Subject: Dilemmas in leadership development Some of the questions and dilemmas I think need exploring further in the context of developing the capacity for local leadership are: 1.The competency approach to leadership development: Do we have any evidence that the leaders we regard as exemplary arrived there as a result of a competency based approach to their development? They didn't What are the transformatory experiences in the lives of great leaders? Moments of great challenge on their own paradigm of life What evidence is there to support the proposition that leadership might be developed through story telling, dialogue or action learning/appreciative enquiry approaches? This IS the way - as it 'moves' people - it is not TELLING them to change it is offering a different aspect which they might want to consider - and so they then DO think about it as no-one is forcing it upon them. The Hopi Indians have a saying "The storytellers will change the world" - it is true. That's why books are so key to leadership - people tell stories - biggest growing area in bookstores - self help!!! 2. Leadership development is strongly focussed at present on the skills and attributes of individual leaders (which implicitly buys into the 'leader as hero' not true in many instances the real hero is a servant and not hero - it is the followers who turn them into a hero but they don't see themselves as that - Christ / Mandela / Ghandi / et al idea). How can we develop the relationships through which leadership is performed....between cabinet and scrutiny, officers and members, local government and central government, health and social services etc etc It will only be developed through some people leading their own lives better and therefore influencing others through their stories of their challenges and how they got through it - this creates trust which is the foundation of ANY relationship. Trust is the glue of leadership 3. Leadership of organisations arguably calls forth different qualities and than leadership in a partnership context (or leadership in diverse political contexts).What are the distinctive differences and what are their implications? The right leaders will appear when they are required - because they want to serve - try to intellectualise it and you have killed the climate of leadership - as local and central government ahs done. Bottom line - you really can't have leadership in local and central government because the top people (who are not leaders) set the tone - political / self / vested interest mistrust - it IS NOT possible. Politicians are the least trusted in society after journalists - they deserve each other! 4. What is the unit of development that is likely to yield the biggest change in productivity....the individual? the team? the organisation? the local partnership? Are we going to get the best value by investing in individuals while neglecting more whole system approaches? YES YES AND AGAIN YES>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>t can only be the individual all other stem from that - it is that simple but not easy. If there is no individual responsibility there can be no team or organisational responsibility - when are we going to learn the bloody basics instead of the intellectuals trying to create something new each year which can't work as it doesn't start with the smallest ' molecule' - so how can the bigger atom be better if the nucleus hasn't cjhhanged?????????????? 5. Are the leaders we have today a good guide to the leaders we need tomorrow? If things change so rapidly,might we be in danger of developing the leaders we needed yesterday? Firstly do you have any leaders or are they all mangers? Secondly the servant leaders don't change from one year to the next - they are there to serve - so if we get it right - leadership NEVER changes - it ALWAYS serves the bigger picture of life and the universe - NEVER EVER yourself or your team - always the bigger picture which equals sustainability. Nature = wisdom and wisdom = nature 6. To what extent is the development of leadership a 'training issue' at all? How can we (as training advisers, consultants etc) ensure that attention is paid to then other factors that affect the development of leadership....e.g.the protection (and reward) of those who experiment (whether or not they succeed) BY being servant leaders first - setting the example - if you don't you exemplify management and competencies and IQ - and unfortunately most will - not through any real fault of their own - but because society is that way and it takes great energy / passiion and belief to change. So if trainers - and that is the wrong name for leadership development anyway - facilitators it needs to be - words mean so much - are to lead - they must change first - by exemplifying leadership behaviour - openness honest trust - IQ words but powerful actions. See Institute of management report I referred to - leadership IS 95% EQ - who you are as a human being not what you are in your role!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7. Does the competency approach assume that jobs are definable in terms that have a reasonably long shelf life? How well does a competency approach serve those whose work cannot be described in such reliable ways? - It doesn't serve EQ - it can act as a support for those wondering about certain things - but in its present form to try to 'find out what works - another IQ process. 8. Some of the imagery about leadership is changing dramatically....e.g. (post)modern leadership is often likened to a jazz band....conjuring up a picture of connected improvisation....rather different from the leaders as hero notion. How do you develop excellent jazz bands? Spot on leadership Jazz is a great book - how do you create it People must want to do it People must feel safe There is no script (as we heard from Dolphin stuff) There is no real measurement It is about the person There is no process Each trusts the other There is passion and joy No-one takes control Each is a leader whenever they want to be - when it best serves the group/ Jazz is a great analogy