Thanks to Talent Management magazine for publishing my article in their August issue, originally titled "Leadership Development in Large Organizations: A Time for Change", which they retitled: "Leadership Development Through Self-Awareness."
Other than the title change, I regret they did not include the following section, which should go directly above the "Factors Leading to the Demand for Self-Awareness" subhead, at least not in the online version (I haven't yet seen the print edition):
Whose dime is it?
When it comes to training leaders in large organizations, it’s important to start with the question of responsibility. Many agree that leaders need to develop greater self-awareness to be highly effective, yet whose job is that? After all, a leader’s consciousness can’t be put on a balance sheet. Another issue is that these new strategies, particularly those that go beyond simple skills and get into more fundamental areas of belief, feelings, and behaviors, can require a more costly investment up front. The “optics” of these costs and their custom nature can give the CFO a sour stomach. Is it the role of the large organization to develop its leaders or is it the role of the individual?
I posed this question to Mark R. Sobol, a consultant and coach who has worked with boards and executives of technology and engineering firms in more than 40 countries for over 25 years. His answer should warm the hearts of anyone committed to (or updating their budget for) training and development.
“It’s part of the organization’s role; it has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Just because human assets are not able to be booked on a financial statement doesn’t mean they’re not the most important assets an organization has. Based on that responsibility, it’s the duty of every organization to be good stewards-good developers of their assets.”
As always, it’s important to ensure that, whatever activities are being directed at leadership development, the activities are directed toward the intersection of the needs and outcomes important to the leader and the institution. There should also be a focus on quantifying the return on investment. Traditional training budgets for leaders (typically expressed as a standard cost per employee) end up being penny wise and pound foolish. If, through directed development activities and one-on-one efforts, a leader becomes 10% more effective, that can be multiplied not only by their own salary, but also by the returns on the organization that the leader runs. In short, attitudes about budgeting and accounting for leadership development need to evolve, just as we expect leaders to do.
