Businesses spend more on developing leaders than any other expense item in their training and development budgets (Ardichvili et al., 2016). Such significant investment demonstrates the influence leaders assert on organizational outcomes (Holt et al., 2018; Manning & Curtis, 2019). Like other processes, leadership is subject to an input-mediator-output logic such that output quality is only as high as input quality (Fischer et al., 2017). To that end, this research paper explores universal gaps of leadership development, justifies the need for developing leaders, and describes consequences organizations may face if they provide insufficient leadership development support. Ultimately, in light of viewing leadership as a process, this research paper asserts organizations that effectively develop leadership generate higher quality leader skills and behaviors, which improves organizational performance (Fischer et al., 2017).
Universal Gaps in Leadership Development
Most leadership development programs fail to meet both program and organizational objectives due to two universal gaps in leadership (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Beer et al., 2016; Couch & Citrin, 2018; Iordanoglou, 2018). The first universal gap is a failure to align leadership development with current leadership demands (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Feser et al., 2017; Holt et al., 2018; Iordanoglou, 2018). Business’s rapid pace of change and expanding global context puts greater demands on leaders than ever before to be both effective and dynamic (Holt et al., 2018; Iordanoglou, 2018). To that end, Ardichvili et al. (2016) assert leadership development is too leader-centric, which reflects outdated notions of a single leader hero, with not enough focus on the holistic interactional model of leadership that includes leaders, followers, and environment. Similarly, leadership development over-indexes on individual competency development (e.g., leader development) and lacks emphasis on developing integrated collective leadership capabilities, such as shared leadership (e.g., leadership development) (Ardichvili et al., 2016). Holt et al. (2018) also find many organizations adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to leadership development and ignore developing leaders’ individual needs, including their current and desired skill levels, experience, personality, and needed behavior changes. Finally, programs tend to remediate leader weaknesses and deficiencies rather than develop their strengths and potential, which recent research learning theory demonstrates is more effective (Feser et al., 2017; Holt et al., 2018).
The second universal gap in leadership development is a failure to connect leadership development to strategic leadership systems (Clarke & Higgs, 2016; Feser et al., 2017). Despite significant financial investment in developing strategic leadership capabilities, CEOs do not believe leadership development efforts impact their business (Beer et al., 2016; Feser et al., 2017). To influence performance, organizations should contextualize leadership development according to their market position and strategy (Beer et al., 2016). Furthermore, organizations should align roles, responsibilities, processes, policies, and practices with strategic objectives; and then develop leaders according to these systems (Beer et al., 2016).
Relatedly, organizations also fail to accurately measure leadership development results, hence disconnecting leadership development from strategic objectives (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Holt et al., 2018). A proven learning and development measurement model is the Kirkpatrick model, which measures four levels of learning effectiveness: reaction, learning, transfer, and results (Lacerenza et al., 2017). Most training programs only measure Level One (i.e., learning experience satisfaction) but call it results (Lacerenza et al., 2017). Without measuring valid results, however, organizations fail to assess program effectiveness, thus contributing to the widening gap between leadership development and strategic impact (Beer et al., 2016).
Justifying Leadership Development
In light of understanding leadership as a process, the scope of leadership influence that spans every level of the organization justifies the need for developing leaders (Manning & Curtis, 2019). Research demonstrates leaders influence people (e.g., human capital), collective organizational capabilities (e.g., social capital), and organizational culture (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2016; Clarke & Higgs, 2016). Thus, the compound impact of leadership influence across the entire organization requires effective leadership development (Ardichvili et al., 2016).
Given such integrated influence, and when developed effectively, organizations may leverage leadership as a source of competitive advantage, thus further justifying effective leadership development (Holt et al., 2018). According to Resource-Based View Theory (RBV), organizations cultivate competitive advantage by developing internal capabilities that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable (Chen et al., 2016). Thus, organizations activate effective leadership development as a strategic lever to mitigate their risk of falling behind their market competition (Chen et al., 2016).
Consequences of Insufficient Leadership Development Support
As noted above, only 10% of CEOs said leadership development programs directly impact their business results (Feser et al., 2017). Therefore, one consequence of insufficient leadership development support is unrealized business performance. Organizations that fail to develop leadership capabilities supporting accelerating disruption such as adaptability and learning mindset will be left behind and cease to be competitors in the global marketplace (Feser et al., 2017). Another consequence of insufficient leadership development support is the risk that a culture of cynicism takes root that negatively impacts employee engagement, organizational behavior, and performance (Beer et al., 2016). When organizations require employees to participate in training that fails to yield results, employees experience decreased motivation for learning, development, and change (Beer et al., 2016). Finally, a third consequence of insufficient leadership development support is that nothing changes. Despite investing billions of dollars into highly rated leadership development experiences, absent clear connections to strategic objectives, business performance, and the organizational context, leadership development fails to produce change and growth (Beer et al., 2016).
Conclusion
Leadership at all levels is subject to an input-mediator-output process such that the output quality will only be as high as the input quality, thus underscoring the importance of developing high-quality leadership skills and behaviors. To that end, this research paper explored universal gaps of leadership development, justified the need for developing leaders, and described consequences organizations might face if they provide insufficient leadership development support. Ultimately, in light of viewing leadership as a process, this research paper asserted organizations that effectively develop leadership generate higher quality leader skills and behaviors, which improves organizational performance.
References
Ardichvili, A., Natt och Dag, K., & Manderscheid, S. (2016). Leadership development: Current and emerging models and practices. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645506
Beer, M., Finnström, M., & Schrader, D. (2016). Why leadership training fails—and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 50-57.
Chen, L., Zheng, W., Yang, B., & Bai, S. (2016). Transformational leadership, social capital and organizational innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(7), 843-859. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2015-0157
Clarke, N., & Higgs, M. (2016). How strategic focus relates to the delivery of leadership training and development. Human Resource Management, 55(4), 541-565. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21683
Couch, M. A., & Citrin, R. (2018). Retooling leadership development. Strategic HR Review, 17(6), 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-2018-0061
Feser, C., Nielsen, N., & Rennie, M. (2017). What’s missing in leadership development? McKinsey Quarterly(3), 20-24.
Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726-1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316682830
Holt, S., Hall, A., & Gilley, A. (2018). Essential components of leadership development programs. Journal of Managerial Issues, 30(2), 214-153.
Iordanoglou, D. (2018). Future trends in leadership development practices and the crucial leadership skills. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 15(2), 118-129.
Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686-1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241
Manning, G., & Curtis, K. (2019). The Art of Leadership (6th ed.). McGraw Hill.