NIVEL 1: Prácticas .1 Datos Básicos del Nivel 1

Several scholars (e.g. Day et al, 2014; VanVelsor, McCauley and Ruderman, 2010; Lord and Hall, 2005) have identified the need to better understand the process through which leadership development occurs. Day et al (2014) consider these processes in their 25-year review of the leadership and leadership development literature. They stated that ‘process factors are those that shape the rate or pattern of development over time…and emerge as 360-degree feedback, coaching, mentoring, leadership training and action learning among others’ (p.70). Other scholars (e.g. Allen, 2008; Avolio, 2008) note that a ‘black box’ issue has evolved around the processes involved in leadership development. Notwithstanding this, a number of scholars have attempted to develop process models (Zintel, 2012; VanVelsor, McCauley and Ruderman, 2010; Lord and Hall, 2005).

VanVelsor et al (2010) present a two-part model of leader development based on (a) developmental experiences such as assessment, challenge and support, and (b) the developmental process that requires a variety of developmental experiences and the ability to learn from experience (see Figure 3.1). They state that both the variety of developmental experiences and the ability to learn directly impact each other. In other words, being engaged in a developmental experience can enhance a person’s

69

ability to learn and being more readily able to learn can lead individuals to gain more development from experiences. Their model is based on their experience of leader development at the Centre for Creative Leadership (CCL) where they have developed extensive leadership development programmes and interventions for the general population, targeted to specific segments of the population and to specific organisations. In their view, having assessment, challenge and support elements in any experience - whether it is a training programme, a stretch assignment or having a new role or boss - will make the experience richer and more developmental.

70

Figure 3.1 - Leader Development Model (VanVelsor, McCauley and Ruderman (2010)

Other process models grounded in leadership theory have been developed. For example, Lord and Hall (2005) propose a leadership development approach that emphasises the leader’s cognitive attributes or abilities in terms of progression from novice to intermediate to expert leadership skill levels. At each level, the emphasis is on qualitatively different knowledge and information processing capabilities. As leaders become more capable they draw on their internal resources such as identity, values and understanding of subordinates and situations to lead. Their model posits that the ______________________________________________________

(a) Developmental Experiences

________________________________________________________

Leadership Context

(b) The Developmental Process

71

following factors will impact the development of leadership skills: (1) identity, (2) values, (3) emotional regulation, (4) cognitive capacities, and (5) personality and temperament. They argue that their model addresses leadership development at a deeper, cognitive level because they are integrating personal, social and professional identities with leader identity. Mununsamy, Ruderman and Eckert (2010) argue that organisations should address the challenge of integrating leader identity with social identity as not doing so could have negative consequences for an organisation’s leadership capacity. They outline four main consequences that can occur if leader identity is divorced from social identity. These are: loss of human capital, loss of identity capital, loss of diversity capital and loss of social capital. The idea of identity development will be discussed in further detail in the next chapter.

Zintel (2012) studied nine participants in a leadership development programme - the Personal Transformation for Leaders (PFTL) programme - conducted by the Praxis Centre at Cranfield University. The programme consists of five days residential training with a follow-up two day residential module. Four interviews were conducted with participants on the programme, one prior to starting the programme, two during the programme and a final interview upon completion of the programme. The purpose of the study was to examine whether a process of change was observable in the sense making (meaning-making) of individual participants and the implications of this for personal and leadership development. Zintel (2012) observed that participants indicated a distinction between processes of change mainly situated in a domain external to them, which she termed ‘vector processes’ which facilitate development; and processes of change mainly situated in a domain internal to themselves, which she termed ‘core processes which are change’ (p. 15). Figure 3.2 below presents the core processes that Zintel (2012) identifies, which represent the internal development that occurred for personal and leadership development. She identifies four core processes or iterative loops around the following: self-awareness, commitment, effort

72

and capability to change. In the study, Zintel (2012) noted that acceptance or rejection of new self-awareness affected the extent to which commitment and effort occurred.

Figure 3.2 - Core Processes of Development (Zintel, 2012)

The two process models described above have several similarities. Zintel (2012) and VanVelsor et al (2010) both start with generating greater self-awareness or assessment so that an individual can understand their current leadership style and behaviours. As highlighted in the previous chapter ‘self-awareness…is the first of the four constructs shown to underpin authentic leadership’ (Fusco et al, 2011, p. 130). Axelrod (2012) states that ‘the critical importance of executive self-awareness for organizational effectiveness has been frequently noted by a wide array of modern leadership development experts’ (p. 340). The growing acknowledgement of the central role that self-awareness plays in leadership and its development is also relevant to this study. The models outlined above (e.g. Lord and Hall, 2005; Zintel, 2012) also include the concept of change at the internal level or identidy level. Finally, ability to learn in VanVelsor et al’s (2010) model could be aligned to Lord and Hall’s (2005) cognitive capacities.

It has already been noted, however, that although there has been heavy investment by organisations in leadership development, leadership development process models have limited use in practice and little empirical evidence exists in terms of evaluating this important area of investment (Day, Harrison and Halpin, 2009; Avolio,

73

2007). While the process models outlined above are a positive move in the right direction, there is no one leadership development process that has been universally accepted as the ‘right’ approach but there are common elements. Perhaps this is as a result of leadership development being the ‘least explored topic within the field of leadership research and theory’ (Avolio, 2010, p. 634) or perhaps the optimal approach would be entirely contingent on the specific context of a process model. As Goldberg (2001) points out, being unaware of how leadership development happens makes it difficult to replicate reliably the experience for positive benefit. Day, Harrison and Halpin (2009) called for research that would focus on development as the criterion of interest rather than leader performance. Kegan (2014, p.10 in Petrie, 2014) went so far as to say that ‘some people want to put Christ back into Christmas; I want to put development back into leadership development’. Notwithstanding this, several leadership development approaches and practices have evolved to address the requirement for leadership development at the individual level. These are now considered in more detail in the next section.