Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesWhen was the last time you attended a conference that did not include in the program at least one session with the word "leadership" in the title? This often used but little understood term has become one of the latest buzzwords in public administration and, it seems, just about every other profession. While talking about leadership has become commonplace in both professional and academic circles, it is not common to find evidence as to whether leaders can be developed or whether the investment we make in developing leaders makes a difference in the performance of either individuals or organizations. Based on the premise that leaders can indeed be developed, this article presents a training program that has proven effective in developing leaders in the public sector.
WHAT IS LEADERSHIP?
Leadership has many definitions. Ralph Stogdill concludes that "there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept." (1) Because of this problem, there does not seem to be any common understanding as to the most effective ways to train and develop leaders. In fact, the lack of a precise definition of leadership is often used to justify failed attempts at leadership training. Yet most people agree that leadership does exist and, at a minimum, involves influencing others. In an organizational context, leaders influence employees toward goal achievement through their actions and behaviors over time.
Organizational culture, another fuzzy concept that has received a lot of attention in recent years, has some relevance to the debate about how to best train leaders. Culture is to the organization as personality is to the individual. It consists of the underlying beliefs, values, assumptions, and patterns of interaction among employees, all of which influence the way decisions are made in an organization, often at an unconscious level.
Leadership and organizational culture are related, both conceptually and in the reality of our day-to-day work lives. The most successful leaders influence or change organizational cultures for the better, as measured, for example, by more positive interaction patterns among employees and higher performance. These leaders are therefore referred to as transformational in that they transform the organization into something unlike it was in the past.
James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner argue that leadership, or the ability to influence others and transform organizations, depends on the level of credibility leaders have with their employees. They assert that the process of developing credibility involves five broad practices and 10 commitments. Exhibit 1 lists these practices and commitments. (2)
According to Kouzes and Posner, credible leaders challenge the process by experimenting and taking risks in their work as a means to finding new and better ways of doing things. They inspire a shared vision among employees by envisioning the future and enlisting others to bring about that vision. They enable others" to act by fostering collaboration and strengthening others. They model the way by setting the example and helping people achieve "small wins." Finally, credible leaders encourage the heart by recognizing individual contributions and by celebrating accomplishments.
Developing credibility is a lot like developing a bank account. Over time, leaders make deposits into their credibility accounts in the form of positive and reinforcing actions and behaviors; they also make withdrawals in the form of negative and reinforcing actions and behaviors. The goal is to be consistent in making deposits so as to build the fund and earn interest in the form of employee commitment. Employee commitment is absolutely necessary when leaders attempt to implement reforms that are transformational in nature.
CAN LEADERS BE DEVELOPED?
Are leaders born or made? This is a question that continues to be vigorously debated in the halls of academia. While it remains to be seen whether this debate will ever be resolved conclusively one way or the other, experience tells us that leaders can indeed be developed. The training model outlined in the next section is based on this critical assumption.
Before getting into the specifics of the training model, however, we must first understand three important lessons about leadership development. First, training leaders often takes a lot longer and requires more time and resources than most individuals and organizations are willing to commit. Leadership development is a long-term investment on the part of both the individual and the organization.
Second, the cost of leadership development must be justified like any other undertaking. The case for leadership development can be a difficult one to make, given that most individuals and organizations are unwilling to wait for, much less pay for, results that accumulate over time and often cannot be linked directly to the training itself. When revenues fall off and governments have to slash expenditures to balance their budgets, justifying an investment in something as intangible as leadership development becomes even more difficult.
Third, not everyone is cut out to be a leader, oftentimes because they are not interested in the effort required to become one. Therefore, any investment in leadership training must be made strategically and with the willing participation of those involved.
SELF-OTHER PERCEPTIONS
In my work with public administrators, I use a self-other perception technique that has proven effective in developing leaders. The trainer collects and then compares feedback about specific leadership behaviors from several different sources, including the trainee. The most common sources of feedback are surveys and interviews of superiors, subordinates, peers, and others. The information is used to help the trainee understand how he or she is perceived on the job and to identify areas in need of improvement.
You may be familiar with this technique in your own work, particularly if your organization uses some form of a 360-degree performance appraisal process to evaluate employee performance. The primary difference between this type of employee appraisal process and the self-other perception technique presented here is that the former is intended to measure the extent to which an employee achieved his or her goals, whereas the latter focuses on individual leadership behaviors. Another important difference is that performance appraisal ratings are based on past performance, whereas self-other perceptions can be used not only to evaluate past performance, but also to predict and enhance future performance.
Self-ratings are an integral part of the training process. Not surprisingly, self-ratings tend to be "inflated, invalid, biased, inaccurate, and generally suspect when compared to the ratings of others or to more 'objective' criteria." (3) It seems we all have an inflated perception of how effective we are in our work. Yet self-ratings are not without merit. Comparing how we perceive ourselves to how others perceive us can yield invaluable information for leadership development.
A self-other ratings comparison can result in three possible outcomes:
1. Accurate estimators are those focal individuals (the person receiving the feedback) whose self-ratings are in agreement with the ratings of the relevant others.
2. Over-estimators are those focal individuals whose self-ratings are significantly inflated above the ratings of the relevant others.
3. Under-estimators are those focal individuals whose self-ratings are significantly deflated below the ratings of the relevant others. (4)
I use surveys to obtain the information needed to assess the level of agreement between the trainee and his or her relevant others. The surveys are based on Kouzes and Posner's credibility model. The ratings in Exhibit 2 are from actual data from municipal governments in one state. The focal individuals are chief executives (mayors or city managers) of municipal governments and the relevant others are their department heads. For the purposes of illustration, only some of the variables from the credibility model have been included, as well as a number of other traits commonly associated with leadership in the public sector.
The results in Exhibit 2 indicate that across a number of different leadership measures, the focal individuals overestimate their effectiveness when compared to the ratings of the relevant others. The chief executives give themselves higher ratings than their department heads on all seven variables. These differences are statistically significant, which rules out the possibility that the differences are due to chance. Though not reported in the table in Exhibit 2, the ratings by council members who interact with the chief executives mirror those of the department heads, and they too are statistically significant.
CUSTOMIZED TRAINING
The results of a self-other comparison are useful, but they are not sufficient in and of themselves to bring about improvements in leadership behaviors. The trainee must have an open mind about what the results say about how he or she is perceived by others. Given the sensitive nature of this information, it is not hard to imagine how a trainee might attempt to dismiss the feedback. But for those who are able to overcome their initial resistance and who are serious about improving their leadership abilities, this type of information can yield significant improvements.
Leadership training might begin with an intensive feedback session between the consultant or trainer and the trainee. The purpose of such a session is to increase the trainee's awareness of how he or she is perceived, using the data from the surveys of relevant others. The feedback session should focus on the specific actions and behaviors being evaluated and how the trainee can improve in these areas, not on what this or that person said about him or her. The relevant others should never be identified by name. In addition, care should be taken to prevent these sessions from degenerating into an opportunity for the trainee to rationalize the results of the self-other comparison with statements such as "these people don't understand what I am trying to do," or "my peers are out to get me."
FEED