WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.439 Welcome back to the deep dive. I want to start 00:00:02.439 --> 00:00:06.339 today with a guarantee. I can pretty much guarantee 00:00:06.339 --> 00:00:08.339 that every single person listening right now, 00:00:08.419 --> 00:00:10.800 I don't care if you're on your commute, at the 00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:13.800 gym, sitting at your desk. You have heard the 00:00:13.800 --> 00:00:15.740 phrase we are tackling today. Oh, absolutely. 00:00:15.939 --> 00:00:18.100 It's unavoidable. It lives in, you know, the 00:00:18.100 --> 00:00:20.800 glossy HR brochures. It's in every other bio 00:00:20.800 --> 00:00:23.780 on LinkedIn. It is the absolute bread and butter 00:00:23.780 --> 00:00:26.600 of the entire corporate seminar world. It's sort 00:00:26.600 --> 00:00:28.519 of the universal cure -all, right? Whatever the 00:00:28.519 --> 00:00:31.140 problem is, this is the solution. Exactly. We 00:00:31.140 --> 00:00:32.880 are talking about leadership development. And 00:00:32.880 --> 00:00:35.219 I have to be honest with you and with everyone 00:00:35.219 --> 00:00:37.920 listening, when I hear those two words, my brain. 00:00:39.130 --> 00:00:41.969 It goes to a very specific and I'll admit slightly 00:00:41.969 --> 00:00:45.549 cynical place. Let me guess. Windowless conference 00:00:45.549 --> 00:00:49.299 rooms. Bad coffee. Windowless rooms, stale bagels, 00:00:49.299 --> 00:00:52.020 that lukewarm coffee in a styrofoam cup. And, 00:00:52.079 --> 00:00:53.500 you know, a group of adults who have real work 00:00:53.500 --> 00:00:55.659 to do standing in a circle doing trust falls 00:00:55.659 --> 00:00:57.439 or something. Or just staring at a PowerPoint 00:00:57.439 --> 00:01:00.100 deck for eight hours. Yes. Just praying for 5 00:01:00.100 --> 00:01:02.719 .0 p .m. to hit. It feels like a buzzword. It 00:01:02.719 --> 00:01:04.599 feels a bit like, I don't know, leadership theater. 00:01:04.840 --> 00:01:07.599 That's a harsh way to put it. Yeah. But I can't 00:01:07.599 --> 00:01:11.250 say it's totally unfair. I mean. There is a massive, 00:01:11.430 --> 00:01:15.090 multibillion -dollar industry built around exactly 00:01:15.090 --> 00:01:17.250 what you just described. We sometimes call it 00:01:17.250 --> 00:01:19.930 industrial tourism. Industrial tourism. I like 00:01:19.930 --> 00:01:21.189 that. Yeah, people, you know, they visit the 00:01:21.189 --> 00:01:22.930 concept of leadership for a day or two, but they 00:01:22.930 --> 00:01:24.870 never actually live there. It often feels like 00:01:24.870 --> 00:01:26.609 it's selling snake oil. Well, that's our mission 00:01:26.609 --> 00:01:30.010 today. We've pulled together just a huge stack 00:01:30.010 --> 00:01:33.349 of research, academic definitions, structural 00:01:33.349 --> 00:01:36.930 models, all centered on the core mechanics of 00:01:36.930 --> 00:01:38.790 this thing. And we're going to see if there's 00:01:38.790 --> 00:01:41.579 anything real. underneath all that jargon? Is 00:01:41.579 --> 00:01:44.200 it just about sending managers to a seminar to 00:01:44.200 --> 00:01:47.340 check a box? Or are there actual mechanics involved? 00:01:47.659 --> 00:01:50.140 How do you actually build a leader from the ground 00:01:50.140 --> 00:01:52.340 up? And that is the fundamental question. Not 00:01:52.340 --> 00:01:55.060 what is a leader, but how are they built? Because 00:01:55.060 --> 00:01:57.500 if you look at the source material, the really 00:01:57.500 --> 00:01:59.700 rigorous definitions, leadership development 00:01:59.700 --> 00:02:02.700 isn't an event. It's not a seminar. It's not 00:02:02.700 --> 00:02:05.420 a weekend retreat. No, it's defined strictly 00:02:05.420 --> 00:02:09.810 as a process. A process to expand the capacity 00:02:09.810 --> 00:02:12.990 of individuals to perform in leadership roles. 00:02:13.229 --> 00:02:15.189 OK, I want to pause on that phrase because it 00:02:15.189 --> 00:02:17.550 really stood out to me to expand the capacity. 00:02:17.710 --> 00:02:20.490 It sounds almost biological, like we're talking 00:02:20.490 --> 00:02:22.789 about lung capacity or muscle mass. That's a 00:02:22.789 --> 00:02:25.129 very deliberate metaphor. Think about it physically. 00:02:25.289 --> 00:02:28.280 If you want to run a marathon. You can't just 00:02:28.280 --> 00:02:30.719 read a book about running. You have to literally, 00:02:30.960 --> 00:02:34.780 physically expand your cardiovascular system's 00:02:34.780 --> 00:02:36.860 ability to handle the stress. You have to put 00:02:36.860 --> 00:02:38.719 in the mild. You have to tear muscle fibers so 00:02:38.719 --> 00:02:40.879 they grow back stronger. The definition here 00:02:40.879 --> 00:02:43.900 suggests that leadership is the same. It isn't 00:02:43.900 --> 00:02:47.180 about learning a trick or a life hack. It's about 00:02:47.180 --> 00:02:49.419 fundamentally stretching an individual's ability 00:02:49.419 --> 00:02:52.039 to handle more complexity, more stress, more 00:02:52.039 --> 00:02:54.680 ambiguity without snapping. And the definition 00:02:54.680 --> 00:02:56.949 doesn't stop there. It tells us why we need this 00:02:56.949 --> 00:02:59.810 expanded capacity. It says it's for facilitating 00:02:59.810 --> 00:03:01.870 the execution of strategy, building alignment. 00:03:02.030 --> 00:03:04.430 And this is the one I really want to get into, 00:03:04.610 --> 00:03:07.569 winning mindshare. Winning mindshare. Yeah, it's 00:03:07.569 --> 00:03:09.750 a fascinating term to see in an academic definition. 00:03:10.030 --> 00:03:12.289 It sounds so aggressive. It sounds like something 00:03:12.289 --> 00:03:14.810 from military doctrine or maybe a marketing campaign. 00:03:15.270 --> 00:03:19.150 Why is that word winning in a definition of leadership? 00:03:19.759 --> 00:03:23.620 Because leadership at its core is an active influence 00:03:23.620 --> 00:03:26.740 in what is basically an attention economy. In 00:03:26.740 --> 00:03:29.439 any organization, you have a thousand things 00:03:29.439 --> 00:03:32.000 competing for every employee's attention. Their 00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:35.439 email, Slack notifications. Their personal life, 00:03:35.539 --> 00:03:37.639 the gossip going around the office, their own 00:03:37.639 --> 00:03:40.219 anxieties about their mortgage. A leader has 00:03:40.219 --> 00:03:42.419 to cut through all of that noise. You have to 00:03:42.419 --> 00:03:46.780 literally win the mind share to focus that collective 00:03:46.780 --> 00:03:49.500 mental energy on the actual strategy. If you 00:03:49.500 --> 00:03:51.360 can't win their minds, you can't lead their actions. 00:03:51.639 --> 00:03:53.900 You're just another voice shouting into the void. 00:03:54.120 --> 00:03:56.300 OK, so this brings us to the first really big 00:03:56.300 --> 00:03:58.599 question. If we're talking about winning minds 00:03:58.599 --> 00:04:01.400 and executing strategy, who are we actually talking 00:04:01.400 --> 00:04:03.479 about? Because when I say leader, you know, the 00:04:03.479 --> 00:04:05.759 listener is probably picturing the CEO. The corner 00:04:05.759 --> 00:04:07.840 office, yeah. The person with the reserve parking 00:04:07.840 --> 00:04:10.439 spot, the one at the top of the pyramid. That's 00:04:10.439 --> 00:04:12.539 the default setting for most of us, typically. 00:04:13.100 --> 00:04:15.819 But the literature we're looking at today, it 00:04:15.819 --> 00:04:18.399 makes this really critical binary distinction. 00:04:18.759 --> 00:04:21.459 It splits it in two. You have the formal roles 00:04:21.459 --> 00:04:23.980 and then you have the informal roles. Let's break 00:04:23.980 --> 00:04:26.379 those down. Formal seems pretty obvious, right? 00:04:26.519 --> 00:04:29.540 That's the hierarchy. That's the org chart. Formal 00:04:29.540 --> 00:04:32.000 is the org chart. Exactly. It's the person who 00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:35.439 has the official authority to hire, to fire, 00:04:35.540 --> 00:04:37.759 to set the budget. They have the title on their 00:04:37.759 --> 00:04:40.019 business card. They have the right to make decisions 00:04:40.019 --> 00:04:43.379 and. Maybe more importantly, they carry the liability 00:04:43.379 --> 00:04:46.420 for the results. Right. If the ship sinks. The 00:04:46.420 --> 00:04:49.060 captain is the formal leader who is held responsible. 00:04:49.339 --> 00:04:51.779 And this is where most traditional training focuses 00:04:51.779 --> 00:04:55.040 all its energy. OK, but this informal role idea, 00:04:55.160 --> 00:04:57.879 this is where it gets really interesting for 00:04:57.879 --> 00:04:59.620 pretty much everyone listening who isn't the 00:04:59.620 --> 00:05:02.040 CEO. This is where it gets interesting for everybody. 00:05:02.339 --> 00:05:05.500 An informal leadership role is based purely on 00:05:05.500 --> 00:05:08.279 influence. Not on authority. I mean, think about 00:05:08.279 --> 00:05:09.879 that person on your team. We've all worked with 00:05:09.879 --> 00:05:12.379 them who has zero power to tell you what to do. 00:05:12.480 --> 00:05:15.379 No formal power at all. But when they speak up 00:05:15.379 --> 00:05:18.639 in a meeting, everybody stops and listens. When 00:05:18.639 --> 00:05:21.459 the team is demoralized after a setback, they're 00:05:21.459 --> 00:05:24.600 the one who cracks a joke or refocuses the group 00:05:24.600 --> 00:05:26.759 on the next step. The person you go to for advice. 00:05:27.310 --> 00:05:29.970 not for permission. Precisely. Or think about 00:05:29.970 --> 00:05:31.689 a colleague in a completely different department. 00:05:32.029 --> 00:05:35.050 You need them to prioritize your project, but 00:05:35.050 --> 00:05:37.550 you can't order them to do it. You have to persuade. 00:05:37.709 --> 00:05:39.230 You have to build a relationship. You have to 00:05:39.230 --> 00:05:41.230 negotiate. That's a leadership role. That is 00:05:41.230 --> 00:05:43.329 absolutely a leadership role. You are leading 00:05:43.329 --> 00:05:46.069 without a badge. You're influencing without authority. 00:05:46.389 --> 00:05:48.649 So that's really the hook for this whole deep 00:05:48.649 --> 00:05:50.970 dive then. If leadership development is supposed 00:05:50.970 --> 00:05:53.509 to cover these informal roles, then we're not 00:05:53.509 --> 00:05:55.949 just talking about the C -suite. We are, I mean, 00:05:55.970 --> 00:05:57.550 we're potentially... talking about everyone in 00:05:57.550 --> 00:06:00.189 the building. It completely democratizes the 00:06:00.189 --> 00:06:02.769 concept. It means you don't have to wait for 00:06:02.769 --> 00:06:04.870 the promotion to start developing this capacity. 00:06:05.269 --> 00:06:08.189 The idea is to develop the capacity to be effective 00:06:08.189 --> 00:06:12.129 right where you are right now. If you are influencing 00:06:12.129 --> 00:06:15.209 the direction or the engagement of a group, even 00:06:15.209 --> 00:06:16.670 if it's just the group deciding where to go for 00:06:16.670 --> 00:06:19.490 lunch, you are a target for leadership development. 00:06:19.649 --> 00:06:21.990 Okay, so we've established the ideal here. Leadership 00:06:21.990 --> 00:06:23.970 development is about expanding capacity. It's 00:06:23.970 --> 00:06:26.410 about influence, both formal and informal. And 00:06:26.410 --> 00:06:29.589 it's for everyone. It sounds fantastic. But now 00:06:29.589 --> 00:06:32.310 I have to be the bearer of bad news. We have 00:06:32.310 --> 00:06:35.329 to look at the reality because the reality that's 00:06:35.329 --> 00:06:38.029 described in our source material is, well, frankly, 00:06:38.209 --> 00:06:40.189 it's depressing. We are now entering the crisis 00:06:40.189 --> 00:06:42.949 of effectiveness. We found a statistic in the 00:06:42.949 --> 00:06:45.029 source material that, and I'm not exaggerating, 00:06:45.069 --> 00:06:47.250 it genuinely stopped me in my tracks. It's from 00:06:47.250 --> 00:06:50.129 a 2015 study published in the Proceedings of 00:06:50.129 --> 00:06:52.689 the National Academy of Sciences. Now, for anyone 00:06:52.689 --> 00:06:55.350 who doesn't know, PNAS is not some random blog. 00:06:55.629 --> 00:06:57.990 No, this is serious peer -reviewed science. Yeah. 00:06:58.069 --> 00:06:59.930 One of the heavy hitters in global research. 00:07:00.170 --> 00:07:02.579 They don't publish fluff. The study estimated 00:07:02.579 --> 00:07:05.779 that as little as 15 % of the learning from traditional 00:07:05.779 --> 00:07:08.680 classroom -style training actually results in 00:07:08.680 --> 00:07:11.600 any kind of sustained behavioral change. 15. 00:07:11.639 --> 00:07:16.519 1 -5. 15%. That is, it's catastrophic. It is 00:07:16.519 --> 00:07:19.600 a failing grade by any possible standard. I mean, 00:07:19.620 --> 00:07:21.860 imagine if we accepted that kind of failure rate 00:07:21.860 --> 00:07:24.819 in any other industry. Imagine a car manufacturer 00:07:24.819 --> 00:07:28.379 saying, hey, great news, 15 % of our brakes will 00:07:28.379 --> 00:07:30.740 probably work when you hit the pedal. Or a surgeon. 00:07:31.160 --> 00:07:33.519 Look, there's a 15 % chance this heart bypass 00:07:33.519 --> 00:07:36.639 actually bypasses the heart. The other 85 % of 00:07:36.639 --> 00:07:38.519 the time, well, I'm just sort of moving stuff 00:07:38.519 --> 00:07:40.540 around in there. It would be completely unacceptable. 00:07:40.899 --> 00:07:43.220 Society would collapse. But in the corporate 00:07:43.220 --> 00:07:45.860 world, companies are spending billions of dollars, 00:07:45.939 --> 00:07:48.139 literally billions, on these programs every year. 00:07:48.199 --> 00:07:51.300 They fly people to hotels. They pay for facilitators 00:07:51.300 --> 00:07:53.279 for the food for the lost work time. And they 00:07:53.279 --> 00:07:55.360 are basically lighting 85 % of that money on 00:07:55.360 --> 00:07:57.660 fire. It just goes up in smoke. So we have to 00:07:57.660 --> 00:08:00.490 ask the really obvious question. Why? Why is 00:08:00.490 --> 00:08:02.610 the failure rate so ridiculously high? Is the 00:08:02.610 --> 00:08:04.810 training just bad? Is the coffee that stale? 00:08:04.970 --> 00:08:08.509 Sometimes, yeah, sure. But the source points 00:08:08.509 --> 00:08:11.069 us toward a much deeper problem. It's something 00:08:11.069 --> 00:08:13.290 highlighted by the management expert Henry Mintzberg. 00:08:13.829 --> 00:08:17.470 Mintzberg is a legend in this field because he 00:08:17.470 --> 00:08:20.189 just refuses to look at management through rose 00:08:20.189 --> 00:08:23.069 -colored glasses. He's a realist. A total realist. 00:08:23.089 --> 00:08:26.069 And he talks about this dilemma between knowing 00:08:26.069 --> 00:08:29.879 what to do and doing what one knows. That sounds 00:08:29.879 --> 00:08:32.200 like a bit of a riddle, knowing what to do versus 00:08:32.200 --> 00:08:34.659 doing what one knows. Can you unpack that for 00:08:34.659 --> 00:08:37.840 us? It's the classic knowing -doing gap. In a 00:08:37.840 --> 00:08:40.379 classroom under fluorescent lights with a nice 00:08:40.379 --> 00:08:43.039 workbook in front of you, it's very easy to know 00:08:43.039 --> 00:08:46.120 what to do. You can teach someone the five steps 00:08:46.120 --> 00:08:48.740 of effective conflict resolution. Step one, listen 00:08:48.740 --> 00:08:51.580 actively. Step two, validate their feelings. 00:08:51.820 --> 00:08:53.580 And the person can memorize that. They can pass 00:08:53.580 --> 00:08:55.539 a multiple -choice test on it. They know what 00:08:55.539 --> 00:08:58.289 to do. It's an intellectual exercise. But doing 00:08:58.289 --> 00:09:00.909 what one knows happens in the real world. It 00:09:00.909 --> 00:09:02.429 happens when you're in a high -pressure meeting, 00:09:02.549 --> 00:09:05.049 you're sleep -deprived, and a colleague starts, 00:09:05.350 --> 00:09:08.009 I don't know, screaming at you or questioning 00:09:08.009 --> 00:09:09.690 your integrity in front of everyone. And all 00:09:09.690 --> 00:09:12.289 that training just goes out the window. It evaporates. 00:09:12.289 --> 00:09:14.450 Your cortisol spikes, your fight -or -flight 00:09:14.450 --> 00:09:16.470 response kicks in, and that little step one. 00:09:16.840 --> 00:09:19.039 Listen actively from the workbook is gone. You 00:09:19.039 --> 00:09:21.340 just revert to your baseline. You yell back. 00:09:21.539 --> 00:09:24.080 You get defensive. You shut down. It's the difference 00:09:24.080 --> 00:09:26.279 between reading a book on how to swim and actually 00:09:26.279 --> 00:09:29.120 jumping into the ocean during a storm. I can 00:09:29.120 --> 00:09:30.919 sit in my armchair and read about the mechanics 00:09:30.919 --> 00:09:34.059 of a freestyle stroke all day. I can tell you 00:09:34.059 --> 00:09:36.700 the precise angle my elbow should be at. Right. 00:09:36.779 --> 00:09:38.679 You know the theory. But if you throw me into 00:09:38.679 --> 00:09:40.720 the North Atlantic and I've never actually been 00:09:40.720 --> 00:09:43.559 wet before, the second that freezing water hits 00:09:43.559 --> 00:09:45.779 me and the panic sets in, I'm going to drown. 00:09:46.120 --> 00:09:48.220 All that book knowledge is useless. That is the 00:09:48.220 --> 00:09:51.019 perfect analogy. The classroom training is the 00:09:51.019 --> 00:09:54.519 dry land. Leadership is the ocean. And Mintzberg's 00:09:54.519 --> 00:09:56.559 point is that we spend way too much time on dry 00:09:56.559 --> 00:09:58.720 land and then we're shocked when people can't 00:09:58.720 --> 00:10:01.279 swim in a hurricane. The neurological pathways 00:10:01.279 --> 00:10:04.659 for recalling information and acting under stress 00:10:04.659 --> 00:10:07.379 are just different parts of the brain. You can't 00:10:07.379 --> 00:10:09.820 simulate the emotional weight of leadership in 00:10:09.820 --> 00:10:12.480 a workbook. OK, so if the classroom model is 00:10:12.480 --> 00:10:15.909 fundamentally broken, how do we fix it? The source 00:10:15.909 --> 00:10:18.769 material points to a framework from Baldwin and 00:10:18.769 --> 00:10:21.230 Ford, and this goes all the way back to 1988. 00:10:22.309 --> 00:10:25.009 They argue that the transfer of training, you 00:10:25.009 --> 00:10:27.830 know, making it stick, isn't random. It depends 00:10:27.830 --> 00:10:30.750 on three very specific variables. Right. Baldwin 00:10:30.750 --> 00:10:33.529 and Ford. This was a landmark paper. They really 00:10:33.529 --> 00:10:35.210 broke the system down. They said if you want 00:10:35.210 --> 00:10:37.549 that 15 % number to go up, you have to pull on 00:10:37.549 --> 00:10:41.100 three different levers. Variable one is individual 00:10:41.100 --> 00:10:43.259 learner characteristics. Who are we even training 00:10:43.259 --> 00:10:45.480 in the first place? Exactly. Are they smart? 00:10:45.659 --> 00:10:47.960 Are they motivated to be there? Are they open 00:10:47.960 --> 00:10:50.000 to new ideas? We're going to come back to that 00:10:50.000 --> 00:10:52.179 one in a big way because that opens up the whole 00:10:52.179 --> 00:10:54.879 nature versus nurture can of worms. It certainly 00:10:54.879 --> 00:10:57.980 does. Variable two is the quality of the program. 00:10:58.179 --> 00:11:00.799 Is the training actually any good? Is the content 00:11:00.799 --> 00:11:03.440 relevant? Is the instructor engaging? That's 00:11:03.440 --> 00:11:05.879 the obvious one. Companies spend all their time 00:11:05.879 --> 00:11:08.059 and money here, you know, tweaking the slides, 00:11:08.200 --> 00:11:10.799 hiring a more charismatic speaker. But it's variable 00:11:10.799 --> 00:11:13.200 three that really caught my eye. This feels like 00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:15.820 the silent killer, the assassin in the shadows 00:11:15.820 --> 00:11:18.379 of these development programs. Variable three, 00:11:18.519 --> 00:11:22.139 support for behavioral change from the supervisor. 00:11:22.919 --> 00:11:25.860 Let's just sit with that for a second. Support 00:11:25.860 --> 00:11:29.590 from the supervisor, not from the trainer. From 00:11:29.590 --> 00:11:31.830 the boss back at the desk. This is where we get 00:11:31.830 --> 00:11:34.509 the soil analogy. You can take a prize -winning 00:11:34.509 --> 00:11:37.909 seed that's your high -potential employee. You 00:11:37.909 --> 00:11:39.730 can give it the best possible nutrients in the 00:11:39.730 --> 00:11:42.129 perfect greenhouse. That's your fancy training 00:11:42.129 --> 00:11:46.029 program. But then you have to transplant that 00:11:46.029 --> 00:11:48.870 seed back into the real world. And if the soil 00:11:48.870 --> 00:11:50.850 in the garden, which is the supervisor's environment, 00:11:51.090 --> 00:11:54.450 if that soil is toxic, the seed withers and dies. 00:11:54.769 --> 00:11:57.460 Can you walk me through it? What does that toxic 00:11:57.460 --> 00:11:59.740 soil look like in practice? Okay, so imagine 00:11:59.740 --> 00:12:01.539 you go to a leadership course. You learn all 00:12:01.539 --> 00:12:03.639 about empowerment. The trainer tells you that 00:12:03.639 --> 00:12:05.120 you should trust your team more, let them make 00:12:05.120 --> 00:12:07.120 more of their own decisions. You come back to 00:12:07.120 --> 00:12:08.600 the office on Monday morning, you're all fired 00:12:08.600 --> 00:12:10.559 up. You're ready to empower. You're ready to 00:12:10.559 --> 00:12:12.940 empower. You go to your boss and say, hey, I 00:12:12.940 --> 00:12:14.940 learned this great new technique for delegating 00:12:14.940 --> 00:12:16.860 decision -making. I really want to try it out 00:12:16.860 --> 00:12:18.740 with the team on the new project. And the boss 00:12:18.740 --> 00:12:21.440 says... The boss, without even looking up from 00:12:21.440 --> 00:12:24.120 their email, says, that sounds nice in theory, 00:12:24.259 --> 00:12:26.919 but we have a hard deadline on Tuesday. Just 00:12:26.919 --> 00:12:29.740 do it the way we've always done it. I need you 00:12:29.740 --> 00:12:32.159 to micromanage this because we absolutely cannot 00:12:32.159 --> 00:12:35.080 afford a mistake right now. Boom. The training 00:12:35.080 --> 00:12:38.179 is dead on arrival. Instantly. Yeah. In that 00:12:38.179 --> 00:12:40.899 one sentence, the employee learns the real lesson. 00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:43.799 And the real lesson is that training I just went 00:12:43.799 --> 00:12:46.679 to is completely irrelevant to my survival and 00:12:46.679 --> 00:12:49.519 success in this company. they revert to the old 00:12:49.519 --> 00:12:51.940 behaviors immediately because the environment 00:12:51.940 --> 00:12:54.440 has overridden the education. And it's so tragic 00:12:54.440 --> 00:12:56.360 because the company probably paid thousands of 00:12:56.360 --> 00:12:57.980 dollars for the training and they're paying the 00:12:57.980 --> 00:13:00.779 boss's salary. So they are actively paying someone 00:13:00.779 --> 00:13:03.480 to sabotage their own investment. And often that 00:13:03.480 --> 00:13:05.360 boss doesn't even realize they're doing it. It's 00:13:05.360 --> 00:13:07.940 not always malice. Sometimes it's just, you know, 00:13:07.940 --> 00:13:10.519 pressure and busyness. Yeah. But the outcome 00:13:10.519 --> 00:13:13.559 is exactly the same. The 15 % statistic holds 00:13:13.559 --> 00:13:16.299 true. So if you're listening to this and you're 00:13:16.299 --> 00:13:19.179 a manager of any kind, This is a heavy realization. 00:13:19.679 --> 00:13:22.580 You are the soil. You are the single biggest 00:13:22.580 --> 00:13:24.639 variable that determines whether your company's 00:13:24.639 --> 00:13:27.980 investment pays off or is just wasted. It implies 00:13:27.980 --> 00:13:31.279 that a manager's job isn't just to sign the expense 00:13:31.279 --> 00:13:33.919 report for their team to go to training. Their 00:13:33.919 --> 00:13:37.139 real job is to create the space, the psychological 00:13:37.139 --> 00:13:40.279 safety, and the active encouragement for them 00:13:40.279 --> 00:13:43.049 to use the training when they get back. If you 00:13:43.049 --> 00:13:44.509 weren't doing that, you might as well just burn 00:13:44.509 --> 00:13:46.330 the money in the parking lot. OK, let's rewind 00:13:46.330 --> 00:13:49.409 to Baldwin and Ford's Variable One, the individual 00:13:49.409 --> 00:13:51.730 learner, because this raises a question that 00:13:51.730 --> 00:13:53.070 I think makes a lot of people uncomfortable. 00:13:53.409 --> 00:13:57.409 Can everyone be a leader? Oh, yes. If we fix 00:13:57.409 --> 00:13:59.509 the training and we fix the supervisor support, 00:13:59.850 --> 00:14:03.009 can we turn anyone into a great leader? Or are 00:14:03.009 --> 00:14:05.559 some people just not built for it? This is the 00:14:05.559 --> 00:14:08.559 age -old nature versus nurture debate. It's controversial. 00:14:09.080 --> 00:14:11.200 But the source material we're looking at takes 00:14:11.200 --> 00:14:14.820 a pretty pragmatic stance. It suggests that while 00:14:14.820 --> 00:14:16.700 development is possible for a lot of people, 00:14:16.940 --> 00:14:20.179 selection is a critical and often overlooked 00:14:20.179 --> 00:14:23.340 part of the puzzle. You need the right raw material 00:14:23.340 --> 00:14:25.500 to begin with. And the source brings up a very 00:14:25.500 --> 00:14:28.480 specific, very intense example of this idea. 00:14:28.679 --> 00:14:32.019 The Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. Sandhurst, 00:14:32.019 --> 00:14:34.659 yes. The British Army's Officer Training Academy. 00:14:34.879 --> 00:14:37.460 It's legendary. So what's so special about Sandhurst? 00:14:37.480 --> 00:14:39.440 What do they do differently? Well, they're famous 00:14:39.440 --> 00:14:42.860 for the quality and the rigor of their training, 00:14:42.919 --> 00:14:44.919 of course. But the source makes a really crucial 00:14:44.919 --> 00:14:48.789 point. A huge part of their success is that they 00:14:48.789 --> 00:14:52.289 go to incredible lengths to accept only those 00:14:52.289 --> 00:14:54.129 candidates who already show the highest potential 00:14:54.129 --> 00:14:56.370 to lead. They don't just take anyone off the 00:14:56.370 --> 00:14:58.549 street who wants to be an officer. They filter 00:14:58.549 --> 00:15:00.909 and they filter aggressively. So they're stacking 00:15:00.909 --> 00:15:02.450 the deck from the start. They're essentially 00:15:02.450 --> 00:15:05.110 picking the people who are already, say, 80 percent 00:15:05.110 --> 00:15:07.929 of the way there. In a way, yes, though they 00:15:07.929 --> 00:15:09.690 would probably argue they're picking people who 00:15:09.690 --> 00:15:13.240 have the capacity to get there. It's like. You 00:15:13.240 --> 00:15:15.159 can't teach someone to be seven feet tall to 00:15:15.159 --> 00:15:17.639 play basketball. There are certainly underlying 00:15:17.639 --> 00:15:20.659 traits that act as a foundation for everything 00:15:20.659 --> 00:15:23.240 else you build on top. Okay, so what are those 00:15:23.240 --> 00:15:25.220 traits? What are they looking for? If I want 00:15:25.220 --> 00:15:27.360 to know if I have the right ingredients to be 00:15:27.360 --> 00:15:30.679 a leader, what does the research say I should 00:15:30.679 --> 00:15:33.240 be looking for in the mirror? The source lists 00:15:33.240 --> 00:15:35.700 several key personality traits that are consistently 00:15:35.700 --> 00:15:38.139 associated with successful development. Some 00:15:38.139 --> 00:15:41.799 are pretty obvious. Motivation to learn. If you 00:15:41.799 --> 00:15:43.559 think you already have all the answers, you're 00:15:43.559 --> 00:15:46.019 basically unteachable. Your cup is already full. 00:15:46.159 --> 00:15:48.639 Exactly. A high achievement drive. You have to 00:15:48.639 --> 00:15:51.480 actually want to succeed to win. Openness to 00:15:51.480 --> 00:15:53.460 experience. You have to be willing to try new 00:15:53.460 --> 00:15:55.659 things and not just stick to what's comfortable. 00:15:56.179 --> 00:15:58.419 But there's one specific psychological trait 00:15:58.419 --> 00:16:00.299 that's mentioned that I find absolutely fascinating. 00:16:00.799 --> 00:16:02.360 It sounds like something out of a science fiction 00:16:02.360 --> 00:16:04.929 novel. Which one is that? Internal locus of control. 00:16:05.029 --> 00:16:07.590 Internal locus of control. Okay, that sounds 00:16:07.590 --> 00:16:10.529 very academic. Define that for us. What is a 00:16:10.529 --> 00:16:12.809 locus of control? It's a foundational concept 00:16:12.809 --> 00:16:15.029 in psychology. It goes back to a guy named Julian 00:16:15.029 --> 00:16:17.690 Rotter in the 1950s. And it basically answers 00:16:17.690 --> 00:16:19.889 one simple question. Who is in charge of your 00:16:19.889 --> 00:16:22.870 life? Okay. People with a strong internal locus 00:16:22.870 --> 00:16:24.549 of control believe that they are the primary 00:16:24.549 --> 00:16:27.289 authors of their own success or failure. If they 00:16:27.289 --> 00:16:29.649 feel a test, their first thought is, I didn't 00:16:29.649 --> 00:16:32.019 study hard enough. If they get a promotion, they 00:16:32.019 --> 00:16:34.860 think, I earned this through my hard work. The 00:16:34.860 --> 00:16:38.179 cause of the outcome comes from inside. As opposed 00:16:38.179 --> 00:16:40.879 to an external locus of control. Right. Someone 00:16:40.879 --> 00:16:42.940 with an external locus believes that outside 00:16:42.940 --> 00:16:46.139 forces dictate their life. Fate, luck, other 00:16:46.139 --> 00:16:49.139 people. If they fail that same test, it's the 00:16:49.139 --> 00:16:51.620 teacher hates me or the questions were unfair 00:16:51.620 --> 00:16:54.519 or my roommate was playing loud music all night. 00:16:54.659 --> 00:16:56.740 Oh, I know people like that. Everything just 00:16:56.740 --> 00:16:58.399 happens to them. They're a passenger in their 00:16:58.399 --> 00:17:01.059 own life, the victim in every story they tell. 00:17:01.360 --> 00:17:05.859 Precisely. And the research is very clear that 00:17:05.859 --> 00:17:08.940 for leadership development to be effective, you 00:17:08.940 --> 00:17:12.059 need someone with an internal locus. And just 00:17:12.059 --> 00:17:14.980 think about why that is. If you truly believe 00:17:14.980 --> 00:17:18.019 that your success is just random luck or it's 00:17:18.019 --> 00:17:21.259 all up to your boss's mood, why would you even 00:17:21.259 --> 00:17:23.240 bother trying to learn new leadership skills? 00:17:23.559 --> 00:17:25.099 Because it wouldn't make a difference. If the 00:17:25.099 --> 00:17:27.839 outcome is rigged from the start, why practice? 00:17:28.279 --> 00:17:30.799 Exactly. You need someone who fundamentally believes 00:17:30.799 --> 00:17:34.099 my actions can change the outcome because leadership 00:17:34.099 --> 00:17:37.160 is the act of trying to change the outcome. If 00:17:37.160 --> 00:17:38.980 you don't believe you have your hand on the steering 00:17:38.980 --> 00:17:40.980 wheel, you're not going to be able to drive the 00:17:40.980 --> 00:17:43.980 car. That's a really powerful takeaway. If you 00:17:43.980 --> 00:17:46.500 want to be a leader, you have to own your outcomes, 00:17:46.720 --> 00:17:48.960 even the bad ones. In fact, especially the bad 00:17:48.960 --> 00:17:51.359 ones. Absolutely. And the last key trait mentioned 00:17:51.359 --> 00:17:54.220 is self -monitoring, which is basically the ability 00:17:54.220 --> 00:17:56.650 to read the room. to sort of see yourself from 00:17:56.650 --> 00:17:58.470 the outside, to have that little voice in your 00:17:58.470 --> 00:18:00.730 head that says, oh, I'm boring these people. 00:18:00.809 --> 00:18:03.470 I need to speed up or I'm coming across as too 00:18:03.470 --> 00:18:06.190 aggressive here. I need to soften my tone. So 00:18:06.190 --> 00:18:08.589 the source says that supervisors should be conducting 00:18:08.589 --> 00:18:11.569 an individual assessment of these traits. This 00:18:11.569 --> 00:18:14.430 means you can't just guess. You can't just send 00:18:14.430 --> 00:18:16.940 everyone on the team to the same training. You 00:18:16.940 --> 00:18:18.519 have to measure this stuff. You have to look 00:18:18.519 --> 00:18:21.119 at the clay before you start sculpting. If the 00:18:21.119 --> 00:18:23.779 clay is brittle, if they have a really high external 00:18:23.779 --> 00:18:27.279 locus of control, you might need to work on that 00:18:27.279 --> 00:18:30.160 fundamental mindset before you even try to teach 00:18:30.160 --> 00:18:32.660 them about strategic planning. OK, so let's say 00:18:32.660 --> 00:18:34.980 we've done it. We've got our raw material. We've 00:18:34.980 --> 00:18:37.019 selected our high potential candidate with a 00:18:37.019 --> 00:18:40.420 strong internal locus of control. We fixed the 00:18:40.420 --> 00:18:43.279 soil by getting their supervisor on board. Now, 00:18:43.339 --> 00:18:45.819 now we have to talk about the actual teaching. 00:18:46.440 --> 00:18:49.240 If the classroom lecture fails 85 % of the time, 00:18:49.299 --> 00:18:51.619 what's the alternative? What's the methodology 00:18:51.619 --> 00:18:54.299 that actually makes this stuff stick? The source 00:18:54.299 --> 00:18:56.839 outlines a few key criteria for success that 00:18:56.839 --> 00:18:59.920 move us way, way beyond the one -off seminar 00:18:59.920 --> 00:19:02.839 model. First, and this is a big one, is time. 00:19:03.059 --> 00:19:05.119 So it can't be a weekend workshop in a hotel. 00:19:05.440 --> 00:19:08.059 Absolutely not. The source suggests a set period, 00:19:08.200 --> 00:19:10.319 something significantly longer. Six to 12 months 00:19:10.319 --> 00:19:12.200 is often the benchmark for a serious program. 00:19:12.589 --> 00:19:15.250 Why so long? What's the magic in that duration? 00:19:15.609 --> 00:19:17.789 Because you're trying to change deep -seated 00:19:17.789 --> 00:19:20.349 behaviors, not just transfer a piece of information. 00:19:20.650 --> 00:19:23.390 You're rewiring a brain, and that takes time 00:19:23.390 --> 00:19:25.710 and repetition. You can't change a habit you 00:19:25.710 --> 00:19:29.009 had for 20 years in just two days. You need time 00:19:29.009 --> 00:19:31.710 for people to try things, to fail, to get feedback, 00:19:31.950 --> 00:19:34.049 and to try again. So what's happening during 00:19:34.049 --> 00:19:35.950 those six or 12 months? It can't just be sitting 00:19:35.950 --> 00:19:38.150 in a classroom once a month. No, and that brings 00:19:38.150 --> 00:19:41.190 us to the second keyword, integration. It has 00:19:41.190 --> 00:19:43.509 to include a whole diet of different experiences. 00:19:43.730 --> 00:19:46.809 You mix in things like 360 -degree feedback, 00:19:47.170 --> 00:19:49.950 one -on -one executive coaching, mentoring relationships, 00:19:50.470 --> 00:19:53.670 reflective journaling, and yes, maybe some targeted 00:19:53.670 --> 00:19:55.990 classroom work. But the engine that drives this 00:19:55.990 --> 00:19:59.109 entire integrated process, the theoretical heart 00:19:59.109 --> 00:20:01.930 of how adults actually learn, is a model called 00:20:01.930 --> 00:20:05.069 Kolb's experiential learning. David A. Kolb. 00:20:05.509 --> 00:20:07.670 Okay, the source really highlights this as a 00:20:07.670 --> 00:20:09.569 key concept. I want to spend some real time here 00:20:09.569 --> 00:20:11.789 because this feels like the secret sauce. It 00:20:11.789 --> 00:20:13.910 feels like this explains how adults learn pretty 00:20:13.910 --> 00:20:15.849 much anything, whether it's leadership or learning 00:20:15.849 --> 00:20:19.410 to cook. It really is that fundamental. Kolb's 00:20:19.410 --> 00:20:21.950 argument is that real learning isn't a single 00:20:21.950 --> 00:20:25.609 event. It's a four -stage cycle. And the absolute 00:20:25.609 --> 00:20:28.349 key is that you have to go through all four stages. 00:20:29.019 --> 00:20:32.000 If you skip a stage, the learning just doesn't 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:34.380 stick. It evaporates. Okay, walk us through the 00:20:34.380 --> 00:20:36.099 cycle. Let's create a character. Let's imagine 00:20:36.099 --> 00:20:39.220 a manager. We'll call him Bob. And Bob is really 00:20:39.220 --> 00:20:41.799 struggling to run effective team meetings. They 00:20:41.799 --> 00:20:44.079 always go off the rails. So walk Bob through 00:20:44.079 --> 00:20:46.880 Kolb's cycle. Step one. Step one is concrete 00:20:46.880 --> 00:20:49.880 experience. This is just... doing the thing. 00:20:50.200 --> 00:20:53.200 So Bob runs his weekly team meeting. And just 00:20:53.200 --> 00:20:55.599 like always, it goes poorly. People are talking 00:20:55.599 --> 00:20:57.200 over each other. A couple of people are just 00:20:57.200 --> 00:20:59.200 on their phones. No real decisions are made. 00:20:59.480 --> 00:21:01.619 Bob leaves the meeting feeling frustrated and 00:21:01.619 --> 00:21:04.400 stressed out. That is the experience. OK. Bob 00:21:04.400 --> 00:21:06.759 has done the thing. Now, normally in a busy corporate 00:21:06.759 --> 00:21:08.960 culture, this is where we stop. Bob finishes 00:21:08.960 --> 00:21:11.680 that awful meeting. He groans. He grabs a coffee. 00:21:11.779 --> 00:21:14.240 And he immediately dives into the next fire that 00:21:14.240 --> 00:21:16.160 needs putting out. And that is exactly why Bob 00:21:16.160 --> 00:21:18.380 never gets any better at running meetings. Because 00:21:18.380 --> 00:21:21.119 he skipped step two, observation and reflection. 00:21:21.519 --> 00:21:23.420 Observation and reflection. After the meeting, 00:21:23.579 --> 00:21:27.579 Bob has to stop. He has to consciously step back 00:21:27.579 --> 00:21:31.380 and ask, okay, what just happened in there? Not 00:21:31.380 --> 00:21:34.099 just did we get through the agenda points, but 00:21:34.099 --> 00:21:36.759 how did the interaction go? I noticed that when 00:21:36.759 --> 00:21:39.140 Sarah tried to speak, Tom interrupted her. How 00:21:39.140 --> 00:21:41.059 did I handle that? I noticed that when I raised 00:21:41.059 --> 00:21:43.500 my voice, the whole room went silent, but nobody 00:21:43.500 --> 00:21:45.400 actually agreed with me. Why did that happen? 00:21:45.480 --> 00:21:47.700 How did I feel? How did they look? This explains 00:21:47.700 --> 00:21:50.019 why the source specifically mentioned journaling 00:21:50.019 --> 00:21:53.119 as one of the tools. Journaling literally forces 00:21:53.119 --> 00:21:56.259 you to do step two. Precisely. It forces your 00:21:56.259 --> 00:21:58.559 brain to take the raw, messy data of the experience 00:21:58.559 --> 00:22:01.140 and process it. It moves it from just a short 00:22:01.140 --> 00:22:03.359 -term frustration into something you can analyze. 00:22:03.660 --> 00:22:06.240 But reflection alone isn't enough. Now you have 00:22:06.240 --> 00:22:08.839 to move to step three, forming abstract concepts. 00:22:09.099 --> 00:22:10.799 That sounds pretty academic. Forming abstract 00:22:10.799 --> 00:22:13.039 concepts. What does that mean in plain English 00:22:13.039 --> 00:22:15.619 for our friend Bob? It means creating a theory. 00:22:16.750 --> 00:22:19.509 It means connecting his specific concrete experience 00:22:19.509 --> 00:22:23.049 to a general rule or principle. So when his reflection 00:22:23.049 --> 00:22:25.529 realized, when I interrupted the team to try 00:22:25.529 --> 00:22:27.450 and speed things up, they all just shut down. 00:22:28.589 --> 00:22:31.490 Step three is where he forms the abstract concept. 00:22:31.809 --> 00:22:34.630 The general rule is, if I want my team to be 00:22:34.630 --> 00:22:37.369 engaged, I must create silence and space for 00:22:37.369 --> 00:22:40.089 others to fill. He's creating a mental model. 00:22:40.309 --> 00:22:42.750 So he's moved from the specific, I messed up 00:22:42.750 --> 00:22:45.150 that one meeting. To a universal principle, I 00:22:45.150 --> 00:22:47.069 now understand something about the mechanics 00:22:47.069 --> 00:22:49.650 of team engagement. Exactly. He has a hypothesis, 00:22:49.789 --> 00:22:52.410 which leads directly to the final step, step 00:22:52.410 --> 00:22:55.769 four, testing in new situations, or as Kolb called 00:22:55.769 --> 00:22:58.450 it, active experimentation. So he has to try 00:22:58.450 --> 00:23:00.829 it out. Bob takes that new rule, his new theory 00:23:00.829 --> 00:23:03.329 about creating silence, and he deliberately consciously 00:23:03.329 --> 00:23:05.309 tries it in the next meeting to see what happens. 00:23:05.569 --> 00:23:07.670 He treats his own behavior like a science experiment. 00:23:08.190 --> 00:23:10.410 Okay, this time when I ask a question, I'm going 00:23:10.410 --> 00:23:11.869 to count to 10 in my head before I say anything 00:23:11.869 --> 00:23:14.089 else. Let's see what happens. And that, of course, 00:23:14.150 --> 00:23:16.829 creates a new concrete experience. And the cycle 00:23:16.829 --> 00:23:20.089 begins all over again. Experience, reflect, theorize, 00:23:20.150 --> 00:23:23.910 test. Then you have a new experience, you reflect 00:23:23.910 --> 00:23:26.569 on that, you refine your theory, and you test 00:23:26.569 --> 00:23:28.970 it again. It's a loop. And your point is that 00:23:28.970 --> 00:23:31.309 most corporate training and most corporate life 00:23:31.309 --> 00:23:34.170 completely breaks this loop. Completely. Most 00:23:34.170 --> 00:23:36.990 corporate training is all theory. Step 3. With 00:23:36.990 --> 00:23:40.930 no real high stakes experience. Step 1. Or. In 00:23:40.930 --> 00:23:43.210 our day -to -day work, it's all experience, step 00:23:43.210 --> 00:23:45.970 one, with absolutely zero time for reflection, 00:23:46.170 --> 00:23:48.529 step two. We're just running on a hamster wheel, 00:23:48.630 --> 00:23:50.829 doing the same thing over and over and somehow 00:23:50.829 --> 00:23:52.730 expecting a different result. That's a pretty 00:23:52.730 --> 00:23:55.890 profound indictment of our busy culture. We are 00:23:55.890 --> 00:23:58.130 literally too busy doing the work to learn how 00:23:58.130 --> 00:24:00.049 to do the work better. We are. We consistently 00:24:00.049 --> 00:24:02.950 mistake activity for progress. Now, there's another 00:24:02.950 --> 00:24:05.349 psychologist mentioned in the source who is absolutely 00:24:05.349 --> 00:24:08.589 crucial here, and he builds on this. Albert Bandura. 00:24:09.019 --> 00:24:12.779 and his concept of self -efficacy. Yes. Bandura 00:24:12.779 --> 00:24:14.980 is an absolute giant in this field. You can't 00:24:14.980 --> 00:24:16.700 talk about behavioral change without talking 00:24:16.700 --> 00:24:18.880 about him. We need to distinguish this from the 00:24:18.880 --> 00:24:21.059 word confidence. We use the word confidence all 00:24:21.059 --> 00:24:22.900 the time, very loosely. Oh, he's a confident 00:24:22.900 --> 00:24:26.900 guy. How is self -efficacy different and more 00:24:26.900 --> 00:24:29.660 precise? Confidence is a very general trait. 00:24:29.740 --> 00:24:31.500 It's like, I'm a cool person or I'm generally 00:24:31.500 --> 00:24:34.859 competent. Self -efficacy is incredibly specific. 00:24:35.099 --> 00:24:38.769 Bandura's definition is... A person's belief 00:24:38.769 --> 00:24:42.309 about their capabilities to produce effects in 00:24:42.309 --> 00:24:45.029 a specific context. To produce effects. I love 00:24:45.029 --> 00:24:46.910 that phrasing. It's so active. It's all about 00:24:46.910 --> 00:24:49.210 agency. Notice it's not about whether you actually 00:24:49.210 --> 00:24:51.990 have the skills. It is about whether you believe 00:24:51.990 --> 00:24:54.869 you can use the skills you have to make something 00:24:54.869 --> 00:24:58.009 happen. So let me see if I have this right. I 00:24:58.009 --> 00:25:00.430 could be technically the most talented negotiator 00:25:00.430 --> 00:25:01.710 in the world. I've read all the books. I know 00:25:01.710 --> 00:25:04.569 all the tactics. But if I have low self -efficacy 00:25:04.569 --> 00:25:06.529 for this one specific high -stakes negotiation, 00:25:07.029 --> 00:25:09.430 if I don't truly believe I can handle this hostile 00:25:09.430 --> 00:25:11.849 opponent, I'll probably fail. You might not even 00:25:11.849 --> 00:25:14.730 try your best techniques. You'll likely crumble 00:25:14.730 --> 00:25:17.210 the first sign of real resistance because your 00:25:17.210 --> 00:25:19.990 brain is telling you, I can't influence this 00:25:19.990 --> 00:25:24.289 situation. Bandura's core point is that the ultimate 00:25:24.289 --> 00:25:26.829 goal of leadership development isn't just to 00:25:26.829 --> 00:25:29.309 teach you how to do something. It's to build 00:25:29.309 --> 00:25:32.009 your core belief that you can do it. That feels 00:25:32.009 --> 00:25:34.109 like the difference between competence and capacity 00:25:34.109 --> 00:25:36.690 that we talked about at the start. It is. And 00:25:36.690 --> 00:25:39.930 good training builds self -efficacy by engineering 00:25:39.930 --> 00:25:42.789 small wins. You don't throw a new leader into 00:25:42.789 --> 00:25:45.470 the hardest negotiation on their first day. You 00:25:45.470 --> 00:25:47.430 let them try a small one, succeed, and think, 00:25:47.490 --> 00:25:50.140 hey, look at that. I produced an effect. That 00:25:50.140 --> 00:25:52.619 little belief fuels the next, slightly harder 00:25:52.619 --> 00:25:55.160 attempt. It's about spiraling upward with evidence 00:25:55.160 --> 00:25:57.599 of your own effectiveness. So we've built the 00:25:57.599 --> 00:25:59.779 individual leader, we've selected them for the 00:25:59.779 --> 00:26:01.980 right traits, we've trained them using Kolb's 00:26:01.980 --> 00:26:04.200 cycle, and we've built their self -efficacy. 00:26:04.539 --> 00:26:06.960 But the source material makes this really interesting 00:26:06.960 --> 00:26:09.900 pivot at this point. It introduces a subtle, 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:12.559 but, as it turns out, crucial distinction. The 00:26:12.559 --> 00:26:14.359 difference between leader development and leadership 00:26:14.359 --> 00:26:16.339 development. It sounds like, you know, semantic 00:26:16.339 --> 00:26:19.480 wordplay, doesn't it? adding ship to the end, 00:26:19.539 --> 00:26:22.619 but it actually represents a massive conceptual 00:26:22.619 --> 00:26:25.460 shift in the entire field. Okay, break it down 00:26:25.460 --> 00:26:29.279 for us. Leader development, singular, no ship, 00:26:29.460 --> 00:26:31.839 is everything we've been talking about so far. 00:26:31.960 --> 00:26:35.099 It's focused on developing the person, improving 00:26:35.099 --> 00:26:38.420 Jane's skills, making John a better communicator. 00:26:38.480 --> 00:26:40.299 That's what we call developing human capital. 00:26:40.519 --> 00:26:43.000 Okay, that makes perfect sense. Leadership development, 00:26:43.119 --> 00:26:45.710 on the other hand, is about the collective. It 00:26:45.710 --> 00:26:48.150 focuses on the connections, the alignment, and 00:26:48.150 --> 00:26:51.309 the systems between the people. It treats leadership 00:26:51.309 --> 00:26:53.710 not as a trait that one person has, but as a 00:26:53.710 --> 00:26:56.150 property of the group. It's about developing 00:26:56.150 --> 00:26:58.569 social capital. So you could have a team full 00:26:58.569 --> 00:27:01.210 of amazing individual leaders. Everyone has gone 00:27:01.210 --> 00:27:03.009 through the best leader development programs. 00:27:03.230 --> 00:27:05.250 But if they can't work together, if they all 00:27:05.250 --> 00:27:07.289 hate each other, if they aren't aligned on the 00:27:07.289 --> 00:27:09.670 goal, you have terrible leadership. Exactly. 00:27:09.789 --> 00:27:12.089 I mean, look at professional sports. We see so 00:27:12.089 --> 00:27:14.960 -called super teams. All the time rosters packed 00:27:14.960 --> 00:27:17.680 with future Hall of Famers who can't win a championship 00:27:17.680 --> 00:27:19.980 because there's no cohesion. They have incredibly 00:27:19.980 --> 00:27:23.579 high human capital, but very low social capital. 00:27:23.759 --> 00:27:26.299 Leadership development tries to build those interpersonal 00:27:26.299 --> 00:27:30.460 linkages. It asks, how does this team make decisions? 00:27:30.619 --> 00:27:33.640 Not just how does the boss make decisions? The 00:27:33.640 --> 00:27:35.400 source brings up a really fascinating cultural 00:27:35.400 --> 00:27:38.279 example of this collective approach. It talks 00:27:38.279 --> 00:27:41.180 about a concept called employeeship. And it comes 00:27:41.180 --> 00:27:44.619 from, of all places, Sweden. Yes, the Scandinavian 00:27:44.619 --> 00:27:46.259 model. It's very different from the U .S. or 00:27:46.259 --> 00:27:48.740 U .K. approach. Employeeship. It sounds a little 00:27:48.740 --> 00:27:51.039 clunky in English, but the concept behind it 00:27:51.039 --> 00:27:53.440 is beautiful. What does it actually mean? It's 00:27:53.440 --> 00:27:55.839 based on this really simple but radical idea 00:27:55.839 --> 00:27:59.220 that the qualities that make a good leader, things 00:27:59.220 --> 00:28:01.519 like integrity, commitment, good communication, 00:28:01.920 --> 00:28:04.440 taking responsibility for your work, are actually 00:28:04.440 --> 00:28:06.460 the very same qualities that make a good employee. 00:28:06.990 --> 00:28:09.930 So instead of drawing this hard hierarchical 00:28:09.930 --> 00:28:12.789 line and saying, I am the leader, I am special 00:28:12.789 --> 00:28:15.109 and different, and you are the employee, we are 00:28:15.109 --> 00:28:18.390 here to follow. They basically say, we are all 00:28:18.390 --> 00:28:21.390 in this together practicing employeeship. It's 00:28:21.390 --> 00:28:24.470 about minimizing the gap. The source notes that 00:28:24.470 --> 00:28:26.950 this strategy involves bringing the leader and 00:28:26.950 --> 00:28:30.130 the team together to actively explore their similarities 00:28:30.130 --> 00:28:33.170 rather than constantly focusing on their differences 00:28:33.170 --> 00:28:35.440 and the hierarchy. And the source mentions this 00:28:35.440 --> 00:28:37.240 works particularly well in a place like Sweden 00:28:37.240 --> 00:28:39.539 because of what it calls small power distance. 00:28:39.799 --> 00:28:42.519 Power distance is a cultural dimension identified 00:28:42.519 --> 00:28:45.579 by the researcher Geert Haastad. In high power 00:28:45.579 --> 00:28:47.980 distance cultures, think of many Asian or Latin 00:28:47.980 --> 00:28:51.019 American countries, the boss is seen as a hierarchical 00:28:51.019 --> 00:28:53.500 authority figure. You don't question them. They 00:28:53.500 --> 00:28:55.619 are fundamentally different. But not in Sweden. 00:28:56.079 --> 00:28:58.440 In low power distance cultures like Sweden or 00:28:58.440 --> 00:29:01.140 Denmark, the boss is often seen as just a colleague 00:29:01.140 --> 00:29:03.380 who happens to have a different set of responsibilities. 00:29:03.880 --> 00:29:06.700 There's less formality, more collaboration. So 00:29:06.700 --> 00:29:10.099 this employeeship model, it really treats the 00:29:10.099 --> 00:29:13.220 entire team as a collective leadership resource. 00:29:14.200 --> 00:29:16.660 Everyone is responsible for the leadership of 00:29:16.660 --> 00:29:18.599 the group. It does. And if you think back to 00:29:18.599 --> 00:29:20.660 our earlier discussion about informal leadership 00:29:20.660 --> 00:29:24.269 roles, this fits perfectly. If everyone in the 00:29:24.269 --> 00:29:27.250 culture is encouraged to practice employeeship, 00:29:27.269 --> 00:29:29.730 then everyone is naturally stepping into those 00:29:29.730 --> 00:29:32.150 informal leadership roles all the time. It seems 00:29:32.150 --> 00:29:34.630 like a much more resilient way to run an organization. 00:29:35.029 --> 00:29:37.269 You know, if the big boss gets hit by a bus, 00:29:37.410 --> 00:29:39.549 the team doesn't just collapse into chaos because 00:29:39.549 --> 00:29:41.470 the leadership capacity is distributed across 00:29:41.470 --> 00:29:43.869 the whole group. Exactly. It's not a great man 00:29:43.869 --> 00:29:46.329 theory of leadership where one genius is supposed 00:29:46.329 --> 00:29:49.869 to save us all. It's a great team theory. Which 00:29:49.869 --> 00:29:51.630 is actually a perfect segue to the final piece 00:29:51.630 --> 00:29:53.829 of this puzzle. What happens when the leaders 00:29:53.829 --> 00:29:56.430 inevitably leave? We have to talk about succession 00:29:56.430 --> 00:29:59.509 planning. The long game. This is where organizations 00:29:59.509 --> 00:30:02.349 really show if they're built to last. It's where 00:30:02.349 --> 00:30:05.009 they live or die over the long term. So the source 00:30:05.009 --> 00:30:08.809 defines it. simply as developing high potentials 00:30:08.809 --> 00:30:11.690 to take over critical roles. But it's clearly 00:30:11.690 --> 00:30:13.809 not just about picking a name and putting it 00:30:13.809 --> 00:30:16.170 in a sealed envelope in a safe. There are logistics. 00:30:16.390 --> 00:30:19.049 How do you actually groom a successor? The source 00:30:19.049 --> 00:30:21.650 is very specific about this. It requires movement, 00:30:21.849 --> 00:30:24.289 a lot of movement. The first thing it mentions 00:30:24.289 --> 00:30:27.349 is extensive transfer between departments. So 00:30:27.349 --> 00:30:29.349 you can't just stay in your comfortable little 00:30:29.349 --> 00:30:32.250 silo your whole career. No. If you're going to 00:30:32.250 --> 00:30:34.349 eventually run the whole company, you need to 00:30:34.349 --> 00:30:37.009 have a deep, empathetic understanding of sales 00:30:37.009 --> 00:30:40.730 and of operations and of finance and of R &D. 00:30:40.849 --> 00:30:43.390 You need a holistic view. You need to know how 00:30:43.390 --> 00:30:46.029 all the parts of the machine actually work and 00:30:46.029 --> 00:30:48.289 fit together. And for multinational corporations, 00:30:48.809 --> 00:30:51.509 the source says it almost always requires international 00:30:51.509 --> 00:30:53.930 transfer. You have to go live and work in a completely 00:30:53.930 --> 00:30:56.640 different culture. It builds adaptability. It 00:30:56.640 --> 00:30:59.160 builds resilience. It forces you to rely on those 00:30:59.160 --> 00:31:01.880 deep influence skills we talked about. If you 00:31:01.880 --> 00:31:04.319 can successfully lead a team in Tokyo and then 00:31:04.319 --> 00:31:06.500 lead another one in New York, you probably have 00:31:06.500 --> 00:31:08.299 the kind of flexible capacity the organization 00:31:08.299 --> 00:31:10.640 is looking for. But here's the part of the succession 00:31:10.640 --> 00:31:13.700 section that really struck me. It got unexpectedly 00:31:13.700 --> 00:31:17.319 poetic for an encyclopedia entry. I know exactly 00:31:17.319 --> 00:31:19.240 the line you're talking about. The source material 00:31:19.240 --> 00:31:21.420 says that succession planning isn't just about 00:31:21.420 --> 00:31:24.079 filling a chair based on what we know and have 00:31:24.079 --> 00:31:27.880 today. It says it must be based on what we aspire 00:31:27.880 --> 00:31:31.779 to become. What we aspire to become. It's a beautiful 00:31:31.779 --> 00:31:33.819 phrase, isn't it? It says succession is based 00:31:33.819 --> 00:31:36.920 on a dream, a dream of the future organization. 00:31:37.559 --> 00:31:40.609 This is such a profound insight. If you just 00:31:40.609 --> 00:31:43.990 replace the current CEO with a carbon copy of 00:31:43.990 --> 00:31:46.849 the current CEO, you're building in stagnation. 00:31:46.910 --> 00:31:48.690 You're assuming that the future is going to look 00:31:48.690 --> 00:31:50.829 exactly like the past. And we know for a fact 00:31:50.829 --> 00:31:53.289 it won't. Markets change, technology changes, 00:31:53.470 --> 00:31:56.190 society changes. So succession planning is actually 00:31:56.190 --> 00:31:58.630 an act of organizational visioning. You have 00:31:58.630 --> 00:32:00.309 to first ask, where do we want this company to 00:32:00.309 --> 00:32:03.089 be in 10 years? And then you go find a leader 00:32:03.089 --> 00:32:06.269 who is equipped to take us to that future, not 00:32:06.269 --> 00:32:08.289 just someone who is good at managing our present 00:32:08.289 --> 00:32:11.200 reality. And the source says that the people 00:32:11.200 --> 00:32:13.400 who are involved in that planning, they have 00:32:13.400 --> 00:32:15.579 to be able to articulate that future vision. 00:32:15.740 --> 00:32:18.200 You need dreamers and visionaries in the room, 00:32:18.240 --> 00:32:21.259 not just HR administrators with checklists. That's 00:32:21.259 --> 00:32:23.160 it, exactly. And when they are looking at these 00:32:23.160 --> 00:32:25.880 candidates, these potential dream fulfillers, 00:32:25.980 --> 00:32:29.019 the source lists three critical dimensions that 00:32:29.019 --> 00:32:31.359 they have to look for. Yes. Dimension one is 00:32:31.359 --> 00:32:34.480 the obvious one, skills and knowledge. Can they 00:32:34.480 --> 00:32:36.599 do the technical parts of the job? That's just 00:32:36.599 --> 00:32:39.180 table stakes. You have to have that. Okay. Dimension 00:32:39.180 --> 00:32:41.859 two. Role perception and the degree of acceptance 00:32:41.859 --> 00:32:44.099 of the leading role. Acceptance of the leading 00:32:44.099 --> 00:32:46.380 role. That's so interesting. It implies that 00:32:46.380 --> 00:32:48.319 some people might have all the skills, but they 00:32:48.319 --> 00:32:50.180 don't actually want the burden that comes with 00:32:50.180 --> 00:32:52.119 it. Or they don't truly understand the burden. 00:32:52.220 --> 00:32:54.339 They might want the title, the bigger paycheck, 00:32:54.539 --> 00:32:58.339 the corporate jet. But do they truly accept the 00:32:58.339 --> 00:33:01.000 weight of being the person who has to make the 00:33:01.000 --> 00:33:03.519 impossible choice? The person who has to lay 00:33:03.519 --> 00:33:06.559 people off. Do they accept that loneliness at 00:33:06.559 --> 00:33:09.500 the top? And what's dimension three? We come 00:33:09.500 --> 00:33:11.519 full circle right back to our friend Bandura. 00:33:12.319 --> 00:33:15.759 Self -efficacy. Of course. It all connects. It 00:33:15.759 --> 00:33:18.980 does. You need a successor who, deep down in 00:33:18.980 --> 00:33:21.079 their bones, believes they can produce effects 00:33:21.079 --> 00:33:23.859 at that level. Because when you step into a top 00:33:23.859 --> 00:33:26.380 role, the imposter syndrome can be absolutely 00:33:26.380 --> 00:33:29.640 crushing. The isolation is real. If you don't 00:33:29.640 --> 00:33:32.920 have that core, unshakable self -efficacy, that 00:33:32.920 --> 00:33:35.880 belief in your own agency, you will fold under 00:33:35.880 --> 00:33:38.259 the pressure. So we have covered a huge amount 00:33:38.259 --> 00:33:41.160 of ground here today. Let's try to recap this 00:33:41.160 --> 00:33:42.819 whole journey for the listener. Let's do it. 00:33:42.920 --> 00:33:44.799 We started by defining leadership development 00:33:44.799 --> 00:33:47.799 not as a seminar, but as an almost biological 00:33:47.799 --> 00:33:51.279 process of expanding capacity to execute strategy 00:33:51.279 --> 00:33:54.000 and to win mindshare. Then we had to face the 00:33:54.000 --> 00:33:56.660 brutal reality of the 15 % problem. The fact 00:33:56.660 --> 00:33:58.759 that most classroom training fails because of 00:33:58.759 --> 00:34:01.299 the knowing -doing gap. And maybe most importantly, 00:34:01.500 --> 00:34:03.940 a lack of good soil, that supervisor support 00:34:03.940 --> 00:34:06.380 back in the office. We looked at the individual 00:34:06.380 --> 00:34:08.880 leader and the importance of selecting for certain 00:34:08.880 --> 00:34:11.420 traits, like having an internal locus of control, 00:34:11.500 --> 00:34:13.619 that deep -seated belief that you are the author 00:34:13.619 --> 00:34:15.960 of your own story. And we broke down the methodology 00:34:15.960 --> 00:34:18.760 that actually works, Kolb's experiential learning 00:34:18.760 --> 00:34:21.739 cycle, the idea that you can't just have an experience. 00:34:21.760 --> 00:34:25.199 You have to reflect on it, form a theory, and 00:34:25.199 --> 00:34:28.000 then test that theory to close the learning loop. 00:34:28.440 --> 00:34:31.260 We then shifted from the individual to the collective, 00:34:31.440 --> 00:34:34.300 looking at this Swedish employeeship model, the 00:34:34.300 --> 00:34:37.360 idea of blurring the lines between boss and worker 00:34:37.360 --> 00:34:40.199 to build social capital and a more resilient 00:34:40.199 --> 00:34:42.929 team. And finally, we looked at succession planning 00:34:42.929 --> 00:34:45.429 not just as filling a role, but as a form of 00:34:45.429 --> 00:34:47.909 dreaming about the future and finding people 00:34:47.909 --> 00:34:49.909 with the skills, the acceptance and the self 00:34:49.909 --> 00:34:52.710 -efficacy to lead the organization into what 00:34:52.710 --> 00:34:55.250 it aspires to be. It's a comprehensive system. 00:34:55.309 --> 00:34:56.929 It's not just one of these things. It's all done 00:34:56.929 --> 00:34:59.070 working together. So what does this all mean 00:34:59.070 --> 00:35:01.050 for you, the listener? I mean, maybe you weren't 00:35:01.050 --> 00:35:02.909 the CEO. Maybe you're not even a manager yet. 00:35:03.010 --> 00:35:06.469 The so what here, I think, is that leadership, 00:35:06.610 --> 00:35:09.010 as we've defined it today, winning mindshare. 00:35:09.389 --> 00:35:12.130 building alignment, exercising informal influence, 00:35:12.289 --> 00:35:15.650 all of that is accessible to you right now, wherever 00:35:15.650 --> 00:35:18.050 you are. It's about your connections and your 00:35:18.050 --> 00:35:21.690 belief. Bandura's self -efficacy applies to you 00:35:21.690 --> 00:35:24.210 today. Do you believe you can produce effects 00:35:24.210 --> 00:35:27.210 in your environment? If the answer is yes, you 00:35:27.210 --> 00:35:28.989 are already on the path. And I want to leave 00:35:28.989 --> 00:35:31.090 you with one final thought, something to mull 00:35:31.090 --> 00:35:34.110 over that connects that idea of the internal 00:35:34.110 --> 00:35:37.250 locus of control with the employeeship concept. 00:35:37.869 --> 00:35:40.710 Go for it. We know that 85 % of training fails 00:35:40.710 --> 00:35:43.070 because supervisors don't create the right soil 00:35:43.070 --> 00:35:45.809 to support it. But if leadership is really about 00:35:45.809 --> 00:35:49.469 informal influence, can you be the soil for your 00:35:49.469 --> 00:35:52.039 peers? That is a fascinating question. Think 00:35:52.039 --> 00:35:53.960 about it. If your colleague goes to a training 00:35:53.960 --> 00:35:55.800 course and comes back all excited with a new 00:35:55.800 --> 00:35:58.179 idea and your boss just ignores them, can you 00:35:58.179 --> 00:36:00.219 be the one who goes over and asks, hey, what 00:36:00.219 --> 00:36:01.920 did you learn? That sounds interesting. How could 00:36:01.920 --> 00:36:04.260 we use that here? Can you be the support system 00:36:04.260 --> 00:36:06.280 that helps make their training stick? You can 00:36:06.280 --> 00:36:08.440 be the supervisor's support, even if you aren't 00:36:08.440 --> 00:36:11.480 the supervisor. Exactly. You can lead from the 00:36:11.480 --> 00:36:14.699 side. You can create a microculture of employeeship 00:36:14.699 --> 00:36:17.219 just by supporting the growth of the people right 00:36:17.219 --> 00:36:20.349 next to you. And if you do that. Well I think 00:36:20.349 --> 00:36:22.050 that might just be the best leadership development 00:36:22.050 --> 00:36:24.389 program of all. I couldn't agree more. Thanks 00:36:24.389 --> 00:36:26.110 for diving deep with us today. We'll see you 00:36:26.110 --> 00:36:26.530 next time.