Strategies for the Efficient Implementation of Corporate Leadership Programs

Strategies for the Efficient Implementation of Corporate Leadership Programs

A People Manager at a large company told me how difficult it was to make an impact with a limited leadership training budget. If she focused on the leaders so that they could then work with their teams, the teams lacked the language needed to be on the same page as the work the leader wanted to accomplish. If she focused on top performers (those with high performance and high potential in the 9-box model), she felt that the training had an individual impact but didn’t extend to the rest of the organization. He considered offering training on a voluntary basis, but in the end, participants would come from different areas, lacking the consistency needed to generate a collective impact. How could he address this problem strategically?

The Tension Between Depth and Scope

It’s well known that attending a leadership workshop doesn’t necessarily lead to improvements in our skills the very next day, and that participating in a coaching workshop doesn’t necessarily turn us into coaches for our work teams. The key here is to sustain the learning process over time, which allows us to progressively challenge our mental models and experience the long-awaited behavioral change.

Now, the more in-depth the leadership program is, the greater our likelihood of success—but the cost per person increases. Conversely, with a less in-depth program, while the cost decreases, so does the likelihood of impact. What is the right balance between these variables?

While this is a decision that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in general terms, a multi-stage leadership program—one that allows participants to learn and put what they’ve learned into practice simultaneously— is more valuable in terms of impact, because it facilitates retention of content, allows participants to experiment and then reflect on those experiments, and harnesses collective effort as a mechanism for behavioral change.

But what if I have a team of 1,000 leaders and 10,000 team members? How do I make an impact on them?

The Risk of a Disconnect Between Leaders and Teams

Many organizations address this dilemma through two strategies: the first involves using the 9-box model to identify leaders with the best performance and potential and sending them to an in-depth leadership training course.

The second (often complementary) approach involves establishing the well-known training “academies”: all leaders, from a certain level onward, participate in a cross-functional leadership program that is less in-depth than the previous one.

Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages. The 9-box strategy allows highly qualified professionals to develop leadership skills in great depth and enhances the future employability of its participants. The disadvantages are that it is often viewed as a perk rather than a new challenge, tends to have a greater impact on the individual than on the organization, and often disconnects these professional leaders from the rest of the organization—and particularly from their teams. They acquire a completely different language and vocabulary.

The second strategy—cross-functional training academies—enables leaders to develop a common language; it is a way to promote development across all leadership levels within the organization and facilitates connections with people who may not necessarily know each other beforehand. As for the disadvantages, these programs often lack the depth needed to make an impact, tend to be expensive to sustain over time, and create the same disconnect between leaders and their teams, since the academies are aimed exclusively at those who manage others. In this case, it is the teams that end up using different language and vocabulary.

Choosing with a Strategic Eye

A third strategy for addressing the challenge of leadership development involves using the identification of critical positions to focus efforts—an approach already employed by many HR departments in large companies. Thus, for a hospital specializing in orthopedics, the resignation of an orthopedic surgeon is not the same as that of a cardiologist. The former is a critical role for the business. Training that specialist and their leader can be key to retaining them.

The advantages of this approach are that it involves working not only with the leader but also with their team, thereby preventing a disconnect between leaders and teams; the training focuses on a small group, allowing for greater depth without neglecting breadth; and it has a direct impact on the organization’s core areas. Among the disadvantages is that other professionals (usually the participants’ peers) do not receive training, which can create a perception of inequity if not handled properly.

New Opportunities to Tailor Training

One final strategy—which we believe is both complementary and effective—is to focus training on those who need it most and/or are eager to put it into practice. Thus, leadership training is best suited for individuals who face the need or challenge of applying these skills and, at the same time, have the time and willingness to learn. We often try to get all leaders to develop this skill, when in reality there may be some who—due to their current workload, lack of interest, the fact that they’ve already reached an acceptable level of proficiency, or simply because of other priorities—do not devote the necessary time to learning, and the program’s impact is lost.

This strategy has the great advantage of allowing us to focus the program on those who need it most, and the disadvantage that we have to assess leaders and work teams using the right questions to filter them. To this end, Almabrands has developed a study called the “Purpose Index,” which uses an online assessment tool to evaluate the state of individuals, teams, and the organization in terms of their leadership and purpose challenges, thereby focusing the work required to take the organization to the next level. Now, like any strategy, it has its drawbacks, including the inability to precisely determine who “truly” needs the program. Being aware of the problem is half the battle toward solving it.

Questioning the Status Quo

Following targeting strategies based on assessments of team health—such as the one provided by the “Purpose Index”—and on the identification of critical roles involves challenging certain deeply entrenched assumptions within organizations and, let’s face it, within HR departments as well. Here are two of them that we believe are key to address:

Leadership training is only meaningful for those who manage others: a belief that has no scientific basis. We can all drive change, regardless of our formal role in the organization, and that fosters our growth and sense of purpose. When driving change, having the role of “boss” can make things easier or more difficult, depending on the situation and who is involved.

Leadership training is only meaningful for those who manage others: a belief that has no scientific basis. We can all drive change, regardless of our formal role in the organization, and that fosters our growth and sense of purpose. When driving change, having the role of “boss” can make things easier or more difficult, depending on the situation and who is involved.

All leaders—especially our top performers—should receive leadership training: the truth is that not all leaders need leadership training. In fact, we would go so far as to say that the top performers in the 9-box model do not necessarily need training, but rather new challenges where they can put into practice and refine the skills they already possess. Furthermore, if a leader is delivering strong results with their team and fostering a positive work environment, why not leverage them as a mentor to teach others, rather than sending them to yet another leadership course?

All leaders—especially our top performers—should receive leadership training: the truth is that not all leaders need leadership training. In fact, we would go so far as to say that the top performers in the 9-box model do not necessarily need training, but rather new challenges where they can put into practice and refine the skills they already possess. Furthermore, if a leader is delivering strong results with their team and fostering a positive work environment, why not leverage them as a mentor to teach others, rather than sending them to yet another leadership course?

A strategy for targeting resources is key to maximizing the likelihood of success for a large-scale leadership program, and choosing the right one requires a case-by-case analysis of the organization’s stage of development. If you think your organization is ready to take leadership training to the next level, it might be time for us to talk.

1. The 9-Box is a methodology for segmenting talent based on current performance and future potential. More information is available at this link: https://www.aihr.com/blog/9-box-grid/