Similarities and Differences between Leadership Development
in the Private and Public Sectors?
Authors: Michael Bristow and Martin Clarke
General Management Development Group, Cranfield School of Management
www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/gmdp
Leadership development continues to be an increasing priority, attracting substantial investment
particularly from enlightened organisations that view it as a vital condition for sustained success.
As investment grows, so too does the need to evaluate effectiveness. Two recent studies by
Cranfield’s ‘General Management Development Group’ provide both private and public sector
organisations with just such an opportunity to benchmark themselves by looking at the role and
value of senior leadership development (SLD).
There is clearly potential for cross fertilisation. In the public sector, there is now considerable
pressure for greater commercialisation of services whilst the private sector is attempting to be
more responsive to a wider range of stakeholders, a capability that has been a traditional focus
for public sector organisations like the NHS and Local Authorities. These issues are both the
remit of organisation leaders: so how does their leadership development practice compare?
There were several critical issues about SLD that were consistent across both studies:
•
The real value of SLD is often poorly understood at executive level – few senior managers
seemed to have personal clarity about the potential role of SLD as means of improving
business performance.
•
Managers seldom differentiated between the relative value of short and long term horizons
and the value of internal and external knowledge in the design of SLD. For example,
organisations often preferred to focus on here and now business issues through methods such
as on the job training at the expense of wider and externally focussed development.
•
The thinking of HR/development professionals is sometimes at odds with line management;
disagreements about the most appropriate methodologies and their relative value were
commonplace.
However, against this backdrop there were also differences in approach and priority. For
example,
•
The large public sector organisation in our study displayed a much greater willingness to
maintain investment in SLD in unfavourable business circumstances – this type of action is
increasingly viewed as being significant for commercial organisations wishing to build
employee commitment. Cost cutting has a role in difficult economic circumstances but so too
does the need to maintain the quality of people assets and to develop new ideas and
leadership capabilities over the longer term.
•
Unlike the private sector, our data indicated that public sector managers are generally more
sophisticated in their approach to evaluating leadership development. They were more
willing to consider a variety of approaches according to the different development aims being
sought. Better evaluation of SLD may encourage private sector organisations to maintain
development investment in difficult economic circumstances.
•
In the private sector there was a greater focus on the advantages of individual leadership
activity in difficult business circumstances. In contrast, in the large public sector organisation
we studied, in difficult economic and political circumstances, much greater emphasis lay on
collective and consensual activity often at the expense of individual leadership. Whilst a
collective approach has value for building teams and encouraging mutual support, individual
leadership activity can also be important in difficult times, for example, for facing up to
tough decisions, motivating staff and looking to the future.
•
The private sector demonstrated a greater readiness to learn from experiences external to the
organisation. This is also vital to public sector organisations, such as the NHS, who face
increasing sub contraction of important services. The benefit of wider and innovative
thinking that this external view brings can be achieved by attending open management
development programmes, the use of external coaching and projects, and by attending events
outside one’s own industry.
These differences and similarities underline the need for more discriminating approaches to
SLD. One size does not fit all. Different organisation needs require different SLD strategies,
methodologies and processes of evaluation (see Business Leadership and General Management
Development-Creating Innovative Future Practice at www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/gmdp/research.).
However, as our studies have shown, much SLD is undertaken without a clear starting point,
understanding how or where leadership impacts on organisational performance. Currently,
research at Cranfield is seeking to identify the relative impact of leadership on sustained
organisational success. The outcome of this current study will provide organisations with much
needed direction in devising their SLD strategies. Further information on this research can be
found at www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/groups/gmdp/research/luck.asp.
Background to this article:
Michael Bristow is a Research Officer in the General Management Development Programmes
Group at Cranfield. Martin Clarke is Director of the Cranfield General Management
Development Programme, one of a portfolio of four intensive General Management
Development Programmes at Cranfield. We regularly hold Taster Events for these programmes.
For forthcoming dates click through to: www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/gmdp
Related Executive Development Courses at Cranfield School of Management:
•
•
The Business Leaders' Programme
The Advanced Development Programme
Related Web Link:
General Management Development Programmes (www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/gmdp)