Throughout 2014 we had the opportunity to speak with several dozen representatives of large companies in Spain, HR, Training or Development directors, who were responsible for hiring and directing the development programs for managers and managers in their organizations.
Most shared certain needs and concerns. Many expressed their difficulty in offering something useful to experienced managers who, despite being in need of support to respond to the increasing demands of their roles, were reluctant to "waste their time" in training courses in skills that they consider useless.
Some managers of Training and Development, after several attempts to find a type of training that would give continuity and enrich the traditional courses that were already taught in their companies, had concluded that only coaching could cover that need. Some were satisfied with coaching, for others it had been disappointing in their goal of generating development.
Furthermore, it seemed to us that among many of these Training and Development directors the word managerial development was used with different meanings. Also the word coaching seemed to apply to different ways of promoting development.
This report adds useful information about the existing management development offering and how it responds to the needs of managers and organizations. It also aims to explore the relationships between:
- The need for management development. The need for those who hire development for such managers. The disinterest of experienced managers towards internal training. The existing development offer.
It also explores to what extent the managerial development offer, as a creator of knowledge, helps or confuses those who must decide the most suitable option for their organization.
Finally, before reading any further, it is crucial to define what, in our opinion, is the meaning of useful development for experienced managers and that many organizations ask about. By development we mean a deep and lasting change in the way the manager conceptualizes the environment, himself and the relationships between the two and that translates into an improved way of managing. To distinguish it from its use with other meanings that will appear in this report, we will call it authentic development.
Key Findings - Summary
We have studied the management development offer made by 99 providers according to the two variables that, as the organizations have transmitted to us, are considered main for hiring a management development program or course: time and effectiveness.
providers
Our study suggests that the answer to why experienced managers don't want to go to courses? it is partly related to a development need that many managers and organizations do not seem to have satisfied as a result of:
An offer of authentic development, as we have defined in the Preamble, almost non-existent.
A corpus of knowledge about development generated among all providers that is confusing. This information available to those who hire development for your organization may confuse you in the selection and final election process.
Considering coaching as one of the main formats to achieve authentic development without taking into account that when it is used as the only format in extensive programs (programs aimed at most managers in an organization) it has important limitations. The lack of information offered by suppliers contributes to this lack of knowledge.
This may have contributed to the fact that not a few of these types of extensive programs have not met the expectations of those responsible for Training and Development and / or of the managers themselves, further cementing the idea that when it comes to authentic development, There seems to be nothing useful for experienced managers.
All of the above can contribute to those responsible for Training and Development are trying to satisfy a development need of managers with formats and programs that they feel useless.
And this to the detriment of managers (who waste their time), organizations (who may lose some competitiveness with managers who do not develop their full potential) and those responsible for Training and Development (who sacrifice the prestige of their role within the organization).
Formats associated with development
Among the 99 suppliers studied we have found four basic types of formats used.
Master: they are long-term designs focused on providing participants with expert knowledge in management domains: finance; politics; rrhh; strategy; etc.
Although there are variations, most propose an eminently practical methodology that combines different formulas such as the case method, keynote talks, group investigations.
Especially offered by business schools and universities.
Workshop-Course: offer development of "managerial skills"; "Managerial talent"; in short-lived designs.
They are mainly offered by consulting and training companies.
Coaching: executive and business
Personal development: they are specialized programs in individual development but since they are not focused on improving the exercise of the managerial role, they are outside the business environment and its interest. Only two suppliers have been evaluated to verify their existence.
Some provider offers proposals that combine formats.
Information
quality of the information provided
46.4% of providers offer enough information to know if the program or course offered could generate real development.
Information is lacking on the duration of the program, the methodology used and / or the design. Often the use of an own methodology is made explicit but it is not said what it consists of; or some information is offered on the methodology but nothing on how it is carried out in practice. In other cases the opposite occurs: the design and the duration time are shown but not the methodology used. A few limit the information to a generic statement of intent. For example, the only information associated with a proposal says:
In our programs we build a before, an during and an after, which allows us to create the appropriate state of mind of the participant, the most ideal experience for the development of their skills and the necessary follow-up and support)
Different meanings for development
The term development is used with different meanings depending on the provider.
In Master formats, it is usually used with the sense of improving knowledge and technical capacity to execute managerial tasks. This capacity, fundamental in the good exercise of the managerial role, refers to the knowledge and practical use of finance; rrhh; strategy; etc.
This same sense is used by some proposals based on an exclusively online format.
In the Courses-Workshop formats their meaning is more varied. There are those who use it in the previous sense, who uses it as authentic development, and even those who use it as network development and inspiration.
In personal development and coaching1 formats the term development is often used with the sense of authentic development.
Confusing use
As it has been pointed out before, when using different meanings of the same term development, the confusion with which it is used in the same proposal is very often added.
It usually happens that while in the statement of intent of the proposal it seems to refer to what we have called authentic development, then, in the same proposal, the methodology, design and / or duration show that development is understood in the same sense as that usually used in the masters: the most technical dimension of the managerial role.
The proposals show an attempt to convey the idea that the program will be very useful and will deliver concrete results quickly. For this the practical term is used above all and to a lesser extent the words experiential and experiential. It seems that suppliers know, or intuit, that only through the practice of a certain theoretical proposal will not achieve real development and try to convince that their proposals propose to do something else. However, in our opinion, very few seem to know how to transmit coherently that it is that “something else” that authentic development needs.2
Sometimes the terms practical (practice theory) and experiential are confused as in the following example where the proposed program states:
the methodology is based on the concept of learning by doing or learning through experience. This concept will be concretized through the development of practical cases.
Or in this other:
The development of managerial competencies requires a mix of methodologies: from experiential tools, such as the Change Management simulator,…
23% of providers use the terms experiential or experiential. Of these, only 3 providers seem to know the difference with the practical meaning applied to a development methodology.
Authentic development: promise not easy to fulfill
Among those who offer sufficient information, there are proposals that state objectives that, in our opinion, will be impossible to achieve if the program is executed as specified.
Sometimes there is inconsistency between the objectives and the methodology to achieve them. For example, the objectives say:
This program seeks to develop and improve the capabilities of the participating manager to achieve his and his teams' effectiveness.
And about the methodology used:
Eminently practical, combining the theory with real practical cases that are treated in the classroom through the Excel tool.
As can be deduced, this proposal may generate theoretical knowledge and fluency in its practical use, but, in our opinion, it will be difficult to achieve the intended objectives.
Among the proposals with Course-Workshop format, it is usual that the duration of the proposal is clearly insufficient for the intended objectives. For example: A proposal addressed to:
executives and managers with needs to achieve an evolutionary change in their companies, organize and manage teams effectively, develop their talent and increase their motivation and satisfaction requires a dedication of 8 hours.
Another called Development of skills to manage people. Leadership, promises development in 4 hours.
A third example, with the classic title of The manager as coach, announces the following achievements to those who participate in the course:
The manager will know how to create a close climate with each of his collaborators to know their concerns, their fears, their motivations and capacities, helping them to develop their own potential and improve their performance in the organization.
For this, the manager must invest 8 hours.
On one occasion the inconsistencies were unmistakable: a certain program on innovative leadership states:
..a program like the one we present requires a deep theory-practice interaction, applying the concepts, tools and techniques exposed during the program to guarantee the learning and development of necessary skills.
And for this they dedicate to practice 16% of the duration of the program.
Results of
the 2015 offer in Spain
Our analysis shows the distribution of the offer in different areas of the graph according to the format of the program offered:
The Master3 formats in the upper left quadrant.
The Course-Workshop formats in the lower left.
We are convinced that even if the studied sample were increased, the distribution pattern shown would not change significantly.
3.- It should be clear that the programs offered have been evaluated with respect to the potential efficacy variable to achieve authentic development, so it would be wrong to conclude that the proposals located in the “nothing” and “little” development areas are deficient. They can be, and will be in many cases, magnificent proposals in their methodology, design, teaching staff, results, although with different objectives than generating authentic development.
In the following graph we have boxed in blue the area of maximum interest from the point of view of the organizations, where authentic significant development and shorter investment time coincide.
As can be seen, it is precisely in that area where a shortage of suppliers is observed.
The area where authentic development proposals cannot be effective has also been marked in red since it requires a minimum investment time by the participant, below which, regardless of the methodology, design or quality of the training-consultants, true development cannot be achieved.
The area of greatest interest to organizations is, in principle, the area to which coaching is directed, as this format promises authentic significant development in a very short space of time.
The coaching offer
26 providers of business-oriented coaching (executive coaching; business;..) have been studied.
Anyone interested in coaching will be able to find a glossary of terms that name it. Those shown below are only those found during our evaluation:
Incomplete information
Our analysis shows that the offer of coaching as a format to generate authentic development also suffers from a lack of information, but in the case of coaching providers, the defect worsens.
Very few of the providers evaluated offered the minimum information so that 10 out of 17 could rigorously evaluate what was offered. Namely:
what is it for
what is offered
how it will be carried out.
what is the duration.
All providers specify what is usually expressed like this:
… aims to accelerate personal and professional development and the achievement of objectives and goals, ensuring that each executive finds answers to questions such as: What is my leadership style ?; What is my communication style?..
The executive coach helps the manager to modify behaviors and attitudes that can slow down his professional performance, developing his maximum potential and talent.
Some declare some of the methodology. For example:
The client extracts the knowledge and motivation through his own deductions accompanied by the professional coach
Few specify how they will carry out their proposal and almost none specify the duration necessary to achieve the promised objectives.
It is true that the duration of a coaching process can vary according to the organization, the intended objectives, the coachee but it is no less true that, as we have already pointed out, to be effective it requires a minimum duration. Only four suppliers out of 26 gave information on what the minimum investment in time of the manager should be to achieve the announced objectives.
Some reflections on the use of coaching as an extensive management development program.
By extensive we mean programs designed for a large group of managers (and / or those who do management work: acting managers; project managers; area managers; etc.) of an organization.
Coaching is a format that demands a high degree of involvement from the client-manager. It requires you to recognize that you have something to improve and to get involved in a process of reflection and revision of your way of leading: leading; delegate; communicate; to plan; organize; evaluate and decide; negotiate.
Since the management role involves great exposure, the manager, unconsciously, tends to protect himself by activating certain defense mechanisms. Although these are beneficial and essential to perform the role well enough, they usually generate as an undesirable by-product a loss of objectivity in the evaluation of oneself, the environment and their relationships with it.
However mistaken a person's image of himself as a manager may be, it provides him with a solid framework with which to face his demanding job. It is normal and frequent, therefore, that the manager activates some resistance4 as a defense4 to review and eventually discover what may feel like fissures in his perception of his way of directing.
All of the above means that, for the vast majority of participants in a coaching process, this initially generates a certain unease that the manager will combat with that resistance to self-exploration. That the manager manages and transforms that resistance is the precondition for being able to embark on a process of profound and lasting change.
Good coaching providers know this and sometimes use certain tools to manage that initial resistance, for example some self-assessment questionnaires: MBTi; DISC; DADDY;
Enneagram… But these facilitating resources are not completely effective in speeding up the process of transforming disinterest and self-defense of the manager into proactive involvement.
Given that the coach does a good job, the only effective remedy for such involvement to emerge is by giving the manager and coach enough time.
Thus, in our opinion, the coaching used as the only format in an extensive development program has the important limitation of needing a time (and cost) that many organizations say they do not have.
Coaching providers may be faced with a conflict: be clear (specifying the minimum time requirements that coaching demands) and risk being rejected by the organization or accept the time limits that the organization establishes (often insufficient due to not knowing what This implies) sacrificing the quality of what is offered. It is worth speculating whether the absence of information on the minimum duration of coaching programs is the response to this conflict offered by most of the providers evaluated in this study.
This limitation to which we are referring has much less weight when coaching is aimed at the individual development of small groups of managers for whom participation in the program is usually voluntary and the possibility of eventually lengthening the process (and its costs).) is greater since it often does not depend on the authorization of a third party but on the manager himself.
For these cases, very small development programs, other evidence shows, and our experience confirms, that coaching can offer good results.
Finally, we believe it is necessary to share the impression, as a result of our conversations with those responsible for Training and Development, that sometimes what organizations call coaching programs are actually mentoring programs (even if they use coaching techniques and tools). Not infrequently this underlies, for example, the solution that some organizations have found to offer extensive development by launching programs based on internal coaching.
The possible confusion does not nullify the fact that these programs can be very successful, but whoever is in charge of these initiatives should know the differences so as not to miss the opportunities and limitations associated with each type of format.
Sample and evaluation system
We have evaluated the management development offer made by 99 suppliers5. The source of information has been the web pages6 of each provider, expanded, in some cases, by email and telephone conversation.
Two google and bing search engines have been used and the keywords, alone or in combination: development; executive; direction; leadership; managerial skills; Leader; talent; leadership; coach; coaching; training; courses; programs.
The generic information that their website offered on managerial development and the specific information collected in the development programs proposed on each website have been evaluated from each provider. When the provider offered several development programs, a sampling was carried out7.
The programs offered were in force, in whole or in part, in 2015 in Spain.
Suppliers and their proposals have been selected based on the following criteria:
The proposal should include in its name the word “development” (for example, the Integrated
Management Development Program) or be focused on improving dimensions associated with management development (for example, Development of Leadership Skills).
In the description of the proposal, a deep and lasting development or equivalent expressions should be promised.
The proposal should specify that it was addressed to "managers". Management development programs targeting, for example, recent graduates have not been considered.
The proposal should be aimed at the generic business world.
Those directed to a restricted field of professional efficiency, for example, school directors, have not been considered for a long time.
Variables evaluated. The suppliers' proposals have been evaluated according to the two variables that, according to what the organizations have transmitted to us, are considered main for hiring a management development program or course: time and effectiveness.
Time Refers to the time that the participating manager must dedicate to achieve the objectives proposed by the program or course.
Efficacy How effective in achieving authentic development (see definition in the Preamble) it can be deduced8 what the program or course will be when it is put into practice. For this we evaluated the information that the provider offered on:
- The methodology used. The proposed objectives. The volume of theory covered. The design of the program.
These four dimensions were evaluated according to the following criteria:
Authentic development requires9:
A minimum investment time by the manager, below which other objectives (theoretical learning, fun, motivation, inspiration) can be achieved but not authentic development.
That the methodology used is mainly of an experiential type.
In relation to the previous point, that the volume of theory is very low.
That the design is based on a process format.
That the format is face-to-face at least for the minimum time mentioned in point 1. Mixed face-to-face / distance formats can be effective10.
The consistency between all the information provided was also evaluated.
To what extent what has been promised by the providers becomes reality, for obvious reasons, has not been evaluated.
Based on the information generated, the suppliers have been represented in a double-entry matrix graph like the one shown below.
8.- In the practical effectiveness of the programs and courses, in addition to the two described, other variables intervene, among which the preparation of the consultant-trainers and the quality of their execution are logically decisive.
9.- As the purpose of this report is not, the reasons behind these conclusions are not stated in this document.
10.-The 100% online format when its objectives are a type of theoretical or theoretical-practical training can yield exceptional levels of learning (to verify it, it is enough to participate in some of the free courses offered on platforms such as Coursera -www.coursera.org- or EdX -www. courses.edx.org-) but they have strong limitations when the objective is to achieve authentic development.
Ideas for those who hire development
Reflect on the intended development program objectives in your organization.
They may seem obvious, but deep reflection can reveal interesting dimensions.
The objectives can be varied: develop managers; motivate them; offer them intangible remuneration, or others just as legitimate. Although several of these objectives can be achieved in a single development program, it is important to be aware that in some cases prioritizing some means giving up others.
For example, if the objective of motivating and rewarding your managers through a learning day where disconnection from daily work, playfulness and having a good time are priorities, it will be difficult to achieve true development. Of course, this should not be boring, but, as we have already explained, it is not the fun term that best qualifies this process of deep and lasting change.
Do your research and feel free to find out what authentic development is, its benefits and requirements.
Consider that authentic development:
to. It requires that the design of the program contemplate:
- The natural resistance that we all have to review and update the image that we as managers have of ourselves. The process of developing the ability to make changes. The time constraints that all managers and organizations share.
b. It cannot be achieved through training pills, speedcoaching; no keynote talks.
c. Demand the presence of the participants. The combination of a face-to-face and online format can be effective but, in our experience, 100% online formats do not achieve true development.
Download the original file
