A White Paper Future Trends in Leadership Deveopment By Nick Petrie Issued November 2011
CONTENTS 3 3 5 6 7 10 29 30 32 About the Author Experts Consuted During This Study Introduction Executive Summary Section 1 The Chaenge of Our Current Situation Section 2 Future Trends for Leadership Deveopment Bibiography References Appendix
About the author Nick Petrie is a Senior Facuty member with the Center for Creative Leadership s Coorado Springs campus. He is a member of the facuty for the Leadership Deveopment Program (LDP ) and the Lega sector. Nick is from New Zeaand and has significant internationa experience having spent ten years iving and working in Japan, Spain, Scotand, Ireand, Norway and Dubai. Before joining CCL, he ran his own consuting company and spent the ast severa years deveoping and impementing customized eadership programs for senior eaders around the word. Nick hods a master s degree from Harvard University and undergraduate degrees in business administration and physica education from Otago University in New Zeaand. Before beginning his business career, he was a professiona rugby payer and coach for seven years. Experts consuted during this study I wish to thank the foowing experts who contributed their time and thinking to this report in order to make it stronger. I aso reieve them of any iabiity for its weaknesses, for which I am fuy responsibe. Thanks a. Bi Torbert, Professor Emeritus of Leadership at the Carro Schoo of Management at Boston Coege Chesea Poen, Recruiting Speciaist, Googe Chuck Paus, Manager of the Connected Leadership Project, Center for Creative Leadership Craig Van Dugteren, Senior Project Manager, Learning & Deveopment, Victoria Poice, Austraia David Atman, Executive Vice President, Research, Innovation & Product Deveopment, Center for Creative Leadership David Carder, Vice President and Executive Consutant, Forum Corporation Lisa Lahey, co-founder and principa of MINDS AT WORK, Associate Director of the Change Leadership Group at the Harvard University Graduate Schoo of Education. Lyndon Rego, Director, Leadership Beyond Boundaries, Center for Creative Leadership Jeff Barnes, Head of Goba Leadership, Genera Eectric Jeffrey Yip, PhD Candidate, Boston University Schoo of Management, Visiting Researcher, Center for Creative Leadership John Conne, Harvard Schoo of Pubic Heath John McGuire, Senior Facuty Member, Center for Creative Leadership Josh Awitt, Vice President at Sapient Corporation Lucy Dinwiddie, Goba Learning & Executive Deveopment Leader, Genera Eectric Maggie Wash, Vice President of the eadership practice, Forum Corporation Marc Effron, President, The Taent Strategy Group; Author, One Page Taent Management 3
Michae Kenney, Assistant professor of pubic poicy at the Schoo of Pubic Affairs at Pennsyvania State University Robert Burnside, Partner, Chief Learning Officer, Ketchum Roand Smith, Senior facuty member and ead researcher at the Center for Creative Leadership Simon Fower, Methodoogy Associate Consutant, Forum Corporation Stan Gryskiewicz, Senior Feow at Center for Creative Leadership, President & Founder at Association for Managers of Innovation Steve Barry, Senior Manager, Strategic Marketing, Forum Corporation Steve Kerr, Former Chief Learning Officer and Managing Director and now senior advisor to Godman Sachs. Former Vice President of corporate eadership deveopment and Chief Learning Officer at Genera Eectric Harvard University Facuty Thanks to the foowing professors and mentors whose ideas, questions and refusas to answer my questions directy... kept me searching. Ashish Nanda, Robert Braucher Professor of Practice at Harvard Law Schoo, facuty Director of Executive Education at Harvard Law Schoo Danie Wison, Principa Investigator at Project Zero and Learning Innovation Laboratory (LILA), Harvard Graduate Schoo of Education Dean Wiiams, Lecturer in Pubic Poicy, teacher and researcher on adaptive eadership and change. Facuty chair of the executive education program: Leadership for the 21st Century: Goba Change Agents, Harvard Kennedy Schoo of Government Monica Higgins, Professor at the Harvard Graduate Schoo of Education, focused on the areas of eadership deveopment and organizationa change J. Richard Hackman, Edgar Pierce Professor of Socia and Organizationa Psychoogy, Department of Psychoogy, Harvard University Robert Kegan, Wiiam and Miriam Meehan Professor in Adut Learning and Professiona Deveopment, Harvard Graduate Schoo of Education 4
Introduction The origin of this report stems argey from my own doubts about the methods my coeagues and I had used in the past to deveop eaders in organizations. Though the feedback from managers was that they were happy with the programs, my sense was that somehow, what we were deivering was not what they reay needed. It seemed that the nature of the chaenges, which managers were facing were rapidy changing; however the methods that we were using to deveop them were staying the same. The incrementa improvements that we were making in programs were what Chris Argyris woud ca singe oop earning (adjustments to the existing techniques), rather than doube oop earning (changes to the assumptions and thinking upon which the programs were buit). In the agricutura era, schoos mirrored a garden. In the industria era, casses mirrored the factory, with an assemby ine of earners. In the digita-information era, how wi earning ook? Lucy Dinwiddie, Goba Learning & Executive Deveopment Leader, Genera Eectric These continua, nagging doubts ed me to take a one year sabbatica at Harvard University with the goa of answering one question what wi the future of eadership deveopment ook ike? With the aim of getting as many different perspectives as possibe, I studied across the schoos of the university (Education, Business, Law, Government, Psychoogy) to earn their approaches to deveoping eaders and conducted a iterature review of the fied of eadership deveopment. In addition, I interviewed 30 experts in the fied to gather diverse perspectives and asked each of them the foowing questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. What are the current approaches being used that you think are the most effective? What do you think we shoud be doing more of in terms of deveoping eaders? What shoud we be doing ess of/ stop doing/ or phase out? Where do you see the future of eadership deveopment headed? The foowing report is divided into two sections. The first (shorter) section focuses on the current environment and the chaenge of deveoping eaders in an increasingy compex and uncertain word. The second ooks in depth at four eadership deveopment trends identified by interviewees and the emerging practices that coud form the basis of future eadership deveopment programs. 5
Executive Summary The Current Situation The environment has changed it is more compex, voatie and unpredictabe The skis needed for eadership have aso changed more compex and adaptive thinking abiities are needed The methods being used to deveop eaders have not changed (much) The majority of managers are deveoped from on-the-job experiences, trainings and coaching/mentoring. Whie these are a sti important, eaders are no onger deveoping fast enough or in the right ways to match the new environment. The Chaenge Ahead This is no onger just a eadership chaenge (what good eadership ooks ike), it is a deveopment chaenge (the process of how to grow bigger minds) Managers have become experts on the what of eadership, but novices in the how of their own deveopment Four Trends for the Future of Leadership Deveopment 1 More focus on vertica deveopment There are two different types of deveopment horizonta and vertica. A great dea of time has been spent on horizonta deveopment (competencies), but very itte time on vertica deveopment (deveopmenta stages). The methods for horizonta and vertica deveopment are very different. Horizonta deveopment can be transmitted (from an expert), but vertica deveopment must be earned (for onesef). 2 Transfer of greater deveopmenta ownership to the individua Peope deveop fastest when they fee responsibe for their own progress. The current mode encourages peope to beieve that someone ese is responsibe for their deveopment H.R., their manager or trainers. We wi need to hep peope out of the passenger seat and into the driving seat of their own deveopment. 3 Greater focus on coective rather than individua eadership Leadership deveopment has come to a point of being too individuay focused and eitist. There is a transition occurring from the od paradigm in which eadership resided in a person or roe, to a new one in which eadership is a coective process that is spread throughout networks of peope. The question wi change from, who are the 6
eaders? to what conditions do we need for eadership to fourish in the network? How do we spread eadership capacity throughout the organization and democratize eadership? 4 Much greater focus on innovation in eadership deveopment methods There are no simpe, existing modes or programs, which wi be sufficient to deveop the eves of coective eadership required to meet an increasingy compex future. Instead an era of rapid innovation wi be needed in which organizations experiment with new approaches that combine diverse ideas in new ways and share these with others. Technoogy and the web wi both provide the infrastructure and drive the change. Organizations that embrace the changes wi do better than those who resist it. Four Transitions for Leadership Deveopment CURRENT FOCUS FUTURE FOCUS The what of eadership Horizonta deveopment H.R./ training companies own deveopment Leadership resides in individua managers The what and how of deveopment Horizonta and Vertica deveopment Each person owns deveopment Coective eadership is spread throughout the network Section 1 The chaenge of our current situation The Environment Has Changed It is Becoming More Compex and Chaenging If there were two consistent themes that emerged from interviewees as the greatest chaenges for current and future eaders, it was the pace of change and the compexity of the chaenges faced. The ast decade has seen many industries enter a period of increasingy rapid change. The Great recession, which began in December 2007, has contributed to an environment that many interviewees beieve is fundamentay different from that of ten years ago. There are no boundaries anymore. Jeff Barnes, Head of Goba Leadership, Genera Eectric 7
Roand Smith, senior facuty at the Center of Creative Leadership (CCL ) described the new environment as one of perpetua whitewater. His notion of increased turbuence is backed up by an IBM study of over 1,500 CEOs 1. These CEOs identified their No. 1 concern as the growing compexity of their environments, with the majority of those CEOs saying that their organizations are not equipped to cope with this compexity. This theme was consistent with many of the interviewees for this study; numerous of whom used the army phrase V.U.C.A. to describe the new environment in which eaders must work. V oatie: change happens rapidy and on a arge scae U ncertain: the future cannot be predicted with any precision C ompex: chaenges are compicated by many factors and there are few singe causes or soutions A mbiguous: There is itte carity on what events mean and what effect they may have Researchers have identified severa criteria that make compex environments especiay difficut to manage 2. They contain a arge number of interacting eements. Information in the system is highy ambiguous, incompete or indecipherabe. Interactions among system eements are non-inear and tighty-couped such that sma changes can produce disproportionatey arge effects. Soutions emerge from the dynamics within the system and cannot be imposed from outside with predictabe resuts. Hindsight does not ead to foresight since the eements and conditions of the system can be in continua fux. In addition to the above, the most common factors cited by interviewees as chaenges for future eaders were: Information overoad The interconnectedness of systems and business communities The dissoving of traditiona organizationa boundaries New technoogies that disrupt od work practices The different vaues and expectations of new generations entering the workpace Increased gobaization eading to the need to ead across cutures In summary, the new environment is typified by an increased eve of compexity and interconnectedness. One exampe, given by an interviewee, was the difficuty her managers were facing when eading teams spread across the gobe. Because the goba economy has become interconnected, her managers fet they coud no onger afford to focus soey on events in their oca economies; instead they were constanty forced to adjust their strategies and tactics to events that were happening in different parts of the word. This chaenge was compounded by the fact that these managers were eading team members of different nationaities, with different cutura vaues, who a operated in vasty different time zones. A of this before addressing the compexity of the task itsef. 8
The Skis Sets Required Have Changed More Compex Thinkers are Needed Refecting the changes in the environment, the competencies that wi be most vauabe to the future eader appear to be changing. The most common skis, abiities and attributes cited by interviewees were: Adaptabiity Sef-awareness Boundary spanners Coaborators Network thinkers A iterature review on the skis needed for future eaders aso reveaed the foowing attributes: The CEO s in IBM s 2009 study named the most important ski for the future eader as creativity. The 2009/2010 Trends in Executive Deveopment study found many CEO s were concerned that their organizations up-and-comers were acking in areas such as the abiity to think strategicay and manage change effectivey 3. Jeffrey Immet, G.E. CEO and Chairman, states that 21st century eaders wi need to be systems thinkers who are comfortabe with ambiguity 4. It appears that the new V.U.C.A. environment is seeing the demand move away from isoated behaviora competencies, towards compex thinking abiities. These manifest as adaptive competencies such as earning agiity, sef-awareness, comfort with ambiguity and strategic thinking. With such changes in the menta demands on future eaders the question wi be, how wi we produce these capacities of thinking? 9
The Methods We are Using to Deveop Leaders Have Not Changed (Much) Organizations are increasingy reiant on H.R. departments, to buid a eadership pipeine of managers capabe of eading creativey through turbuent times. However, there appears to be a growing beief amongst managers and senior executives that the eadership programs that they are attending, are often insufficient to hep them deveop their capacities to face the demands of their current roe. Based on the interviews the most common current reported deveopment methods were: Training Job assignments Action earning Executive coaching Mentoring 360-degree feedback Whie the above methods wi remain important, many interviewees questioned whether the appication of these methods in their current formats wi be sufficient to deveop eaders to the eves needed to meet the chaenges of the coming decades. The chaenge becomes, if not the methods above, then what? The overriding theme of what I ve been hearing from cients recenty is that they re a bit stunned shocked, actuay at how the eadership-deveopment programs they d had in pace were not abe to meet the needs of their business as we ve gone through these tremendousy disruptive economic changes over the past few years. 5 Bi Pester, Principa, Deoitte Consuting Section 2 Future trends for eadership deveopment This is No LongerJust a Leadership Chaenge it is a Deveopment Chaenge A arge number of interview respondents fet that many methods such as content-heavy trainings that are being used to deveop eaders for 21st century have become dated and redundant. Whie these were reativey effective for the needs and chaenges of the ast century, they are becoming increasingy mismatched against the chaenges eaders currenty face. Marsha Godsmith has commented, Many of our eadership programs are based on the fauty assumption, that if we show peope what to do, they can automaticay do it. 6 However, there is a difference between knowing what good eadership ooks ike and Some peope want to put Christ back into Christmas, I want to put deveopment back into eadership deveopment. Robert Kegan, Professor of Adut Learning and Professiona Deveopment at Harvard Graduate Schoo of Education 10
being abe to do it. We may be arriving at a point where we face diminishing returns from teaching managers more about eadership, when they sti have itte understanding about what is required for rea deveopment to occur. 1 Trend 1: Increased focus on vertica deveopment (deveopmenta stages) Research interview question: What do you think needs to be stopped or phased out from the way eadership deveopment is currenty done? Competencies: they become either overwheming in number or incrediby generic. If you have nothing in pace they are O.K., but their use neary aways comes to a bad end. Competencies they don t add vaue. Competency modes as the soe method for deveoping peope. It is ony one aspect and their appication has been done to death. Competencies, especiay for deveoping senior eaders. They are probaby sti OK for newer managers. Static individua competencies. We are better to think about meta competencies such as earning agiity and sef-awareness. Organizations have grown skied at deveoping individua eader competencies, but have mosty ignored the chaenge of transforming their eader s mindset from one eve to the next. Today s horizonta deveopment within a mindset must give way to the vertica deveopment of bigger minds. John McGuire, Gary Rhodes, Transforming your Leadership Cuture, Center for Creative Leadership For a ong time we have thought about eadership deveopment as working out what competencies a eader shoud possess and then heping individua managers to deveop them much as a bodybuider tries to deveop different musce groups. Research over the ast 20 years on how aduts deveop, carifies one reason why many interviewees have grown weary of the competency mode as the soe means for deveoping eaders. We have faied two distinguish between two very different types of deveopment vertica and horizonta. Types of Deveopment Horizonta deveopment is the deveopment of new skis, abiities and behaviors. It is technica earning. Horizonta deveopment is most usefu when a probem is ceary defined and there are known techniques for soving it. Surgery training is an exampe of horizonta deveopment. Students earn to become surgeons through a process known as pimping, in which experienced surgeons continuay question students unti the point where the student cannot answer and they are forced to go back to their books to earn more information 7. Whie the process of earning is not easy, there are cear answers that can be codified and transmitted from expert sources, aowing the student to broaden and deepen their surgica competency. Vertica deveopment, in contrast, refers to the stages that peope progress through in how they make sense of their word. We find it easy to notice chidren progressing through stages of deveopment as they grow, but con- 11
ventiona wisdom assumes that aduts stop deveoping at around twenty years od hence the term grown up (you have finished growing). However, deveopmenta researchers have shown that aduts do in fact continue to progress (at varying rates) through predictabe stages of menta deveopment. At each higher eve of deveopment, aduts make sense of the word in more compex and incusive ways their minds grow bigger. In metaphorica terms, horizonta deveopment is ike pouring water in to an empty gass 8. The vesse fis up with new content (you earn more eadership techniques). In contrast, vertica deveopment aims to expand the gass itsef. Not ony does the gass have increased capacity to take in more content, the structure of the vesse itsef has been transformed (the manager s mind grows bigger). From a technoogy perspective, it is the difference between adding new software (horizonta deveopment), or upgrading to a new computer (vertica deveopment). Most peope are aware that continuing to add new software to an out-dated operating system starts to have diminishing returns. Whie horizonta deveopment (and competency modes) wi remain important as one method for heping eaders deveop, in future it cannot be reied on as the ony means. As one interviewee suggested, it is time to transcend and incude the eadership competency mentaity so that in future we are abe to grow our eaders simutaneousy in both horizonta AND vertica directions. Why Vertica Deveopment Matters for Leadership The next question may be, why shoud someone s eve of cognitive deveopment matter for eadership and organizations? One answer is that from a eadership perspective, researchers have shown that peope at higher eves of deveopment perform better in more compex environments. A study by Keith Eige ooked at 21 CEOs and 21 promising midde managers from various companies, each with annua revenues of over $5 biion 9. The study showed that across a range of eadership measures, there was a cear correation between higher eves of vertica deveopment and higher eves of effectiveness. This finding has since been repicated in a number of fine-grained studies on eaders assessing particuar competencies 10. 12
The reason that managers at higher eves of cognitive deveopment are abe to perform more effectivey is that they can think in more compex ways. According to McGuire and Rhodes (2009) of the Center for Creative Leadership, Each successive (eve) or stair hods greater abiity for earning, compex probem-soving and the abiity to set new direction and ead change. Peope who gain another step can earn more, adapt faster, and generate more compex soutions than they coud before. Those at higher eves can earn and react faster because they have bigger minds... peope at ater stages are better at seeing and connecting more dots in more scenarios (which means they are better at strategy). That s a. But that s a ot. There is nothing inherenty better about being at a higher eve of deveopment, just as an adoescent is not better than a todder. However, the fact remains that an adoescent is abe to do more, because he or she can think in more sophisticated ways than a todder. Any eve of deveopment is OK, the question is, whether that eve of deveopment a good fit for the task at hand. In terms of eadership, if you beieve that the future wi present eaders with an environment that is more compex, voatie and unpredictabe, you might aso beieve that those organizations who have more eaders at higher eves of deveopment wi have an important advantage over those that don t. A new eadership paradigm seems to be emerging with an inexorabe shift away from one- way, hierarchica, organization-centric communication toward two-way, network-centric, participatory and coaborative eadership styes. Most of a a new mindset seems necessary, apart from new skis and knowedge. A the toos in the word wi not change anything if the mindset does not aow and support change. Grady McGonagi, Tina Doerffer, The Leadership Impications of the Evoving Web, Bertesmann Stiftung Leadership Series What the Stages of Deveopment Look Like There are various frameworks, which researchers use to measure and describe eves of cognitive deveopment. Beow is a short description of Robert Kegan s eves of deveopment and how they map against other researchers in the fied. Kegan s Adut Leves of Deveopment 3 Sociaized mind: At this eve we are shaped by the expectations of those around us. What we think and say is strongy infuenced by what we think others want to hear. 4 Sef authoring mind: We have deveoped our own ideoogy or interna compass to guide us. Our sense of sef is aigned with our own beief system, persona code and vaues. We can take stands, set imits on behaf of our own interna voice. 13
5 Sef transforming mind: We have our own ideoogy, but can now step back from that ideoogy and see it as imited or partia. We can hod more contradiction and oppositeness in our thinking and no onger fee the need to gravitate towards poarized thinking. Adut Leves of Deveopment LEVEL KEGAN LEVELS C.C.L. ACTION LOGICS TORBERT & ROOKES ACTION LOGICS 11 5 Sef-transforming Interdependent - Coaborator Ironist (>1%)* Achemist (2%) Strategist (5%) 4 Sef-authoring Independent - Achiever Individuaist (11%) Achiever (30%) Expert (37%) 3 Sociaized Dependent - Conformer Dipomat (11%) Opportunist (4%) * Study of 4,510 managers. The percentages denote the number of managers measured at each stage of deveopment using the sentence competion test. According to interviewees, the coming decades wi increasingy see managers take on chaenges that require them to engage in: strategic thinking, coaboration, systems thinking, eading change and having comfort with ambiguity. These are a abiities, which become more pronounced at eve 5. Yet according to studies by Torbert and Fisher 12 ess than 8% have yet reached that eve of thinking. This may in part expain why so many peope are currenty feeing stressed, confused and overwhemed in their jobs. A arge number of the workforce are performing jobs that cause them to fee they are in over their heads (Kegan, 2009). A major part of our job is heping peope deveop how they think. How they get to an answer matters more than ever. Jeff Barnes, Head of Goba Leadership, Genera Eectric What Causes Vertica Deveopment The methods for horizonta deveopment are very different from those for vertica deveopment. Horizonta deveopment can be earned (from an expert), but vertica deveopment must be earned (for yoursef). We coud summarize what researchers have earned in the ast 75 years about what causes vertica deveopment into the foowing four conditions (Kegan, 2009): 14
The person fees consistenty frustrated by a situation, diemma, or chaenge in their ife It causes them to fee the imits of their current way of thinking It is in an area of their ife that they care about deepy There is sufficient support that they are abe to persist in the face of the anxiety and confict Deveopmenta movement from one stage to the next is usuay driven by imitations in the current stage. When you are confronted with increased compexity and chaenge that can t be met with what you know and can do at your current eve, you are pued to take the next step (McGuire, Rhodes, 2009). In addition, deveopment acceerates when peope are abe to surface the assumptions that are hoding them at their current eve of deveopment and test their vaidity. McGuire and Rhodes describe vertica deveopment as a three-stage process. 1. 2. 3. Awaken: The person becomes aware that there is a different way of making sense of the word and that doing things in a new way is possibe Unearn and discern: The od assumptions are anayzed and chaenged. New assumptions are tested out and experimented with, as being new possibiities for one s day-to-day work and ife Advance: Occurs when after some practice and effort, the new idea gets stronger and starts to dominate the previous ones. The new eve of deveopment (eadership ogic) starts to make more sense than the od one Torbert and others have found that cognitive deveopment can be measured and eevated not ony on the individua eve, but aso on the team and organizationa eve. McGuire and Rhodes (2009) have pointed out that if organizations want to create asting change, they must simutaneousy deveop the eadership cuture, at the same time as deveoping the individua eaders. Their method uses a six-phase process, which begins by eevating the senior eadership cuture before targeting those managers at the midde of the organization 13. Whie persona vertica deveopment impacts individuas, vertica cutura deveopment impacts organizations. The chaenge for organizations that wish to acceerate the vertica deveopment of their eaders and cutures wi be the creation of processes and experiences that embed these deveopmenta principas into the workpace. 15
Exampe of a Vertica Deveopment Process: The Immunity to Change 14 The Immunity to Change process was deveoped over a twenty-year period by Harvard professors and researchers Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey. It uses behavior change and the discovery of what stops peope from making the changes they want, to hep peope deveop themseves. How it works: Leaders choose behaviors they are highy motivated to change. They then use a mapping process to identify the anxieties and assumptions they have about what woud happen if they were to actuay make those changes. This uncovers for the person their hidden immunity to change i.e. what has hed them back from making the change aready. The participant then designs and runs a series of sma experiments in the workpace to test out the vaidity of their assumptions. As peope reaize that the assumptions they have been operating under are fase or at east partia, the resistance to change diminishes and the desired behavior change happens more naturay. Why it acceerates deveopment: The method acceerates peopes growth, because it focuses directy on the four conditions of vertica deveopment (an area of frustration, imits of current thinking, an area of importance, and support avaiabe). Many eadership programs operate on the assumption that if you show peope how to ead, they can then do that. However, the most difficut chaenges that peope face in their work ives are often associated with the imitations of the way they make meaning at their current eve of deveopment. When a person surfaces the assumptions they have about the way the word works, they get the chance to question those assumptions and aow themseves the opportunity to start to make meaning from a more advanced eve. For exampe, a manager may have difficuty making decisions without his boss s direction, not because he acks decision making techniques, but because of the anxiety that taking a stand produces from his current eve of meaning making (the Sociaized Mind). How this is being used: The method is currenty being used in the eadership deveopment programs of a number of eading banks, financia services firms and strategy consuting firms. It is best suited for eaders who aready have the technica skis they need to succeed, but need to grow the capacity of their thinking in order to ead more effectivey. 16
2 Trend 2: Transfer of greater deveopmenta ownership to the individua Interview question: What shoud be stopped or phased out in eadership deveopment? Response: Stop sending peope to courses they don t want to go to. According to socia psychoogists, peope s motivation to grow is highest when they fee a sense of autonomy over their own deveopment 15. However, some interviewees beieve that the training mode common within organizations for much of the ast fifty years has bred dependency, inadvertenty convincing peope that they are passengers in their own deveopment journey. The anguage of being sent to a training, or having a 360- degree assessment done on me, denotes the fact that many managers sti see their deveopment as being owned by someone ese H.R., training companies or their own manager. Even as methods have evoved such as performance feedback, action earning and mentoring, the sense for many sti remains, that it is someone ese s job to te me what I need to get better at and how to do it. Many workers unknowingy outsourced their own deveopment to we-intentioned strangers who didn t know them, didn t understand their specific needs and didn t care as much about their deveopment as they themseves shoud. This mode has resuted in many peope feeing ike passengers. The chaenge wi be to hep peope back into the driver s seat for their own deveopment. Severa interviewees point out that the above issue has been compounded in the ast ten years by the demand paced on managers to take on the roe of coaches and taent deveopers. Many staff, however, express skepticism at being deveopmentay coached by managers, whom they beieve are not working on any deveopment areas themseves. To paraphrase Rob Goffee s 2006 book 16, Why shoud anyone be deveoped by him? In an organization where everyone is trying to deveop someone ese, but no one is deveoping themseves, we might wonder whether we are reay approaching deveopment from the right starting point. Despite staff s doubts about the current top/ down deveopment methods, we can see cues to the future of deveopment in the growing demand for executive coaching. What principas can be earned from this demand for coaching that can be expanded to a deveopment practices? Some factors may be that in coaching: The manager chooses what to focus on, not the coach The process is customized for each person The coachee owns her deveopment, the coach guides the process (through questions) The coach is a thinking partner, not an authority/ expert There is no content to cover It is a deveopmenta process over time, not an event Despite this demand for coaching, the barrier has aways been that it is difficut to scae the process, because of the cost and time needed for the coach. However, if greater ownership of deveopment is transferred back to 17
the individua, with H.R., externa experts and managers seen as resources and support, there is no reason that these same principas coud not be appied on a arger scae throughout an organization. Leadership Deveopment for the Masses Whie many organizations say that they need eaders at a eves of the business, a number of interviewees pointed out that this statement appears inconsistent with their practices, as ong as they continue to train and deveop ony their eite managers. Leadership deveopment can become democratized, if workers get a better understanding of what deveopment is, why it matters for them and how they can take ownership of their own deveopment. The industry needs to ask itsef how eadership deveopment became so eitist. The word s chaenges are big enough now that we need to think about how we can democratize eadership deveopment, take it back to the masses to the base and midde of the socioeconomic pyramid, not ony the peak. In his study on how Coombian drug traffickers were abe to grow their operations despite a muti decade, biions of doars campaign against them, Michae Kenney found that a key David Atman, Executive Vice President Research, Innovation & Product Deveopment factor was the trafficker s abiity to outearn and out adapt Center for Creative Leadership their U.S. government adversaries 18. Kenney discovered that traffickers, despite ack of education, were driven to earn and It makes itte sense to begin executive deveop by the high risk/high return for earning. The deveopment processes at very senior rewards for those who earned the most were money and status; the risks for those who faied to earn, were prison and the process must start eary. eves, as many companies do. Instead sometimes death. Coumbian drug cartes do not have H.R. Morgan McCa, Jr, departments or training companies to manage their training Executive Ask: Academy of Management programs, yet these young, often uneducated traffickers sti Executive 17 find sufficient motivation in the risk/return for earning to drive their own deveopment. If organizations beieve that their peope woud not be motivated to take more ownership of their own deveopment, they might stop and ask, How cear and visibe is the risk/reward for earning in our organization? What Deveopment Might Look Like Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey (2009) suggest that you woud know that an organization had peope taking ownership of their ongoing deveopment when you coud wak into an organization and any person coud te you: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the one thing they are working on that wi require that they grow to accompish it How they are working on it Who ese knows and cares about it Why this matters to them 18
In addition to these points, interviewees suggested that some of the foowing factors woud aso be present in an organization where peope were taking greater ownership of their deveopment: Recognition from senior eaders that in compex environments, business strategies cannot be executed without highy deveoped eaders (and that traditiona horizonta deveopment won t be enough) Buy in from the senior eaders that new methods for deveopment need to be used and that they wi go first and ead by exampe Staff to be educated on the research of how deveopment occurs and what the benefits are for them For a staff to understand why deveopment works better when they own it A reaignment of reward systems to emphasize both deveopment as we as performance Utiization of new technoogies such as Ryppe 19, which aows peope to take contro of their own feedback and gather ongoing suggestions for improvement Creation of a cuture in which it is safe to take the type of risks required to stretch your mind into the discomfort zone We are aready seeing exampes of this happening at innovative organizations such as W.L. Gore and IDEO, as we as at younger companies ike Googe, where managers may have up to 20 direct reports each. Because topdown feedback and coaching is impractica with so many direct reports, staff members are expected to drive their own deveopment by using peers to gather their own feedback on areas to improve and coach each other on how they can deveop. 19
Growth Fues Growth Whie many HR staff may be deighted at the possibiity that in the future, peope woud take more ownership for their own deveopment, some may question whether peope are inherenty motivated to grow. Yet, the majority of peope can refect on what is common knowedge in most workpaces the peope who grow the most, are aso the ones hungriest to grow even more. Cayton Aderfer s E.R.G. (Existence, Reations, Growth) mode of human needs identified that the need for growth differs from the needs for physica we-being and reationships 20. Aderfer found that the need for physica we-being and reationship concerns are satiated when met (the more we get, the ess we want), whereas the need for growth is not (the more growth we get, the more we want). The impication for deveopment is that if we can hep peope to get started on the path of genuine vertica deveopment, the drive for sti more growth gathers momentum 21. In addition, socia psychoogists have ong identified that a sense of autonomy (ownership) is crucia for peope to fee intrinsicay motivated. If the experience of deveopment is combined with a sense of autonomy over the deveopment process, individuas are ikey to gain a significant boost in their motivation to proceed. Finay, both Kegan and Torbert s research suggests that as more peope transition from the eves of the sociaized mind to the sef-authoring mind, there wi naturay be a greater drive for ownership by individuas. Of course not everything can be organized and carried out by the individuas and the roe of earning and deveopment professionas within organizations wi remain crucia. However, it may transform into more of a deveopment partner whose main roe is to innovate new structures and processes for deveopment. Marc Effron, President of the Taent Strategy group, predicts that much of the H.R. function may soon focus ony on deveoping taent with much of the rest of their duties being outsourced. This coud mean that rather than a traffic cop, seecting and directing peope into programs, the future L&D professiona coud become more ike a community organizer, who faciitates peope, processes, systems and structures that connect networks of peope to each other and spreads a cuture of deveopment throughout the organization. Severa interviewees pointed out that the most effective eadership deveopment programs shift responsibiity for deveoping eaders away from H.R. and towards the current eaders of the organization. G.E. for exampe expects both the C.E.O and the senior managers to spend a significant amount of time at their eadership university (Crotonvie) training their future eaders. For L&D professionas this woud mean partnering with senior eaders to buid a true cuture of deveopment, a task that woud require a great dea of ski and deveopment for those who take up the chaenge. The roe of the earning professiona woud become both more critica to the business and more chaenging for its practitioners. And despite positive signs that peope are ready to take on greater ownership, severa interviewees point out that we may yet need to be patient. It took us 50 years of the expert mode to arrive at our current mindset for deveopment, it may some time to transition to the next. 20
Exampe of a deveopment process that increases ownership: Feedforward coaching What is it: A behavior change process designed for busy, time poor peope who ike to see measured resuts. In the feedforward process an individua engages trusted coeagues in a peer coaching process, asking each coeague to do three things; focus on the future, give ony suggestions, make these something positive the person can do. How it works: Participants choose 1-2 areas they want to improve and five to eight interna peope they trust who become feedforward coaches. With the support of an interna or externa coach, the eader gathers monthy suggestions from the feedforward coaches as to how she can improve in her chosen areas and progress reports on how much she is changing. At the six and tweve month point, a short mini-survey measures the eve of her behavior change (appendix 1). Why it works for deveopment: It is extremey time-efficient taking ony two to three hours per month, invoves the peope who know the eader best to hep him/her change, measures resuts, hods the coachee accountabe over time and acknowedges that behaviour change is a process, not an event. Feedforward puts responsibiity for deveopment into the hands of the individua, then et s them taior the process as to who wi be invoved, what they wi work on and how conversations wi take pace. In addition, the structure of the process ensures continuous support and accountabiity conversations with a coach, which heps peope to keep foowing through on their actions. 3 Trend 3: The decine of the heroic eader the rise of coective eadership The story of the ast 50 years of eadership deveopment has been the story of the individua. It began with discoveries about what made a good eader and was foowed by the deveopment of practices that heped a generation of individuas move coser to that idea. The workpace context rewarded individuas who coud think through a situation anayticay and then direct others to If eadership is seen as a socia process carry out we thought through procedures. Leadership that engages everyone in a community, then was not easy, but the process itsef was comparativey it makes ess sense to invest excusivey in cear. However, in the ast 15 years this mode has the skis of individua eaders. become ess effective, as the fit between the chaenges of the environment and the abiity of the heroic The Leadership Impications of the Evoving Web, Grady McGonagi, Tina Doerffer, individuas to sove them has started to diverge. The Bertesmann Stiftung Leadership Series compexity of the new environment increasingy pres- 21
ents what Ronad Heifetz cas adaptive chaenges in which it is not possibe for any one individua to know the soution or even define the probem (the recent U.S. debt crisis for exampe). Instead, adaptive chaenges ca for coaboration between various stakehoders, who each hod a different aspect of the reaity and many of whom must themseves adapt and grow if the probem is to be soved. These coectives, who often cross geographies, reporting ines and organizations, need to coaborativey share information, create pans, infuence each other and make decisions. A simpe inference for those in charge of eadership deveopment coud be that we need to start teaching managers a new range of competencies that focus on coaboration and infuence skis. However, severa interviewees suggest that something more significant may be happening the end of an era, dominated by individua eaders and the beginning of another, which embraces networks of eadership. The fied of Innovation has aready begun this process. Andrew Hargadon, who has researched how innovations occur in organizations, says that unti recenty it was common to think that innovations came from one geniuses who had eureka moments. However, in the ast 10 years, contrary to this great man theory, researchers have shown that innovation is a resut of arge numbers of connection points in a network, that cause existing ideas to be combined in new ways. Researchers now say that innovation doesn t emanate from individua peope; it ives in the socia network. Simiary, the fied of eadership has ong hed up heroic individuas as exampes of great eaders who coud command and inspire organizations. The pubic resonated to this idea, as did business audiences who sought to gean eadership secrets from these eader s books and speeches. However, a future made up of compex, chaotic environments is ess suited to the probem soving of one, decisive authority figures, than it is to the distributed efforts of smart, fexibe eadership networks. This transition in thinking may not come quicky or easiy. This was evident in the media s efforts to find the eader of the movement that topped Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak. Many peope were interviewed by the media without it ever becoming cear who was directing the movement. In contrast, the youths who utiized socia networking toos to force regime change after 30 years seemed cear that for them eadership was not aggregated in an individua (they didn t have a eader), eadership was distributed throughout their network. This was not the first generation of youths to be frustrated with Mubarak and want him ousted, but it was the first with the toos and the coective mindset to make it happen. The younger generation s comfort with socia networking as the preferred means of connecting and infuencing each other, suggests that they wi have itte difficuty in accepting that eadership can be distributed throughout a network. But how quicky wi others take on this thinking? Redefining Leadership A starting point for organizations may come from heping their peope redefine what is meant by the term eadership. There has been a major trend among organizationa theorists to shift the focus from eadership as a person or roe, to eadership as a process. For exampe: 22
The process of mobiizing peope to face difficut chaenges (Heifetz, 1994) Anyone and everyone who gets in pace and heps keep in pace the 5 performance conditions needed for effective group functioning 22 (Hackman, 2000) Leaders are any peope in the organization activey invoved in the process of producing direction, aignment, and commitment (McCauey & Van, 2004) A key distinction in the definitions above is that eadership can be enacted by anyone; it is not tied to a position of authority in the hierarchy. Heifetz, in fact beieves it is far easier to exercise eadership from a position outside of authority, without the constraints that authority brings. More importanty, these definitions do not tie the act of eadership to an individua. Leadership becomes free to be distributed throughout networks of peope and across boundaries and geographies. Who is the eader becomes ess important than what is needed in the system and how we can produce it. If eadership is thought of as a shared process, rather than an individua ski set, senior executives must consider the best way to hep eadership fourish in their organizations. Leadership spread throughout a network of peope is more ikey to fourish when certain conditions support it incuding: Open fows of information Fexibe hierarchies Distributed resources Distributed decision-making Loosening of centraized contros Organizations that choose to embrace these conditions wi aign themseves with the wave of new technoogies that are changing the way we work and organize our workpaces. Grady McGonagi and Tina Doerffer (2010), suggest three stages of technoogica innovation that have aready occurred: 1. Web 1.0 (1991-2000) in which toos for faster, cheaper, and more convenient forms of communication (such as emai) became avaiabe and widey used Organizations and those who woud exercise eadership have no choice about whether to accept a new word that differs fundamentay from the od. Wecomed or not, it is the inevitabe future and is becoming the present in many organizations at a breathtaking pace. At the same time, there is a choice about whether to deny and react to these cutura and economic shifts or instead acknowedge and embrace them. And there is a choice as we for both organizations and individuas about whether and to what extent to cutivate the cuture, mindsets, skis, and knowedge that make it possibe to everage the enormous potentia of the toos of the evoving Web to better reaize their purposes. Grady McGonagi, Tina Doerffer, The Leadership Impications of the Evoving Web, Bertesmann Stiftung Leadership Series 23 2. Web 2.0 (2001-2010) in which use of another set of new toos for communication (such as wikis and bogs) began enabing interaction and communication in transformative ways 23
3. Web 3.0 (2011- ) in which powerfu new computing patforms (the Coud), a second generation of search toos, and meta-eve methods for managing knowedge (such as tags and foksonomies) are beginning to reaize the Web s potentia to generate more immediatey and personay usefu knowedge from archived information Whie we are sti at the eary stages of thinking about eadership deveopment at a coective eve, it seems increasingy ikey that the coming generations wi see eadership s residing within networks as a natura phenomenon. With the Internet and socia networking fattening hierarchies and decentraizing contro, eadership wi be happening throughout the system, so deveopment methods wi have to foow it there, sooner rather than ater. How Might Leadership Look Different in a Network? In order for organizations to become more effective at using networks of eadership, interviewees suggested a number of changes that woud need to occur. Firsty, at the coective eve, the goa for an organization woud be to create smart eadership networks, which can coaesce and disband in response to various organizationa chaenges. These networks might contain peope from different geographies, functions and speciaizations, both within and externa to the organization. Just as brains become smarter as Some of the most important innovations of coming decades wi not the number of neura networks and connections are increased, organizations which connect more parts of their socia system to be new technoogies, but new ways each other and buid a cuture of shared eadership wi have of working together that are made greater adaptabiity and coective capacity. possibe by these new technoogies. In addition, organizations woud use their eadership deveopment programs to hep peope understand that eadership is not contained in job roes, but in the process that takes pace across a network of peope, to continuousy carify Direction, estabish Thomas Maone, Patrick J. McGovern Professor of Management at MIT Soan Schoo of Management 24