RSS Feed Executive Development: Past, Present and Future

« The Learning Glass Ceiling (or, is... Building Strong Networks: Part One »
December 17, 2007

5:27 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

The Learning Glass Ceiling – Part 2

| posted by Jim Bolt

In my last blog I said that in working with senior leaders in major organizations I’ve observed that once they get to be the CEO, or reach other C-suite level positions, many quit participating in learning experiences. I noted that there are two problems this causes: 1) the negative messages it sends to the rest of the organization, and 2) the inability of those top leaders to role-model and reinforce what is being taught. See the last blog, The Learning Glass Ceiling – Part 1, for a discussion of the first problem. Now for the second issue.

These senior leaders often support leadership development with their words and financial backing, encourage those who report to them to participate, kick-off or close their senior executive/leadership development programs, and sometimes “teach” in them – usually presenting the organization vision, strategy, marketplace challenges and priorities. They might even go so far as to be briefed in some detail by the head of HR, or Chief Learning Officer, or head of executive/leadership development, on the objectives and content of the programs. But if they haven’t actually attended personally as a “student”, several problems arise that are critical and often overlooked:
• Since they have not had the development experience themselves, they can’t possibly role model what is being taught to leaders below them
• Because they don’t have the same training/development they can’t encourage, support, and reinforce what is being taught with the leaders who report to them who have participated in the programs or development experiences
• If top management doesn’t role model or reinforce what is expected of others in the organization, it is much less likely that there will be an environment that supports people in applying what is learned. At best, this makes it extremely difficult for lessons learned in leadership development experiences to be applied and sustained over time. And at worst, it can make the time and expenditures on development a complete waste

So, what do you think? Do you think top level leaders understand the problems created by their lack of personal engagement in learning and development? If you agree that this is a problem, what do you think can be done about it?

Jim Bolt*jbolt@executivedevelopment.com*www.executivedevelopment.com

Tags: Leadership
Report Content
Sign in or register to comment.

Recent Comments | 2 Total

December 17, 2007 at 11:17pm

Steve Roesler
Jim, Your scenario is, indeed, a common one. Having been involved in leadership development for 30 years, here are a couple of thoughts: 1. I actually believe that many who don't participate also don't completely grasp the implications. Even when I've described the upsides and downs from every angle, I get an intellectual nod of the head but not a sense of deep understanding. 2. I also haven't found any sense of evil or arrogance. It's more often than not a feeling of pressure and expectations to be other places doing other things. This phenomenon has only been prevalent for about the past 10 years. Prior to that, it was relatively easy to get people at all levels involved much of the time. 3. The solution? About five years ago, it occurred to me that busy C-level folks don't want lots of options. They wanted a solid solution. So I came up with a design that involved the CEO kicking off a leadership "program"and staying for the day, along with a member of the Board of Directors. Small group activities were facilitated by the CEO's direct reports, who offered related real-life examples at the end of each "module". (The content always changes, but the orchestration of the learning is done by senior managers. They also are coached beforehand on how to lead the group activities). 4. How is this a solution? For some reason, when the model includes the full group of C-level people, it's more easily accepted. If everyone is there, then it's a full-blown executive activity and somehow becomes more do-able. To say the least, participants gain a lot. And, the C-level folks become acquainted with the capabilities of middle managers from across the organization. So: the outcome addresses the issues of role-modeling in real-time, involvement vs. "support" of the effort, and learning of content (they are learners during the subject-matter sessions). The issues that you outline are very real. Perhaps some of the C-level people would be more inclined to hop on board with this kind of a structured solution. I'm looking forward to seeing how others are addressing this, too. Thanks, Jim.
Report Content

December 18, 2007 at 12:06am

Michael Vanderdonk
I think that C level managers that don't keep learning not only don't understand the effect it has in their organisation. They also don't understand how to lead as effectively as they could. Some of the difficulty, I think, is in the target of that development. By that I mean, when an accountant needs new development in her role, it's usually clear what's needed. This is rarely the case for C level individuals. Some of the solution is showing the C level execs, through their own experience, how their own development improvements can influence the rest of their team, and the rest of the organisation. Much like what Steve shared above. Another aspect of the solution is to focus on the results of the training. Not just their own personal results but also the results that occur as a 'side effect' of that development. A third aspect is having a way to identify _for the executive themselves_ what parts of their skills and behaviour need improvement, updating, changing or assistance. Just going to a development program just for the sake of it adds more difficulty having them attend future programs. What else is there?
Report Content

Special Editions?