Evaluación costo - beneficio

differentiating the “customising” of leadership development

The customisation of leadership development seems to revolve around the following evolving lines: (1) the themes and thematic or “golden” (HOLDC-B and Del-3) threads that are informed by the “perspectives” (BSeta CEO and M-BSeta) and “spaces” (BSeta CEO, Past-M-BSeta, HOLDC-DBS, HOLDC-B, HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-C1, HOLDC-D1and Del-2) of the institutions; (2) the

“policies”, “practices” and “systems” (BSeta CEO, Past-M-BSeta, M-BSeta, HOLDC-A, HOLDC-B, HOLDC-D1, and HOLDC-D2) the leadership development “function” (HOLDC-B) and programmes are embedded within; and

(3) the learning and developmental process within the programmes and interventions. As noted before, the BankSeta and banks within the retail banking sector seem to be informed by their “sectoral” and “organisational” (BSeta CEO) or “internal perspectives” (M-BSeta) and “spaces” (BSeta CEO) respectively, although there are nuances and differentiation. These perspectives and institutional spaces appear to inform the themes and the thematic threads of the formal, non-formal and informal learning within the respective leadership development programmes of the BankSeta and Banks. That is, the content, focus and “golden thread” (HOLDC-B and Del-3) of and across the “modules”, whether delivered through classroom-based or virtual medium such as “Harvard ManageMentor” (HOLDC-C2 and HOLDC-B)), “action learning”,⁵⁰ “coaching”,

“immersions”, and company, markets, and/or international visits. With the BankSeta IEDP these are “sectoral”, “global” and “African” themes, as discussed above in the previous subsection. For the banks’ leadership development it appears the themes are related to organisational “alignment” (the relations between “leadership”, “culture” and “performance”) and “strategic direction”

(“strategic drivers” or “strategy”) as framed within the individual banks. It is the

“fit” (HOLDC-D1) of the content and learning “modalities” (HOLDC-D1) with the purpose of the banks’ leadership development.

The BankSeta and the banks differ in the “policies”, “practices” and “systems”

within which their leadership development function, programmes and interventions are embedded. With the banks, there are similarities and intra-group differences among them, as explored in chapter five. The BankSeta is mandated and regulated by the skills architecture and ecology as defined by the Skills Development Act (1998 and amended 2008), one of the policy instruments of the post-Apartheid state, to address the transformation and equity agenda. Thus, there is a focus on, and factoring of, “transformation” of the sector and the needs of the

“historically disadvantaged individuals” in the planning, design, development, and delivery of the BankSeta IEDP, including the “selection” (Past-BSeta and M-BSeta) process. As noted before, there is the deliberate focus on the “global”

50 The terms are cited by all the research participants from the BankSeta and the banks Leadership Development Centres.

“exposure”, “immersions” and development of “networks” of the IEDP delegates.

The purpose is “accelerated development” of the “historically disadvantaged individuals” to prepare the delegates for executive roles and, thereby, build the sector’s “talent pools” as a whole for “succession” management within the individual banks. By building these “talent pools” it is building relationships within and across the individual banks in the sector. In this way it fosters a sector awareness and perspective within the delegates and, indirectly, the banks at large.

With the banks the “policies”, “practices” and “systems” relate to their individual

“talent management” (HOLDC-A, HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-D2 and HOLDC-D1) processes, cycles and timeframes, which includes the “career” (HOLDC-A, HOLDC-B, HOLDC-C1, HOLDC-D1 and HOLDC-D2) management and

“path[ing]” (HOLDC-D1 and HOLDC-Z) of individuals within the banks,

“succession” (HOLDC-B, HOLDC-D2, Del-3, Del-5, Del-10, Del-12, Past-M-BSeta and M-Past-M-BSeta) “planning” (HOLDC-B) and management and the

“accelerated development programmes” (HOLDC-A, HOLDC-B, HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-D2, HOLDC-D1, Del-1, and Del-2) for identified “high potential”

(HOLDC-A, HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-D2 and HOLDC-D1) individuals. It is also the “common terminology” (HOLDC-B) of the individual organisation’s

“competency framework[s]” (cited by all of the HoLDCs) that defines and frames

“leadership”, “management” and “leadership development”, including

“management development” and “executive” or “senior management”

“development”. Chapter seven explores the nuances, pragmatic use of, and critical engagement with the competency frameworks of their respective organisations as well as the differentiation of management, leadership and executive development.

It forms part of a similar dynamic described earlier in the previous subsection, that is, the continual negotiation between finding “space” (HOLDC-DBS, HOLDC-B, HOLDC-C1, HOLDC-C2, and HOLDC-D1,) for “best practice” (HOLDC-A, HOLDC-B, HOLDC-C2 and HOLDC-Z) in leadership development and due consideration for the organisation’s “appetite” (HOLDC-B), what is “palatable”

(HOLDC-D1) to the organisation, and the possible “resistance” (HOLDC-B, HOLDC-C1, HOLDC-D2 and HOLDC-Z) from within the organisation. The

related themes such as critical voice, the “formalis[ing]” (HOLDC-D1) and evolving leadership development within organisations, and organisational

“resistance” (HOLDC-Z and HOLDC-D2) are explored in chapter five. Along with the organisation’s “appetite” (HOLDC-B) and what it finds “digestible”

(HOLDC-D1), HOLDC-B points to the challenges of the organisation’s ICT infrastructure and various “platforms”. She cites the example of the multiple

“learner management systems” within the different parts of the organisation. This forms part of the theme of centralisation and decentralisation, which is also explored in chapter five.

It is with regard to the learning and development process and the customisation thereof that the HoLDCs appear to differentiate themselves from the Business Schools. The discussion explores the perspectives of the HoLDCs and Delta Business School participants as an example of a Business School. From the HoLDCs’ perspective the Business Schools generally approach leadership development from an “academic” (HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-D1 and HOLDC-D2),

“theoretical” (HOLDC-D1), “cognitive” (HOLDC-C1 and HOLDC-D1), and

“SAQA” (HOLDC-D1) compliance perspective, which for them entails an

“academic” and “classroom[-based]” (HOLDC-A, HOLDC-B, HOLDC-C2 and HOLDC-D2) framing of pedagogy and restrictions relating to qualification

“standards” and “credits” (HOLDC-Z). This includes the pedagogic relation and space. HOLDC-Z, for example, shares her experience of having “difficult conversations” with a local Business School. She suggests it is negotiating “the standards” the Business Schools need to meet and the content and process of learning that “speak[s] to business”:

“Customisation [is a challenge with the Business Schools]. For example, we used [a local Business School] and they were very instrumental in customising. But we had to have difficult conversations with them. They have their own standards. We want to tell them which modules speak to our business. Getting credits is another challenge with customised programmes. Credits are important. Delegates can see their career path and get something of worth for themselves as well [such as a

qualification]. Business Schools are very inflexible. Need to try to design in a way that doesn’t impact the standards they need to meet and at the same time must speak to business.” (HOLDC-Z) (italics added)

When asked of her expectations of delegates on leadership development programmes, HOLDC-Z states, “ideally you want a different them”; that is, a difference in them as a person including “their thinking, viewpoint, [and]

behaviour”. This is similar to the expectations of the other HoLDCs. However, she along with HOLDC-C1, HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-D1, HOLDC-D2 and HOLDC-A also cautions that “we need to manage their egos”, especially with those “identified [by the organisation] as high potential”.

HOLDC-D1 refers to her struggles with the leadership development industry in general and not just the Business Schools. It is a struggle with shifting them from their “historical” practices and “historical framing” of the client’s “needs”, which leads to “homogeneity of thinking” and of leadership development. She calls for a

“philosophical openness” as well as taking “risks” to develop and use “creative”

“modalities” such as “immersion rooms” and “embedded learning” to facilitate the “process” of personal development and attend to “meaning”, “sense-making”,

“values” and “purpose” as part of the “personal enrichment process” of the individual.

“I’m battling with the suppliers because they’re very often stuck with what they’ve already got and it’s hard to get them to customise. I don’t think I’ve been completely successful, I get them to incorporate things here and there and to work around things, but to truly drop what they’re currently doing and say okay, what are your needs, what kind of organisation is this, what are we trying to do here and to have a philosophical openness I find is quite hard, and to be creative. They are also -- they don’t want to take risks often and they’ve pandered to the historical framing of the needs if you know what I mean, so it’s like okay let’s have a module on how to think about strategy and then we do Michael Porter’s five forces model or

whatever, you know that kind of stuff comes out, and it’s very boring and it creates homogeneity of thinking.”

“[..] the tension is that the -- just between the kind of academic and applied mind-set. You see business is looking for more application, more embedded learning, more customisation and the business school is bringing text books stuff and theory which doesn’t really -- they don’t have an appetite for that stuff.” (italics and underlining added)

HOLDC-D1 and HOLDC-C1, however, suggest that although the intent may be to evolve “different” (HOLDC-C1) types of leadership development programmes it is “more or less the same” (HOLDC-C1) as it is the very faculty of the Business Schools that are criticised who are brought into the “leadership academies”

(HOLDC-Z and HOLDC-A) or centres of the banks:

“I think most of this [the leadership development programmes] is more or less the same, but I think with certain programmes you will get the difference. [..] the mere fact that we’re using some of our external faculty that we’re currently using in our global leadership comes from [a local Business School], it’s telling you that it’s more of the same. We are utilising some of those people, so why will it be different?” (HOLDC-C1) (italics added)

HOLDC-C1 is critical though of the general leadership development industry and programmes as they do not address or facilitate the individual’s journey and

“process” of “find[ing their] own voice” as a leader and becoming a “fully integrated human being”. The focus is on “tools” and “techniques” rather than the

“mind” and the person and “being” as a whole that utilises these. One finds the similar theme of the individualised personal journeys of “leaders” or delegates with HOLDC-A, HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-D2, and HOLDC-D1, and of the need to attend to the “process” of individual development and change by HOLDC-C2, HOLDC-D2 and HOLDC-D1.

“[..] let’s make leadership development more customised to each individual and find them where they are at because we can be at exactly the same programme but we could be there for different reasons. [..][They can be at] different places all together, overdeveloped, underdeveloped, have never had the opportunity before. So we find it very difficult, personally myself, when we design programmes and that [question of]

who is it that you put in that room.” (HOLDC-A)

“So you really want to make development accessible to everybody especially if you say that everybody is a leader in the organisation. How do you equip them, how do you get them in tune with themselves. How do you get them to look in the mirror and say this is who I am as a leader and even if I don’t have that position, I still lead myself.” (HOLDC-A)

“[..] you’ve got your own personality, you’ve got your own way of doing things and you’ve seen what other people have done [and their “leadership styles”] and then you need to find your own way.” (HOLDC-D2) (italics added)

HOLDC-C2 sees the “cognitive” focus and the resulting “disconnected”

development as a “mistake” within the banks as well, not just the Business Schools. As with HOLDC-C1, HOLDC-C2 argues for developing a person as a

“holistic leader”. For this reason HOLDC-C2 argues that “it’s critical to firstly understand who we are designing for because it’s not a one size fits all right”.

“The mistake I think people made in the bank, because the bank was a very numbers driven business, they only looked at the cognitive side, they disconnected the cognitive side from the emotive side on the individual and the emotive side from the somatic side and from the relational -- the other domain is relational -- so there were six domains I spoke about right, the cognitive, the somatic, the emotive, relational, how I relate to other people, and spiritual, and then the last one was the integrative domain, how do we integrate all of that together.” (italics added)

From the perspective of the Delta Business School their experience is that of variation in what organisations seek from leadership development. The Head of the Delta Business School Leader Development Centre shares his experience of designing, customising and delivering leadership development; from the

“opportunity” to engage and “design” for and, in “align[ment] with, the leadership strategy” and organisation’s “strategy” and needs to servicing a transactional request for the available “courses”. It would appear that the Business School receives a “wide variety” and contrasting requests, from the delivery of the available standard “courses” to customisation and “align[ment]”.

“There are really great experiences, some of them, where you really have an opportunity to design it around what the organisation wants, aligned with the leadership strategy, aligned with the strategy of the company, and with input from the executive committees and then you come up with a sexy, and a nice and a vibrant programme that helps the company to deliver that. But you also just get people here who say you know what I want 10 courses, you give me 10 courses and we plunk it in, without anything beyond that, so I think that there is still a wide variety of things that happens, and it is our task, and also our task at the LDC, to help people when they just come with a request like that to say we want 10 courses and this is the 10 that we want, to just try and be a little bit more focused and perceptive in terms of helping them as well in terms of what the LDP or leadership development programmes are supposed to do for them in driving the strategy. But that is around the process. [..]People don’t necessarily realise that leadership development serves a purpose towards driving strategy. [It depends on the] maturity of the leaders around their thinking of strategy and leadership, and the connection between strategy and leadership.” (italics added)

On alignment, HOLDC-Z states that her “mandate” is “output” for the organisation and her role is not that of a “specialist” developing “expertise” in

“integrating” the “components” and the range of leadership development

programmes and interventions. She adds that they “rely on the professionals and universities for this”. This seems to speak to the “process” of consulting and designing leadership development that the Head of the Leader Development Centre discusses above. Here, the Business Schools continue to be seen as the knowledge producer and critical integrator. Although critical of the Business Schools, HOLDC-Z seems to also suggest that they can serve an “integration”

function.

“[Leadership development needs] to be integrated. Talk to everything else.

Talk to the business at all levels. That is why I like Drotter’s model. [..]

The components [of leadership development] were addressed in silos [in the bank] and perceived like that as well. We need to tie them together.

People read a book on leadership, on strategy, and a book on something else. They get excited by the new thinking. But it is packaged with no integration, like silos. When we implement it places a need on me to be the research specialist, reading, researching and integrating. That is not my mandate. I have a mandate to deliver. I don’t have time to integrate. We rely on the professionals and universities for this. My role is to adjust the package to the business context. My mandate is output. There is no time for reading extensively, researching and integration. That is the specialist role.”

HOLDC-D1 similarly speaks of the Business Schools “helping us to think about how we can apply [“the latest research”] in a very real way”. Similar to HOLDC-Z she states that “we’re not keeping up to date with all the readings and all the developments”.

“I think [the Business School can support] by really being open minded and by being prepared to customise to the extent that we want, bringing some of the latest research in and say you know -- because we’re not keeping up to date with all the reading and all the developments so, so bringing some of the really interesting theory and helping us to think about how we can apply it in a very real way.”

HOLDC-D2 suggests that the Business School can “help build that bridge [to broach the “disconnect between theory and practice”]; but that it needs to be a

“meeting [of] each other halfway” and a shared responsibility. For HOLDC-D2 this means bridging the banks and the Business Schools and “aligning” the Business School with the banks, since the banks have the “content” (“we’ve got the content”) and the Business School has the “structure” to organise the

“content” within the rigour of “qualifications”. HOLDC-A speaks of the “need to think together” and of the need for the Business School to move away from “old philosophies of learning”:

“We need to think together. We need more research to be done so that we can see how to better support one another. I think if business schools come to us with the old philosophies of learning, they’re going to be dead in the water, definitely.”

Although HOLDC-C2 criticises the “academics” for being “too theoretical” he also argues that on the “flipside” “the business world [is] so rooted in implementation that there’s little time for them to do research”. Thus, he sees the possibility of a “happy marriage”; of a “nice mix” “between the research that Business Schools provide and the real case studies in the business world”.

HOLDC-B sees the potential of bringing together the “thought leadership” from

“both perspectives”, from the “business school as well as inside the organisation”, because the “external business schools [serve] as a benchmark on your ability internally and externally to design and to see the level at which your internal people operate and the level of maturity”. This is a “benchmark” of one’s leadership development “design” capability and of the “level” of operations,

“maturity” and “networks” of the organisation.

Returning to the above quoted excerpt from the Head of the Leader Development Centre at Delta Business School, one notes that he refers to the “maturity of the leaders” in relation to the role of leadership development, how they partner, and the “process” of designing, developing and delivering it. The levels of “maturity”

within an organisation is also a theme that emerges with the HoLDC when

exploring the evolving leadership development “function” (HOLDC-B) and programmes within the banks in chapter five. This is in relation to partnering and designing leadership development with line management within the organisations.

Partnering and designing takes the form of “flexing” (HOLDC-B), “moving”

(HOLDC-B), and aspiring to “co-create” (HOLDC-C1) and “co-design”

(HOLDC-A, HOLDC-C2 and HOLDC-C1) with “business” (HOLDC-B). With the differences in levels of maturity there is also the suggestion of “subcultures”

(HOLDC-A) within the organisation.

On designing, the previous programme manager of the BankSeta IEDP at Delta Business School shares his view on the difference between the BankSeta IEDP and the “open enrolment” general IEDP. He states that “it’s a lot more difficult to design” an open general IEDP where there is no specific sector or thematic focus and the “mandate” may not be that “clear”.

“Yes, there are differences. The BankSeta one is clearly for financial

“Yes, there are differences. The BankSeta one is clearly for financial