Among other articles of dubious value The March, 2009 issue of T+D magazine contains one entitled, "Leadership Development: One Size Does Not Fit All." This shallow patchwork of interview snippets and super-obvious bullet points poses the question: With all of the time, energy and resources spent on leadership development where are the leaders? It is beyond amusing that it reports the results of a DDI survey that, “…finds that more than one-third of all new leaders fail.” It is amusing because DDI is at the top of the list of providers that convinced organizations to squander buckets of treasure to train employees for a role that had little chance of materializing in their lives.
The article further unearths the startling observation that there are many meanings for the term “leadership;” a conclusion that would be patently obvious to a freshman communications major. In addition, it goes on, the approach of applying a single leadership model across the board is probably not viable, and we now have to consider context and culture. The upside, of course, is that the same people who filled their coffers with shining unimpeachable models can now refill their coffers by tweaking the original to “fit” the organization.
I’m coming around to the view that the problem is not the leadership models or the training they inspire. The problem lies in the concept of leadership itself. Of course we know it when we see it in the context of action, or historically through the examination of results. However, it seems naïve that we believe we can train people to be leaders. Leadership is and has always been an emergent phenomenon. Put any bunch of people together for some period of time, give them a problem or create a crisis and a leader will emerge. The attributes may vary according to the context, but some combination of human and circumstantial factors will cause someone to lead.
In a world where every “high potential” is groomed for leadership it is not surprising that most fail. Learning a set of skills may be useful and gratifying to the individual, but organizational Darwinism will prevail. It seems to me that what we need are more highly skilled “managers.” The leaders will find their way.