Operationalization of Leadership and Management Development - Report Example

Leadership and Management Development (Student Name) (Institutional Affiliation) Accounting (Instructor) May 1, 2013 Leadership and Management Development Introduction This report investigates operationalization of leadership and management development in United Kingdom companies, suggesting that most of the current growth is propelled by market, political and financial pressures, to the comparative neglect of pedagogical and philosophical views on the purpose and nature of education, leadership and management in the contemporary society. Whereas there is a universal shift from formalized provisions towards customized, experimental and flexible programs, it appears that inadequate attention is geared toward organizational and individual requirements and needs. Hence, for instance, most of the provision focuses on the development of leaders as opposed to collective and contextually embedded leadership process. Leadership and management are portrayed as distinct as opposed to complementary and integrated processes or activities and insufficient is accorded to the effect of contextual elements on organizational and individual performance (Bennis & Nanus, 2007). This report concludes with a number of issues for organizations and individuals to factor in while investigating management and leadership development. Leadership and management development in the contemporary context According to Armstrong (2008) eexecutive and management development is major business, with an estimated $50 spent annually on just development alone in UK. A study conducted by Financial Times in 2010 established that European corporations were spending about £3,645 on every participant annually on executive training; an estimated 45% of the respondent’s possessed corporate university, and a further 17% were on the process of attaining one and among the topics covered leadership was on top, closely followed my management (Taylor, De Guerre, Gavin, and Kass, 2002). In spite f the plethora of leadership and management currently available and growing levels of demand, there is still an important question as to the degree upon which the present provision meets the organizational needs (Hooper, 2005). The current international challenges demand leadership development approaches which are very different from the traditional ones. Changing notions of the nature of leadership and management development, beside the challenges to the old systems are influencing leadership and management education trends. According to Hirsh (2002) there is a growing flexibility and modularization in all kinds of training programs, a growing provision and demand of personal and informal development comprising (team facilitation, learning sets, project working, 360 degree feedback, coaching and mentoring), and a change from a managed career systems to open internal job markets (Covey, 1990). Core to several of these shift trends towards a more informal, experimental and flexible approaches designed to the organizational and individual requirements. These kinds of changes requires reversal of several old educational priorities, from parts to systems, theory to practices, knowledge to learning, roles and states to processes, personal knowledge to partnerships, and finally isolated analysis to a reflexive perceptive (Bolman & Deal, 2011). A model of how this affects the program content and structure is illustrated in Table 1 Core Trends From To The consultant Supplier Coach, facilitator, co-designer and partner The focus Individuals A team with a purpose The mode Conceptual, listening and lecturing Conceptual and experiential Applied , interactive and participatory Time frame Once-off A process with continuous support The program Theoretical Standard Prescribed course Theory in context Customized Real issues and study program Table 1 shift in leadership development (Gemmel and Oakley, 1992). Causing these shifts is a couple of transforming conceptions about the objective of leadership and management development. Of course, there are the practical issues of establishing effective leaders and managers, improving the organizational competitiveness, as well as offering programs that people can pay for, however linked to these are transforming philosophical perceptions on the role of leadership and management in organizations and how they can be best developed. West and Jackson (2002) draw a distinction between the conceptions of management development, education and training. He argues that the training focuses of the present job of the employee, education focuses on the future job of the employee and the development focuses on the organization. Whereas a number of the traditional provision modes, particularly the formal management methods designed for disseminating knowledge and skills, seem to adopt a training method it is apparent that the contemporary trend is inclined towards development and education. The programs for development prepare people to move toward a new direction that may be required by organizational change (Mole, 2000). The same distinction is established by Collins (2001) in his assessment of leadership development, whereby three different leadership developments are highlighted. They entail scientific (technicist or managerial), which is designed for training to attain outlined targets, second is humanist (persuasive or empowerment) that is more attuned the people and focuses on strategic transformational interaction and finally, pragmatic (reactive or rational) that is project-attuned with focus on the immediate needs of groups and individuals (Financial Times, 2003). Methods of leadership development With so many approaches through which leadership development and leadership could be conceived and the multitude functions they offer, it is not unexpected that a broad range of development techniques and approaches have transformed (Ferris, 2000). Line Manager and Human Resource have been ranked in major European survey by Ramirez and Mabey established most preferences for management development approaches as follows in European companies (Graham & Follett, 1995). 1. Coaching and mentoring 2. Internal skills course 3. Conferences, seminars and external courses. 4. Placements and external assignments 5. Internal job rotation 6. Formal qualification 7. E-learning Among all the companies studied, there was a comparatively low preference for the on-the-job developments for instance, job assignments and rotation and an outstanding little uptake of e-learning. In United Kingdom the deployment of qualification-based development is higher, in spite of the comparatively low ranking of this in respect to what makes managers effective. Most development and training programs offered through external training and in-house could be grouped into four categories (Bush and Glover, 2004). a) Learning about organization and leadership: That largely entails traditional workshop and classroom approaches to offer leadership research and theory b) Team and self analysis and leadership styles exploration: A range of methods comprising sensitive training, coaching, 360 degree feedback and psychometrics to increase self awareness as well as of others and how their affects on styles of leadership. c) Simulation and experimental learning: Methods which focus of the significance of learning by doing for example, role play, action learning and outward bound programs. d) To level strategy programs: Top level development programs are designed for executive management and is usually related with prestigious business qualifications and schools. A part from these types of programs or courses, there is also a whole range of several informal development programs carried out within organizations, comprising mentoring, career planning, seminars, secondments and projects. Ehin (2005) also outlines apprehensions in several leadership development programs. There is a huge problem which troubles most leadership development activities. Since leadership is viewed as principally about doing as opposed to knowing, there would an intrinsic unfairness towards activity-based and hurriedly paced encounters. As a result, there is limited time for strategic thinking and reflection. When I now assess the relative popularity and the application of various development methods it stays clear that, in spite of the movement towards tailored and flexible provisions indicated earlier, big corporations still depend more on formal training as opposed to informal. Moreover, a huge chuck of this remains in the face-to-face traditional modes as opposed to through e-learning (Engeström, 1987). In respect to tailored and personalized development provision, the most popular among managers and organizations is coaching; however its extension to huge number of people is restricted by the availability of high caliber coaches and costs. Like many methods, 360 degree feedback is established to be the most effective if incorporated with a detailed development courses and is greatly affected by some three elements:1) a job context that embraces skill development, 2)the confidence of the participant that individuals could advance their skills and 3) a confidence that they are capable of developing and improving (Raelin, 2004). Grint (2004) established that successful organizations deploy a variety of external, informal and formal methods to development and Drath (2001) state that evidence of the way leadership and management works is that it operates in various forms in various situations. The pragmatic insinuation of this is that to obtain the benefit of leadership and management development needs the design of suitable methods for particular situations as opposed to applying the universal approach of best practice (Gosling, 2005). The study reveals that the effectiveness of any approach of development would greatly be affected by the participants’ preferred learning method, personal character, and past experience. Other critical elements entail the need for buy-in, the organizational context, and the learning ethos within the company (Kotter, 1990). Therefore, the selection of development method is not trouble-free. For optimal effect, people must carefully examine what they intend to develop and consider how best it could be achieved. For instance, a company may intend to develop a reflective, considerate and a culture of shared leadership (Drysdale, 2005). Management Development methods With so many development programs currently being offered and broad array of providers, the pragmatic concern of selecting which one to take may be puzzling Gergen (1999) suggests seven fundamental tenets over which genuine management training should be established upon. 1. Management practice and education should be integrated and concurrent. 2. management training should be limited to practicing managers, chosen based on their performance 3. management training need to leverage life and work experience 4. Thoughtful reflections is critical for learning 5. management development need to yield into organizational development 6. all the components of education should facilitate learning 7. management developments should be interactive practice The effects of these principles are multiple both for those participating in and purchasing leadership and management development as well as its providers. Of specific importance is the focus of the interplay between reflection and practice, organizational and individual development and the participant and provider (Barnett, 1994). This model is directed to a new collaboration between business schools and companies that would improve the depth and level of conversation in the field of organizational and management development. Leadership development, especially the occasion to reflect on the practices, must be entrenched in all components of organizational functioning (Gergen, 1999). Leadership can neither be learned nor taught, rather it is learning. Therefore, to ensure that we achieve the most from leadership development, we need to critically examine the present notions of the nature of learning and leadership within companies (Williams, 2000). To a wider perspective we reap what we sow… if reward and development processes favor individual recognition as opposed to collective engagement, therefore they are not likely to achieve a culture which promotes shared leadership and collaboration (Hooper, 2005). We need to carefully examine the development needs of both the organization and individuals. Look at approaches in which the effect of development can be examined from various perspectives, how the needs of development could change with time and how the benefits could be maximized (Bass, 2010). Conclusion Based on these considerations, examine various development choices from several providers. Open discussion with the providers to explore how courses may be tailored to need your requirements, how programs can optimize the benefits of reflective and experiential leaning, and how management and leadership development can be sustained and transferred within the organization. Methods which integrate a variety of development approaches are especially effective, particularly when linked with opportunities for discussing and receiving feedback from individuals. Ensure that development and learning are considered as valued and essential activities in the company and that everybody is supported and encouraged in their development process. The management processes’ quality following and preceding development programs are vital predictor of the effect and instrumental in making sure that the newly developed competencies are practiced (Collins and Porras, 1995). Evaluate other organizational processes and systems, particularly Human Resource strategy and how these support and interface with management and leadership development. The mode in which Human Resources practices are executed is a major success predictor than adopted. Finally, consider long-term view of organizational and leadership development. While establishing sustainable and genuine management and leadership in organization, there would be no quick fix, irrespective of the promises of the consultants. A series of programs preceding the latest leadership and management fads is highly likely to cause cynicism climate as opposed to engagement. References Armstrong, M 2008, Management a leadership. Grada Publishing as. Bass, B 2010, The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Bennis, W 1989, Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21 St century, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2, 7. Bennis, WG & Nanus, B 2007, Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. 2011, Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. Jossey-Bass. Denning, S 2010, The Leader’s Guide to Radical Management: Reinventing the Workplace for the 21st Century, Jossey-Bass. Ehin, C 2005, Leadership and Self-managing Systems, World Business Academy, 24 March, Vol. 19 Issue 5 Ferris, G 2000, "Political Skill at Work." Organizational Dynamics 28.4, pp. 25-37. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. 1997, The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 445-456. Jones, G 2000, Why Should Anyone Be Led by You? Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct 2000, Vol. 78 Issue 5, p. 62 – 70 Klein, A 2007, Management and Leadership, GRIN Verlag. Kotter, J. P 1987, The leadership factor. New York, NY: Free Press. Kotter, J. P 1990a, What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68, 103-111. Kotter, J. P 1990b, A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York, NY: Free Press. Raelin, J. (2004), ‘Don’t Bother Putting Leadership Into People’, Academy of Management Executive, 18, pp. 131-135 Financial Times (2003), ‘Companies Still Value Training’, Financial Times, Monday, September 8th, Special Report on Business Education Crainer, S. (1998), ‘Battle of the Business Schools’, Management Today, September, pp. 54-58 Higher Education Statistics Agency, (2006), Student Tables by Subject of Study 1996/7 and 2004/5, URL: http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/stud.htm, accessed 05/03/07 Hirsh, W. and Carter, A. (2002), New Directions in Management Development, IES Report 387, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies Taylor, M., De Guerre, D., Gavin, J. and Kass, R. (2002), ‘Graduate Leadership Education For Dynamic Human Systems’, Management Learning, 33(3), pp. 349-369 Williams, S. (2000), Management and Leadership Teaching: Present Trends and Future Demand, London: Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership (retrieved from www.managementandleadershipcouncil.org/downloads/r25.pdf Hirsh,C. (2002),Reflexivity is defined as "a directing back on itself" (Dictionary.com, 2005). Reflexive understanding thus refers to the ability for critical self-reflection in relation to previous knowledge and experience. West, M. and Jackson, D. (2002), ‘Developing School Leaders: A Comparative Study of School Preparation Programmes’, paper presented at AERA Annual Conference, New Orleans, April Mole, G. (2000), Managing Management Development, Buckingham: Open University Press Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2004), Leadership Development: Evidence and Beliefs, Nottingham: National College for School Leadership, pp. 19 (retrieved from: www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7A/88/bush-school-leadership-full.pdf ) Holman, D., (2000), ‘Contemporary Models of Management Education in the UK’, Management Learning, 31(2), pp. 197-217 Barnett, R. (1990), The Idea of Higher Education, Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press; Barnett, R. (1994), The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education and Society, Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press Holman. Weindling, D. (2003), Leadership Development in Practice: Trends and Innovations, Nottingham: National College for School Leadership retrieved from: www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7B/96/randd-leadder Day, D. (2001), ‘Leadership Development: A Review in Context’, Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), pp, 581 - 613 Charam, R., Drotter, S. and Noel, J. 2001. The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered Company. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collins, J. and Porras, J. 1995. Built to Last.London: Random House. Collins, J. 2001. Good to Great. London:Random House. Covey, S. R. 1990. Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Toronto: Simon and Shuster. Deming, E. W. 1982. Out of the Crisis: Quality,Productivity and Competitive Position.Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Drath, W. and Palus, C. 1994. Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-making in a Community of Practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Drath, W. 2001. The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gaille, W. B. 1955. Essentially Contested Concepts. Paper presented at the Aristotelian Society. Gemmel, G., and Oakley, J. 1992. Leadership: An Alienating Social Myth? Human Relations, 45(2): 113-129. Gergen, K. 1999. An Invitation to Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gosling, J. 2005a. Leadership Courses. In Bolden, R. (Ed.), What is Leadership Development? Purpose and Practice. Exeter: Gosling, J. 2005a. Leadership Exchange: Some Notes on Observation. In Bolden, R.(Ed.), What is Leadership Development? Purpose and Practice. Exeter: University of Exeter. Graham, P., Follett, M. P. 1995. Prophet of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Grint, K. 2004. What is Leadership? From Hydra to Hybrid, Working Paper, Said Business School and Templeton College: Oxford University. Health, Department of. 2002. Managing for Excellence. Heifetz, R. 1994. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Hooper, A. 2005a. Facilitated Workshops. In Bolden, R. (Ed.), What is Leadership Development? Purpose and Practice. Exeter: University of Exeter. Drath, W. 2001. The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Drysdale, J. 2005. Discovery: Extraordinary Results from Everyday Living. London: Cyan Books. Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-theoretical Approach to Read More