Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
his year, the youngest of the Baby Boomer Deloitte and the U.S. Federal Reserve show that return on
>> DETERMINING
Michael Leimbach, Ph.D., is a globally recognized expert in instructional design and DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
leadership development. As vice president of Global Research and Development for Results indicate a shift in how organizations de-
Wilson Learning Worldwide, he has worked with numerous Global 1000 organizations
termine development needs. As Graph 1 shows,
in Australia, England, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States.
Over more than 30 years, Dr. Leimbach has developed Wilson Learning’s diagnostic, there is a sharp decline in the use of more self-
learning, and performance improvement capabilities. He is editor-in-chief for the ADHR directed methods—leaders identifying their
professional journal, and serves on the ISO Technical Committee (TC232) on Quality own development needs. In 2017, 60 percent
Standards for Learning Service Providers. Dr. Leimbach has coauthored six books, of organizations used this approach; in 2018,
published more than 100 professional articles, and is a frequent speaker at national only about 47 percent indicated that they let
and global conferences.
managers identify their own needs. Replacing
Tom Roth; Bob Lovler, Ph.D.; Nancy Frevert; and Jason Myers of Wilson
Learning also made significant contributions to this study. this approach is the use of interviews with leaders
For more information, contact Wilson Learning at 800.328.7937 or visit and their managers to determine development
WilsonLearning.com. needs and a more formal needs analysis process.
J 2017 J 2018
D%(9%!' 1
Z!<$(# 3
Open-source programs
(MOOCS, YouTube.com, etc.)
Learning portals
J 2017 J 2018
Programs (down 7 percent), Learning Portals (down 5 per- on leadership development. The results also show that the ma-
cent), and Gamification Methods (down 4 percent). While jority of organizations (57 percent) anticipate an increase in
not dramatic decreases, this suggests a move away from leadership development investment, as in 2017.
more learner-selected methods and games for motivation to-
ward the more sophisticated application-focused, game-like >>WHO RECEIVES LEADERSHIP
activities of simulations and role-plays. DEVELOPMENT?
One of the most dramatic shifts from 2017 involves who is
>>INVESTMENT IN LEADERSHIP participating in leadership development programs, as shown
DEVELOPMENT in Graph 5. Organizations are directing more of their leader-
There has been only a slight change in how much organi- ship efforts toward middle managers, supervisors, and high
zations invest in leadership development. Graph 4 shows an potentials.
increase in the percentage of the training budget going to lead- Comments indicate organizations are realizing that large
ership development. This means there was a decrease in the numbers of middle managers and supervisors will be retiring
number of organizations spending 10 percent or less of their soon—and if they don’t begin to prepare the next genera-
budget and an increase in the number of organizations spend- tion for these roles now, they will have difficulty filling them
ing 20 to 30 percent and 60 to 100 percent of their budgets moving forward.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-60% 61-100%
J 2017 J 2018
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
C-level, VP, Middle Supervisors Employees “High Anyone
and Above Managers with Influence Potentials”
J 2017 J 2018
No leadership gaps
Best-in-class leaders
J 2017 J 2018
leaders, we combined (averaged) these five measures into an generation of leaders a priority. As Graph 7 shows, high-
overall score of leadership development performance. We then performing organizations are significantly more likely to
divided averages into three groups based upon the scores. indicate that executives prioritize the development of the
t)JHI 1FSGPSNFS Organizations that received the highest next generation, the organization has a clear focus on the
scores across these five items, indicating they are achieving next generation, and sufficient resources are directed toward
the highest level of leadership development outcomes developing the next generation of leaders.
t.PEFSBUF 1FSGPSNFS Organizations that received scores
in the middle range, indicating they are partly achieving DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
their desired leadership development outcomes but have High-performing organizations approach leadership devel-
not achieved full success opment differently than lower-performing organizations.
t-PX 1FSGPSNFS Organizations that received the lowest Graph 8 shows that high-performing organizations are more
scores, indicating their leadership development efforts have likely to leverage the knowledge of mature leaders, take steps
not achieved much value to capture organizational knowledge, have a succession plan,
By categorizing organizations in this way, we can ask the key maintain stronger bench strength, actively seek to attract
question: What are high-performing leadership development younger leaders with leadership potential, and tailor their
organizations doing that low- or moderate-performing organi- leadership development approach to younger learners.
zations are not? In other words, what are some of the actions you
can take to improve your leadership development outcomes? NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT SPEED
A clear difference between high-, moderate-, and low-
HIGH PRIORITY performing organizations is the perceived need to increase the
One potential cause of greater effectiveness is that high- speed of development. As shown in Graph 9, low-performing
er-performing organizations make developing the next organizations perceive a greater need to increase the speed of
15%
CROSS-GENERATIONAL SUPPORT
Much has been made of the need for support across 10%
the generations for making the transition from one
generation of leaders to the next. As is evident in 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
for new leadership skills and being committed and driven to support for leadership development, and expectations of
take on these responsibilities. But low-performing organiza- rapid advancement from younger leaders as barriers to pre-
tions see the current generation as much less likely to hand paring the next generation.
over responsibilities to the next generation or to provide
them with coaching. All organizations also feel that many in SOCIAL MEDIA AND LEADERSHIP
the next generation may have unreasonable expectations for The growth of social media has been tremendous. The use
career development and promotions. of LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social
media has become common in the workplace. This raises the
GREATEST DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS question of how social media affects leadership.
When asked to name their greatest challenge to developing Graph 13 shows the results of the question: Has social me-
the next generation of leaders, respondents offered a wide dia made leading easier or more difficult? The largest group,
range of answers. The most frequent response is a variation 48 percent, says it makes leading both easier and more diffi-
of lacking sufficient leadership development resources. For cult, while 28 percent indicate it has no effect (neither easier
example: nor more difficult). While not surprising, the vast majority,
“The speed at which we need to continue to promote and 72 percent, agrees it has a meaningful impact on leadership,
develop new leaders is tremendous. We are ramping up our for the positive and negative. The results clearly point to a
organization at incredible speed, but developing so many lead- need to understand the role of social media in the organiza-
ers in so little time is challenging.” tion and in leadership development.
Close behind the resource issue is the issue of which de- When asked to describe how social media makes leadership
velopmental model and learning approaches will have the easier or more difficult, the responses were overwhelming,
greatest success. Organizations are struggling with leaving with more than 80 percent of survey respondents providing
behind traditional approaches to developing leaders and descriptions. This level of participation on an open-ended
adopting approaches more in line with the expectations of question is almost unheard of in a survey, indicating that it
younger learners. For example: did, in fact, touch a nerve.
“The greatest challenge is the training methodology. The next How does social media make leading easier? Responses
generation has different expectations and needs. Instructor-led tended to boil down to two main advantages:
classrooms are not their most popular choice. But developing s Greater sharing and interaction among employees and
training on technical platforms—mobile, e-learning, etc.—is managers. Messaging and discussion boards allow man-
not sufficient alone either. We also need active support and agers to give employees more immediate feedback, share
participation from high-level leaders to sponsor the programs information, and build better relationships despite physi-
and current managers to coach and mentor. Learning the skills cal distances.
is not the problem; practice and an understanding of the need Social media has made it easier to reach more employees and
for character and competence in leadership development is get feedback faster.
required—not just creating an app for that.” s Greater and easier access to information. Organizations
A large number of organizations also cite lack of executive also saw advantages for both employees and leaders in