Standard Leadership Course in 2013

A Modular Approach.

360 feedback as a starter for discussion and focus for leadership development.

Pre-reading / work before each module.

Kick off talk / facilitated discussion by CEO or equivalent.

Elearning as core part of programme to support and impart new information.

A project to be completed as part of the programme.

Use of social networks to connect people through the programme and beyond.

It might be accredited / certified by a college / university.

Typically lasts 8 months.

Involves Action Learning sets.

Coaching offered to all people.

Final presentation at the end to senior management team.

Evaluation is based on performance which was never clearly measured in the first place so is now measured on ROE.

Follow up session three – six months later through surgery type sessions.

Advertisements

Published by

Sukh Pabial

I'm an occupational psychologist by profession and am passionate about all things learning and development, creating holistic learning solutions and using positive psychology in the workforce.

10 thoughts on “Standard Leadership Course in 2013”

  1. I get stuck with that word “course”… it implies that once you’ve done it you’ve got it. That’s just never the case with Leadership and it probably is connected to the “sheep-dip” approaches that have been commonplace for years (preaching to the converted I know!).

    How about “cyclical leadership development” instead? It looks something like this…

    There’s no end point but there are milestones. The focus isn’t on heavy up-front investment but on long-term leadership effectiveness. The learning isn’t trainer led but the learning is facilitated, coached and nurtured. The focus isn’t on “new” leaders but on all leaders including that senior team.

    Isn’t that what you deserve?

    1. I get stuck with the word ‘course’ too. Programme sounds a bit better as it implies a structured approach to development.

      Perhaps this is more about where my mind is at, but only after the fourth time of reading did I understand you wrote ‘cyclical’ and not ‘cynical’…

      Yes, that is what leaders deserve. We L&Ders are just as guilty at creating clones of leaders as we succumb to the expectations of the business.

  2. you might add psychometric feedback to that too?

    I’ll be interested in where you are taking this. I guess my views on this are that on their own they are not bad components. Its the package thats probably the issue, and I personally think that clients are just as guilty as providers in not moving the boundaries.
    Just like any other change, org and people issue, we have experiences that shape and colours our future thinking, and then there are probably a whole range of factors that include risk, confidence and competence to work with these, motivation to do something different etc etc….

    I await your next post with interest.

  3. which makes me think, I should have written “add that to the list”. After all its a list!!
    Maybe thats the issue we create lists rather than experiences?

    #justsaying

  4. and who creates lists – “J’s” create lists

    Maybe P’s need to take the lead on this, then it will be just an emergent, random and chaotic experience!!!

    Wont be able to call it a course then. Who knows where it will finish!?

    1. Agreed on the psychometrics, I reflected on having left that out too, so nicely picked up.

      I like the experience piece, and part of me wonders if this model I’ve presented is the experience over the reality. That is, we make the leaders feel like they’re experiecing something special and by virtue they respond to is as such, and they change their behaviour to act as such.

      Thinking about David’ point above, this is about it less being a course, and more about it being a set of joined up experiences I think.

  5. just found this and similar to what i was saying in your other post- is it enough? I suspect if you got all of the above you would be better than most, however we need to look at ‘sustainability’. The idea of sustainable assessment (Boud) posits that if we design our programmes correctly then the skills they learn on the programmes are transferable, reusable and therefore sustainable i.e. addressing the issue of a leadership programme having an end point (oh I’m now a leader!).

    Too often we design projects, and in academia assessments, to meet an aim or prove the objectives have been met, instead we should chose assessment methods that enable the person to practice in a safe environment first and then use those skills again and again e.g. problem solving or reflective practice.

Say something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s