To train them or to develop them?…that is the question.
How do we prepare our leaders for the changes ahead?
Should we train leaders or develop them? Is leadership even important? How do we prepare our leaders to lead in uncertain times? These are all questions that need answers if the homeland security leadership is to endure the challenges of the 21st century.
According to the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), United States companies spent nearly 12 billion dollars (24 percent of their overall training budgets) on leadership training in 2009. Yet, despite this large investment, nearly 60 percent of companies report that they still face leadership talent shortages. Recently, graduate students from the Naval Postgraduate School concluded that leadership was the single biggest factor in determining the success of the homeland security enterprise. From these anecdotes it would appear that leadership is important, so the question remains; how does the Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE) prepare our leaders for the challenges that lie ahead?
In developing the foundation for proper leadership instruction and development, it will be helpful to examine what is the appropriate context for leadership training and how the research might suggest that organizations view the training of their leaders.
Matthew Stewart in his analysis, “Seduction of the Leadership Gurus” argues that leadership training is circumstantial and cannot be taught and that successful programs develop leaders instead of training them. Although this analysis lacks academic strength, it proposes an interesting hypothesis with regard to how leadership training should be viewed. Stewart argues that training leaders the same way we would train someone to use a spreadsheet is the wrong format. This metaphorical inoculation of leadership training has not been proven to be successful and has become merely a box check for personal advancement. He further states that organizations should view leadership development as having no end result and that this development process is a continual cycle of learning that follows someone throughout their lifetime.
Barbara Kellerman in her book, The End of Leadership supports Stewart’s view and argues that leader focused training has failed and is far from delivering any empirical evidence that it is effective. Kellerman’s analysis looks at the historical context of leadership training for organizations that have attempted to create the one stop shop leadership program. She concludes that “leader-centric” training is the wrong instructional context and that leadership training is a process of development and not a teacher with a classroom of attentive students. Kellerman contends that leadership needs to be experienced and that the current instructional framework does nothing more than fill the wallets of the leadership consultant companies.
Perhaps effective leadership cannot be measured by any metric and really survives within a broader social Eco-system that is dynamic and influenced by all factors in that environment. There is good evidence that the nuances of Social Identity Theory provide an excellent framework for understanding this dynamic leadership environment. The development of individual and group identity within the leadership setting would appear to be a significant factor in determining how effective a leader will be.
So maybe Stewart has it right and leadership is not necessarily something that can be taught but something more profound that needs to be analyzed and explored within its natural setting. Maybe the HSE should view leadership development as a process and not necessarily an end state. Changing the perception changes how we prepare our leaders to lead and this may make all the difference.
