Back in the 1970s, George Graen and colleagues developed the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, which emphasized the importance of “dyadic” relationships between a leader and his/her subordinates rather that the leader’s personal traits, as had traditionally been the focus of academic studies. They found that high-quality, one-on-one relationships, leader to leader, and the “subordinate dyad” led to better performance, lower turnover, job satisfaction, and greater commitment to the organization.
Posts Tagged ‘leadership’
Gary Pollice, Professor of Practice at Worchester Polytechnic Institute, recalls when one student noted that, while the class was interesting, it felt more like corporate training than teaching. Pollice realized that this was true. He writes, “[T]raining focuses on the skill; the definitions imply a narrower focus than teaching and possibly a shorter timeframe…” whereas, teaching implies “deeper knowledge and a longer timeframe. We often hear the term “lifelong learning, but I can’t recall ever hearing about lifelong training.” Instead of providing leadership “training,” organizations can benefit by integrating leadership programs that focus on teaching.
If you were to ask your management and human resources teams about the efficacy of your internal leadership development programs, what would they reply? The Global Leadership Forecast 2011 asked just this to thousands of participants from 74 countries. If Canada’s highlights could be summed up in a sentence or two, it might well be, “Meh, it’s ok. Could be better, could be worse.” Hardly a resounding endorsement; in fact, the tepidity of the responses is what is, perhaps, so startling about the results. Where is leadership falling short?