Issue 8
Leadership development
October 2011
APS Human Capital Matters: Leadership Development
October 2011, Issue 8
Editor’s note to readers
Welcome to the eighth edition of Human Capital Matters—the digest for time poor leaders and
practitioners with an interest in human capital and organisational capability. This edition focuses
on Leadership Development.
Enhancing the skills and performance of leaders has been the focus of public service reform over
many years. The renewed focus on public sector leadership across developed countries is in
response to the demands of an increasingly complex, fast-paced environment and in recognition
that senior public servants are at a critical juncture between strategy making and strategy
execution in government. The APS Reform Blueprint also recognises that improving government
performance, agility and efficiency rests partly on the quality and capacity of public service
leaders, thereby placing particular weight on the importance of developing the capabilities of
APS leaders.
Leadership and leadership development is the subject of a significant and varied body of
research and literature—from early models of leadership which focused on studying the
individual leader and their characteristics to a greater focus on the leader in their context and the
relationship between leaders, their peers, followers and culture. Much of the contemporary
leadership development literature focuses, not on teaching leaders skills, but on helping leaders
to learn through their experiences and relationships, in addition to classroom-based learning.
The Australian Public Service Commission’s Strategic Centre for Leadership, Learning and
Development has been established to take a strategic and coordinated approach to developing
leadership capability across the APS. In April 2011, the Secretaries Board was briefed on and
agreed to support ongoing funding for the implementation of the APS Leadership Development
Strategy. Implementation of the strategy will help build leader capability in the context of both
enduring requirements on senior public servants and increasingly complex challenges and
heightened citizen expectations.
The APS Leadership Development Strategy has drawn heavily on a combination of extensive
consultation across the APS and a review of contemporary practice and research. A number of
the key documents used to inform the strategy have been included in this edition of Human
Capital Matters. These articles deliberately do not enter into discussions on defining leadership
or debating whether it is born or made; rather they focus on the development of leaders through
the exploration of three key questions:



What is the nature of leadership for a changing world?
What capabilities do leaders need in this evolving context?
How do we best develop these capabilities for individuals and organisations?
About Human Capital Matters
Human Capital Matters seeks to provide APS leaders and practitioners with easy access to the
issues of contemporary importance in public and private sector human capital and organisational
2
capability. It has been designed to provide interested readers with a monthly guide to the national
and international ideas that are shaping human capital thinking and practice.1
Comments and suggestions welcome
Thank you to those who took the time to provide feedback on earlier editions of Human Capital
Matters. Comments, suggestions or questions regarding this publication are always welcome and
should be addressed to: humancapitalmatters@apsc.gov.au. Readers can also subscribe to the
mailing list through this email address.
Bernard M. Bass and Ronald E. Riggio, ‘Transformational Leadership’, 2nd
ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2006.
The authors provide a clear understanding of transformational leadership and review the sizeable
body of research that the transformational leadership model has stimulated in a relatively short
period of time. They attribute the burgeoning interest in transformational leadership to its
emphasis on intrinsic motivation and the positive experience of its adherents, many of whom
find it a more appealing approach than the social exchange process of transactional leadership.
Transactional leaders, in a definition made popular by James MacGregor Burns in 1978, lead
through social exchange; for example, business leaders promise financial rewards in exchange
for high-level performance. Transformational leaders, in contrast, inspire their employees to
achieve what are often extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership
capacity. Transformational leaders also help potential leaders to grow into the leadership role
and elicit high-order performance from their employees.
The book analyses transformational leadership within the broader context of the Full Range of
Leadership (FRL) model. The latter includes transformational leadership as the most effective, or
optimal, level of leadership, with transactional leadership (based on rewards and disciplinary
actions) as the mid-level, and laissez-faire leadership serving as the basis for the ineffective, or
suboptimal, level. It contains 15 chapters. Chapter 1 (Introduction) defines the key concepts used
throughout the volume. The second chapter examines the structure and measurement of
transformational leadership and the FRL model. It also includes analysis of tools used to measure
transformational leadership, chiefly the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Chapter 3
looks at the contribution made by transformational leadership to employee commitment,
involvement, loyalty, and work satisfaction. The fourth chapter reviews research on the link
between transformational leadership and performance.
Chapter 5 explores the ways in which transformational leadership helps employees to cope with
stress during crises, emergencies and other extreme situations such as natural disasters. The sixth
chapter examines how contingencies—sudden changes in the external operating environment, for
instance—can influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership. Chapter 7 explains how
organisational cultures can be described and understood in terms of both their transformational
and transactional qualities—transformational cultures appear to be more adaptive (the chapter
also explores how such leadership is influenced by the wider culture of the nation, territory, or
region). The eighth chapter assesses the large and growing literature on transformational
leadership and gender; women leaders, for example, tend to be more transformational than men.
1
Regular readers will note that this is the first issue of Human Capital Matters in which monographs germane to the
development of the subject are being reviewed. The books are Bernard M. Bass and Ronald E. Riggio,
Transformational Leadership (2nd ed., 2006) and Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana (eds), Handbook of Leadership
Theory and Practice (2010).
3
Chapter 9 explores the implications of transformational leadership for the organisation’s image,
policies, and strategic planning as well as its impact on recruitment, selection, promotion,
personnel development, and management education. The tenth chapter looks at the issues
surrounding the development of transformational leaders, as influenced by data, counselling and
feedback, and as generated by formal training programs based on the FRL model.
Chapter 11 reviews research into the correlates and predictors of transformational leadership, for
example, the influence of traits and beliefs. The twelfth chapter examines the influence on
leadership behaviour in all sectors of status, rank or means of acquiring a leadership position.
Chapter 13 discusses the role and importance of transformational leadership in empowering
more junior employees to perform better. The fourteenth chapter considers whether or not there
could be effective substitutes for transformational leadership—in shared or team models, for
instance. The final chapter proposes areas for future research in transformational leadership.
As a typology of leadership behaviour, the transformational approach is in general better suited
to 21st century needs because managers are required, in an age of globalisation, innovation and
competition, to transform organisations in non-traditional ways—among them carrying
employees with them in their attempts to drive capability improvement or increase profits (or
both). But transactional leadership approaches still have a role to play in generating high
performance in sections of the workplace where high-order results are necessary in achieving
efficiency and effectiveness. A function for both seems assured, but, as the authors are at pains to
emphasise, within an environment in which leaders engage in ‘authentic’ transformational
leadership. This leadership approach has at its centre a genuine concern to forge approaches
characterised by qualities such as trust, which themselves can generate ‘inspirational motivation’
in employees. The authors also conclude (Chapter 10, pp. 142–167) that the elements of
transformational leadership can be taught, developed and learned. This book, first published in
1998, is a well-written and comprehensive survey-analysis of the subject and one likely to be of
value to scholars and practitioners as well as the reader looking for a scholarly but not
intimidating examination of traditional leadership.
Bernard M. Bass is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus based at the Centre for Leadership
Studies at Binghamton University in upstate New York, and Professor Ronald E. Riggo is based
at the Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California.
John Benington and Jean Hartley, ‘“Whole Systems Go!” Improving
Leadership Across the Whole Public Service System’, National School of
Government, Sunningdale Institute, Ascot, UK, 2009 (Report), 33pp.
This report was commissioned by Britain’s National School of Government and the Public
Service Leaders Alliance (now known as Public Service Leadership). It addresses the question:
‘What would it take to create more effective leadership of the whole governmental and public
service system?’ The authors argue that today’s challenging economic times are propitious for
considering this question. However, economic challenges are not the only catalyst for change.
The world is in the throes of a far-reaching geopolitical transformation which requires a radical
re-design of key elements of public sector capability, including leadership development. The
authors base their analysis and recommendations for improvement on research by the University
of Warwick Business School and set these out in seven propositions for reform:
Proposition 1: The need for new paradigms of governance as a complex adaptive system and
new practices of political, managerial and civil leadership across the whole public service
system.
4
Proposition 2: The necessity for new patterns of ‘adaptive leadership’ to tackle tough, complex,
cross-cutting problems in the community, where there may be no clear consensus about either
the causes or the solutions to the problems.
Proposition 3: Whole systems thinking and action which includes the capacity to analyse and
understand the inter-connections, inter-dependencies and inter-actions between complex issues,
across multiple boundaries—between different sectors, services and levels of government.
Proposition 4: Leadership development programs need to join up in order to address whole
system challenges, with the Centre supporting this through new organisational and financial
architecture.
Proposition 5: Leadership development programs must translate individual learning into
organisational and inter-organisational action and improvement—an approach which would
require completely different starting points from traditional leadership development programs.
Proposition 6: Strengthening leadership skills and capabilities for working across the whole
public service system will necessitate radical innovations in practice (e.g. fast-track graduate
entry, mid-career movement innovation, the establishment of corporate leadership top teams).
Proposition 7: The above commitments to action-oriented leadership development across the
whole public service system need to be counter-balanced by an equally strong commitment to
ongoing analysis of the changing context and serious reflection on developments in leadership
practice—both positive and negative.
At the time of writing, Professors John Benington and Jean Hartley were Fellows of the
Sunningdale Institute, the National School of Government’s high-level public policy research
facility, based at Sunningdale Park near London.
Ronald A. Heifetz, Marty Linsky and Alexander Grashow, ‘The Theory
Behind the Practice’, (Chapter 2 of their book), ‘The Practice of Adaptive
Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organisation and the
World’, pp. 13–41, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2009
The chapter explores the concept of ‘adaptive leadership’, which is defined as ‘the practice of
mobilising people to tackle tough challenges and thrive’ (p. 14). It rests on a number of
assertions about the key elements of adaptive leadership. These include several drawn from the
field of evolutionary biology. For example, successful adaptive change builds on the past rather
than jettisoning it; organisational adaptation occurs through experimentation; adaptation relies on
diversity; and adaptation takes time. Among the principal arguments of the paper is that the
most common cause of failure in leadership derives from treating adaptive challenges as if they
were technical problems. What is the difference and why does failure ensue from this
misdiagnosis? Technical problems, however complex, can be resolved through the application
of authoritative expertise and the organisation’s current structures, procedures and ways of doing
things. Adaptive challenges can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs,
habits and loyalties.
In order to drive adaptive change effectively, a leader must be able to provide 1) direction; 2)
protection; and 3) order to his/her organisation and employees. These are the key prerequisites
for successful adaptive leadership. The contrast between the narrower technical problems
approach and the more ambitious adaptive leadership one is reflected clearly in Figure 2.3 (p.
28).
5
Direction Technical—Provide problem definition and solution; Adaptive—Identify the adaptive
challenge, and frame key questions and issues.
Protection Technical—Protect from external threats; Adaptive—Disclose external threats.
Order Technical—Orientation: Orient people to current roles; Adaptive—Disorient current
roles, and resist orienting people to new roles too quickly


Conflict: Technical—Restore order; Adaptive—expose conflict or let it emerge.
Norms: Technical—Maintain norms; Adaptive—Challenge norms or let them be
challenged.
The authors acknowledge that technical and adaptive challenges often have common elements;
they are not always easily distinguishable—most challenges are mixed with technical and
adaptive elements being intertwined. However, they stress the need for a strong commitment to
addressing problems in pursuing an adaptive strategy and flexibility to change tack when such a
strategy is clearly failing.
Ronald A. Heifetz and Marty Linsky are co-founders and Principals of Cambridge Leadership
Associates (based near Cambridge, Massachusetts). Alexander Grashow is a Director of
Consulting Practice at Cambridge Leadership Associates.
Manfred Kets de Vries and Konstantin Korotov, ‘Creating Transformational
Executive Education Programs’, INSEAD Business School (Faculty and
Research Working Paper, No. 38), 2007, 31pp
http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=2760
The authors discuss the design of transformation executive learning/development programs.
They draw extensively on their experience as teachers and consultants in doing so. A
transformational program presupposes a change in the participant’s behaviour which produces
personal or organisational benefits (or both). In order to understand the transformational process
they posit three triangular conceptual frameworks: 1) the mental life triangle; 2) the conflict
triangle; and 3) the relationships triangle. The first shows that cognitive and emotional processes
need to be taken into consideration in order to create changes in behaviour. The second triangle
describes the sources of thoughts and feelings that may produce anxiety and cause defensive
reactions which prohibit change and productive use of talents. The final triangle explains how a
person’s previous experiences create patterns of response that are repeated throughout life and
can become dysfunctional.
The paper also outlines five major challenges in designing executive learning/development
programs: 1) selecting participants; 2) identifying the focal issue on which participants need to
work; 3) the creation of a safe transitional space that facilitates the change process; 4) utilising
the group dynamic to foster transformation and internalisation of change; and 5) addressing
the educational implications for educators and facilitators. The authors also identify possible
areas for future research, for example, the effect of courses on executives’ identity and behaviour
as they return to their organisations. In addition, the writers describe (pp. 26–28) the workings of
their ‘Laboratory for Executive Change’ initiative, a once-yearly event which 20 very senior
executives from around the world attend to better equip them to deal with their most pressing
individual and workplace challenges (it consists of three five-day periods with intervals of
approximately seven weeks between each one, and a final three-day module six months later).
6
Professor Manfred Kets de Vries is Director of the Global Leadership Centre at the INSEAD
Business School, Fontainebleau, France. Konstantin Korotov is Assistant Professor, European
School of Management and Technology, Berlin.
Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana, ‘Advancing Leadership Theory and
Practice’, Chapter 1 of Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana (eds), ‘Handbook
of Leadership Theory and Practice’, Harvard Business School, Boston,
Massachusetts, 2010, pp. 3–27.
This wide-ranging book has been written to fill a major gap in leadership publishing, teaching
and analysis—‘to stimulate serious scholarly research on leadership’ (p. 3).The editors argue
that, notwithstanding the myriad of books and articles written about leadership theory and
practice in the broader marketplace, there is a dearth of rigorous research, journal articles and
doctoral programs dealing with leadership as a discipline. This publication, based on the Harvard
Business School Centennial Colloquium, ‘Leadership: Advancing an Intellectual Discipline’
(2008), is designed to assist in framing an agenda for future research by bringing together
contributions by eminent scholars in fields as varied as economics, sociology, history and
international relations.
The volume explores leadership comprehensively and from many directions, among them its
development as a discipline, the areas leadership research most needs to address if it is to
develop as a well-grounded subject, the fostering of individual leaders and the most critical
challenges facing today’s leaders. Any review of a book of this length (822 pp) must perforce be
selective; accordingly, it is proposed to examine a number of key chapters from its five sections
which reflect the main strands of today’s leadership thinking, especially as they relate to the
development of leaders.
Section 1 looks at ‘The Impact of Leadership’ (pp. 3–119). Its four chapters examine the
question, ‘Does leadership matter? And if so, in what way? (p. 10). Chapter 2, ‘When Does
Leadership Matter?’, (pp. 27–65), analyses the extent to which leadership can influence
organisational performance. Its authors conclude that, although leadership influence can vary
considerably across organisations (in this case companies), it is almost invariably a significant
factor in improving organisational performance. Chapter 3, ‘Revisiting the Meaning of
Leadership’ (pp. 65–107), explores two contrasting major foci of leadership scholars; for one
group, leadership has become too tightly connected to a concern with improving organisations’
economic performance or efficiency; for the other, economic considerations are important, but
just as significant are elements such as infusing trust and meaning into the leadership-employee
relationship.
Section 2 examines ‘The Theory of Leadership’ (pp. 119–335). The contributors to its eight
chapters review and discuss leadership research across the major disciplines of organisational
behaviour, psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, economics, history and political science.
Surveying leadership research in organisational behaviour from the mid-twentieth century to the
present, the authors of Chapter 5 (pp. 119–159) identify a ‘“definitional quagmire”’ (p. 12)
characterising interpretations of the personality of the leader, the process of leadership, the
impact of leadership, and leadership performance. The authors of Chapter 6, Jennifer A.
Chatman and Jessica A. Kennedy (pp. 159–183) examine the main psychological perspectives on
leadership, with particular reference to the key capabilities needed to support effective leadership
in organisations and at the group level. Chatman and Kennedy posit three critical capabilities for
organisational leadership that are distinct from the commonly cited personality or intelligence
7
dimensions: a leader’s diagnostic abilities, behavioural flexibility, and unambiguous signalling
of intentions. At the team level of leadership, the authors describe three key tasks: convening the
group and developing identification, coaching group members, and setting group norms. Walter
A. Friedman, in Chapter 11 (pp. 291–305) claims for history a central role in providing
perspective for the study and teaching of leadership. The international relations theorist, Joseph
S. Nye, Jr in Chapter 12 (pp. 305–335), identifies the interconnection between leadership and
power and advises leaders to combine the use of both hard (coercive) and soft (attractive) forms
of power—in effect, to meld these into a form of ‘“smart power”’.
Section 3 explores ‘The Variability of Leadership’ (pp. 335–433). The section’s three chapters
comprise three papers which look at the question as to whether key characteristics and/or
capabilities are required to ‘make’ an effective leader, or whether there is no one ‘universal
model’ of good leadership—that generally leadership must be seen as being contingent on any
given situation and the leader concerned. However, as the editors point out in their introduction,
it is difficult to envisage what leadership is if it is not largely composed of a core set of functions
and behaviours that straddle most situations. Their approach for addressing this (one explored in
each of the three chapters) that looks at both what is core and what is contingent across a range
of important situational and personal contingencies. The contingent factors and influences dealt
with are: the extent to which contingent leadership varies across national and cultural boundaries
(Chapter 13, pp. 335–377); contingencies that stem not from the environment but from the
identity of the leader, in particular, perspectives of leadership effectiveness based on gender
identity (Chapter 14, pp. 377–411); and the need for employees’ values and expectations to align
with those set by the leader, (Chapter 15, pp. 411–433).
Section 4 discusses ‘The Practice of Leadership’ (pp. 433–657). Its six chapters examine some of
the most significant practical challenges facing leaders. These include: how to cope with the
complexity of the CEOs role, how to build effective senior leadership teams, how to lead in an
age of globalisation, how to make critical leadership decisions, how to mobilise social
movements that can address some of society’s most pressing problems, and how to drive
innovation. The editors identify (pp. 20–21) one major theme from this section. While the word
‘leader’ evokes an image of someone with capacity and skills of a high order—someone who can
organise, mobilise and drive change—the reality is that today’s leaders must contend with all
manner of constraints—the expectations of myriad constituencies, internal and external
pressures, difficult employees, their own personal limitations, and the availability of the
necessary resources to drive the change agenda such as time, information and money. This
tension between ‘agency and constraint’ (p. 21) accentuates the importance more than ever of
how to develop leaders best suited to today’s world. This is the focus of Section 5.
Section 5 (Chapters 22–26) examines ‘The Development of Leaders’ (pp. 657–789). Scholars of
leadership still concern themselves with the age-old question: Are leaders born or made? Most
are in agreement that they are made, though innate factors can influence predisposition to
development as an effective or an outstanding leader. Some scholars focus on what have been
defined as the ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ dimensions of becoming a leader. The former concerns the
cognitive capabilities, or the ‘multiple intelligences’, the leader needs. These include five types
of intelligence: analytical, practical, social, emotional, and contextual. ‘Doing’ emphasises the
behavioural or skills dimensions of becoming a leader, for instance, developing better problem
solving, communication, conflict management, or adaptive skills. A contrasting approach within
this context is the focus on ‘being’. Advocates of ‘being’ emphasise that leadership is more a
matter of developing the identity of a would-be or existing leader so that he or she interacts to a
greater extent from that identity or sense of being (Chapter 22, pp. 657–679). The authors of this
chapter (H. Ibarra, S. Snook, L. G. Ramo) argue that fostering leadership skills is inextricably
linked to the development of the leader’s self-concept or identity as a leader.
8
Although their emphasis varies, leadership scholars generally agree that ‘knowing’, ‘doing’ and
‘being’ all contribute to leadership development. In answering the question, then, as to how
leaders can be developed from these (and other) standpoints, the papers in this section suggest
that the task can (and should) be approached in multiple ways. Evidence indicates that
experience is a key factor in shaping an individual’s leadership capacity. Morgan W. McCall, Jr,
in Chapter 23 (pp. 679–709) stresses the importance of organisations ensuring that their
employees get the right experiences at the right time in order to accelerate their development as
leaders. This is not to downplay the importance of formal leadership initiatives argues Jay A.
Conger, who reviews a half-century of structured leadership learning and development initiatives
which have been designed to build leadership capability (Chapter 24, pp. 709–739). In Chapter
25, pp. 739–769, Bruce J. Avolio explores how scholars and practitioners can best accelerate the
development of positive leadership. Finally, in Chapter 26, pp. 769–789, Robert Kegan and Lisa
Lahey apply adult development theories to the concept of leadership development. They assert
that both thinkers and practitioners have overemphasised leadership and underemphasised
development in their analyses. Their solution? To anchor prescriptions for developing leaders
more firmly in what is known about how best to develop the ‘meaning-making’ self in
adulthood.
Jay A. Conger (Chapter 24) divides leadership development approaches into four categories
(based on an extensive survey going back to the middle of last century):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Individual skill development.
Socialisation of the corporate vision and values.
Strategic interventions that promote a major change throughout an organisation.
Targeted action learning approaches aimed at addressing organisational challenges and
opportunities.
There would appear to be a greater role for more imaginative approaches such as ‘Knowing’
Doing, Being’. Organisations could also strengthen the leadership development equation by
increasing the focus on fresh ways of working. Approaches might include leaders inspiring staff
through initiatives designed to engender more trust, and increasing scope for employees to
innovate. Such approaches have been canvassed in this book which is in itself a considerable
innovation in the scholarship of leadership. It will surely prompt widespread changes to
organisational and individual practice and enable leaders and aspiring leaders to better serve their
organisations and the public.
Nitin Nohria is Richard P. Chapman Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard
Business School. Rakesh Khurana is the Marvin Bower Professor of Leadership Development at
the Harvard Business School.
Shaul Oreg and Yair Berson, ‘Leadership and Employees’ Reactions to
Change: The Role of Leaders’ Personal Attributes and Transformational
Leadership Style’, ‘Personnel Psychology’, Vol. 64, No. 3, 2011, pp. 627–661.
The article contains the results of a study undertaken in the Israeli school system which
examined the attitudes of 586 employees (i.e. teachers) and 75 leaders (i.e. principals) towards
change. More particularly, the authors analysed the role of leaders’ personal attributes and
transformational leadership behaviours in explaining employees’ intentions to resist a large-scale
organisational change. The study found that teachers’ intentions to resist the change were
negatively related to their principals’ openness to change values and transformational leadership
behaviours, and positively related to their principals’ dispositional resistance to change. In
9
addition, principals’ transformational leadership behaviours moderated the relationship between
teachers’ dispositional resistance and intentions to resist the change.
The authors’ assessment of the role of leaders’ personal attributes (i.e. traits, values, behaviours)
in explaining employees’ intentions to resist the organisational change also produced other
significant findings. First, by increasing their awareness of their personal orientation toward
change and of the implications that this orientation may have on their employees, managers may
become more aware of how their interaction with staff can shape employee attitudes to
organisational change. To assist in this process, HR departments could introduce training and
mentoring programs designed to help employees (and leaders) to cope better with the difficulties
they may experience during major change. Leaders could also profitably identify employees
disposed to accept change and harness their support in driving change. Transformational
leadership approaches can range from the charismatic to the low-key, but other means may also
prove effective. HR departments, for example, can assist by forging a culture that promotes
change through workshops, training sessions, and other group and individual tools of
communication.
Shaul Oreg is based in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of
Haifa, Israel. Yair Berson teaches in the Faculty of Education at the same institution.
Trina L. Soske and Jay A. Conger, ‘The Shifting Paradigm of Executive
Leadership Development’, 2010 (Article), 32pp.
The paper surveys the field of executive education approaches and outlines the main foci of
contemporary leadership development studies and initiatives, one which has burgeoned over the
past two decades. Until recently, as the authors point out, business-school executive-education
programs and consultancies that provide these services have enjoyed double-digit growth rates
year after year. Consequently, most corporate learning and development functions expanded to
encompass senior positions with supporting staff focusing almost exclusively on executive and
leadership development.
The authors assert that the one-sided approach to leadership development and widespread
unsatisfactory outcomes calls for a shift in emphasis from individual-leader development to
collective leadership capability. This new approach will necessitate radical changes in the overall
executive development framework, a new definition of leadership, and a change in the
mechanics of how programs are designed, governed, measured, and implemented. IBM is used
as an example to illustrate the benefits which have accrued from this new approach.
In explaining why they believe current approaches fall seriously short, the authors provide a
number of explanations. These include: leadership is too often perceived as an ‘individual act’,
rather than as an element in an interconnected process which includes all levels of employees;
executive development rests overly on a preoccupation with formal development programs;
leadership learning is often dominated by teachers with little line experience rather than by those
with current (or recent) agency leadership experience; and the focus on individual leadership
development is frequently inconsistent with the aim of the program, for example, programs are
often commissioned to address issues relating to overarching organisational change (culture,
mind-set), whereas their content is frequently focused on abstract concepts and frameworks.
The solution proffered by the authors is to shift the emphasis from individual-leader
development to collective leadership capability—not to replace the former but to use both where
most appropriate. This would involve both leaders and employees working collaboratively
within an interactive process to achieve group goals. The authors compare the old (individual)
and new (enterprise or collective) approaches according to five criteria:
10





The New One—enterprise-wide and strategic; The Old One—functionally specific (HR)
and more tactical and behavioural.
The New One—more integrative and systemic. The Old One—more siloed and
disconnected.
The New One—executive development is regarded as a vehicle for achieving a higherorder organisational goal. The Old One—development is regarded as being an end in and
of itself.
The New One—acknowledges the primary responsibility of the executive corps to
improve performance and promote change. The Old One—focuses on the question of
what leaders must do differently as individuals to bring about change.
The New One—asks where does the organisation need to go, how is it going to get there
and what can we do as leaders to make this happen? The Old One—focuses on how
executives’ 360-degree assessment data looks compared to the competencies in their
leadership model; what strengths they can build on, and what weaknesses do they need to
shore up?
Table 1.1 (p. 12) sums up concisely how the elements of the two approaches compare. In
essence, the authors describe the difference in methodology as follows: ‘... the new frame directs
efforts in service of a mission-critical goal, while the old one often now amounts to programs in
search of a purpose’ (p. 11).
This paper has been published under the auspices of the international management consulting
firm, Oliver Wyman. Trina L. Soske is a partner in Oliver Wyman Leadership Development.
Professor Jay A. Conger holds the Henry R. Kravis Research Chair in Leadership Studies at
Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California.
11