Leadership and getting trained

Although it is often stated that leaders are born and not made, it is off course just the opposite. A born leader without the possibility to practice will never become a leader. Where a future leader with lots of chances to practice, automatically becomes a better leader.

Training leaders
The most important part of leadership is getting a chance to practice. If this practice is structured and formal or informal and unstructured does not matter. For many of todays leaders the rule was, that they encountered situations in which they could develop there talents as a leader.

From the point of view of an organization, it is off course better to work structured at the development of future leaders. There is however a but attached to this method.

A however
The danger of training leaders is that they are trained for the present or the past, not for the future. It is possible to train for the future, but that takes a different approach to training, from what today is main stream. In the current economy most trainings are based on what we already know. The knowledge that is passed on, is based on the past or is current at the moment the leaderships position is to be taken. The knowledge is seldom based on the fact that the world changes.

Few future leaders following an official trainingprogram learn to gather knowledge to understand the future. Often the idea is, that this will happen by itself as one is busy learning. A second thought is that learning to gather knowledge and information automatically leads to understanding the current situation. That this a flawed idea was proven in 2008 by the economic crisis, that was caused when the mortgage industry collapsed.

So it takes more to make someone understand the information he has received or gathered himself in his current situation.

Leadership and training 2

A leader has three ways in which he is involved with training. The first is his own training to become a leader. This is often a combination of informal and formal training. Secondly he is involved in the training of future leaders, to get them ready to take their position as a leader, when it is time for the leader to step down. Thirdly as part of the strategy of the organization. Here I am only going to talk about the training of leaders.

The standard method

Save a few companies, most companies choose to hunt and select their new leaders outside their organization. The choice is for proven leadership quality. That has two reasons. First you prevent jealous reactions of other managers, who did not make it into the leadership position. Second you have proof that the new leader can lead and can bear the lesser aspects of the function of leader.

The prevention of jealousy between managers is important to an organization, because jealousy can create adverse powers. The managers that were passed over, can start an internal war or use their position to undermine the new leader. And every internal resistance has negative effects on the effectiveness of an organization.

The advantage of the proof of leadership is that you prevent someone failing, because he was not ready for the leadership role. However the proof is off course only proof of the fact that the leader could lead the organization he left. It can never be proof, that he can lead the organization he is going to lead. Except off course if both organizations are identical to the last point, but hoe often does that happen?
The other approach

A different approach is the management development program for high potentials. A combination of training and development for employees who show potential to realise that potential.

These programs begin off course with the selection of the HiPo's, by their manager, a manager HRM or HRD or maybe even a manager MD and a manager high in the hierarchy of the organization, sometimes the current leader.

Next the HiPo's get to participate in all kinds of training and development, directed at realising their potential. Often this potential strands in a management position at middle management levels. Not because they lack potential, but because there are more people with potential, then positions for managers.

This approach often flounders at the possibility to practice with the new knowledge acquired during the MD program. An effect from that fact that training is something completely different from a working organization. A proper working MD program will try to make the training situation resemble the practice of the organization and will try to integrate the training into the practical organization.

Leadership and blame

In leadership and blame you find three kinds. First there is the guilt of the leader, default part of his position. The guilt as part of his responsibility as highest in rank. Second there is the guilt of the leader as part of the outcome of his decisions. The leader who makes a choice that can or endangers his fellow group members. Third there is the guilt of the groupmember. The blame as part of the group members responsibility for his behavior.

The first guilt comes from the third kind. The leader is also guilty, as he is also responsible for what others in his group do.

The second guilt is not so interesting. A leader is human and wil make mistakes. It can only be hoped for, that he will learn from his mistakes. And that these lessons will result in better choices in the future. But this guilt is no different from the guilt of an employee, responsible for his actions. The only difference is that a leader has no one above him to assign blame.

And that is what it is all about when it comes to guilt. Of what use is blaming someone? In most cases blaming, leads to flight behavior. The blamed person tries to find external reasons to proof his innocence. The famous excuse: "The dog ate my homework." A pity you do not have a dog. Or the person blamed, will try to spread the blame thin. "I was not the only one, who did this job." Or "I was giving the wrong information by him and him." Or "The client constantly changed his goals and wishes." Or even better: "It was not me, they would do that and so I could not do this." The "Everybody, somebody, anybody, nobody" story is very recognizable.

But is it useful to assign blame, if everybody tries to find an excuse?