Developing Leaders:
"One-At-A-Time"

Ever felt confused, challenged or frustrated in choosing the "best" program for developing leaders in your organization?  Do you lean toward the "intensive care" programs, the "emulation" programs, the "must read" programs, or the massive "change" programs?  Which one is best? Having spent a little time delivering and/or participating in most of the above over the last 10 years or so, I think the answer might be "it depends", but probably none of the above.

To say that the 90's were a consultant's nirvana would be an understatement.  Following a major financial correction at the beginning of the decade, the economy exploded throughout the next eight years, highlighted by unprecedented growth in corporate revenues, growth and shareholder value, extraordinary merger and acquisition activity, the globalization of the economy, and the emergence of the Internet and "the new economy." Along with these extraordinary economic times came the emergence of an abundance of en vogue theories, processes, and strategies around the concept of leadership. For consultants, writers and trainers, leadership development became a true cottage industry.  Theories abounded on how to become a high performance leader:

• Institutes, Centers, and Universities were formed where you flew off to their location, entering as a mediocre leader. Following this one-week (typically) intensive training program, you returned to your organization transformed into an extraordinary leader.  But how good were you in the following quarter?
• Books, books and more books.  You were required to read the latest book by the leadership Guru of the moment.  Do what they say, implement their plan, and puff, you're great.  So many books, so little time.
• Still other programs identified organizations for you to emulate.  Do what they do, lead the way they lead, and you too, can be successful.  Perhaps, but is their business like yours?  Oh, by the way, how many of those "excellent" companies are still doing really well?
• You could also invest millions in massive "change" programs, with a healthy dose of leadership development built into them.  These "consultant dreams" took years to implement, and before being completed the target outcomes had changed, but the culture had not. Uh-oh!

So you say, where did we go wrong?  What did we miss? 

All of the elements mentioned above play a collective role in developing leaders.  However, none on their own are self-sustaining.

My view is we overlooked two integral components of Leadership.  First and foremost, leadership is personal. It is dynamic.  Effective leadership directly correlates to the organization being led; its people, clients and markets served.  It's also somewhat affected by geography. To think one size fits all is naïve. There can be little retrofitting or cookie cutting. Imposition is a dangerous road to go down.

Secondly, leaders need two basic skill sets: The first is behavioral in nature, the second involves business acumen. Obvious you say.  Not necessarily.  Most leadership models and their related diagnostics today are built around 25-30 leadership behaviors or competencies.  Many of these are iterations of the others, with similar definitions.  The greatest differentiators for these instruments are in the size and distribution of their databases. Most are quality diagnostics for broad-based measurement.  But do they fit the leader's business model, organizational culture, and business strategy? The magic is in the match.

What are appropriate leadership behaviors for organization A are not necessarily appropriate for others, in or out of their business sector, geography or culture. One size does not fit all.

The same applies for business acumen.  Do leaders of entrepreneurial businesses such as those typified by the "new economy" require the same business skills as those from beauracratic organizations such as financial services or utilities?  Most likely not.  These executives are typically younger, less experienced, fast-tracked and sales-focused.  Their organizations are flatter, leaner and possess fewer gray hairs.  They have not been mentored in business practices by "stacks" of seasoned managers.  They are "idea people." Their definitions of success are far different than those of the beaurcrat. Would these individuals benefit from one of the 90's programs?

Developing Leaders "One-At-A-Time"

Having participated/benefited as a consultant in both broad-based and tailored programs, there is no doubt in my mind that the success rate in developing extraordinary leaders one-at-a-time is far greater than in the broad-based programs.  The following are success factors in leadership development based on my observations from over 10 years of working with leaders from around the world:

• The more personal and focused the program, the greater sustained learning.
• The more culturally specific the program, the greater the sustained learning.
• The more time the leader spends "practicing" during their development experience, the greater the sustained learning.
• The more real-life and less academic the development process is, the greater the learning.

Our Approach

Our approach is to tailor programs to the leader's specific and personal needs within the context of their business.  Our main focus is on helping each leader develop an appropriate personal style for them - given the corporate environment in which they operate, what they need to deliver for the organization, what their customers demand, and their personal aspirations.  We play to strengths and build on the style and personality of each individual to help them maximize their own potential. Included in this approach are the following design components:

• We use targeted diagnostics and feedback systems, mapped specifically to the requirements of the organization to ensure that our results are measurable.
• We focus individual leaders on maximizing their impact within their own organizations, and improving the performance of the teams they lead
• Our programs deal in business realities, with leaders practicing what they are learning over a six-month period.
• Best practices are shared in the context of their business / personal challenges.

Leadership in the new millennium has never been more challenging.  Every move made has enormous consequences, with the pace of change and transformation daunting at times.  Investor expectations and patience has never been more unforgiving.  The ability to focus and lead, to make the best decisions and inspire people at all levels will determine the future of the organization led.  Effective leadership development, "leadership one-at-a-time" is essential for leaders to develop the confidence and competence to succeed in the 21^st century, regardless of industry or size.

Dr. Joe DeAngelis is Vice President of Transition Solutions Leadership and Executive Coaching/Mentoring practice, based in Wellesley Hills, MA.