Why leadership development often misses the mark
After well over a decade as an accredited leadership coach specialising in the public sector, I’ve seen that most leaders have a clear sense of what’s expected of them and genuinely want to strengthen their leadership skills.
Yet even with so many leadership development opportunities available, this learning does not always translate into tangible gains such as new capability. It isn’t because people lack motivation or insight, but often because development efforts align poorly with the context leaders work in and the realities of the jobs they’re asked to do.
Leadership development happens in isolation from everyday pressures and complexity, and limited attention is paid to how that learning actually carries over into real work. This raises an important question:
If leadership development looks good on paper, why does it struggle to translate into leadership that holds up in practice?
Why leadership development is hard to get right
This reality was surfaced in a new research paper produced by the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). Titled Why is leadership development hard to get right? the ANZSOG research paper synthesises leadership and public sector research, and highlights 6 structural reasons why leadership development struggles:
- Complexities of leadership research
- Expanding strands of leadership theory and practice
- Lag between theory and practice (and vice versa)
- Limited data on leadership development and impact
- Who and how ‘effectiveness’ is defined
- Underestimating how much context matters
The first reason explores the complexities of leadership research – with a vast and growing body of studies that use different styles, outcomes, contexts and methods which makes it hard to draw clear lessons. Outcomes of the research also differ widely, from individual attitudes and behaviours to organisational and societal impacts, which are not easy to measure or compare equally.
Most studies fail to account for how leadership effects change over time, while publication bias and commercial incentives lead to more positive findings being published while other potentially useful data is not.
The second reason calls out 20 contemporary leadership strands with aspects in common but variations in the source, object and result. It’s not always clear which ones describe how leaders act or ought to act, and to what extent they are shaped by different traditions such as:
- Constructivist – seeing leadership as something that develops through relationships, shared experiences and context
- Behavioural thinking – focusses on specific actions and behaviours that leaders can learn and improve through training
The lag between theory and practice limits the ability to know which leadership development approaches are effective, particularly as programs move ahead without strong evidence in ever-evolving public sector environments. Additionally, limited data on leadership development means we don’t often get to see utility or how they’re used in practice and there’s no way to properly track alignment and impact.
We have no concrete understanding of the word “effective”, and even a 2016 study of 25 years of public service leadership research found there is no one dominant theoretical framework for defining and assessing public leadership.
The research paper makes a final point that we underestimate how much context matters. Leadership practice varies significantly between administrative paradigms, traditions, subfields, and at a national and local level – not to mention across different departments and agencies which each have their own nuances. If we are to understand whether leadership development is “effective”, we simply cannot do it without applying context.
Insight alone doesn’t change behaviour
Th research paper makes a critical distinction that theories explain what leadership is, but development must focus on how people learn in the complex systems in which they are leading.
Critically, we see that insight alone doesn’t always change leadership behaviour. Understanding does not equal capability. And without pathways to practice beyond what happens in the classroom, development will stall. People may leave leadership training feeling clearer about themselves, yet they are no more capable under pressure so nothing changes.
Having witnessed this myself over the years – and heard many accounts from clients during 1:1 coaching – this is a challenge I wanted to face head on.
When I launched the Leadership Strategies Workshops, it was with this very challenge in mind. This is why all my programs now have built in practice pathways and feedback loops, and contextual application of learning is always front and centre. Participants leave the training able to recognise the default patterns that influence how they work and how they respond as situations arise.
I’m yet to see a participant leave the workshop without an intention to do the work – challenging their usual state and taking real steps towards change. This is visible behavioural change, not just insight accumulation.
As we continue to focus on the real world application of leadership strategies in the public service, I’m looking forward to continuing conversations that help leaders apply learning where it matters most.
See dates for upcoming Leadership Strategies Workshops, or book a free 15-minute discovery callto explore how they translate into your day-to-day leadership practice.