The corporate world requires a paradigm shift to emphasize post-training strategies, preventing the wastage of billions on ineffective leadership development programs.
Learning and doing are two sides of the same coin, yet in today’s corporate world, they seem far removed from one another.
Globally, billions of dollars are invested in people’s development. However, the stark reality is that the net impact and return on investment (ROI) often fall short of expectations. A global survey indicates that even top-tier organizations realize only a 10% return on their extensive leadership development training initiatives. This discrepancy prompts a pressing question: Why do leadership coaches earn billions worldwide, and why do individuals invest vast sums in seminars that seldom effect significant change?
The crux of the issue lies in the dissonance between understanding leadership concepts and actual leadership behavior. Regrettably, this disparity is more practical than theoretical, a factor often overlooked.
Corporate leadership trainers work tirelessly to impart knowledge and developmental concepts to attendees. From foundational skills like time management to pivotal capabilities like self-awareness, compassion, strategic thinking, and listening skills, the goal remains consistent: to alter behavior. Yet, research indicates that a majority of participants do not exhibit changed behavior upon returning to their workplaces.
The primary barriers include:
- Lack of Emotional Courage: Emotional courage is pivotal for effective leadership. It necessitates standing out without distancing oneself from others, voicing concerns amidst silence, and remaining resilient during challenging times while perpetually pushing beyond one’s comfort zone.
- Corporate Culture: Often summarized as “how we do things here,” corporate culture represents a significant chasm between learning and application. Attendees might feel invigorated during training sessions, but once back in their routine work environment, this enthusiasm frequently wanes due to entrenched organizational norms. The fear of appearing out of place among peers compels many to revert to their previous behaviours. Bridging this gap is essential if learning and development teams aim to see tangible outcomes from their efforts.
To achieve the desired outcomes, a rational approach is required:
- Engagement of C-Suite Executives: Top-tier executives should ensure that developmental programs align with the organization’s vision. Their involvement should extend beyond mere sponsorship; they should actively observe, participate in, and even co-deliver training sessions. This level of engagement underscores the organization’s commitment to its employees.
- Participants’ Commitment: Trainees must pledge to apply the insights gained from leadership development initiatives. Systems to track their progress both pre and post-training should be established. This accountability promotes a seamless transition from theoretical knowledge to practical leadership.
Takeaway: The real investment organizations make isn’t merely at the onset of a leadership development program but, more crucially, in its aftermath. Commitment to fostering a culture that emphasizes safety, trust, and a celebration of risk-taking and failure as prerequisites to success is pivotal.
References: HBR Magazine, Oct 2016 issue “Why Leadership Training Fails, and What to Do About It.” (Michael Beer, Magnus Finnstrom, and Derek Schrader)
HBR Magazine, July 2013 issue “Why So Many Leadership Programs Ultimately Fail” (Peter Bergman)
