Dirk Verburg

I recently heard an HR leader proudly explain her rigorous selection process for a basic leadership program aimed at newly appointed people leaders. She first pre-selected potential participants based on their performance ratings, then personally interviewed all the top performers. Those who passed were sent by her for a final interview with a senior business leader, and only the successful candidates were allowed to attend the training.

While I appreciated her personal involvement and the engagement of the business leader in the selection process, I do not think this is the right approach.

Leaders, even, or perhaps especially, junior ones, have a significant impact on the success of the organization through their teams. They can either motivate and develop their staff to excel or, conversely, demotivate them to the point of leaving. Additionally, poor leadership can create legal risks, such as issues around discrimination or bullying.

A license to operate

Therefore, I do not believe performance is the right criterion for selecting staff for leadership development programs. Instead, completing a leadership development program should be seen as obtaining a “license to operate.”

In many areas of society, people need a license to perform specific activities—driving a car, prescribing medicine, auditing accounts, supervising children, and so on.

Given the impact leaders can have on their organizations and their staff, organizations should consider leadership development programs not as optional perks for a select few, but as an essential requirement for all their people managers. Just as all car drivers must pass an exam before being allowed on public roads, all leaders should complete a leadership program to manage people in their organization, for all the reasons mentioned above.

A self fulfilling prophecy

An additional effect of applying the selection logic of the HR executive mentioned earlier, is that the gap between already high-performing leaders and their peers will widen. The only advantage of this approach is that it will “prove” the impact of the leadership development program. A/B testing will show, without a doubt, that the performance of those who attended the program improved compared to those who did not.

Given the fact that it is possible to implement basic leadership development programs with a real impact for USD 1.000-1-500 per participant, the logic for restricting access to these programs escapes me. However, if organizations feel they need to be selective about who should attend leadership development programs, they should focus on underperforming managers, as they are the ones who need it and will benefit most.

Leadership Development versus Talent Management

In this context, it’s worth revisiting the purpose of leadership programs. A financial institution I worked with offers two types of programs: leadership development programs and talent management programs.

The leadership development programs in this company function as a “license to operate.” For example, if you become a first-time leader, you must attend Program A; if you’re promoted to VP, you attend Program B; Directors go through Program C; Managing Directors take Program D; and members of the Executive Board complete Program E. These programs are designed to equip all staff with the specific managerial skills and knowledge needed at each level of leadership within the organization.

In addition, the organization runs Talent Management programs across all levels. The goal of these programs is to accelerate the development of high-potential employees with the aim to shorten the time before they are ready for their next role. Selection for these programs mirrors the method used by the HR leader mentioned earlier: participants are chosen based on the classic 9-box grid of performance and potential, and must be endorsed by senior leaders.

Of course this requires leaders to be transparent – especially to ambitious staff who have not been selected for Talent Management programs. However the courage to be transparent in these situations, is also a sign of leadership…