning' is not just about ‘structured capability building programs’ or ‘anytime learning’. Learning indeed happens in many ways and as per the ‘legendary’ 70:20:10 model, about 70% of the learning happens ‘on the job’ and only about 10% of the learning takes place through ‘structured learning programs'.

I do agree that most of the learning happens through job experiences. It does become problematic when this finding is used as an excuse for 'cutting capability building budgets without establishing any concrete mechanism for facilitating the learning through job experiences'. Since 'job experiences' are outside the traditional domain/mandate of the Learning & Development (L&D) function, it is easy (and very convenient) for the organization to jump to the conclusion that 'the entire responsibility for ensuring that this type of learning happens lies with the employees and their managers. 

Unfortunately, this type of learning (learning through job experiences) often does not happen automatically. Just doing a relevant project/activity need not necessarily lead to learning the target capability. It requires multiple cycles of ‘deliberate practice' and 'reflection' (ideally with help from a coach) to derive and assimilate learning from the on-the-job experience. Therefore, there is a need to put in place mechanisms to structure, facilitate and track this type of learning (please see ‘Truths stretched too far’ for details).

 Another interesting aspect here is that capability building programs mean different things to different people and that the alternative (unstated) purposes of the capability building programs could be very different (and much more important) from the ‘textbook’ purpose of  capability building programs -  building the targeted capabilities (please see ‘The many lives of capability building programs’ for details). For example, if the capability building programs are mainly meant to be ‘fun' or 'pleasant distractions from unpleasant work realities', then conducting them on holidays makes a lot of sense!

Any comments/ideas?

Of leaders and 'smiling depression'

“The ability to suffer in silence is a key requirement for senior leaders, though you will not find it in any leadership competency framework”, said the Senior HR leader when he was in a reflective frame of mind. This was my sixth ‘encounter’ with this gentleman (See 'Passion for work and anasakti ‘, 'Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment ‘ ,‘To name or not to name, that is the question’ , ‘A Mathematical approach to HR’ and the ‘OD Quest’ for the outcomes of my previous interactions with him). Similar to what happened in the previous occasions, this comment prompted me to think deeply about the topic and the underlying assumptions.

It can be argued that leaders are at high risk for stress and depression. Leadership positions often come with very high expectations. Also, 'the buck stops with you' in a leadership position. Bringing in new leaders is often the preferred response for many organizations when they are in trouble.  It is possible that that problems at the organization strategy, structure or policies level get misdiagnosed as individual capability issues of leaders down the line. If that is the case, unless the new leaders have the empowerment to change/ influence those upstream factors/issues, they have no chance of being successful. Also, there is more at stake for the leaders. The higher you are, the harder will be the fall (and the harder it will be to get up and move on to another assignment).

 In a way, leadership is primarily about achieving the optimal balance between the various polarities in organizational life. One of those balancing acts is between ‘appearing to be confident and making a vulnerable connection’. Yes, leaders have to convey the confidence that they as a team/organization will be successful and that they are going in the right direction. However, leaders are also human and they, if they are honest with themselves, have their own share of doubts, fears, hopelessness, loneliness and sadness. However, many of the leaders try to live up to the ‘great man’ image and this makes any expression of negative feelings (to themselves or to others) a symbol of weakness or incompetence. This often leads to what is known as ‘smiling depression’ where leaders hide behind a smile to convince other people that they are happy and confident.

Leaders are often very successful in maintaining this façade as they are able to maintain a high level of functionality/effectiveness on the job despite their inner turmoil (this is the reason why smiling depression is also known  as ‘high-functioning depression’). It is not that they suffer less because they manage to smile. On the contrary, the strain of keeping up appearances can significantly add to their stress and suffering. Yes, it seems strange to think that someone can be very depressed, yet manage to hide that, even from their friends and family. Yes, this would also make seeking help (or others proactively reaching out to help) near impossible and could lead to perpetuation of a vicious cycle till some sort of breakdown happens. The 'high-functioning' aspect of smiling depression could also mean that the likelihood of suicide is much higher for those with smiling depression (as they have a higher level of ability to plan and execute the suicide as compared to those who are totally exhausted/ immobilized by depression). 

Yes, smiling depression does have physical manifestations like changes in eating habits and sleeping patterns. But these can easily be misattributed or even glorified as part of the way of the corporate warrior. It is very easy to believe what we want to believe. Let me give a personal example. My parents told me that they named me ‘Prasad’ as I was smiling almost always as a child -that too often without any reason they could understand (‘prasadam’ in my mother tongue Malayalam means expression of happiness on the face). This ‘smile on the face’ continued as a pattern in my life and I (conveniently) assumed that it was because I was happy almost all the time. It was during one of the ‘Human Process Labs’ that I suddenly realized that I use smile not only to express joy but also to hide discomfort. After that, when I catch myself smiling, I often ask myself the question “what am I happy about?” and this has helped me quite a bit to discover any possible discomforts that I am overlooking and to use smile as an expression of joy. Yes, this does mean that I smile a bit less than what I used to earlier; but, the loss of the smile can sometimes be a blessing!   

Now, let’s come back to the statement made by our Senior HR Leader. Yes, the responsibilities and expectations associated with leadership roles can put tremendous load on the incumbents and it can definitely take a personal toll, including high stress levels, anxiety, feelings of loneliness or even burnout. Yes, it is often an unstated expectation in many organizations that a leader ‘puts up a brave face’. Some organizations might even want their leaders to be viewed as a bit ‘super human’ (this could be one of the reasons why some organizations have separate lunch rooms and toilets for senior leaders – so that others won’t see them doing these very human activities). The problem is just that this way of functioning might not be helpful, either to the organizations or to the leaders, if it becomes a compulsion. 

Leaders should have the behavioral flexibility and the freedom to strike the appropriate balance between appearing to be confident and making a vulnerable connection. Authentic human interactions are a key requirement for both organization and personal effectiveness. This would also make it easier for the leaders suffering from silent depression to admit it to themselves and to reach out and ask for help – which is the necessary first step out of silent depression. Yes, if leaders invest in building a culture of open communication and relationships based on trust, it is likely to help them when they are going through stress and depression. Addressing smiling depression can also enable the leaders to respond better to/benefit more from leadership coaching and leadership development - as it helps the leaders to become 'unstuck' /'avoid the 'glued feet syndrome' where the positive pull generated by leadership development initiatives get negated to a large extent because the leaders are psychologically stuck or because of their inner turmoil is already taking up a very large part of their mental bandwidth. .

Any comments/ideas?

What 'success' looks like - Exploring the inner world of leaders in transition

One of my all-time favorite books is ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ by Robert M. Pirsig. This book begins with the lines “And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good, Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?". When it comes to the domain of Leadership and Organization Development, it is very important to have a clear understanding of ‘what good looks like’, because we are often dealing with the inner world of individuals and groups that tend to be quite ‘subjective’. This is especially true when it comes to leadership transitions.  

Leadership transitions, those involving new leaders moving into the organization in particular, are important and risky at the same time, from both the individual leaders’ and the organization’s points of view.

From the organization's point of view, leadership transitions are high-stake situations as the level of effectiveness of the new leader will have a significant impact on the team, the organization, and the other stakeholders. This becomes even more important when the new leader has been hired with the mandate to drive organizational transformation.

Similarly, from the individual leader's point of view, moving to a new organization might imply high risks, as a leader's effectiveness is often quite context-specific and as the leader is making the transition decision based on limited information. Also, how the leaders approach the job change process and how they look at the  degree of ‘success’ in their job changes can vary from leader to leader. 

I have had the opportunity to observe many such leadership transitions and their impact closely. Please see ‘When the new doesn’t outperform the old’ for some ‘unorthodox’ perspectives on this fascinating domain that also include suggestions for the leaders in transition like

• considering a bit of 'exorcism’,
• validating 'what good looks like.
• being politically aware without 'playing politics', and 
• ‘alignment, alignment, alignment’.

Now, let us come back to the inner world of leaders in transition - their ‘lived experience’ of job transitions and their tacit definitions of success (i.e., the factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes made by leaders, as perceived by the leaders themselves). In a way, success in transitions is a construct that exists in the minds of the individual leaders in transition, and it has no clear boundaries.

It is possible that the above factors that affect the perceived degree of success are different for internal job changes and external job changes. Similarly, these factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes might vary based on the nature of job change (e.g., that for lateral moves as compared to moves involving a level change, moves within the job function as compared to cross-functional moves, moves involving relocation as compared that moves that don’t involve relocation etc.).  

It is also possible that these tacit definitions of success change as the leaders spend more time in their jobs. For example, it is possible that when accepting a new job, the tacit definition of success is more in terms of 'objective' factors (e.g., salary and job description). Then transition-related factors (e.g., how smooth was the transition process), fit related factors (e.g., person-organization/person-team fit, person-job fit, and the fit between assumptions made by the leader while making the job change decision and the experienced reality), and progression related factors (e.g., capability and career development) get added on.

Again, there could be variations in the factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes based on personality related factors. gender, age, job function, job level, type of organization, national culture etc.

I guess, what makes this domain fascinating to explore is the interplay of individual and context related factors apart from the very fact that we are we are exploring the inner world of leaders in transition. The inner worlds tend to follow ‘their own rules’ and sometimes they might even refuse to follow any rules!

Having said this, I must also add that there is a strong 'business case' for exploring the inner worlds of leaders in transition and their tacit definitions of success.

Such an exploration can help the leaders to be more intentional about job changes and to make better-informed decisions and actions that can enhance their perceived level of success in job changes. Also, it can help the organizations to make better selection decisions by probing the tacit definitions of success the candidates for leadership positions have and comparing them with what the organization offers. Again, it can inform interventions like executive coaching, leadership induction, new leader assimilation, and leadership development. 

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 8 - ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations!

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here we are exploring concepts that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management (See ‘The attrition principle’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’ and 'Herophobia' for the previous posts in this series).

Based on my experience as an employee and as a management consultant, I have noticed an interesting pattern. Some organizations are optimized for newly hired employees (‘Type N’ organizations) whereas some organizations are optimized for tenured/'old' employees(‘Type O’ organizations). Of course, there are organizations that are equally good (or equally bad!) for all the employees! However, ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations are quite common!

One easy way to determine the type of the organization is to see how employee engagement scores vary with tenure. Yes, the dividing line between ‘new’ and ‘old’ varies across organizations  I have seen organizations where you become an ‘old employee’ as soon as you complete one year and I have seen organizations where you will be considered to be a ‘new employee’ till you complete about five years. While the median tenure of employees in the organization has some impact on this ‘new-old dividing line’, it is usually a matter of organization psychology and is not directly derived statistically!

In ‘Type N’ organizations, 'not being burdened by the past' is a great advantage. So, the new hires, especially new leaders, have the advantage. These tend to be organizations that believe that new employees are hired to solve particular problems or to seize particular opportunities that the existing employees have failed to do. In these organizations, ‘tenure’ seems to have psychological association with ‘inability to drive change’. They might even consider many of the existing employees to be part of the problem! Hence, new hire has an advantage, so long as he/she is considered ‘new’. The difficulty is that the ‘new’ employee can move to the ‘old’ category quite quickly (and even get fired fairly quickly). If this happens mainly because of an underlying/unstated assumption that ‘new is good’, this ‘new-old-out-new’ cycle can repeat!  

'Type O' organizations tend to believe that one needs to understand the organization context deeply before one can really contribute, especially at senior levels. So, tenure is valued. These also tend to be organizations where it takes quite a bit of time for a newcomer to figure out how the organization really works. In these organizations, often the effective style of influencing tends to be ‘indirect’ (almost like billiards- you hit something so that it goes and hits the target as compared to hitting the target directly)! This doesn’t mean that ‘Type O’ organizations don’t value performance. It is more matter of a newcomer taking time to figure out how to perform better. Things get progressively easier as you spend more time in the organization. In a way, it is like batting on a difficult wicket. It takes time to ‘get your eye in’ but things become much easier after that. It becomes so wasteful to 'throw your wicket away' (leave the organization) after having done all the hard work to 'get your eye in'.  

Now, let’s look at an interesting question :  “Can the organization type change?” The answer is ‘Yes’. This happens mostly when there is a leadership change at the CEO level and sometimes at CXO level. A new leader, hired with a transformation agenda, can view most of the tenured employees as ‘part of the problem to be solved’ and hence might replace them with external hires. If a critical mass of ‘new people’ are brought in (and ‘old people are vilified), the organization can move from Type O to Type N. Now, two scenarios can happen. The first one is that newly hired people and the CEO/CXO stays on for a long time and the organization starts drifting towards Type O. The second scenario is that the new CEO/CXO keeps on replacing may of the people (including many of the newly hired people) as soon as they become ‘old’ (e.g. after 1-2 years) and hence the organization continues to be Type N.

In 'Type O' organizations, the leadership (especially at CEO/CXO levels) tend to remain remarkably stable  and that increases the probability that the organization continues to be 'Type O'. It is when a 'Type O' organization under-performs for a long time that a 'Type N' CEO is brought in, and the possible shift to being a 'Type N' begins. If the new 'Type N' CEO doesn’t have sufficient powers, he/she can easily get lost in the system or the system might even reject him/her. This ‘reaction’ of the system can be one of the reasons why the new CEO might be tempted to make a lot of people changes. Of course, there are indeed wise 'Type N' CEOs who are very selective and fact-based about the people changes!

So what does this mean? It definitely makes sense to figure out if you are joining a 'Type N' or 'Type O' organization. It is part of the psychological alignment required on what good looks like! Obviously, it makes sense to join a Type O organizations only if you are willing to sweat it out for a long period – significantly beyond the 'new-old dividing line' in the organization. Since they are optimized for new people, it is easier to join type N and to come up to speed faster. But the danger is that of the transition from ‘new’ to ‘old’. So, one must join for the right reasons (beyond the organization being 'Type N'). Remaining a bit of an outsider can definitely help,  especially in driving change.  Of course, being a bit of an outsider while being a full member of the organisation is a delicate balancing act!

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 5 – Training the victim

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here we are exploring concepts that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management (See ‘The attrition principle’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements'  and 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment' for the previous posts in this series).

Training the victim' is one of the most common 'crimes' committed in the domain of HR/Learning and Development. Often, this 'crime' follows a standard plot. There is a steady deterioration in the performance of a unit. Customers are unhappy. There is a lot of firefighting happening. The unit head is shouting at the senior employees. But nothing seems to be working. The unit head feels that since the situation hasn't improved despite all his efforts, the employees must be incompetent and/or don't have the right attitude (e.g. 'solutions mindset'). So he calls the HR Business Partner demands that the employees should be trained urgently. This leads to things like attitude training, skill-based training and training the managers in the unit on people management (under fancy names like 'engaging and energizing teams'). The employees dutifully attend the training programs, though they feel that they are being blamed (or even 'punished') for no fault of theirs. Even after the training programs have been rolled out, there is no significant improvement in the performance of the unit. 

These kind of situations occur mainly because of wrong diagnosis/wrong need identification. The main problem in these contexts might not necessarily be related to the capability level of the individual employees at all. The problem could mainly be at the strategy, structure, policy, business process or leadership level. However, it is relatively difficult/inconvenient for the organization/unit head to address the issues/make changes at these levels. So there is a temptation to jump to the conclusion that it is an employee capability issue and to attempt a training solution. Since the real issue remains unaddressed (despite the 'training solution'), there can't much improvement in the situation. 

I am not saying that there won't be issues at the individual capability level. Of course, this possibility should also be explored and if there is evidence for the existence of such a need, an appropriate learning solution could be attempted. My point is just that a proper diagnosis needs to be carried out before a solution is attempted (instead of jumping into the most convenient solution) and that when it comes to taking the responsibility for the deterioration in the performance of the unit in such situations, sometimes, the individual employees are 'more sinned against than sinned'.

Often, the way the HR function is structured in the organization increases the possibility of a wrong diagnosis. This happens mostly in those organizations where the Learning function separate from the Organization Development and HR Business Partner functions. In these contexts, when a business leader directly contacts the Learning specialist supporting the unit with a 'capability problem' (or even with the request for a particular training program), it is highly possible that the Learning specialist just carries out the request without spending much effort to check if the problem has been diagnosed correctly and if a training solution is appropriate. Sometimes, this happens because the Learning specialist does not have sufficient understanding of the entire business/people context in the unit or because the training specialist does not have the requisite diagnostic/consulting skills. In these cases, 'training need identification' becomes no more than 'order taking'. Also, if the training specialist is measured mainly on the number of training programs/number of person-days of training, then there might not be much incentive for the training specialist to 'refuse an order' or even to 'question an order'!

Hence, a close partnership between the Learning function and the Organization Development/HR Business Partner functions will help in making the diagnosis/need identification more accurate by bringing in the requisite diagnosis/consulting skills, enhanced understanding of the context and greater credibility/influence with the business leaders (see OD Managers as Court Jesters). This would also make the 'solution' more appropriate and enhance the effectiveness of implementation by being able to manage the change better. Of course, defining the mandate for the Learning function in a more holistic manner and using the correct performance parameters to assess/reward Learning specialists would also be required.

Any comments/ideas?

Note: It is interesting to note that from a psychological point of view, 'training the victim' can be considered to be a variation (or a mild version) of the broader theme of 'blaming the victim'. This involves holding the victims responsible (at least in part) for what happened to them when something bad happens. This enables others (e.g. the unit head in this case) to absolve themselves of any blame/responsibility and also to reduce cognitive dissonance which would have resulted if they had to admit that the 'system' (strategy/structure/policy/process, in this case) that they were responsible in creating/managing might be at fault. This, in turn, helps them to avoid the need for taking the more difficult/painful remedial steps that are required to address the real issue/cause of the problem. 

Sometimes, this can also lead to tragic-comic situations. A few years ago, I heard about a situation where there was a proposal to conduct 'followership training' for the entire staff in a unit. Apparently, the unit head was a very poor leader and he was making the life of his staff miserable, leading to problems in employee engagement and retention (that, in turn, were creating issues for the HR team). Since it was felt that the unit head won't be open to any sort of feedback and/or training, it was being suggested that the staff in the unit be trained in followership (as the leader won't be/can't be trained on leadership)! This might qualify as a classic case of 'trying to solve the wrong problem' !

When the new doesn't outperform the old...

"Our approach has been to bring in new leaders who can take the company to the next level of excellence", said the Business Leader. "Are we sure that those new leaders have performed better than the existing leaders?", asked the Organization Development (OD) Manager*.

Infusing new talent across levels, especially at leadership levels, has been a favorite response of many organizations, when faced with performance or organization effectiveness challenges. There is definitely some merit to this. If the existing leaders have failed to meet the organization goals, they might be part of the problem. Sometimes, the existing leaders don't have the requisite skills or experience to drive business transformation, especially when the business is moving into new domains.

It is also true that a business leader can't micro-manage a large organization and hence has to depend on the leaders down the line. Again, there is no point in hiring highly capable leaders and giving them micro-instructions on what exactly they should do. However, as we have seen in 'Paradox of hiring good people and letting them decide', this strategy is not as simple to implement as it appears to be!

Yes, it is highly tempting to just 'throw new people at problems or opportunities'. Replacing existing leaders with new leaders sends strong messages both inside and outside the organization. It can create the perception that the organization is taking 'decisive action' and that the future is likely to be much better than the present.

So what is the problem with this approach? To begin with, it often happens that problems at the organization strategy, structure or policies level get misdiagnosed as individual capability issues of leaders down the line. If that is the case, unless the new leaders have the empowerment to change/influence those upstream issues (at organization strategy/structure/policy levels), they have no chance of being successful. If the failure of new leaders also gets (conveniently)  diagnosed as 'hiring mistake', this cycle of 'hiring - firing - hiring' new leaders would go on! Of course, if the new leaders also follow the same philosophy and bring in new people to their teams, this can snowball into large number of people changes with the associated disruption/ripple effects (and an absolute bonanza for recruitment consultants). All this can create an illusion of progress.

The organizations that have a propensity to make leadership changes at the slightest provocation might also be prone to a 'swim-or-sink' attitude ('now that you have been hired as a leader, it is up to you to make it work') once the new leaders join the organization -with not enough emphasis given to new leader assimilation and to putting in place the supporting structures for new leaders (e.g. time investment by senior leaders and mentors). This can get further complicated if the new leader doesn't get the required resources he/she needs. Of course, leaders are expected to 'do more with less'. But 'creating something out of nothing' is more like magic and not management. Similarly, the degree of stretch in the role might not be realistic. It is important to differentiate between 'stretch roles and designed to fail roles'! 

Now, it would be unfair to say that all the failures in leadership transitions are the fault of the organizations. There are many things the newly hired leaders can do to make an effective transition.  Let's look at just four of them and also explore what can be done jointly by the newly hired leader and the organization to maximize the possibility of  a successful transition.

Validate 'what good looks like': Individual leaders have personalities, values and work preferences. Organizations have their own preferred ways of doing things, behavioral norms and underlying assumptions ('culture'). A large degree of alignment between the leader's and the organization's underlying definitions of 'what good looks like' would make life easier for both the parties and enhance the chances of a successful leadership transition (See 'On what good looks like' for more details). There are two specific actions that can help here. The first is ensuring a more in-depth and open discussion on the 'culture-fit' kind of dimensions during the hiring process. The second is (when a hiring decision has been made based on a large degree of fit; after all there no 'perfect-fit') providing detailed feedback and coaching to the newly hired leader on those aspects/behaviors where there is insufficient fit. Not leveraging the wealth of data  generated during the selection process  for feedback and development/coaching is a costly miss that many organizations make.

Consider a bit of 'exorcism' :When a leader works in an organization for a while, patterns of interaction develop around that leader. When that leader leaves the organization, a vacuum gets created and the patterns that were centered around that leader (or the 'ghost of that leader'; as Robert Pirsig says, ghosts are essentially such patterns) looks for someone to attach itself to and the new leader becomes the prime target. So if the new leader is not careful, he/she gets sucked into those patterns and becomes part of the previous way of functioning before he/she realizes it. Now, especially if the leader has been hired with a mandate to drive change, this can seriously impair his/her ability to drive that change. Of course, all old patterns are not problematic and some of them might be even helpful. Continuing those helpful patterns can help the leader to provide the team some sense of continuity (and the assurance that the new leader doesn't disrespect the past), which is a big plus from the change management perspective. So, all that is required is to recognize the patterns and discontinue ('exorcise the ghost of') the dysfunctional patterns.

Being politically aware without 'playing politics' : Driving change (which is often the reason why new leaders are brought in) is essentially a 'political' activity as it alters the current distribution of power. Even the very act of introducing a new leader into an organization, can change the power balance! Many leadership transitions fail because the new leaders could not recognize or manage the power dynamics. So, as we have seen in 'A political paradox of OD' , the requirement is to be sensitive to the political dynamics of the organization and to manage it without  'playing politics'. Yes, this is a tightrope walk (and sounds a bit mystical like 'doing without doing') that requires a very high level of self-awareness and critical self-monitoring. In a way, this is part of being 'enlightened' . Remember,  enlightenment is about 'seeing things as they really are' (in the organization). Even for leaders who have been hired with a transformation mandate, 'it makes sense to understand something before trying to change it'! 

Alignment, alignment, alignment : Soon after I joined one of my previous organizations (which had gone through multiple organization transformations) I asked a senior colleague what are the top three things that can make someone successful in that organization. His response was "alignment, alignment, alignment". I have seen this factor being relevant in other organizations also - especially for newly hired leaders. Having alignment with one's boss can be the starting point. My favorite question to ensure alignment on this is : "What would make you recommend the highest performance rating for me?". Enabling alignment with one's team through jointly developing the vision and way forward for the team is very powerful. Consulting widely with key stakeholders before one finalizes the vision and way forward is also very helpful (to deepen one's understanding of the organization, to clarify mutual expectations, to secure buy-in and to start building one's network). For a new leader it is very easy to make wrong (inappropriate)  assumptions based on his/her experience in other organizations. So, these alignment conversations are most helpful. The principle of  'survival of the fittest' (that governs  biological evolution) is applicable to the  'survival of newly hired leaders' also and we must remember that 'fittest' is defined in terms of 'being the best-adapted to the local environment'. Alignment is indeed a very powerful 'fitness' (fitness to the new organization) increasing activity!

So, where does this leave us? Bringing in new leaders is not some sort of a panacea for all the organizations' ills. Before bringing in new leaders, organizations should do some soul-searching on what exactly are the problems they are trying to solve and whether bringing in leaders from outside is the best option. The new leaders should bring in some capabilities or experiences that the organization doesn't have internally (and can't develop in the existing leaders within a reasonable time frame). 'Not being burdened by the past' shouldn't be the primary value that a new leader brings in. Else, the new leader would become part of the 'old' in a very short time (and becomes a candidate for replacing). Organizations should invest more in making the new leader successful. Apart from putting specific programs in place (like new leader integration, mentoring, coaching by senior leaders etc.), organizations should emphasize that the senior leaders who have hired the new leaders are accountable for making the new leaders successful.

Of course, the above discussion is applicable to all new hires and not just to new hires at senior leadership levels. It is just that possible negative impact of a failed or 'troubled' leadership transition (on the team and on the organization)  is much higher.  As we have seen in 'Polarities of leadership' , leadership involves finding the right equilibrium between polarities, that too along multiple dimensions. Newly hired leaders need more help to find the appropriate equilibrium for the new organization context. The encouraging thing is that the upside of a successful leadership transition is also very high and hence worth the additional investment!

Any thoughts/ideas?

*Note: Please see 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for another interaction between the Business Leader and the OD Manager. Kindly note that both the 'Business Leader' and the 'OD Manager'  are 'composite characters' and hence they are not 'constrained by' organization boundaries!

Polarities of leadership

To me, leadership is primarily about achieving the optimal balance between the various polarities in organizational life.

You are a leader if you can find the right balance between polarities like

1. Being confident & making a vulnerable connection
2. Providing hope & being realistic
3. Driving change & maintaining stability
4. Shaping the organization culture (and the definition of 'good' in the organization) & adjusting to the organization culture
5. Taking too much risk & taking too little risk
6. Focusing on the long term & responding to immediate challenges
7. Taking charge & letting others take charge
8. Maintaining a broad perspective & developing micro-awareness
9. Being consistent & being  flexible
10. Organization building & creative destruction
11. Acting based on who you are as an organization & acting based on what the environment demands
12. Holding on & moving on

The ‘right balance’ is highly context specific. It is also a dynamic balance/equilibrium as opposed to a static one(In a state of static equilibrium there is balance, but no change or movement - that exists in the case of dynamic equilibrium.  For example, a chair has static equilibrium while a bicycle in motion has dynamic equilibrium). Again, the equilibrium point is an evolving one - based on the evolution of the leader, followers and the organization.

All in all, it is quite a moving target & that is why it is so difficult to ‘train in’ leadership. While useful inputs/helpful experiences/coaching can be provided, leadership capability emerges in a non-linear fashion in the being of a person based on years of struggle with the polarities mentioned above! Of course, all the organizational issues are not ‘polarities’ and  one of the necessary conditions for leadership to emerge is the ability to differentiate between ‘a polarity to be managed’ & ‘a problem to be solved’!!

So, what do you think? If the 'work of leadership' is conceptualized mainly as 'achieving dynamic balance between polarities in organizational life', what does it mean for (a) leaders, (b) for team members (c) for organizations & (d) leadership development?

Note:  Since we have defined the work of leadership in terms of  'achieving optimal balance between polarities in organizational life', it would be interesting look at this 'optimal balance' in more detail. It is not about 'compromise' between the two poles (like a consistent score of 3 in a 1 to 5 scale-with 1 representing one pole and 5 representing the other). It is more about being a '1', '2', '3', '4' or '5'  based on the situation. Strangely, it also involves  transcending the scale by (as Pirsig says) catching the bull (polarity) by both its horns (poles) & even singing the bull to sleep. It is not about being 'timid' and avoiding strong decisions/behavior. It is about the ability to display a wide spectrum of responses and the courage to choose the appropriate response based on the situation. The courage also involves the willingness to explain why a particular choice was made in a particular situation - so that the behavioral flexibility won't become confusing to the team (i.e. variation in responses has to be accompanied by consistency at the level of underlying principles of choosing particular responses in a particular situations & these principles have to be communicated to the team - otherwise this flexibility will come across as inconsistency). Yes, this also involves taking feedback/admitting one's mistakes and revising one's mental map when required. Deep understanding & trust about the leader (i.e. understanding 'who he is' in terms of the principles governing his actions) - developed over a period of time - will obviate the need to explain everything every time! It is said that 'sometimes, who you are speaks so loudly that people can't hear what you are saying'!

Developing this kind  of behavioral range, that too across the many polarities in organizational life, takes a lot of development (psychological/spiritual growth) on the part of the leader. Please note that displaying a wide range of behaviors can put a lot of pressure on the leader's psyche as it involves  'holding multiple sets of diametrically opposite ideas in the mind at the same time' and constantly adjusting the balance/(as it is about dynamic balance as opposed to static balance). Yes, this development/growth (like all psychological growth) can be taxing as it demands regularly stretching one's boundaries. No -this does not mean that there is no room for the natural self/style of the leader, as it is about expanding the self as opposed to developing towards some (standard) 'ideal self'. Yes - it usually takes significant amount of time. But, we need to keep in mind that this development is a matter of degree & that different people learn at different speeds. So, investing in increasing one' ability to 'derive learning/growth from experience' becomes critical - especially for young leaders!!

Of Leadership training and Corporate Rain dance

A couple of weeks ago, I came across a report which said that in the current difficult economic scenario, Indian companies are investing more in leadership training programs for their senior managers. The ‘espoused interpretation’ for this was that it will help the senior managers to be better leaders, enabling them to respond more effectively to the challenging scenario. While this was certainly a possibility, it did make me wonder if there are other interpretations possible. That is where rain dance comes in.

Let us begin by taking a closer look at the terms.

Rain dance is a ritual that is intended to invoke rain. The rain dance was common among tribes who lived in regions that received very little rain. Since the little rain they did receive was essential for their survival, they felt compelled to something to invoke rain (to influence their destiny). The result was rain dances. Over a period of time, intricate rain dance rituals were developed (that were supposed to do a better job when it comes to rainmaking). While there is no empirical evidence that rain dances caused rain, they did serve other useful purposes like giving them hope, enabling them to feel that they have some degree of control over their destiny/environment, deepening relationships among the members of the tribe etc.  

Leadership training involves all the training programs (Instructor-Led-Training programs) that employees are sent to with the purpose of making them ‘better leaders’ (whatever that might mean). These can be internal or external training programs (often designed/delivered by consultants/business schools). They are usually conducted off site (away from the pressures and distractions of regular work) and are often very expensive.

Corporate rain dance would mean rituals (events/ceremonies/programs) in corporate life that are designed to achieve an essential business objective (better business results/business survival in difficult times etc.) without sufficient empirical evidence that the ritual actually leads to the intended outcome. Going back to the report on the increased investment in leadership development programs, it made me wonder if they (at least to some extent) constitute some sort of corporate rain dance. Of course, there are other examples of corporate rain dance, including many types of ‘strategic business planning meetings’!

I have nothing against rituals in corporate life. Businesses are run by human beings and rituals have always played an important role in human societies. Please see ‘Accelerated learning and Rites of passage’ for an example of how to leverage the power of rituals in business organizations. It is just that we should be aware of what they can and cannot do when we are investing in them.

Leadership training is a Multi-Billion-Dollar industry. There is also a huge amount of literature on ‘leadership’. I have no intention to get into a detailed discussion on ‘leadership’ here. (Please see ‘Of leaders and battle-scars’, ‘The leadership sandwich’ & ‘Reasons, Rationalizations Collective Delusions’ for some of my thoughts). For the purpose of this post, I will just raise the top five questions that have been bothering me("The best fool can ask more than the wisest man can tell" J).

1. If ‘learning’ is defined as ‘sustained change in behavior’ how much empirical evidence exists that ‘learning’ results from leadership training programs?
2. There are many people in top management positions who speak eloquently about the great leadership training programs their companies have. However, I have rarely heard anyone of them talking about a particular leadership training program they have attended that made them (or played a big part in making them) who they are now.
3.  If ‘leadership development’ goes much beyond ‘leadership training’ (and if leadership is supposed to be learned ‘on the job’ supported by coaching) then why is most of the money/effort is concentrated on ‘offsite’ leadership training? 
4. To what extent are the designs of leadership training programs based on a deep understanding of the concept of leadership? If the design is based on a particular leadership model/theory, has enough effort been made to check the empirical validity of the theory/model?
5. If the underlying model of leadership goes beyond the traits and leadership style of the leader, to focus on the relationship between the leader and the followers, then why emphasis is only on training the leaders? Can any form of leadership (including thought leadership) exist without followers? 

Now, let us look at another type of ‘corporate rain dance’ that happens frequently in the domain of leadership development : redesigning leadership competency frameworks & then redesigning all the leadership training programs based  on the new competency framework. Here also the underlying belief (that leads to the rain dance) is that by changing the leadership competency framework we can build better leaders and thereby improve business performance. Sometimes, this can also be a case of 'Training the Victim'. A few years ago, I heard (from reliable sources) about a global company, that changed its leadership competency framework because the new CEO said something like ‘Leaders should Lead’ in a meeting with the HR Leadership team. In response to that statement from the CEO, the HR Head ordered redesign of the leadership competency framework & all the leadership training programs based on the same, spending Millions of Dollars. It also ensured that HR people at the global corporate office (who were under the threat of losing their jobs) kept their jobs and (as the company was a global giant) it contributed to the GDP of many countries in terms of spend on downstream work like ‘Train the Trainer programs’, reprinting of program material & of course putting the leaders through the newly developed training programs.

I am not saying that one should not redesign leadership competency frameworks. It is very easy to find fault with any leadership competency framework and hence no one can argue against the need to redesign the same. The trouble is just that the new framework might also have an equal number of (but possibly different) problems. Hence, unless there is a very clear difference between the new and the old leadership competency framework (that too very clearly aligned to a key strategic priority), the Return On Investment is unlikely to be positive. I also think that ‘competency frameworks are only an intermediate stage’ and that one needs to go beyond them..

Now, let us come back to leadership training programs. What exactly am I trying to say?

One does pick up useful insights, ideas and concepts from these programs. They provide a welcome break from the unpleasant realities of work. They can also act as some kind of signalling mechanism - to communicate (to the participants & to the significant others around them) that some people have been identified as leaders.

Like rain dance, they provide an opportunity connect more deeply with colleagues, provide new hope to the participants & provide satisfaction to the business head that something is being done to improve the business situation. The participants might also see them as recognition/reward– especially if the program is offered only to a select few/if the program is considered to be a prestigious one/if the program is an expensive one (remember, it is tax efficient also - for both the employer and the employee!) . The program might even have some placebo effect on leadership behaviors!J 

Going back to another beneficial dimension of rituals, leadership training programs can also act as 'rites of passage'/'initiation rites' to leadership-  especially if they (like initiation rites in tribal societies) involve doing 'dangerous things'; this danger can be either psychological (like doing something silly in front of a group) or physical (like what happens in some of the outbound training programs) - as they help in transitioning to a new self!! Hence, just as rain dance served a useful purpose in tribal societies for many centuries, leadership training programs can also serve a useful purpose in business organizations – even if that purpose is not the same as the espoused purpose!

If, the rain dance (leadership training program) is not leading to rain (developing better leaders), the organization should seriously consider whether to invest more in 'making the dance better' (e.g. by adding more modules to the leadership training program) or to explore other ways for rainmaking. Improving the dance can add to its value as a ritual up to a point (but not beyond that). Of course, it is possible that some of the other popular ways of rainmaking (e.g. 360 degree feedback) might also turn out to be 'rain dances'! But some of them (e.g. putting people through roles designed to provide a higher learning potential & helping them to derive meaning from their experience in those roles through coaching) might actually work!!!   

Any comments/ideas?