The leadership vacuum
John Nesheim, 3M’s former Director of Human Resources for the Asia Pacific Area was once asked what the number one HR problem was in Hong Kong. Without hesitation he answered: leadership. Nesheim suggested that there is a leadership vacuum in much of the Asian region today and that vacuum is responsible for many of the other HR problems that are occurring. He asserted that if HR can master the creation and propagation of good leadership, then other issues such as recruitment, retention, staff-turnover, talent management and skills shortages take care of themselves. Developing or obtaining good leaders is the single most important factor in HR.
While that might make very good sense, how to obtain and develop good leaders is the great challenge. Karen Zong, Microsoft’s Director of People and Organisation Capability for the Greater China Region, noted that it is possible to buy, borrow or build leaders in an organisation. Buying current or potential leaders from other organisations is rarely a long-term solution because there is no guarantee that they will ‘fit’ with the organisation or have a long-term commitment to the company. Borrowing established leaders from other sectors of the same organisation can be a good option for larger companies and multinationals. With tremendous shortages of leaders in areas of mainland China, for example, borrowing leaders who have demonstrated their skills working for your company in other regions can be a good stop-gap. However, the long-term goal of most companies is to build leaders from within their organisation—that means development programmes.
Assessing development
Hernez-Broome and Hughes argue that one of the great trends of the last twenty years in terms of leadership development is the proliferation of different leadership development programmes. Unfortunately, there has not been a concurrent boom in the assessment of the success of those methods. Most companies recognise the need to have leadership development programmes and have made movements towards implementing such programmes. However, few companies do any level of assessment after the programme has begun to determine the efficacy of the programme. Many companies are happy to assume that since the latest HR study supports a particular programme it is likely to work in their company too. Little assessment is done post hoc to see whether the research findings have materialised in their organisation.
Perhaps the major problem is that few programmes begin with clearly stated conceptualised and operationalised definitions of what would be considered success for the programme. Is the goal of the programme to develop leadership skills, to reduce turnover, to increase employee engagement, to boost morale, to improve succession management, to increase productivity? The answer to that question is not right or wrong and will be different for each organisation, but the answer is important because the goal of the programme dictates what will be considered a successful programme.
For example, there are a number of tests of leadership skills available. Using one of those tests to measure whether the leadership skills of participants have improved after or part way through a leadership programme might seem to be a sensible measure of programme success. However, what if your primary aim in conducting the programme was to reduce turnover among high-potential staff? An improvement in leadership skills would be nice but it would not be a successful programme if turnover remains high amongst your high-potentials. Be honest with yourself about why you are conducting a programme. For example, if the programme is more about keeping staff happy than actually boosting skills, so be it—if honest, many employers would admit that the perception of commitment to staff development is sometimes as important as the staff development itself. But if employee contentment is your goal, make that your measure of success. That way, you have assessed whether your real goal has been achieved.
Another major trend that has taken place in leadership development has been a gradual movement away from formal training towards
on-the-job training. At first, that movement was from classroom style training to mentoring but now on the job training is favoured as the primary location for training to take place. Formal training sessions and mentoring have increasingly become supporting methods to on the job training rather than the primary sources of leadership skill development.
Of course the great challenge with on the job training is to constantly develop and allocate on the job tasks that provide interesting and challenging development opportunities that fit into an overall structure of leadership development. The challenge of measuring the success of these programmes is that measurement is likely to be more complex than when assessing a classroom based learning programme.
Assessing leadership development:
how to do it
Programme assessment is an enormous area and if you have a genuine interest in the topic it may be worthwhile to grab one of the plethora of books available on the topic. However, even those who are terrified by statistics or matrices can gain greater insight into the success of a leadership programme or can be more likely to design a successful programme by following a few simple steps:
1. Identify the objective(s) of your programme
These goals will often begin as something general such as those described above. It is good to begin with general goals, such as developing entry-level staff into potential future leaders. However, general goals can be ambiguous and difficult to assess. In addition to your overall objective, it is crucial that your terms are defined. For example, what is meant by ‘potential future leaders’. You then need to conceptualise and operationalise your terms such that they are observable and measurable. For example, a goal might be that within five years, you would like more than 50% of your management positions to be filled by candidates that started in entry-level positions. That goal relates to your initial goal, but it is now more specific and more easily assessable.
2. Develop your research design
This involves determining the theoretical framework —what research currently exists that can guide your programme objectives or design. Is there a theoretical model that can be applied to the situation in your work place? The second step here is to determine your methodological approach. For example, do you want statistical data to support your findings? This is typically required in many workplaces. If you do, then you need to aim for quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. However, in some situations such as exit interviews where the goal is to understand the personal decisions and feelings of employees, it may be better to employ quantitative methods. The choice will depend on what you are hoping to measure and how you wish to report the findings
3. Collecting and presenting data
The best way to collect and present data will really be determined by your approach to 1 and 2 above. Quantitative data collection will typically involve psychometric testing, surveys, structured interviews or analysis of secondary sources of data (such as HR data). Quantitative methods will usually involve semi-structured or unstructured interviews. The presentation of data should be reader friendly and accurate. Remember, it is rarely sufficient to simply present means or other raw data. Consider utilising a programme such as SPSS for more detailed inferential statistics.
4. Drawing conclusions
Perhaps the greatest and most common error in assessment and evaluation is drawing inaccurate, false or misleading conclusions. It is a harsh reality that some programmes are unsuccessful as well as being expensive or time consuming. No one wants to report that the data does not support the success of the programme. However, it would be far worse to continue with a programme that is not working. If your results indicate that your programme has not achieved its aim, try to identify possible causes and refine the programme. Also be careful to account for any confounding variables. If you implement a leadership programme and find that turnover among high-potentials has fallen by 15%, the programme must be working right? But what if those staff members were also given significant pay rises and bonuses since the programme was implemented. Was it the programme or the money that reduced turnover? It is important to acknowledge other potential explanations for the findings you report.
Paul Arkwright
Publisher
