Those who can, lead. Those who can’t…
An old axiom, often used by those antagonistic to the coaching profession, is “those who can, do. Those who can’t, coach.” In a similar form, it has been applied to teachers in general. I have often found these assertions to be particularly biting, not to mention completely unfair. It devalues the professions out of hand, assigning individuals who pursue such careers as “also ran’s”. It can be readily argued that both teaching and coaching are vocations that require a good deal of self-sacrifice and giving. These qualities are not generally associated with the fields of professional athletics or private enterprise, where personal interests hold much greater influence. And given the passion that both teachers and coaches usually have towards their respective fields, such disparaging insinuations about their competency is likely even more hurtful.
It is regularly observed that some of the best in their field are very often the least capable coaches. Some say that the best athletes are the natural ones, who never had to struggle or overcome the challenges that most others face. It is the experience and knowledge of these challenges that allow coaches to develop many different athletes, with separate and distinct shortcomings, to a more uniform level. In essence, the coach requires completely different competencies and skill sets from the athlete. Extrapolating further, the teacher does not have to be particularly successful in her field; she needs to know her field exceptionally well, and possess the skills and talents needed to teach those things to others. While I support these arguments, there is one field where I am less certain that they are equally valid.
The last three decades have seen an explosion in the leadership development industry. Billions of dollars are being spent to improve the perceived deficiency in leadership in our current and future leaders. Predictably, where there is great market demand there will be many looking to supply the market. Excessive demand can also reduce the incentives to providing a more competitively superior product. Leadership development is likely no different in this respect .
A predicament in assessing leadership development programs is the dearth of quantifiable assessment measures. Leadership theory itself suffers from the lack of a precise, consensus opinion about what leadership is, and what good leadership looks like. This leads to even more vague notions of effective traits, philosophies, or skills. This handicap has done little to deter scores of organizations from taking a shot at it. There is no lack of individuals selling their versions of leadership and leadership development. This has led to to a panoply of public and private institutions and individuals creating a plethora of programs and theories, none of which have any support in quantifiable metrics.
In this environment, how is it possible to analyze these programs? Participant surveys are popular choices, but it is hard to defend their validity; self-assessment has its limitations, particulary about the perceived future utility of a program. If the programs themselves have no acceptable metrics, is there anything measurable? I would argue there is. Give the current parameters, the measurable metrics of the teacher should be given greater weight. This is where more scrutiny can and should be given, as compared to basketball coaches or math teachers. Coaches have wins and losses, teachers have standardized scores. These are fair (not perfect) assessments of skills and competency, as well as effectiveness of the relative program.
I believe the resume and proficiency of those teaching leadership bears more relevance to the potential of the program. Four areas can be used to evaluate instructors:
- Experience in leadership positions.
- Success in leadership roles.
- Competency in management and leadership theory.
- Effectiveness as an instructor.
Leadership is an inexact, nuanced concept. It’s complicated. There needs to be some experience in leading; this is a measurable quantity and necessary to understanding what leadership entails. There should be some success in the field, which is again a measurable quantity. But to assume someone who successfully led an organization, or movement, is a great leader suffers from too much outcome bias. Their outcome may not necessarily be repeatable. History shows that leadership success is often relative to timing, situation, and context. One person’s success does not encompass the breadth of successful leadership doctrine.
It seems too often that someone can boil their experience or theory into a tidy list of traits or tactics, produce a book, and suddenly become an authority on leadership. Their knowledge of leadership seems to be seven bullet points. This often strikes me as little different from diet fads. Even an excellent leader will be a limited in developing future leaders without a healthy understanding of broader leadership theory.
Finally, the person possesing all these talents must be able to teach. This means more than just presenting in front of a class. Course development, presentation materials, applicable context, and are essential for an effective program. Course evaluations are valid measures of the quality of the teaching rather than the program.
It should be clear that the argument here is not that George Washington should be the template for a leadership teacher. He might have been a terrible one. Rather, the argument is that the teacher and her credentials should count more than in other fields. Four specific qualifications: experience, success, teaching skills, and a sound understanding of leadership theory are quantifiable measures of leadership instructors. Leadership is complicated and inexact; the effectiveness of these programs is difficult to assess, evaluate and quantify. Those proposing to teach it do have quantifiable qualities and it is reasonable to, and perhaps the best way currently to evaluate leadership programs.
