Curious shift from HR to P&C, part 6: Leadership roles, anyone?
Annamaria Melegh
Sustainability, HR & Change Advisor | Strategy | Impact Design | B Leader | Tech & Data | Analysis | ex-Danone, W?rtsil?, IKEA, Sphera
We live in a world obsessed with leadership.
Although people deserve the leaders they elect at the helm, in many spheres there is little democracy in their promotion. Businesses develop leaders, for their revenue potentials, to the tune of a $50 billion market. Vendors roadshow at HR conferences with new tech, methods, and bootcamps. Everybody wants a piece of the future leaders, while less emphasis goes to nurturing prosperous (corporate) citizenry.
Paradoxically, the more we invest in developing leaders, the worse they perform. With growing corporate wage gaps, and thinking beyond ethics scandals and financial crimes, employee and organisational sentiments tell a comprehensive story.
It is time to rethink our approach to leadership, its adulation and sought outcomes.
Our lust for corporate idols and THE leadership formula fuels a huge industry and fails societies. What it doesn’t seem to do is produce better leaders and better results. It might even make everything worse for businesses and the many stakeholders.
Rage against the machine
A $366 billion leadership industry is ready to convince us that leadership attributes are within reach for practically anyone. [1] All you need to do is take the right course, read the right books or work with the right executive coach.
The leader succession flow seems endless, yet the same folks rotate among top firms.
Filling seats with the same mindset, pedigree and looks. For a long time, until 2023, US boardrooms had more men named John around the executive table than women . The market runs on a very unhealthy combination of demand and supply. It may explain the failures of leadership we see in every direction and on every front, whether political, corporate, academic, or really everywhere.
We've created a system with so many requirements that the only way for leaders to stand out and actually make it to leadership positions is to be unscrupulous and practice traits resembling the narcissistic or even antisocial end of the spectrum. By the time they reach the C-suite, they need a coach to help them find their self and humanity (again). Although we don't want that in our leaders, this is the system we have created.
This is an unhealthy balance and paradox between frolic demand and supply over the past half-century. The same system bleeds into the burnout industry as well.
The emphasis is on developing leaders without assessing the actual impact or worth beyond a purchase price. Many paths emerged: take pricey courses at Harvard, Cambridge, or Wharton, attend intensive boot camps on kindness and empathy, read the newest books gurgling THE desired attributes of successful leaders, or meet the most sought-after coaches.
Despite public and private fortunes spent on leadership development, there seems to be a shortage of leadership.
Like we are pouring water into a bucket with a hole in its bottom. This is even more obvious when we analyse the collateral damages many once-heralded leaders and companies left behind. The consistent rise of misfits or downright frauds as leaders should concern us most about the leadership-industrial complex.?
One of the industry's biggest paradoxes is that there have never been more opportunities to develop and train leaders. Yet leaders have never performed worse than they do today. Burnout became the top reason for sick leave in businesses.
On one hand, there are high or impossible expectations for results. Placing too great a weight of expectation on a leadership ideal infantilises us. On the other hand, leaders, CEOs, and EVPs overstretch their domain or expertise, rising to their level of incompetence. Little do we know about underlying insecurities and motives; their statements are echoed in the media like medieval scripture, without a question over their reign.
One way to look at this is to think we need more training and an even bigger industry. But on the contrary, the leadership industry and this approach to leadership contribute to leadership failure.
It is time to shake the pedestal built for better leaders and companies and enable more honest conversations.
Dry talent pipelines
Leadership roles, anyone? There is a growing sentiment among HR leaders that fewer people want to lead; more prefer mastering their craft. Growing in ranks without people management and administrative load.
Is leadership less attractive, or is skill-based career and expertise the new frontier?
It could be both.
82% of new managers in the UK are what it calls “accidental managers”, according to the CMI’s research – embarking on the role with no formal training in management or leadership. A quarter of those are in senior leadership roles.
"Accidental managers". What is that? A code word for bad workforce planning or lack of successor bench strength or retention strategies?
Whatever happens, it seems like a concurrent failure of business and people management that only a few seem to care about.
Nonetheless, language matters, see "accidental", since toxic workplaces, self-centric insecure leaders, mismanagement and unmanageable stress load aren't accidental outcomes.
What’s an acceptable figure for the number of people who can’t function anymore because they’re so stressed out?
A third of a society??Half?a society?
While there are always going to be some number of people in a society who find it hard, who struggle, who can't cope, more than a quarter of American people in such shape is totally unacceptable. 1 in 4 people, according to the American Psychological Association's stress research from 2022.
It points to severe levels of institutional failure, from economic to political.
This research suggests that we are becoming societies of people who are in so much pain that they are going numb.
So, can better leadership be taught or learnt to offer better outcomes?
领英推荐
As researchers in MIT Sloan Review put it, executive development programs are big business, but only a few yield meaningful results. Indeed, they are often counterproductive, packed with people who need serious help and avoid people management responsibilities.
Not every person is suitable for a leadership position, but with some work with an experienced mentor, they can learn to lead authentically—first themselves and then, if interested, others.
Leadership development may be more about the supervisor's ambition than the individual's potential. Do they attend the training for who they are, not their assumed leadership potential?
It's often assumed that you know what you're doing as a manager of other people, much like "parenting 101." However, leading and empowering a team is a complex journey that requires continuous learning and growth. Leaders can prepare themselves for the challenges with the right skills and support. Being unequipped could lead to casualties such as burnout, high staff turnover, and other issues.
It's essential to recognise that effective leadership is not just a skill to be mastered but a personal and professional development journey.
The sky is the limit?
I am no stranger to the experience that leaders who weren't insecure about their abilities created space for talents and empowerment to grow their potential. I am fortunate to have learned the signals of burnout before it strikes under highly insecure leaders. They taught me that the hard way.
Your most impactful career limitation is your superior's limited imagination of your potential skills and untapped capabilities.
But who will teach prospective leaders to be aware of people management nuances? Who will teach them to prevent ethics fatigue, exhaustion, and burnout before they take hold?
A 2019 survey of 7,500 full-time employees by Gallup found top reasons for burnout:
The list demonstrated that the root causes of burnout do not really lie with the individual and that they can be averted — if only leadership started their prevention strategies much further upstream. The responsibility lies with the organisation that employs them.
We need a fundamental shift in how we grow talents, plan promotions, and measure systemic leadership success in the workplace. It should be part of the foundation of a #futureofwork movement.
?? ??????: being good at one thing doesn't mean you can make others good at the same thing. (subject expertise ≠ people management skills) aka "?????? ?????????? ??????????????????' [2]
?? ???????? ???? ????????: more organisations are opening a different track for people who are very good at their specific job, where these people are compensated for being great at what they do and mentoring others.
?? ??????: When someone is good at their job, it can still be hard to quantify exactly how good they are, or how much they actually contribute to business. It's easier to say, 'Okay, let's have you manage some people, and pay you more to do that'. Don't claim you are better at your job, despite several obvious feedback/evidence asserting otherwise. ˉ\_(ツ)_/ˉ
Per usual, some takeaways for my practicing HR peeps:
?? don't discriminate against genuine leaders who excel and develop others, but don't hoard reporting lines (or worse, are held back by such leaders above)
?? put more effort into growing and retaining talent as a more sustainable form of business than hiring it externally from a consultancy. Respect and rely on the accrued knowledge of the business ecosystem.
?? diversify hiring and development plans beyond "get some reporting lines" as proof of success and path for leadership roles
? ?????? ???????????? ????????????????: don't take existing reporting lines as 'safe' primer for further promotion or proof of success in manager/leader roles.
?? today's leadership development asks the wrong questions about outcomes: [3]
?? Instead of asking, "Will participants experience personal growth?" ask, "Will participants grow their ability to lead others?"
?? Instead of asking, "Will they be motivated to attend?" ask, "Will they be motivated to use what they learn?"
?? Instead of asking, "Is it easy enough?" ask, "Is it appropriately complex?"
?? Instead of asking, "Will participants be comfortable?" ask, "Will participants learn, even if they're uncomfortable?"
?? Instead of asking, "Will we change participants' hearts and minds?" ask, "Will we see changes in how participants behave?"
?? Instead of asking, "How will we justify the spend?" ask, "Will we spend only what we can justify?"
References:
Emotional Intelligence Expert | KPI-Driven EQ Trainer l Experiential Training Specialist | Author | Co-Founder @Almost Spiritual
2 周A servant leadership approach, where leaders prioritize the needs of their team members, can be a powerful model.
When leaders fail to see beyond your current role, they limit both your growth and the value you can bring to the organization. The key is to advocate for yourself—showcase your untapped skills and stretch beyond the expectations placed on you. Sometimes, you need to help others see what you’re truly capable of.
President at Lazarus Human Capital Services
1 个月Excellent article in an excellent series. Anna cuts through the noise of the Leadership Industrial Complex to identify common sense solutions for the increasing vacuum of leadership competence in the workplace. Well done!