Executive Development: High ROI When Approached Through The Lens of Foresight.

Executive development is a thorny issue, for in many organisations it is usually reserved for the others, other than the incumbents on the Board and in the executive committee (EXCO). Furthermore, it is mostly self-driven and seldom forms part of the business cycle that deals with sensing, making sense, designing and actioning the intelligence so gathered, for sustainable existence of an organisation. Even though not explicit about the various forms of organisations, the thoughts expressed herein are equally applicable across the private, public, non-profit and the co-operative sectors.

Organisations are created to serve the interests of many stakeholders, some primary and some secondary in terms of both impact and importance to those who conceive their creation. There is usually some form of governance structure, systems and policies that hold together the life of an organisation, powered by, among other capabilities, foresight. Several checks and balances usually guard against unipolar approaches that may favor one function over another, as well as against focus in the short-term over the medium and the long term. As an organisation moves along its timeline under the capable guidance of the Chair of the Board, in conjunction with the Executive leader in the CE and their respective teams, they seem to be more adept at picking up the trends associated with everything, but executive skills and capabilities. Most organisations are alert to failures in systems, processes and policies, as detected by enterprise-wide risk teams, internal audit, and strategic and operational planning, less so with the efficacy of executive development capability. So, where do we begin, as we seek to create higher ROI in executive development?

I suggest that we begin with both the form and the substance of Governance as we design the multi-pronged approach to executive development. There must be a strong representation in one of the sub-committees of the Board, either in the Human Resources and/or Remuneration sub-committee, in conjunction with the audit and risk committee, and other committees that have the responsibility of monitoring and evaluating strategic intelligence. If the Board has a Lead Independent Director, it is best to locate the responsibility for executive development in their compact, supported by the Human Capital Executive or Director. In advanced organisations, this would be led by a Chief Coaching Officer or their equivalent.

The strength of executive development as a strategy rests not only in creating a structure around it, a greater portion is in the substance of what is done and by whom, and with what power. Operational intelligence should feed the sensing and ‘making sense’ of what is; this may be the contribution or lack thereof, to high performance, by both executive and non-executive leadership. It is about matching opportunities, threats and weaknesses to the skills and competencies of the leaders at the top. All the ‘auditing’ functions (loosely defined), should provide intelligence that clarifies the efficacy of executive leadership, looking at the past and the present. Self-assessment and other forms of performance monitoring, form part of the capability loosely defined as auditing. Furthermore, strategic intelligence capability should provide preemptive intelligence of what would be required (skills) of each executive to be able to execute their fiduciary duties. It is a concert of efforts, in a multidisciplinary approach that will deliver unfiltered evaluation of the bench strength of the leadership group, conducted in a non-threatening, and yet incisive approach. There must be congruence between the tools of matching the overall organisation capability requirements in so far as strategic leadership is concerned, and the skills and capability sets each leader has acquired over time. I have used successfully, the leadership circle to design the organisation, team and self-leadership development strategies of my client organisations; there are many tools available on the market. The Board member and the executive leader responsible for executive development must be reasonably knowledgeable of the linkages between strategy, tactics and operational delivery of a co-evolving program. The design criteria should be such that it includes an ability to move in tandem with time and evolve with the main and sub-strategies of the organisation.

Having created the governance structure and associated processes, it is important to note that the Chair of the Board and the CE, as well as the Human Capital Director, assisted by the Chief Coaching Officer and Chief Audit Executive, are instrumental in designing the acquisition (recruitment) processes for all the players at this level. Bringing the right people on the bus, as Stephen Covey says, ensures ease of implementation and evolution of strategy in general, and executive development strategy in this case. All the players on the Board should be practicing executives themselves and be knowledgeable of the business cycles in short, medium and long terms. They should be aware of changing focus and the impact that these shifts will have on executive skills requirements. Intra-organisational collaboration is one of the key requirements for success, otherwise this team could easily be rendered irrelevant and they risk assuming the notorious badge of an ineffective addition to the corporate empire. Board members, executives on the CEO's team, must choose success, and believe that they can find, within themselves, all of the critical skills and competencies, and the associated values and behaviours.

All strategic processes must ask the question of every change and innovation to organisation existence: what does this mean for executive skills map and what answers can the executive director provide, to affect a similar change or addition to each board member or executive member’s skills set?

It is not enough to know what additional skills set executives need at any given time, equally important is the best way to equip them with same in reasonable doses, to ensure higher efficacy for each member and collectively. Some skills are best acquired through part time and full time (and anything in between) qualification academic programs offered through academic and graduate school programs, alternatively corporate universities that may be in-house, like the National School of Government or an independent like Duke Corporate Education. Furthermore, coaching and mentoring are two methods that are gaining popularity both locally and globally, efficacy of which is enhanced further by regulating and professional bodies like COMENSA, ABCCCP and ICF, The International Accreditation Body for Coaching and Mentoring, and many more.

All the modes of delivery expressed above are important and have a purpose to serve, depending on whether the team entrusted with executive development has a structured way of defining:

• The status quo.
• The desired future state
• The desired shift in behavior and associated values.

It may not be that easy to calculate the Return on Investment on all the Programs executives are enlisted for, but the effectiveness of the incumbents is easy to determine, with a healthy mixture of qualitative and quantitative elements. A clear determination of the leadership archetype so required for sustainability of the organisation is an important first step, accompanied by how they should lead their teams, lead change and their organisation (which includes peer to peer relations).

It should be clear what the current reality is, as this is the foundation of determining whether development is a requirement. The future state, using the plans of the organisation, should be another yardstick of what the skills set should be. It is when the desired shift in own behavior and that of the followers, and the underlying values that drive both, are clearly defined, that we can be assured that at predetermined milestones in the future, both can be checked through proper tools.

It is not so much defined as a ZAR figure only, the ROI we seek to assure through the approach defined in this article, but a set of desired outcomes (obviously linked to profitability of the organisation, or some big hairy audacious outcome, such as the tax gap in the case of the South African Revenue Services). These should be linked to direct strategic goals. Governance, systems and processes, with underlying policies, should guide any organisation to deliver an executive development program that not only adds value to the executive and the organisation they serve, but to the various stakeholders, to the extent that all these can be tracked.

Being more able to lead self, lead change, lead the team and the organisation, in furtherance of its strategic goals, internal and external, is the ultimate ROI, I believe.