Leadership Training Across

Business Sectors: Report to the University Forum for Human Resource Development (UFHRD).

October 2010

Nicholas Clarke and Malcolm Higgs

University of Southampton School of Management

We acknowledge with gratitude, the research honorarium awarded to the authors by the University Forum for Human Resource Development to support this research project. We would also like to offer our thanks to the individuals from the organisations and leadership academies that gave us their time to take part in this research project.

With Special Thanks to

The Metropolitan Police

The Health Foundation

The Leadership Centre for Local Government

The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

National Skills Academy for Social Care

The Clore Foundation

The Diocese of Chelmsford

The National Council of Voluntary Organisations

And others

CONTENTS

1. Research Paper One:

Leadership Training and Development across Business Sectors: Differences in Strategy, Products and Notions of Leadership

Page

Abstract 1

1.0  Introduction 2

1.1  A Contextualised Notion of Leadership 3

1.2 Leadership Training and Development through 5

the Lens of Strategic Human Resource Development

1.3 Focus of the Current Study 7

2.0  Methodology 8

2.1  The Study Participants 9

2.2  Data Analysis 10

3.0  Findings 11

4.0  Discussion 27

5.0  Conclusions 33

6.0  References 34

Table 1 41

2. Research Paper Two:

A multilevel Model for Evaluating Leadership Training and Development

Abstract 43

1.0 Introduction 44

2.0 Evaluating Leadership Training and Development at the 47

Individual Level

3.0 Evaluating Leadership Training and Development at the 50 Organisational Level

4.0 Evaluating Leadership Training and Development at the 54

Community Level

5.0 Conclusions 61

Figure 1 74

Leadership Training and Development across Business Sectors: Differences in Strategy, Products and Notions of Leadership

Abstract

Leadership training and development (LTD) is often described in normative terms within the literature such that LTD practices are thought to reflect the general search for universalist ideas of what constitutes effective leadership. Missing from much of the literature here has been a more considered recognition that when viewed as a set of organisational processes, the purpose of LTD may be subject to many wide ranging contingencies that arise as result of the specific cultural, social, political, economic and industry conditions within which particular organisations are embedded. These contingencies will all exert influence and shape how the philosophy of LTD is viewed by the differing stakeholders involved. This paper brings a social constructivist perspective to offer insights into how differing business sectors influence notions of leadership that are held, and how these then affect the characteristics of LTD within the sector. Drawing upon the strategic human resource development (HRD) literature as a lens from which to analyse leadership training and develop, we show how leadership training and development is differentiated between ten different business sectors along eight dimensions that relate to strategy, products and notions of leadership. These findings therefore offer support for the importance of adopting a contingency perspective for understanding how leadership training and development should best be designed in order to be more effective in meeting differing goals within these sectors.


1. Introduction

Leadership has been found to exert significant effects on organisational and follower performance and is seen by many to be integrally linked to organisational growth, change and renewal (Bass 1990; Conger & Benjamin 1999; Van Wart 2005; Yukl 2002). It is unsurprising then that over recent decades there has been an upward trend in the investment made by organisations in leadership training and development (Gibler et al 2000; McCall 1998; Vicer & Fulmer 1998). Recent estimates suggested that in the United States in 2006, leadership training and development accounted for about 45% of the $56 billion total spend by organisations on learning and development services and products (O’Leonard 2007). Whilst in the United Kingdom, recent surveys of organisations continue to bemoan a lack of leadership skills necessary to drive the business forward fuelling the need for increased leadership training and development (Alimo-Metcalfe et al 2000).

Yet, despite this considerable organisational investment in leadership training and development, our understanding of the processes involved in this activity remain poorly conceptualised. For the most part, the literature has tended to concern itself either with questions of whether such activity is effective in the pursuit of ever more useful development tools and approaches (Burke & Day 1986; Day 2000; Hartley & Hinksman 2003; Williams et al 2004) Although mostly unstated, the key assumption underpinning much of this work is that there exists a “best way” for leadership training and development and therefore the goal of research is to uncover it (Edmonstone & Western 2002). In this it mirrors the focus of leadership research more generally which continues to search for a single model of leadership that has universal application across all cultures and contexts (Hamlin 2004; House & Aditya 1997; House et al 1997). Indeed some writers have gone so far as to suggest that universalistic notions lay at the heart of all leadership training and development programmes such that they, “…collude in the presentation of a core identity, that of the leader with a specific personality type, and seek to promote this identity among course participants” (Ford & Harding 2007: 485).

At the same time alongside this literature has been growing an alternative perspective suggesting that the notion of leadership is one which is contested (Grint 2000). This is particularly underpinned by arguments that conventional constructs of leadership are rapidly becoming, if nor redundant then at least widely insufficient, to accommodate the changing nature of the work environment (Groon 2002; Hiller et al 2006; Pearce & Conger 2003). If instead of being universalistic, notions of effective leadership were far more varied across organisations, then we might reasonably expect this to be reflected in the nature of leadership training and development that is available. We explore this premise empirically through gathering qualitative data focusing on leadership training and development in ten different business sectors in the United Kingdom. We show how different social constructions of leadership within these business sectors are endorsed and enacted in and through leadership training and development practices. In so doing our contribution to the literature is in showing how values underpinning notions of leadership, the strategy underpinning leadership training and development, and the associated services and products are influenced by business sector (industry) context.

1.1. A Contextualised Notion of Leadership

The idea that the nature of leadership is dependent upon the context can be traced to a number of early contingency leadership models (Fiedler 1967; House 1971). These models emerged in response to limitations that had been found with behavioural and style-based theories that had dominated leadership thinking towards the mid part of the twentieth century. Yet despite this early recognition that leadership may have contextual qualities, much of the writing on leadership remains wedded to an individualistic solo-heroic model (Higgs 2003). There are of course some recent differences. For example, the literature has seen a shift from a predominantly rational trait model to a more emotionally-based transformational one (e.g. Hiller et al 2006; Hunt 2004). At the same time, notions of who a leader is have widened considerably beyond just the top leaders in organisations (‘far’ leaders) to a focus on the more immediate leadership relationships (‘near’ leaders) experienced by individuals (e.g. Shamir 1999; Alimo-Metcalfe 1995). Nevertheless critiques of this writing still highlight its narrow and leader-centric focus (Pearce & Conger 2003; Hunt 2004).

Countering these leader-centric approaches has included relational perspectives of leadership with an increasing focus on followers (Shamir 1999; Groon 2002). More recently, this has expanded with increasing doubts that individual leaders are likely to possess the necessary expertise to perform effectively all of the required leadership functions within an increasingly complex work environment (Groon 2002). This, together with further criticisms expressing reservations whether US-based research findings should be expected to generalise to non-similar cultural settings, has resulted in greater calls to consider context far more in questions of leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe 2001; Triandis 1993). The number of empirical studies has therefore been growing. Stordeur et al (2000) for example showed how organisational culture and structure influenced leadership style. Elsewhere transactional leadership has been found to be particularly salient where organisations are externally regulated and there is a requirement for probity and accountability (Bass 1998; Parry & Proctor-Thomson 2003). Different organisational states have also been found to affect leadership. For example, directive leadership is more prevalent when the financial performance of the organisation is poor. Whilst distributed leadership has been found to be more effective during organisational change (Denis et al 2001) as well as influenced by organisational climate (Brown & Gioia 2000).

Findings such as these have led to some authors suggesting that notions of a single model of leadership that is universally effective should be abandoned completely (Avolio, Walumba, & Weber 2009). Instead we should seek to understand how and why particular forms of leadership work better due to the particular context in which it is enacted (Boal & Hooijberg 2001; Shamir & Howell 1999). However, the body of work investigating leadership in context remains small. In a recent review of this literature, Porter & McLaughlin (2006) were able to identify seven contextual factors so far, that influence the type of leadership used and/or how leadership influences followers. These were: (1) an organisation’s culture/climate, (2) the goals and purpose of an organisation, (3) The characteristics of people in the organisation, (4) The types of organisational processes, (5) Organisational structure and (6) time effects (such as organisational life cycle and duration of leadership effects) and (7) the state the organisation is currently in (eg crisis or stability). Given that organisations within the same industry or business sector have been found to share extensive similarities certainly in the first five of these factors, we might reasonably expect business sector to be a further, broad differential category likely to influence leadership. Applying the same logic, we should expect to find differences in the nature of leadership training and development across business sectors. We turn next to the strategic human resource development literature to develop a framework on which to base our analysis.

1.2 Leadership Training and Development through the Lens of Strategic Human Resource Development

The term human resource development refers to the range of learning and development both planned and unplanned, that either takes place in or is sponsored by organisations (Nadler & Nadler 1989). Leadership training and development can thus be described as a particular type or category of human resource development. Within the HRD literature, its actual goals and purpose remain subject to some debate. Often this is centred on arguments reflecting moral and ethical tensions over who should be the ultimate beneficiaries, the individual or organisation.. Recently, a multi-level approach to analysing the purpose of HRD has been advocated which lends itself to analysing differences in the nature of HRD as found within differing organisational contexts. Garavan, McGuire & O’Donnell (2004) argue that the goals of HRD will differ dependent upon whether an individual, organisational or a more broadly societal/community perspective is taken. These differing levels make different assumptions about the nature and characteristics of the learner involved as well as the type of HRD activity undertaken.

At the individual level, learning is primarily seen as a right for all, generally displaying an inherently humanistic orientation in which individuals are considered free to participate. At the organisational level of analysis however, HRD is generally focused on enhancing productivity through the achievement of organisational objectives. This suggests far more in the way of an active set of planned activities, that offer specific solutions to organisational needs. The goals of HRD here are more concerned with organisational cohesion and system effectiveness, with participation instead far more regulated and even elitist (Noe, Wilk, Mullen & Wanek 1997). By contrast the community-societal HRD combines an emphasis on improving both the economic and social objectives of communities incorporating wider quality of life objectives (McLean & McLean 2001).

Whilst a levels-of-analysis approach offers a means by which HRD might be characterised, the notion of strategic intellectual capital development offers a further theoretical basis from which to understand why differences in the nature of HRD at these different levels occurs (Holton & Yamkovenko 2008). Intellectual capital consists of human capital, social capital and structural capital (Johannessen, Olsen & Olaisen 2005). Whereas human capital refers to the distinctive knowledge, skills and capabilities possessed by individuals, social capital captures the assets located in organisational relationships that contribute to attaining shared valued outcomes (Coleman 1988; Leanna & Van Buren 1999; Nafukho, Hairston & Brooks 2004). Structural capital by contrast refers to the cultural and informal routines that enable knowledge to be accessed. Applying the notion of strategic intellectual capital development to the analysis of leadership training and development has two main implications. First, based upon the resource-based view of the firm, it suggests the deliberate planning and implementation of leadership training and development is associated with strategic decisions to develop the type of leadership that is better able to respond to the particular demands of the environment (Collis & Montgomery 1995). From this it also follows, that such practices and processes are likely to adapt to the external conditions in which they are required to do business (Marion 2002). This suggests that organisations will attempt to find a good fit between their leadership arrangements and the contingency variables that affect organisational effectiveness. We should therefore expect to see differences in leadership training and development to reflect differences in the effectiveness of leadership in differing contexts. The second major implication lays in the recognition that the impacts of leadership training and development may be felt in terms of structural and social capital as well as just human capital. This also includes forms of activity that is able to alter the relationship between these three aspects of intellectual capital (Storberg-Walker 2005).

1.3 Focus of the Current Study