How to Avoid Bad Leadership Training | Tips for CLOs & CPOs

As CLOs & CPOs, you’ve probably worked with people who have (probably with good intention) implemented some sh*tty leadership training solutions.. Heck, you might even be brave enough to own buying some of those solutions, we are all learning! Some examples we’ve heard: Off-the-shelf leadership development programmes that didn’t return on investment, management training courses where attendance declined over time, and mentoring sessions where people didn’t show up.

Not only is it wasting time and money, but also solutions like this damage the reputation of CLOs, CPOs, and their teams. It makes it harder to be trusted by the business to implement the right solutions.

But how can you avoid bad leadership training? Here are some tips for CLOs and CPOs on the most common mistakes businesses make when it comes to leadership development. We’ll show you how to identify these issues and ensure your leadership training efforts are effective.

1. A Group Solution (also known as the ‘sheep dip’ approach)

Within any group of people, it's highly unlikely that every person has the same needs. Yet very often, leadership training solutions are generically offered to a group. However, if CLOs & CPOs offer training courses that aren’t relevant for everyone in the group, it can have a negative knock-on effect..

For starters, attendance will become an issue. Then you must look at demotivation, as well as the time that’s spent out of the business when it’s not offering any value in return.

To avoid bad leadership training, you must ensure that the right solution is designed for the right audience. That often means putting different solutions in place for different people. You might end up with a leadership development programme tailored to your C-Suite and executives. Then the next tier down might have that slightly adapted, with a greater focus on delegation and empowerment. And so on.

2. Lack of Measurement

It is far too often the case that businesses invest in leadership training but then fail to measure the outcomes. If you don’t measure the outcomes, how can you know that the training was effective?

We have heard people say that they measure things, but they are often measuring at the end, sometimes even 2 years later! We think that’s dangerous. If you’re not looking at anything for two whole years, how can you even know if you’re moving in the right direction? How can you adjust? By the time you are looking, it really is too late.

We recommend quarterly measurements. Identify the indicators of success up front so that these measures can be tracked along the way, which proves or disproves that the leadership training solution is moving in the right direction. Ineffective leadership programmes that are left to run with no course-correct could run the risk of haemorrhaging money on the wrong solutions and bringing you and your team into disrepute.

3. Theory First

Many of the academic approaches to leadership training focus heavily on theory. They spend too much time talking about leadership theories and models, but they don't focus on the leader’s actual implementation needs—a pragmatic approach needs to be in place. In our guide “How to Maximise Leadership Development Budgets,” we talk about the 70/20/10 learning model. 70% of learning happens on the job, 20% of learning is through things like coaching, mentoring, peer-to-peer learning and self-sought initiatives, and finally, 10% should be through formal training.

However, some organisations are spending 70% of their budget on formal training. If we think about it the other way around, they should be making sure that people are able to optimise their 10% formal training so they can use it in their role (70% of the learning), whilst combining this with just-in-time solutions like coaching and mentoring (20% of the learning).

For example, if I go on a training course to learn about delegation, I should be able to come back, and the majority of that learning is not from the course I've been on for a day, but it's in the everyday implementation of that learning as I practice the skill of delegation in my everyday work. If I become stuck in implementation (e.g. I have a fear of asking people to do things), I might address this with a solution such as coaching, which would help me with my individual learning need of overcoming a limiting belief.

We need to ask: how does this individual actually put that skill into everyday practice and make the changes that they need to constantly check their behaviour or skill is improving? Poor solutions rarely have follow-up or accountability, so people will go on a course and then it’s business as usual. Whereas it should be: I’ve been on a course, so what changes are we going to see? And how is that being monitored and measured?

4. Box Ticking

We’ve heard L&D practitioners say things like “We know it’s not great, but we have to show we are doing something, so we have an off-the-shelf, online digital Leadership Development Course. It means we can say we are developing our managers.” This kind of box-ticking approach is perhaps understandable with a limited budget, but imagine standing in front of your board and justifying this as your decision when leaders and managers don’t stay.

When considering the cost of solutions, it’s worth considering the costs of poor solutions: morale, motivation, engagement are just a few that come to mind. Great leaders and managers are in high demand just now. Those who feel their companies are truly developing them often stay. Not only that, they are role models for future leaders and encourage others to stay. The opposite? These leaders moan, become mood-hoovers, and worst of all, they bring others down with them.

We are often surprised when L&D practitioners cite budget constraints as the reason for not investing in effective long-term solutions. When we assess the costs associated with poor solutions, such as decreased motivation and morale that ultimately harm bottom-line performance, alongside the expense of employee turnover (the estimated average cost of recruiting a new senior leader is £65,000* when factoring in executive search fees and onboarding), it becomes clear that justifying a customised leadership development suite of solutions in terms of ROI makes good sense.

The Solution

We promised you the formula for success here, and there is one.

Rather than saying we’ve identified that leadership training is needed, instead identify exactly what the training is with a needs analysis.. Conducting a needs analysis breaks down exactly where the problems are and will highlight what is needed to be able to fix them. Then you can offer the best solutions to each individual.

Yes, doing this work does take time. But it’s short-term pain for long-term gain.

When completing a thorough needs analysis, you become closer to the business, its strategy, and direction. That is so important for successful CLOs and CPOs; it keeps you relevant, credible, and always working in the best interests of the business—keeping you sharp and seen as a respected member of the board.

You’ll be happy to hear that our next blog will be focused on conducting a leadership needs analysis. Be sure to be following us for more.

In the meantime, you might want to check out our free guide “How to Maximise Leadership Development Budgets.”

*Sources:

https://richmond-capital.co.uk/insights/the-different-costs-and-fees-associated-with-retained-search-and-contingent-recruitment/

https://tgsus.com/executive-search-blog/executive-search-fees-search-firm-pricing/

https://timberseed.com/executive-search/