WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.059 Welcome to The Debate. Good to be here. Today 00:00:04.059 --> 00:00:08.679 we are opening the hood on a machine that really 00:00:08.679 --> 00:00:11.980 drives the global corporate economy. And I have 00:00:11.980 --> 00:00:15.640 to say it is a very expensive machine. We're 00:00:15.640 --> 00:00:18.320 talking about the industry of leadership development. 00:00:19.359 --> 00:00:22.760 Expensive is an understatement. It really is. 00:00:22.859 --> 00:00:25.339 I mean, depending on whose numbers you trust. 00:00:25.950 --> 00:00:28.289 Organizations globally are spending somewhere 00:00:28.289 --> 00:00:33.990 north of $350 billion every single year on training, 00:00:34.210 --> 00:00:37.829 retreats, executive coaching, you name it. It's 00:00:37.829 --> 00:00:40.890 a staggering amount of capital. And yet, the 00:00:40.890 --> 00:00:42.710 source material we're looking at today suggests 00:00:42.710 --> 00:00:45.750 there is a massive problem with the return on 00:00:45.750 --> 00:00:48.189 that investment. Right. I mean, if you spent 00:00:48.189 --> 00:00:50.810 that kind of money on R &D or manufacturing and 00:00:50.810 --> 00:00:52.630 got the results we see in leadership training. 00:00:53.130 --> 00:00:56.229 You'd fire the entire department. Exactly. The 00:00:56.229 --> 00:00:58.750 literature points to this persistent, almost 00:00:58.750 --> 00:01:03.149 frustrating paradox. We have smart people. We 00:01:03.149 --> 00:01:05.489 have expensive training. And yet there's this 00:01:05.489 --> 00:01:08.709 gaping chasm between knowing what a good leader 00:01:08.709 --> 00:01:11.730 should do and actually doing it in the real world. 00:01:11.969 --> 00:01:14.230 So the central question we're debating today 00:01:14.230 --> 00:01:18.150 is why? And specifically, where do we point the 00:01:18.150 --> 00:01:20.530 finger? Do we point it at the person we're training? 00:01:21.079 --> 00:01:23.480 Or do we point it at the system that person has 00:01:23.480 --> 00:01:26.579 to operate in? That is the core tension. And 00:01:26.579 --> 00:01:29.280 I'm taking the position that leadership is fundamentally 00:01:29.280 --> 00:01:32.599 a human endeavor. It's about the individual. 00:01:32.780 --> 00:01:36.099 It's about psychology, personal capacity, and 00:01:36.099 --> 00:01:39.760 what the texts call self -efficacy. If you want 00:01:39.760 --> 00:01:42.459 better leadership, you have to build better people. 00:01:42.760 --> 00:01:45.739 It's the old great person theory. You need a 00:01:45.739 --> 00:01:48.219 hero or at least someone capable of heroic acts. 00:01:48.829 --> 00:01:51.609 And I'm taking the position that the great person 00:01:51.609 --> 00:01:54.269 approach is exactly why we're flushing billions 00:01:54.269 --> 00:01:57.609 of dollars down the drain. I believe the material 00:01:57.609 --> 00:01:59.950 clearly shows that leadership is a collective 00:01:59.950 --> 00:02:03.950 process. It relies on systems, on culture, on 00:02:03.950 --> 00:02:07.109 context. If you take a brilliant individual and 00:02:07.109 --> 00:02:09.889 drop them into a broken system, the system wins 00:02:09.889 --> 00:02:12.729 every time. You can't fix the organization by 00:02:12.729 --> 00:02:15.939 just polishing the cogs. Polishing the cogs, 00:02:16.020 --> 00:02:18.840 I think that's a bit reductive, but let's get 00:02:18.840 --> 00:02:21.800 into the argument. Let's do it. I want to ground 00:02:21.800 --> 00:02:24.819 us in the definition of the work itself. When 00:02:24.819 --> 00:02:26.719 we look at the academic literature, you know, 00:02:26.719 --> 00:02:29.580 the foundational texts on this subject, how is 00:02:29.580 --> 00:02:32.419 leadership development actually defined? It isn't 00:02:32.419 --> 00:02:35.639 defined as organizational consulting. It's defined 00:02:35.639 --> 00:02:39.180 explicitly as the process which helps expand 00:02:39.180 --> 00:02:42.259 the capacity of individuals to perform in leadership 00:02:42.259 --> 00:02:44.750 roles. That is the traditional definition, yes. 00:02:45.030 --> 00:02:47.629 Well, it's the definition because it's the mechanism 00:02:47.629 --> 00:02:51.150 of action. Think about it. You can't train a 00:02:51.150 --> 00:02:54.030 department to have empathy. You can't train a 00:02:54.030 --> 00:02:57.090 policy to have a vision. You can only train a 00:02:57.090 --> 00:02:59.629 human being. And the material points to the Royal 00:02:59.629 --> 00:03:03.069 Military Academy Sandhurst as one of the ultimate 00:03:03.069 --> 00:03:06.210 examples of this. Sandhurst is legendary, sure, 00:03:06.349 --> 00:03:08.610 but it's also a military academy. It's a bit 00:03:08.610 --> 00:03:10.810 of an extreme example, isn't it? But the principles 00:03:10.810 --> 00:03:13.830 apply everywhere. Sandhurst doesn't operate on 00:03:13.830 --> 00:03:16.090 the assumption that this system will make you 00:03:16.090 --> 00:03:19.250 a leader. No, they operate on a model of intense 00:03:19.250 --> 00:03:22.569 selection and individual potential. They argue 00:03:22.569 --> 00:03:24.949 that you have to identify specific psychological 00:03:24.949 --> 00:03:28.050 traits before you even begin the training. They're 00:03:28.050 --> 00:03:30.349 looking for things like high achievement drive, 00:03:30.669 --> 00:03:34.229 openness to experience, and specifically an internal 00:03:34.229 --> 00:03:37.409 locus of control. Let's pause on internal locus 00:03:37.409 --> 00:03:39.930 of control for a second. Just for the listeners, 00:03:40.030 --> 00:03:42.539 we should probably unpack that. Sure. It's a 00:03:42.539 --> 00:03:45.120 psychological term. If you have an internal locus 00:03:45.120 --> 00:03:47.419 of control, you believe that events in your life 00:03:47.419 --> 00:03:50.080 are caused by your own actions. You're the driver. 00:03:50.360 --> 00:03:52.900 If you have an external locus of control, you 00:03:52.900 --> 00:03:56.240 believe life happens to you. Luck, fate, the 00:03:56.240 --> 00:03:59.460 boss's mood. The argument here is that you can't 00:03:59.460 --> 00:04:02.699 lead if you don't believe you have agency. Development, 00:04:02.960 --> 00:04:05.639 in my view, is the process of strengthening that 00:04:05.639 --> 00:04:08.400 internal psychology. It's about building what 00:04:08.620 --> 00:04:12.259 what Albert Bandura calls self -efficacy. Bandura 00:04:12.259 --> 00:04:15.479 is a heavy hitter in psychology. He is. And his 00:04:15.479 --> 00:04:18.199 concept of self -efficacy is absolutely crucial 00:04:18.199 --> 00:04:21.360 here. It's the rock solid belief in one's own 00:04:21.360 --> 00:04:24.160 capabilities to organize and execute a course 00:04:24.160 --> 00:04:27.860 of action. That belief happens inside a brain. 00:04:28.120 --> 00:04:30.300 It doesn't happen in the hallways. It doesn't 00:04:30.300 --> 00:04:32.819 happen in the employee handbook. It is a deeply 00:04:32.819 --> 00:04:36.480 personal, psychological revolution. If you don't 00:04:36.480 --> 00:04:39.769 have that individual spark, no amount of systemic 00:04:39.769 --> 00:04:42.529 support is going to make you a leader. Okay, 00:04:42.610 --> 00:04:45.329 I don't disagree that confidence is better than 00:04:45.329 --> 00:04:47.470 insecurity, but I think you're painting a very 00:04:47.470 --> 00:04:50.730 romantic picture of the hero leader. You're describing 00:04:50.730 --> 00:04:53.670 a model where we pluck some special person, fill 00:04:53.670 --> 00:04:56.790 them with Sandhurst -style grit, and drop them 00:04:56.790 --> 00:04:59.329 into a company to save the day. But here's the 00:04:59.329 --> 00:05:01.569 cold water, and it comes straight from the data. 00:05:01.899 --> 00:05:04.560 The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 00:05:04.560 --> 00:05:08.620 published a study in 2015 that analyzed traditional 00:05:08.620 --> 00:05:11.920 classroom -style training, which is, you know, 00:05:11.939 --> 00:05:14.360 exactly what you're advocating for. I have a 00:05:14.360 --> 00:05:16.699 feeling I'm not going to like this number. You 00:05:16.699 --> 00:05:19.920 really aren't. They estimated that as little 00:05:19.920 --> 00:05:22.899 as 15 % of the learning from that training results 00:05:22.899 --> 00:05:27.600 in sustained behavioral change. 15! 1 -5! Just 00:05:27.600 --> 00:05:30.189 think about that ROI. If an auto manufacturer 00:05:30.189 --> 00:05:32.990 built cars where only 15 % of them started when 00:05:32.990 --> 00:05:34.910 you turned the key, they would be out of business 00:05:34.910 --> 00:05:37.449 in a week. Yet, in leadership development, we 00:05:37.449 --> 00:05:40.009 just accept this failure rate. This is what the 00:05:40.009 --> 00:05:42.430 management expert Henry Mintzberg calls the knowing 00:05:42.430 --> 00:05:45.329 -doing gap. We fill these individuals with theories, 00:05:45.449 --> 00:05:47.189 we give them self -efficacy, and then they go 00:05:47.189 --> 00:05:49.550 back to their desks and nothing happens. Okay, 00:05:49.670 --> 00:05:52.629 but we have to ask why nothing happens. Is that 00:05:52.629 --> 00:05:54.930 a failure of the focus on the individual, or 00:05:54.930 --> 00:05:57.029 is that just bad teaching? I mean, maybe the 00:05:57.029 --> 00:05:59.810 seminar was boring. It's the destination. The 00:05:59.810 --> 00:06:02.949 material sites Baldwin and Ford from 1988, and 00:06:02.949 --> 00:06:05.209 this isn't new information, by the way, and their 00:06:05.209 --> 00:06:07.490 findings are just damning for your position. 00:06:07.750 --> 00:06:10.310 They prove that the transfer of training depends 00:06:10.310 --> 00:06:13.589 heavily, perhaps primarily, on the support for 00:06:13.589 --> 00:06:15.709 behavioral change from the leader's supervisor. 00:06:16.189 --> 00:06:19.689 The supervisor. Right. The environment. You take 00:06:19.689 --> 00:06:22.250 a manager, let's call him Bob, you send Bob to 00:06:22.250 --> 00:06:25.500 a retreat. He gets his expanded capacity. He 00:06:25.500 --> 00:06:28.040 comes back fired up, ready to lead with empathy 00:06:28.040 --> 00:06:30.879 and vision. But his boss says, that's cute, Bob, 00:06:31.040 --> 00:06:33.339 but we have a deadline. Stop talking and get 00:06:33.339 --> 00:06:36.300 back to work. Bob's individual capacity is instantly 00:06:36.300 --> 00:06:39.500 erased by the systemic context. The swamp of 00:06:39.500 --> 00:06:42.300 the organization just swallows him up. I understand 00:06:42.300 --> 00:06:46.120 the swamp argument. I really do. But if we follow 00:06:46.120 --> 00:06:48.360 that logic to its conclusion, we stop training 00:06:48.360 --> 00:06:50.439 Bob entirely. We just complain about the swamp. 00:06:50.889 --> 00:06:53.009 The literature makes a clear distinction between 00:06:53.009 --> 00:06:55.370 leader development, what I'm talking about, developing 00:06:55.370 --> 00:06:58.029 human capital, and leadership development, which 00:06:58.029 --> 00:06:59.910 is what you're talking about, developing connections. 00:07:00.529 --> 00:07:03.490 I argue that if you stop focusing on the individual 00:07:03.490 --> 00:07:05.689 because the system is hard, you are surrendering 00:07:05.689 --> 00:07:08.470 agency. You are saying the machine is more powerful 00:07:08.470 --> 00:07:11.310 than the human. I just don't accept that. A true 00:07:11.310 --> 00:07:13.430 leader, properly developed, looks at the swamp 00:07:13.430 --> 00:07:23.779 and decides to drain it. That sounds great on 00:07:23.779 --> 00:07:26.240 a motivational poster, but in reality, Bob just 00:07:26.240 --> 00:07:29.500 quits. Or worse, he conforms. Let's look at the 00:07:29.500 --> 00:07:31.879 mechanism of learning itself, because I think 00:07:31.879 --> 00:07:34.319 this proves my point about the individual being 00:07:34.319 --> 00:07:37.420 central. The material references David Kolb deeply. 00:07:37.699 --> 00:07:40.120 He's the titan of experiential learning. His 00:07:40.120 --> 00:07:42.680 model is, you know, the gold standard for how 00:07:42.680 --> 00:07:45.660 adults grow. Kolb is valid. I'm not disputing 00:07:45.660 --> 00:07:48.399 Kolb. Well, let's look at his model. It is entirely 00:07:48.399 --> 00:07:51.300 individual -centric. He outlines four stages 00:07:51.300 --> 00:07:54.060 of learning. Stage one, concrete experience. 00:07:54.480 --> 00:07:57.860 You do something. Stage two, observation and 00:07:57.860 --> 00:08:00.560 reflection. You think about what happened. Stage 00:08:00.560 --> 00:08:03.980 three, forming abstract concepts. You build a 00:08:03.980 --> 00:08:06.639 mental theory. And stage four, testing in new 00:08:06.639 --> 00:08:09.980 situations. Look at stage two and three, reflection 00:08:09.980 --> 00:08:13.220 and conceptualization. Those are solitary cognitive 00:08:13.220 --> 00:08:16.480 acts. The system cannot reflect for you. The 00:08:16.480 --> 00:08:19.220 team cannot form a concept in your brain. If 00:08:19.220 --> 00:08:21.000 you don't focus on the individual's cognitive 00:08:21.000 --> 00:08:24.060 process, learning literally cannot occur. It's 00:08:24.060 --> 00:08:26.759 a biological fact. I'm not saying the individual 00:08:26.759 --> 00:08:29.579 doesn't need a functioning brain. I'm saying 00:08:29.579 --> 00:08:32.240 your application of Kolb is incomplete because 00:08:32.240 --> 00:08:35.440 you are ignoring the fourth stage, testing in 00:08:35.440 --> 00:08:38.440 new situations. You can't test a leadership behavior 00:08:38.440 --> 00:08:41.340 in a vacuum. You can't practice leading in front 00:08:41.340 --> 00:08:43.620 of a mirror. You have to do it with other people. 00:08:43.929 --> 00:08:46.509 which then provides data back to the individual 00:08:46.509 --> 00:08:49.149 for reflection. But the quality of that testing 00:08:49.149 --> 00:08:52.009 phase depends entirely on the collective. The 00:08:52.009 --> 00:08:54.789 material explicitly states that effective development 00:08:54.789 --> 00:08:57.409 is more likely when it integrates a range of 00:08:57.409 --> 00:09:00.389 experiences over a set period, specifically 6 00:09:00.389 --> 00:09:03.980 to 12 months. Why does it take a year? It's not 00:09:03.980 --> 00:09:06.259 because the individual is slow. It's because 00:09:06.259 --> 00:09:09.080 effective testing requires feedback loops. It 00:09:09.080 --> 00:09:12.159 requires 360 -degree feedback from peers. It 00:09:12.159 --> 00:09:14.720 requires executive coaching. It requires mentoring. 00:09:15.019 --> 00:09:18.179 These are all relational dynamics. If I try to 00:09:18.179 --> 00:09:20.799 test my new leadership style, say, being more 00:09:20.799 --> 00:09:23.820 open to ideas, and my team reacts with hostility 00:09:23.820 --> 00:09:26.279 because the culture is toxic, I'm going to learn 00:09:26.279 --> 00:09:28.159 the wrong lesson. I'll learn to keep my mouth 00:09:28.159 --> 00:09:30.659 shut. Kolb's cycle breaks if the environment 00:09:30.659 --> 00:09:32.720 doesn't support the experiment. I think you're 00:09:32.720 --> 00:09:36.480 confusing the gym with the athlete. Yes, you 00:09:36.480 --> 00:09:39.860 need a gym, the environment, to train. But you're 00:09:39.860 --> 00:09:43.100 still training the athlete, the person. The muscle 00:09:43.100 --> 00:09:45.659 growth happens in the body, not in the weights. 00:09:45.879 --> 00:09:48.779 But let's pivot to how organizations actually 00:09:48.779 --> 00:09:51.379 plan for the future. Because I think this is 00:09:51.379 --> 00:09:53.480 where the systemic argument really struggles 00:09:53.480 --> 00:09:56.360 to explain reality. I'm talking about succession 00:09:56.360 --> 00:09:59.940 planning. Ah. the crown prince phenomenon. Call 00:09:59.940 --> 00:10:02.600 it what you want, but it's the process of ensuring 00:10:02.600 --> 00:10:05.919 the organization survives. Succession planning 00:10:05.919 --> 00:10:09.379 is, by definition, the identification of high 00:10:09.379 --> 00:10:13.179 potentials, the elite few. The material notes 00:10:13.179 --> 00:10:16.179 that in multinational corporations, this involves 00:10:16.179 --> 00:10:19.440 very specific curated experiences, international 00:10:19.440 --> 00:10:22.840 transfers, cross -departmental rotations. We 00:10:22.840 --> 00:10:25.419 send a specific human being, let's call her Jane, 00:10:25.639 --> 00:10:28.840 from London to Singapore for two years. Why do 00:10:28.840 --> 00:10:31.179 we do that? We're curating the life experience 00:10:31.179 --> 00:10:34.139 of a specific vessel, the leader. We aren't trying 00:10:34.139 --> 00:10:36.559 to fix the Singapore system. We are trying to 00:10:36.559 --> 00:10:38.700 give Jane the perspective she needs to lead. 00:10:38.940 --> 00:10:41.980 If leadership was purely collective, we wouldn't 00:10:41.980 --> 00:10:44.759 need to move Jane. We just optimize the team 00:10:44.759 --> 00:10:48.860 she manages. That is the traditional view, and 00:10:48.860 --> 00:10:51.690 it leads to a lot of burned out Janes. I want 00:10:51.690 --> 00:10:53.610 to introduce a different concept from the text 00:10:53.610 --> 00:10:56.129 that challenges that entire high potential hierarchy. 00:10:56.490 --> 00:11:00.690 It's called employeeship. Employeeship. I have 00:11:00.690 --> 00:11:04.470 to be honest, it sounds a bit submissive. Like 00:11:04.470 --> 00:11:06.850 we're training people to be better worker bees. 00:11:07.230 --> 00:11:09.490 It only sounds like that if you're obsessed with 00:11:09.490 --> 00:11:12.809 the great man hierarchy. Employeeship has been 00:11:12.809 --> 00:11:15.669 particularly successful in Scandinavia, specifically 00:11:15.669 --> 00:11:18.889 in Sweden. Now, we know that Scandinavian business 00:11:18.889 --> 00:11:21.909 cultures often have a low power distance. That 00:11:21.909 --> 00:11:23.769 means the gap between the boss and the worker 00:11:23.769 --> 00:11:26.230 is very small. They don't put the leader on a 00:11:26.230 --> 00:11:28.509 pedestal, and the material notes that in this 00:11:28.509 --> 00:11:30.649 model, the traits of a good leader are recognized 00:11:30.649 --> 00:11:32.909 as being not too dissimilar to what it takes 00:11:32.909 --> 00:11:35.690 to be a good employee. So everyone is a leader? 00:11:36.149 --> 00:11:39.450 That sounds like chaos. If everyone is in charge, 00:11:39.610 --> 00:11:42.730 no one is. It's not that everyone is in charge. 00:11:43.179 --> 00:11:45.259 It's that the responsibility for the success 00:11:45.259 --> 00:11:48.000 of the organization is shared. Instead of taking 00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:50.360 the high -potential Jane and putting her in a 00:11:50.360 --> 00:11:52.899 special tower with special training, which, by 00:11:52.899 --> 00:11:56.200 the way, alienates her from the team, the employeeship 00:11:56.200 --> 00:11:58.679 model suggests you bring the leader and the team 00:11:58.679 --> 00:12:01.360 together to explore their similarities. You develop 00:12:01.360 --> 00:12:04.039 them as a unit. When you focus entirely on the 00:12:04.039 --> 00:12:06.320 individual, on the elite, you create a culture 00:12:06.320 --> 00:12:08.980 of competition. You create disconnection. But 00:12:08.980 --> 00:12:11.019 if you focus on the interpersonal linkages, you 00:12:11.019 --> 00:12:13.639 build a resilient web. The Swedish model suggests 00:12:13.639 --> 00:12:15.440 the leader is just an employee with a different 00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:17.700 set of responsibilities, not a different species 00:12:17.700 --> 00:12:20.580 of human. I can see the egalitarian appeal. It 00:12:20.580 --> 00:12:24.379 feels very modern. But let's be practical. Organizations 00:12:24.379 --> 00:12:27.399 need direction. They need strategy. And that 00:12:27.399 --> 00:12:30.419 brings me to the concept of visioning. The material 00:12:30.419 --> 00:12:32.879 identifies this as a non -negotiable component 00:12:32.879 --> 00:12:35.740 of leadership development, the ability to formulate 00:12:35.740 --> 00:12:39.179 a clear image of the aspired future. Sure. You 00:12:39.179 --> 00:12:42.700 need a plan. It's more than a plan. It's a dream. 00:12:43.200 --> 00:12:45.860 Succession planning relies on what we aspire 00:12:45.860 --> 00:12:49.500 to become, not just where we've been. Who generates 00:12:49.500 --> 00:12:52.899 that aspiration? A committee doesn't dream. A 00:12:52.899 --> 00:12:55.879 system doesn't hallucinate a new future. A person 00:12:55.879 --> 00:12:58.639 does. The text emphasizes that you need someone 00:12:58.639 --> 00:13:01.179 with the cognitive capacity to project into the 00:13:01.179 --> 00:13:04.200 future. That act of imagination is an individual 00:13:04.200 --> 00:13:06.960 attribute. You need a person with high openness 00:13:06.960 --> 00:13:09.799 to experience and high achievement drive to stand 00:13:09.799 --> 00:13:12.919 up and say, follow me, we are going there. If 00:13:12.919 --> 00:13:15.220 you rely on the collective, you just get the 00:13:15.220 --> 00:13:17.759 status quo. The collective protects the norm. 00:13:17.919 --> 00:13:20.519 If you want a breakthrough, you need an individual 00:13:20.519 --> 00:13:23.379 visionary. That's a very seductive narrative. 00:13:23.539 --> 00:13:25.820 We all love the story of the visionary genius. 00:13:26.139 --> 00:13:28.840 But let me ask you, what happens to a vision 00:13:28.840 --> 00:13:31.960 if no one understands it? The definition of leadership 00:13:31.960 --> 00:13:34.460 roles in our text is very specific about this. 00:13:34.799 --> 00:13:37.500 It says roles are those that facilitate execution 00:13:37.500 --> 00:13:40.220 of an organization strategy through building 00:13:40.220 --> 00:13:43.259 alignment and winning mindshare. Winning mindshare. 00:13:43.379 --> 00:13:46.840 Exactly. The leader wins it. But winning mindshare 00:13:46.840 --> 00:13:49.620 implies a relationship. It implies there are 00:13:49.620 --> 00:13:52.279 minds to be won. You can have the most brilliant 00:13:52.279 --> 00:13:55.000 visionary in the world, a real Steve Jobs type. 00:13:55.159 --> 00:13:57.960 But if you drop him into a rigid, bureaucratic, 00:13:58.039 --> 00:14:00.039 fossilized system that stifles communication, 00:14:00.559 --> 00:14:04.169 what happens? He screams into the void. Baldwin 00:14:04.169 --> 00:14:06.690 and Ford would warn us here. The capacity of 00:14:06.690 --> 00:14:08.909 the individual is irrelevant if the interpersonal 00:14:08.909 --> 00:14:11.889 linkages are broken. If the system doesn't have 00:14:11.889 --> 00:14:14.029 the channels for that vision to travel, the vision 00:14:14.029 --> 00:14:17.789 dies inside the leader's head. So I argue, don't 00:14:17.789 --> 00:14:19.509 spend the million dollars teaching the leader 00:14:19.509 --> 00:14:21.809 how to dream better. Spend the million dollars 00:14:21.809 --> 00:14:23.950 fixing the communication channels so the dream 00:14:23.950 --> 00:14:26.750 can actually be heard. I struggle with that because 00:14:26.750 --> 00:14:30.059 it assumes the system is static. It assumes the 00:14:30.059 --> 00:14:34.019 swamp stays a swamp forever unless a system mechanic 00:14:34.019 --> 00:14:38.340 comes in to fix it. But a truly developed leader, 00:14:38.539 --> 00:14:41.059 one with high self -efficacy, one who understands 00:14:41.059 --> 00:14:43.940 their role perception, changes the linkages. 00:14:44.019 --> 00:14:46.799 They bust the bureaucracy. They fire the people 00:14:46.799 --> 00:14:49.860 who block communication. That is why we pay them 00:14:49.860 --> 00:14:52.759 the big bucks. If we wait for the system to fix 00:14:52.759 --> 00:14:55.360 itself, we'll be waiting forever. We need the 00:14:55.360 --> 00:14:59.049 catalyst. The individual is the catalyst. Or 00:14:59.049 --> 00:15:01.529 more likely, they burn out and become part of 00:15:01.529 --> 00:15:05.529 that 85 % failure statistic. The research shows 00:15:05.529 --> 00:15:08.370 that when you drop a change agent into a system 00:15:08.370 --> 00:15:11.409 that isn't ready, the system has an immune response. 00:15:11.590 --> 00:15:14.970 It attacks the agent. This is why retention rates 00:15:14.970 --> 00:15:17.389 for these high potentials are often so worrying. 00:15:17.840 --> 00:15:20.419 We set them up for failure by telling them they're 00:15:20.419 --> 00:15:23.299 Superman, and then we hand them kryptonite. We're 00:15:23.299 --> 00:15:25.779 running close to our time, and I feel like we're 00:15:25.779 --> 00:15:28.679 standing on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon 00:15:28.679 --> 00:15:32.000 here. So let me try to summarize the case for 00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:35.139 the individual one last time. I acknowledge that 00:15:35.139 --> 00:15:37.960 context matters. I'm not saying we should ignore 00:15:37.960 --> 00:15:41.000 the environment or the supervisor, but ultimately 00:15:41.000 --> 00:15:44.039 responsibility has to rest somewhere. It rests 00:15:44.039 --> 00:15:46.759 on the person. The material highlights three 00:15:46.759 --> 00:15:49.820 critical dimensions for succession, skills and 00:15:49.820 --> 00:15:52.480 knowledge, role perception, and self -efficacy. 00:15:52.580 --> 00:15:55.399 All three of these live inside the skin of the 00:15:55.399 --> 00:15:58.000 leader. We must nurture the high achievement 00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:01.779 drive of that specific human. If we dissolve 00:16:01.779 --> 00:16:04.200 leadership into some vague collective process, 00:16:04.480 --> 00:16:07.500 we lose accountability, we lose the driving force. 00:16:07.659 --> 00:16:10.460 We need the Sandhurst model. Select the best, 00:16:10.639 --> 00:16:13.480 train them well, and let them lead. And I must 00:16:13.480 --> 00:16:17.159 push back one last time. Focusing solely on the 00:16:17.159 --> 00:16:20.360 individual ignores the harsh reality of the data. 00:16:20.500 --> 00:16:23.940 When 85 % of training fails to translate to behavior, 00:16:24.200 --> 00:16:26.879 we have to stop blaming the learner and start 00:16:26.879 --> 00:16:29.059 looking at the environment. True development 00:16:29.059 --> 00:16:31.679 must focus on the collective level. We need to 00:16:31.679 --> 00:16:34.220 look closer at the employee ship model. We need 00:16:34.220 --> 00:16:36.460 to focus on supervisor support, organizational 00:16:36.460 --> 00:16:39.620 alignment, and the social web. If you want behavior 00:16:39.620 --> 00:16:41.720 to change, you have to ensure the soil is fertile 00:16:41.720 --> 00:16:43.980 before you plant the seed. Otherwise, you're 00:16:43.980 --> 00:16:46.220 just throwing money into a void. It seems we've 00:16:46.220 --> 00:16:48.879 arrived at a necessary duality. The text reveals 00:16:48.879 --> 00:16:50.940 that we probably can't choose just one. I think 00:16:50.940 --> 00:16:53.220 that's right. You need the selection criteria. 00:16:53.240 --> 00:16:55.519 You do need capable people. You can't lead with 00:16:55.519 --> 00:16:57.779 incompetence, no matter how good the system is. 00:16:58.059 --> 00:17:00.460 But you also need the systemic support that Baldwin 00:17:00.460 --> 00:17:03.360 and Ford describe, or that talent is just suffocated. 00:17:03.480 --> 00:17:06.299 Right. Perhaps the answer is that the individual 00:17:06.299 --> 00:17:08.819 can only rise as high as the collective supports. 00:17:09.220 --> 00:17:11.359 And the collective can only go as far as the 00:17:11.359 --> 00:17:14.079 individual envisions. A fair place to leave it. 00:17:14.279 --> 00:17:17.920 Indeed. We invite our listeners to look at their 00:17:17.920 --> 00:17:20.579 own organizations. Are you waiting for a hero 00:17:20.579 --> 00:17:23.039 to save you? Or are you building a system where 00:17:23.039 --> 00:17:26.039 leadership can actually thrive? Until next time.