Human Resource Development Masterclass
Human Resource Development Masterclass
Leadership Development
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this seventh episode of Season 2, guests Dr. Valerie Stead (Lancaster University) and Dr. Susan R. Madsen (Utah State University) discuss Leadership Development, including:
- The difference between leadership development and developing leaders.
- The content of leadership development programs.
- Models that are helpful in developing leaders.
- Leadership development for women and integrating it into leadership development strategies.
- The relationship between power and leadership development.
- How stereotypes of leaders and leadership impact leadership development.
- and much more.
In the first part of the episode, Valerie and Susan meet one-to-one with host, Darren Short. In the second part, they are together to discuss their shared interest in Leadership Development.
For full details on the HRD Masterclass series, visit hrdmasterclass.com. For more information on the Academy of Human Resource Development, visit ahrd.org - by being a member of AHRD, you can access bonus materials not included in this episode.
This episode is sponsored by: Interpretive Simulations - find out about their services at https://www.interpretive.com/; and by the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University, visit them at https://huntsman.usu.edu/.
Introductions
SPEAKER_01There's so many books and models, but I really believe that the models that are based on really good research and theory are the best. And those are the ones that, in my opinion, really are more timeless.
SPEAKER_00Welcome to Human Resource Development Masterclass, the podcast series from the Academy of Human Resource Development, the organization that leads HRD through research. I'm your host, Darren Short, and throughout this second series, I'll be joined by leading authors, researchers, and scholars to explore the fundamentals of HRD and how those are changing in the 2020s. Our focus for this episode is leadership development, and we'll be looking at the difference between leadership development and developing leaders, the content of leadership development programs, models that are helpful in developing leaders, leadership development for women, and integrating it into leadership development strategies and much more. To help me, I'll be joined by two leading scholars: Dr. Valerie Stead, Professor Lancaster University, and Dr. Susan R. Madsen, Professor Utah State University. In the first part of the episode, I'll chat one-to-one with each of them. Those one-to-one conversations are brought to you with the help of the generous support of our sponsor, Interpretive Simulations. Find out about their services at interpretive.com. Then for the second part, Valerie and Susan are together to explore their shared interest in leadership development. That group conversation is brought to you with the help of the generous support of our sponsor, the John M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University. All of the content you'll hear in this episode was recorded during October and November of 2021. Right, let's dive in to meet our guests.
Conversation with Dr. Valerie Stead
SPEAKER_00Here in the first section of the episode, I'll meet one-to-one with each guest. This section is brought to you thanks to the sponsorship support of Interpretive Simulations. Since 2008, students and trainees have used Interpretive Simulations HR management simulation, where participants are tasked to make challenging decisions at the HR director level in a simulated environment. Students must build a strong HR function at their simulated medium-sized organization and wrestle with the challenges of staying on budget. The simulation makes the connection between concept and practice while students learn by doing. It comes with assignments, mini cases, and quizzes to reinforce core HR principles. If you'd like to receive faculty access to review the HR management simulation, visit them at www.interpretive.com and fill out a demo request. My first guest for the episode is Dr. Valerie Stead, Professor in Leadership and Management and Director of the Academy for Gender, Work and Leadership at Lancaster University Management School in the United Kingdom. Valerie has taught leadership at undergraduate, postgraduate, and executive levels and was previously Director of Lancaster University's MA in Human Resources and Consulting. Valerie's research adopts ideas of power and gender to examine the relationship between leadership, leadership learning and gender, and the implications for management education and leadership development. Valerie has published widely in scholarly journals, books, and edited collections. She is a Fellow of the British Academy of Management and Consulting Editor, formerly associate editor for the International Journal of Management Reviews. Hi Valerie, welcome to the Human Resource Development Masterclass. It's great to have you here in our episode focused on leadership development.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Darren, for inviting me, and I'm looking forward to our discussion.
SPEAKER_00So, how about we start with that term leadership development and how you define it? For example, do you view leadership development as being about the development of leadership skills in any employee, or is it more about the development of people who are in leader positions?
SPEAKER_02I think this is a really fundamental question for human resource developers and practitioners to think about. So the two examples that you've highlighted illustrate a tension between development focused on the individual leader and development focused on capacity building of those in leadership roles. And often we find that the two are subsumed under the umbrella term of leadership development, and yet they do have very different purposes, they reflect different assumptions, and as such will produce different outcomes. So I think in terms of definitions, I would see development that is focused on individual-level skills or competencies for individuals who are interested in or perhaps aspiring to leadership roles, and also for those involved in leadership roles, I would see all of that as leader development because it does centre on the development of the individual. I think we could also look at that in the way that it has all it has been defined as a kind of human capital approach because it focuses very much on the development of particular traits or knowledge or behaviours or skills. So if an individual has the right skills or has the right characteristics, they can be an effective leader. And this kind of leader model is very popular in organizations and can be very attractive to individuals. And many HRD practitioners will subscribe to this with the use of competency models or psychometric testing or emotional intelligence frameworks, etc. But I did want to say that the human capital leader development approach may have limited value in developing leadership in the organization because it does tend to treat the individual as a free-floating. It tends to overlook the context, the value systems, and the network of relations that the individual works within and has to negotiate. So, for example, the different ways in which individuals might have to achieve leadership roles or how they might gain organizational influence. So leadership development, to my mind, then differs in its focus because it's about developing collective leadership capacity within the organization. In contrast to the human capital approach, it takes a more of a social capital approach. So that's foregrounding the social role of leaders. That social capital approach is more concerned about how to build relationships and networks, how to enable members of an organization to take on and work effectively in leadership roles and on leadership tasks within their particular organizational context. An important aspect in this approach that can be neglected in a human capital approach is developing understanding of social and cultural values and norms, and such as the impact of gender or ethnicity, which might influence the extent to which individuals can and do take up leadership. So, in contrast to leader development, I would define leadership development as taking a more holistic approach, a more connected approach, where the development of leadership takes into account leaders, followers, their interactions, and the interplay with their social and cultural and political setting.
SPEAKER_00So, in light of how you've described leadership development there, how do you then see the relationship between leadership and leadership development?
SPEAKER_02I think it's a deeply connected relationship. So when we think about leadership development, we have to think about what we mean by leadership. And leadership thinking has moved substantially from understanding leadership just as something that's invested in the individual and disconnected from the society in which leaders have to operate. It's moved from that view to leadership as a collective concern with shared potential within an organization. So it's much more widely understood as a social, relational, and situated practice. So leadership is socially situated because it's situated within and emerges from specific organizational contexts. So it could be a large corporation that leaders work within, family business or a community, or a government. And of course, these organizations or institutions are also sit within a broader social context with its particular cultural norms and values. So that that's very important to recognise in terms of leadership. But leadership is relational also because it is in relation to others. It's practiced through interactions with others, through power relations and networks. And then, of course, they sit within a particular context. So to think of leadership practice and its development as situated and relational is to recognise then that leadership is not something that is static. So leadership isn't something that's set in stone, but something that can be developed and that is open to change. So if we take that view of leadership as socially situated and relational, this means that leadership development has to work from the basis of how we can prepare leaders or those aspiring to leadership to first of all make sense of their particular context, to understand it, and to understand how leadership is understood in that situation and practiced in their particular context, including, for example, how decisions are made, who makes those decisions and what and who gets valued in that decision making. So we can see here how leadership development and leadership can be mutually reinforcing. Leadership development provides an opportunity to challenge and question leadership. For example, how organizational systems or processes enable or constrain transparency or accountability, inclusivity, those major significant issues for all organizations. And recognizing this reciprocal relationship then positions leadership development as a resource to learn from and explore ways to enable individuals to take on leadership and work within their particular context to influence and to bring about productive change.
SPEAKER_00So given that description of leadership development and its relationship to leadership, what do you think are the important processes and components for leadership development programs?
SPEAKER_02I think the the first thing that comes to mind is that as leadership development is crucial to the continued and sustained development of the organization, it needs to be designed and thought about by people who understand leadership and who understand how adults learn. So that's a very important role, I think, for the HRD function. And many leadership development programs have got multiple components. There are four in particular that I would like to highlight here that I think are central. The first thing for me is that leadership development programs as a sort of formal program need to establish an environment of trust. Establishing a safe space is recognised by many scholars, including myself, in leadership development as essential for participants to feel they can be open and honest, they can freely exchange their views and experiences. My research and that of other scholars who examined women's leadership learning and development, for instance, show that an environment of trust is particularly important for diverse groups that are typically underrepresented in leadership roles, so that they feel able to raise what we might call uncomfortable truths, that is, to challenge either explicit or implicit bias in ways of working and behaviours. And this ability to do this in a safe environment is very important to identify where and how leadership collectively can act responsibly to be accountable. The second component I wanted to raise was that my research has indicated the need to take a critically reflexive approach to leadership development. So a critically reflexive approach encourages participants on leadership development programmes to not only reflect upon organizational issues or their experiences of taking on leadership tasks and roles, but also to take a deeper and more critical look. That means to question the principles and assumptions that underpin their own and others' decision making and also everyday organizational practices. An important aspect of a critically reflexive approach for leadership development, therefore, is that it asks individuals to connect to and to draw from their organizational context. That is the context in which leadership is taking place. So examples are where participants might work together on fundamental, complex, contemporary challenges that are key to developing collective leadership capacity and to organisational success. I use here an example which is sort of relevant to my own research, which is around developing maybe a more equal and diverse leadership. Here, by connecting to their own organizational context, participants can focus on how their organization enables or blocks diversity, drawing attention to how power is exercised. So, content-wise, that might include, for instance, a series of problem-solving tasks where participants identify the scale of the issue in their own organisation and where there might be opportunity for change. But a critically reflexive approach will not only look at what the problem is, but will seek to get a more in-depth understanding of why this is a problem. So this might be looking at how the very idea of diversity and equality is understood within an organization, where decisions are made about diversity and equality, how these are put into practices, and how processes and systems that are essential to developing diverse leadership, such as recruitment and promotion, are actually helping or hindering process. I would also add to this that a lot of research on leadership development, on management learning and on adult learning, is focused on practice and it can offer helpful frameworks and theory, including, for example, group work processes such as action learning that offer a very structured format for learning and developing sort of those critically reflexive skills. They're very connected processes. The third thing I wanted to raise was with a focus on relational and contextual, another important component that can be integrated into processes on leadership development programs are activities that build social skills, such as networking, relationship building, negotiating, collaborative working. And these activities can be fostered within group work and a formal program, and also by connecting the learning and development back to the organization, for example, by individuals identifying actions to implement in the organization that might include developing relationships, accessing resources, or influencing decision making. The fourth element I wanted to raise was around mentoring and sponsorship. And these are further components that can be coordinated within a program and that can enhance that connection back to the organisation. And sponsorship and mentoring are different. Sponsorship is where individuals are sponsored by a senior person who can provide access to networks and promote an individual within the workplace, for example, recommending them for a particular leadership task or a role. Mentoring is different. It's an opportunity to meet with someone on a regular basis, typically someone more senior, but not always, who can provide a sounding board and help an individual to think through issues and also provide sort of career development guidance. And mentoring and sponsorship are therefore a means to help individuals to continue to develop their identity as leaders, to understand how and where they can access networks, etc., to contribute to leadership activities, as well as sort of developing that capacity within the organisation. And we know the importance of social capital for leaders if they are to be recognised as having the legitimacy that they require to be and to conduct leadership. So this element has particular importance for individuals who do not necessarily have access to influential networks. My research has shown how women, for example, tend to have much less social capital than men. So together, these different components and processes can help to develop collective leadership capacity within the organization, but are also productive in helping individuals to build their identity as leaders.
SPEAKER_00When people think of leadership development, my sense is that many people picture formal leadership development programs.
SPEAKER_02So formal components, I think, are important in developing, for example, that trusted, safe environment that I mentioned that enables reflection and sense making in a structured way. And it provides a bit of distance also from the everyday. And a formal process can offer particular frameworks and processes, mechanisms through which to interrogate leadership practices. So there's a real element of learning and applying within that formal structure. And a formal process can also bring people together from within an organization or from across a range of organizations to share knowledge and experience and to sort of challenge how things are working within their own organizations. But I think the informal is equally important. And it and it is where participants draw from the everyday practices of organizations and their own experiences, importantly, to connect their learning and sense making back to the workplace and to put ideas into practice. And I also think that the informal is also a source of content. In my research with Carol Elliott. Examining the relationship between media representations of women leaders and women's identity and legitimacy as leaders, we found that drawing on popular culture, such as media images and articles and power lists that identify, for instance, the top most powerful women can be an important resource for leadership development. And by examining sort of those everyday artifacts, really, of how women are represented in popular culture, we can, for example, identify the social norms and values that maintain leadership as a male activity. So our findings, for example, showed that where men are usually assessed only in relation to their professional and leadership roles, there is a tendency to evaluate women also in terms of their appearance and domestic roles, such as a wife or a mother, that has the effect of trivializing or obscuring their leadership ability. So, in this respect, the informal can offer an important means to gain insight into social and organizational power relations that shape how we think about who can be and who should be leaders. And using that everyday informal content that is familiar to all of us then helps us to reflect on and illuminate our own organizations and issues within those organizations. So, how do we represent our leadership in our media or on our websites? What message are we giving about what leadership is and who is appropriate to take on leadership roles?
SPEAKER_00At a few points during our conversation, you've you've mentioned experience and drawing on experiences. So I'm wondering what role do you see everyday experiences playing in leaders' learning and development?
SPEAKER_02Well, every everyday experiences play a very significant role in leaders' learning and development. As we've already talked about, leadership development programs can provide the environment and tools for leaders to take time to reflect on these everyday experiences and to make sense of them. I think a good example of how everyday experience is important is that it can bring to light where there are gaps between policy, sort of how organizations think we should be doing things, and practice what actually happens in organisations. So an example from my research, examining how women learn from their everyday experiences of doing leadership has shed light on how seemingly neutral organizational practices are experienced differently and therefore have particular often unintended consequences. So understanding how leaders experience the everyday from formal meetings and processes such as promotion to informal social networking can help to uncover inherent bias in systems or policies. And a simple illustration here is recruitment processes that ask for gender balance on interview panels. And this policy, this kind of policy, is well-intentioned and it's been developed in efforts to counter unconscious bias against women who are being interviewed. However, as there are typically fewer women in top roles, women can be called on more frequently than men to participate in senior recruitment panels. And this then has a knock-on effect. It can leave less time for other more strategic tasks that are often required for promotion. So through everyday experience, leadership development can help leaders to examine how policy is put into practice, how it is experienced, and to identify the potential for change. So in this experience of a leadership recruitment panel, for example, it might be thinking about how to maintain diverse recruitment policy that doesn't place an unfair burden on women, thinking about also how this might raise issues for other underrepresented groups at leadership levels. So recognizing that we may experience things differently in our everyday practice and providing the space and leadership development programs to share these everyday experiences can help leaders to reveal opportunities for positive change and to influence policies and leadership decision making that can make a real difference.
SPEAKER_00Well, Valerie, unfortunately we've run out of time for the first part of the episode, but thank you so much indeed for our conversation. I've really enjoyed our discussion on leadership development.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Darren.
SPEAKER_00Well, please stay with us, and we'll have you back later in the episode for our group conversation with Susan.
Conversation with Dr. Susan R. Madsen
SPEAKER_00My second guest for the episode is Dr. Susan R. Madsen, who is the inaugural Karen Hayde Huntsman Endowed Professor of Leadership in the John M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University. Susan is considered one of the top global scholars and thought leaders on the topic of women's leadership. She's authored or edited seven books and has published hundreds of articles, chapters, and reports. Her research has been cited in the U.S. News World Report, The Atlantic, The New York Times, Parenting Magazine, Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Washington Post. She's also a regular contributor to Forbes and other local and state newspapers. Susan serves on many nonprofit and community boards, and her passion is to strengthen the impact of girls and women worldwide. Hi, Susan. Welcome to Human Resource Development Masterclass. It's great to have you here in our episode focused on leadership development.
SPEAKER_01It's great to be here, Darren.
SPEAKER_00So as a place to start, I'd be really interested to hear about your own research and specifically what has been your main research focus on leadership development.
SPEAKER_01Well, I actually started about 20 years ago. I was really fascinated, and I still am, on the lifetime development of leadership, particularly of women leaders. So how did they learn leadership throughout their lifespan? When people arrive at the workplace, they have had so many experiences that influence their confidence and their voice and how they see themselves as leaders. And so I've really spent a lot of time, and they have books and many scholarly articles about that. I'm also interested in leadership development design specifically for impact. Like how, and I do most of my work at this point in my career with women. So I'm always thinking, how do you design programs, opportunities? Um, you know, the leadership development, of course, can come in a formal program, but as you well know, leadership development can be in so many ways. But what are the things that matter the most? So let's try different programs. What makes a difference? And then actually evaluate those. So that's what I'm really fascinating. I'm I'm interested in that background of women's lives, but I'm particularly interested in how do we help girls and young women and women actually develop, move the needle on developing leadership for them now. Um, I do teach uh males and females in my leadership courses, so so I think much of it is applicable to men as well.
SPEAKER_00One of the things that always strikes me about leadership development is it doesn't take long browsing through a bookstore as an airport to realize that there are just so many books and magazines that are out there about leadership. And it can be really difficult to some for somebody new to the area to figure out of all of this what works. So I was wondering which models you found most helpful in developing leaders.
SPEAKER_01I connect with your statement a lot about the airport books. Oh my! When I teach uh leadership courses, I have uh all my students grab a book, but I say I always say research-based, and they really have a tough time figuring out which ones are based on research and which ones are not. So just putting that out there, I think that's interesting. When you look at models, like what's most helpful? There's so many books and models that are thrown out there, but I really believe that that the models, the frameworks that are based on really good research and theory are the best. And those are the ones that, in my opinion, and I think research supports it, really are more timeless. Like, you know, they stick. And if you really follow these and not just quote trends of the day, that you can do deeper work and work that's more long-lasting, like I said, and meaningful. There's a couple of models that I use. The first one I know that you and others are really familiar with Jack Messerot's transformational learning theory. I I really utilize that in all of my work. In terms of the shorter three-part version, I just make sure all of my leadership development, programming, and opportunities has through these three elements. One is the mental construction of experience, also critical reflection. I've done so much on reflection. And then then that element that he calls kind of that development and action. How do you move that forward? But in his 10-part model, I really connect and have written about the number one step, having a disorienting dilemma. When you look at changing, actually transforming, you need to kind of not be comfortable. You get out of the comfort zone and have something shake you up. And then you think, okay, now I need to learn. Now I need to change. And so I really love that one. Another one that I've I do a lot of speaking about is uh DeRue and Ashford's model on leader identity development. The first step is claiming. So um, do you claim? Do you see yourself as a leader? And the second one is really granting. Has someone granted you that that leadership role? And the third one is really collective endorsement. So I think that one's great as well. And then I'll give you one more. And this one's specifically for uh women. So about 10 years ago, Ely and Ibera and Cob out of Harvard did a piece. They've done a few pieces. One of them was published in one of the Academy of Management Journals, and then others, uh shorter versions in Harvard Business Review, but they really argued that there are three foundational elements of a women's leadership program. So developing leadership, and they're the foundational elements. So as you know, sometimes you go to leadership conferences, and I go to a lot of women's leadership conferences, and people just kind of stick things together. They stick, okay, let's have a workshop on this, on negotiation, let's have one on networking, let's have one on how to advance your careers. So all these things are just stuck together. This foundational, these three foundational elements, however, have been shown in the research that if you really have this core of things, then you take those three things and really then everything else can build in better ways. Those other workshops stick better because you you have to really have some things at the core. Um, and those three things are number one, leadership identity, number two, leadership purpose. And I add calling in there as well. And then three, really, they call it second generation gender bias, but it but it's unconscious bias. And so those three together are really important. In fact, in fact, there's another source that says specifically for women that there's really a shift in the literature from supporting individuals to gain technical skills through, and I'm putting quote marks up here, leadership development programming to an emphasis on actually increasing attention to the process of what we call quote marks again, leader identity development. Because what we know is boys have been in in any country are typically socialized much more often to see themselves as future leaders than girls. The same thing for teenagers, uh, the same thing for adults. And so women specifically have to do a lot more work on even just feeling like they're a leader, seeing themselves as a leader. So if they don't, you can have negotiation and networking and all these other things thrown at you, and it's not going to stick as much. That's what I call it. So, number two is really this purpose and calling. There, some of the research says that 30% more than men, women need this purpose, this deep purpose and calling. So in everything I do, I put this in there since it's so foundational. And there's many, many models of this that I love. But one of the key models that I use comes out of a Christian context and the center of it. I mean, it's got faith and family and life circumstances, culture, work, all those things. But at the center of it is for women to know and use their unique giftedness.
SPEAKER_00Well, that's super helpful because I think that really gives somebody a place to start in thinking about how do I look at the depth of leadership development and figure out which models I could focus in on. And as you were talking through them, I'm kind of picking out things like uh Mesero's uh disorienting dilemma and the the what you were talking about in terms of purpose and identity. And it it was making me think about the differences between those and where HRD focuses the rest of its time. And so I was wondering, do you think there are pedagogical differences between developing leadership skills and how HRD develops other skills?
SPEAKER_01Well, that's an interesting question, Darren. Um I do think that there are some differences. I'll give you a few thoughts. A number of years ago, when I was pretty much, I think I was an early, you know, assistant professor, there was a colleague, he had this list of at least 100, maybe 200 competencies. Like if you are a leader, you need all of these things. And then he would just kind of check the boxes on competencies, like, okay, you you hit this competency, you know, let's say networking again, or you know how to negotiate, or you're your um, you know, you work on authenticity, or you do this or do that. A lot of them are just do, not become. And I talk about this a lot. There's really a difference between doing and becoming, or being and becoming, right? And so he he was like, well, if we can get someone to do all of these things sometimes in their sometime in their college career, then they'll be a leader. So kind of like you just sum up every part, and then magically you're gonna have this wholeness that's a leader. Um, I don't know. I don't, I kind of maybe the first year bought into it, and then I'm like, this this doesn't really work. I don't think it works because the sum of the parts is not necessarily the whole. And so I I'm really a fan. I don't, I'm, I'm not sure if all the listeners are are aware of Parker Palmer's work on wholeness. So one of his books is called A Hidden Wholeness, The Journey Towards an Undivided Life. Another one I love. It's a short little book called Let Your Life Speak. And then he has another book called An Undivided Life. So he has written about this piece. And I love this this book and how how not necessarily this is is based on exact research, right? He's is he's an educator and and so forth, but this deeper work on self is not what you pick up from the long lists of competency. This this intersection among the different identities, um, especially with women. I mean, when you look at the different identities of work, of home, of motherhood, if you're a mother of this or that, and how that all plays together, even your competencies, you can um, you know, work. I keep bringing up negotiation, but you can work on that. But but you know, you can learn about that, but it plays out differently depending on gender, depending on race, uh, depending on your context, uh, depending on what you want, how you've been socialized, all of those things bring together this set of skills or competencies. I hate just calling them skills, um, but these competencies and capacities that then create this identity of you as a leader. You can just teach these competencies, you know, these leadership skills. Um, and they can lead, well, the uh skills, I'll just say skills, and they can be part of your leadership, or they could just be skills that are not part of your leadership. But I think what determines that is how you bring them together. There's such a deepness in my mind to uh and then differences and pedagogical differences, taking those three foundational elements that I talked about, having that as a foundation, then you can bring many different skills together. But if that foundation is not there, then you're just having things, you know, you're just throwing spaghetti on the wall, right? And see what sticks.
SPEAKER_00As you were talking there, it was taking me back. One of my favorite books of Parker Palmer's is To Know As We Are Known. And and what you were talking about there was reminding me about uh much of what Parker Palmer writes about in that book, about the the need to explore how the heart and the mind can work together in the learning process.
SPEAKER_01And it has to, I think for men and women, but as I mentioned, I work so much for with women specifically, you know, at certain part of your career, you just kind of hone into that. And and you don't see the changes in women's desire to be a leader, their ambitions to be a leader until they go deep. And so that's you know, just having a company call or an organization, government organization, can you do a two-hour workshop on this or this? Yeah, I do that. Other people do that. But always in the back of my mind, I'm like, if she as a woman does not even see herself as a leader, if if she hasn't done some of that deep work, if she doesn't feel that connection, then you know, you hope that you can spark that desire in a two-hour workshop or a one-hour speech that you do, but it takes more work. And so if we as HRD practitioners are just doing chunks of things here and there for companies or other kinds of organizations, you know, the research will push back on that a little bit and say there's some really deep work to be done that in identity and purpose and unconscious bias.
SPEAKER_00So, does all of this, do you think, imply that there are pedagogical differences between men and women in how they learn as leaders?
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. I think there's some uh similarities in some ways. And I still work is sometimes in mixed gender kind of opportunities or leadership programs, but most of my work is studying women's leadership, and there's some great research out there, not as much as we'd like, um, out there on women's leadership um programming, and also actually the United Nations and associations around that have done a lot of work on gender-based uh pedagogical research too, that really is important, I think, as AHRD uh practitioners, if we're working with women specifically to explore. So, one of the things, I'll I'll give you a number of things, but um one of them I just remembered be and I don't want to forget, so I'll I'll put that up first, is I do a lot more talking when I'm um or and talking to set the stage and then. and giving them exploration and kind of deep experiences in uh the difference between just experiences, relationships, activities, uh, networks and strategies, and the difference between just that and then we shift over to what I I just put the word developmental on the front of everything. Developmental experiences, developmental activities, developmental relationships. So you can have relationships, but then you can have developmental relationships. You can have networks some of them might be social networks or you can be more strategic and have developmental networks. So in programming for women, absolutely, we look more at helping them understand the differences between just activities and then developmental activities. So I'm going to just put that out there because I've I've really found that that I am just much more clear and talk much more about that. And women's experiences and all of those are going to be different than men's. Those relationships, lots of research on the differences between men and women on on things like mentoring and sponsorship and coaching and different things. In in terms of just women's leadership transformation or programming there's a not a lot but some research out there on that you really have to have a different space when you have all women. And by the way, big difference between how you would run a leadership program with men versus men and women together versus just women. And creating a safe environment for women's leadership really means that there's not men in the room because you talk differently. Even if there's one man in the room, you really do things differently. The conversations are different. And so there's what what is called gender sensitive teaching and learning practices and really safety that safety I talked about is really created by fostering what I would call an affirmative environment through just social inclusion and honoring differences different experiences, challenging them, but supporting um and then having that space where you really just have women in the room and and then really taking more time to reconstruct as some authors would say that identity that we've talked about and taking more space for understanding self and understanding context and those three elements I brought up identity purpose and and unconscious bias. So those are really at the core also more space for discussions on deep identity issues and I'll tell you the the conversations are so needed for women to discuss end quote safe spaces on work life, you know, work family kids. Women typically struggle with that and just really want to hear more about that. We don't put that in as much when we have men in those what what the research does say is like MPA programs and leadership development programs really are designed in more of a masculine way. And I call it quote quote marks again in an invisible masculine culture because most people don't know what that is. You you say that and they're like I don't know what that is. I don't know what makes it masculine. I don't know what makes it feminine there's some interesting research from a decade ago from Harvard and they did a total analysis of why women were not thriving in their MBA program and they realized it was the invisible pedagogical culture that had been created and when they shifted some of those things then women thrived more.
SPEAKER_00I think all that's interesting but don't you think Darren that that's invisible sometimes to a lot of people I I I think it is I think it's one of those things which uh sits in the dark corner and unless you grab the flashlight and shine a light on it and start exploring it it's too easy for it to stay in that dark corner unchallenged. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And it you know we do that too when I have I I work with a bunch of CEOs who'd who say I hire women but they don't stay why and I say describe your culture of your company your compensation your and they describe it I so that's because you have a masculine culture they women leave because they're like this doesn't feel they don't know why exactly but they're like it doesn't feel like I belong. So a couple of other thoughts too I I always design and this is based on research work depending on the the experience you know how long I have with groups of women but on habitual what what the research calls habitual patterns of thinking there's a lot from socialization that women are are um socialized to do certain things, to deflect praise, to use disclaimers, to do those kinds of things also I depending on the age and the this you know what what what I do with women, I I really do work on raising aspirations and ambitions because of the past socialization that's there and and just generally the coaching and capacity building um we would do differently with women um and some of the discussions the authenticity is an interesting piece for women because you know that double bind that we talk about there's there's an interesting thing with authenticity and then that double bind of and if the listeners are not not aware of what that means you know mask leadership is still viewed as masculine but women need to be feminine right so if women are a leader then and masculine then they need to make sure they're still a feminine leader and then but you need to be masculine to be a leader. I think some of that's shifting but that's it's hard sometimes for certain women to many women to then go to their authentic authenticity you know and then kind of wrestle with all of that. It's it's fascinating but I just find it so interesting and so much better when facilitators of leadership programming, whether it's a a program or just experiences or whatever it is, if they know the research, if they know the theory on these pedagogical differences and the things to base our foundation on, it really makes a different experience than you would ever really get with the mixed gender leadership development group.
SPEAKER_00Well Susan, unfortunately we've run out of time for this part of the episode but thank you so much indeed for our conversation today.
SPEAKER_01Thank you so much.
SPEAKER_00I think both you and Valerie have planted a lot of really interesting seeds in your in your one-to-one so I'm really looking forward to getting us all together in the next section of the episode for our group discussion. That sounds great
Group conversation with Valerie and Susan
SPEAKER_00up next we have the group discussion where my guests are together to discuss their shared passion for the episode's topic. This discussion is brought to you thanks to the sponsorship support of the John M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University. The Huntsman School of Business believes that the best leaders dream big, prepare take risks create value and give back the Huntsman School provides unique learning experiences that develop these characteristics, preparing students to become leaders who leave the world better than they found it. They strive each year to dare mighty things to honour the Huntsman name by putting their students first and developing programs that align with values such as ethical leadership and entrepreneurial spirit. For more information visit huntsman.usuedu Welcome back to the Human Resource development masterclass our focus for this episode is leadership development and I've already met one-to-one with Valerie Stead and with Susan Madsen and so for the final section of the episode we're all together for our group chat. So welcome back Valerie and Susan great to be here thank you Darren it's great to be here for this group conversation I'd like to expand a little on some of the topics that we explored in our one-to-ones and I was as I was reflecting back on those conversations I found myself thinking more about the relationship between leadership development and power.
SPEAKER_01And so I'm wondering if we could start off by exploring the connection between those two concepts you know I'll jump in because I have actually thought a lot about power through the years and and as many people know I do so much work on gender. And um and so of course when you think of power relations and so forth that comes out and and of course I've taught leadership and organizational behavior classes and we talk about things like informal and formal and direct and indirect types of power and then all the French and and Ravens basis of power coercive expert and and reward and those kinds of things so how does all that relate to leadership what comes to mind is I work in the area of diversity and inclusion and gender sexism and race and racism but the whole point of access access to even opportunities whether they're formal leadership programs whether they're just leadership opportunities that lead to development that access piece people with power whether it's informal or indirect or formal and direct really do have those decisions about access and just even getting an invitation I think it also relates if you look at a continuum along the path to even just having support I mean you can be invited you can have some access but if you don't have support you're not going to get the developmental experiences. So I'll just throw that out as a place to start but that's the connection I really see with leadership development is in access, in in just support in other kinds of resources as well.
SPEAKER_02In leadership development that it's it's important to think about power relations and and sort of power networks that enable or or can hinder leadership developments in a particular context that can be really helpful to think about sort of where does influence and power lie in which roles in which networks or groups and where decisions are made and then sort of coming back to that so how do we access those particular networks or or roles but another element that I would add to to that is how are those sort of power sources mobilised and you know clearly some people or some sections of the community have greater ability to mobilize those resources than than others. And I I think one of the things I would point to is that some of my most recent research has focused on questions of legitimacy which are very closely connected and how legitimacy is is reliant on others. So while someone may have status or power through their role which we might call sort of positional power they may not necessarily have the approval or validation of others as legitimate leaders and we certainly see this with with people who may be more marginalized in in their roles and it's much harder to gain that kind of legitimate status. And so here we see power again very closely connected with with that form of legitimacy.
SPEAKER_01When push comes to shove and we need to get something done or or we need to fill spots in in an opportunity to go to a conference or other kinds of things that we would quote put under leadership development sometimes we just go to convenience you know who are the people that we think about the same people over and over the visible people it takes a pause to challenge ourselves are we thinking about everyone that has potential or that could have potential or maybe we don't even know if they have potential or not to give them opportunities for leadership development.
SPEAKER_00Power thing's interesting to me as well because I was in realisting to the one-to-one conversations I started reflecting on how people develop their perceptions of leadership and how that's often associated with power and people look at leaders on television in in drama shows or on the news and most of the role models that they see of leaders or examples they see of leaders are people in positions of power. So if that's the case how do you see stereotypes like that of leaders and leadership impacting how leaders are then developed within organisations I think it's really important that we don't underestimate the power of the media in influencing how we think about leadership and who can be or who should be leaders.
SPEAKER_02So if we're seeing the same kind of images of people in leadership roles or hear the same messages about leadership over and over again that can reinforce our view of who leaders are and what leadership looks like. I think one way of thinking about it is that it it confirms our implicit leadership theory that is our view, our particular understanding that's accepted or taken for granted of how we think about what makes a good leader. So if we relate that to leadership development if we have a particular view that keeps being reinforced by the media this shapes our thinking about who can become a leader but also what we need leaders and leadership to do. Listeners may well have heard about Virginia Sine's research in the early 1970s. Her research identified a think manager think male mentality where characteristics associated with successful management were more likely to be held by men than women. And more recent research including my own on gender media shows that this stereotypical view is still very present in media representations and it can be fuelled by either an absence of media representations of women or representations that are framed by negative stereotypes. So when we bring this back then to leadership development it's it's no surprise then that we we still get sort of stuck sometimes in thinking about leaders in in a particular way and associated with particular people.
SPEAKER_01The research I read just confirms or or supports Valerie what you saw and you still see that double bind you still see in the gender research specifically that generally women are feminine or and should be feminine in our minds that's that's what we and masculine in leadership is masculine. So it's like how how do you do this one of the core pieces the foundational pieces in leadership development depending on the age and the experience is to broaden their definition in their own mind of what leadership encompasses what leadership looks like can look like could look like and then somehow match what they see in their head to what those implicit you know leadership theories are how if we can switch those around so that they see themselves as leaders.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely and I think that the the power of management education or leadership development is to actually bring some of these things that that that we we we tend not to really I mean I I think as scholars we do think about it but in in in a general sense we're kind of bombarded with media's messages and and they are very insidious we we don't often really critique or or challenge what it is that we're we're seeing so so those messages that continue to sort of undermine or downplay or exclude particular people as as leaders can be extraordinarily powerful. But what we can do you know going back Darren to to thinking about sort of stereotypes and management education leadership development what we can do is bring some of that discussions and challenge into the classroom so that that our future generations those people who will be our future leaders can can actually look at unlearning really our ways of doing the ways in which we think about leaders and leadership and actually try and interrogate a little bit more closely those very deeply embedded stereotypes that that that still exist and still shape um how many of us do think you know how many people do think about about leaders and leadership.
SPEAKER_00The topic of gender has sort of flowed through the episode and I want to kind of pick up that thread and pull on it just a little a little more because I'm I'm starting to think about how to operationalize that. So um we've talked about leadership development for women then I'm thinking how does that get integrated into an overall leadership development strategy within an organization so for for example should women be developed separately from men mixed gender programming I always recommend those those kinds of uh experiences however what we know from the research and it's quite clear that a women's leadership program women only really no men in the room because even one man can change that conversation and the same thing when you have all men which happens a lot in organizations if there's a woman the conversation sometimes changes I really recommend a minimum of one comprehensive women's leadership program for each women employee.
SPEAKER_01For me my comprehensive programs are at least six full days and often I do them over three months like two days together and then six weeks or whatever and sometimes longer because there are things that you do not address in mixed gender programs that you do differently you just do differently when you're in a women's only leadership program. So I don't recommend that all our leadership development is gender specific but having at least one designed to be very effective people that run or design those programs really need and I'm saying this because there's a lot of business school executive programs, I'm just saying it, that take normal programming on leadership development and then just stick the same content over and just invite women and say that's a women's leadership program. That's not uh the case in terms of what is high quality and so you really need to look at someone that understands leadership leadership theory and research that's number one gender have have someone that understands the gender the differences between men and women the just you know those elements and then also understand and have expertise in pedagogical practices and research as well those three combined um and the reason I'm outlining this is there's a lot of like conferences and different things where people just throw together content and think well they're gonna change the world with this content. But as we all know as HRD practitioners and researchers both that there's a lot more to really doing a well designed rigorous program that has been shown to move the needle and really have the foundation around the latest research and and pedagogy. So I I really I really think when you look At even the structure, the length, the depth, the breadth, the elements, the topics, the components, there are really going to be some differences between women's leadership programs and the opportunities and men.
SPEAKER_02I would agree with that, Susan, that we need ideally a range of leadership development activities available within organisations and for employees. And I think, I think from my perspective, one of the things that I've I've thought about and written about is that as a sole strategy, women's leadership development doesn't really work. It needs to be part of a range of strategies because there are so many different needs within our organizations and institutions. And I think certainly, as uh as you've mentioned, Susan, that research has shown a real need for separate women's leadership development programmes where they can freely discuss experiences in a safe environment. And so the the development of those programmes is really important. It's got to be thought about very carefully. And for individual developments, it's you know it's it's been proven to be very enriching and rewarding. I think, I think where I have found in research that I've done and with colleagues, as a strategy, often women's leadership development is put forward as a strategy for um for the lack of gender diversity in leadership roles. And this is where I think it can become problematic because it can risk setting up a kind of fix the woman approach. Um, and that's something I know that you'll you'll both be very familiar with. And those kind of approaches could imply, for example, that women require specialist training over and above what what might be seen as standard leadership development. And that then can inadvertently uh emphasize traditional stereotypes of men as as being the natural leaders and women as having to try to fit in, or they need to be fixed if they're going to be as capable as men. So I think that's something that we need to think about in organisations quite carefully. What is the message that we are sending out if we are doing uh programs for particular groups of people? And that we really need to think about it as a as a uh part of a menu of activities and tasks that have got very clear purposes and aims attached to them.
SPEAKER_01Well, I'm so glad, Valerie, that you brought up the that um kind of the wrestle, I call it, between the fix the women and fix the systems and processes. And what's what's fascinating is that people are at odds about those and saying, well, if you do one, then you're resisting the other, or if you're all about one the other, then you're not thinking about this one. And and you know, Sandberg in her book years ago, uh lean in really got that criticism. However, I I do think the the research is supportive of both paths, and you really need to do both. You need to do, and and it's not, yeah, I I totally get what you're saying about the fix the woman. Um, you have to be careful in how that's sent forth because if we're just fixing the women to fit into a masculine culture, then we all know that's not going to be long-term, a long-term solution.
SPEAKER_00So Susan just mentioned there the importance of culture. And so I'm wondering what's the relationship, therefore, between organizational culture and leadership development? And to what extent does culture either help or hinder?
SPEAKER_02Leadership and leadership development is not something that happens in a vacuum. And so it's really important that leadership development takes account of the culture, just as we've been talking about, and enables leaders to find ways to work within and navigate that culture. So I think what when we think about organizational cultures, uh, they're not neutral places, and and and listeners might be familiar with the description of culture by Deal and Kennedy, who offered this in the 1980s, and and their description of culture is the way we do things around here. So, of course, the way we do things is very much based on our beliefs and values, and so we might see that, for example, written formally in a strategic vision or a statement, but perhaps more usefully we can see culture in the in the everyday practices, how people do things, and often it's in kind of uh unwritten codes of conduct or behaviours. So, leadership development can be a really important process to help understand organizational culture, and if we can understand how things get done around here, then we have a better chance of being able to exert influence and uh and make change. A useful tool to help people to understand their culture is something that Carol Elliott and I suggest in our research around management education leadership development. And that's on programmes to ask who and what is valued in an organization, and that helps people to identify what the values are that the organization works around, that bases their systems around, but prioritises. Um, so we can see from that uh what are the skills that are most prized here, what kind of roles have most influence here in our own context, what are the behaviours that are seen as most important for leaders? So I think I think all of these things are indications, and that leadership development is a very big role to play in helping us to understand that, and then to help us develop within that within that context.
SPEAKER_01You can see fairly quickly in organizations what they're resistant to. That's another thing. Like you can just see where people get offended or or where people dismiss certain topics that come up, or just give you, for instance, I've taught unconscious bias training for lots and lots of organizations. And man, can I see the difference between organizations and people by the questions they ask, by the resistance they have, by the dismissal, like the smile, but you know that there's like they're really not going to go deep with this. It's so fascinating. I think that really goes into the what the learning culture is. And you can pick up on that if you know the research pretty well and and you're, you know, what is that culture? And if you you both know, uh, I'm sure a lot about the growth and fixed mindsets. And individually you can see those kinds of things. Do they embrace failures and use failures in terms of positive ways? But I also think there's kind of a growth mindset versus fixed mindset with departments and with the companies in general. So do you, you know, is there a shun against any kind of failure if if people in the company or in your department or whatever unit you might be talking about, is there embracing when people you know succeed? Or is there a little competition, or people feel like if others are risen, if if others rise, then it takes from them? Um, how how people handle mistakes, how bosses do, all of those things. Uh, I think there's really a connection, like I said, with the growth mindset and learning cultures. And definitely that culture impacts true leadership development. And, you know, if there's if there's just resistance to those things, um, you know, people are threatened, if managers do certain things and really don't take don't take really concerns to the top level because they don't feel like they're being heard. I feel like those kinds of more destructive cultures or fixed mindset cultures really take away from wonderful opportunities for their employees to develop. Don't you think more and more that companies, especially with millennials, the younger folks, are just not going to stay at companies that they can't learn and grow and stretch and make mistakes and those things moving forward. I think organizations to survive are going to need to do that more and more.
SPEAKER_02Yes, I I agree, Susan, that if if organizations are going to survive, they're going to have to become much more inclusive as cultures. And I was just thinking when you were talking there about sort of what what um points of resistance uh that there's also about what what organizations don't talk about, you know, what what gets excluded, what doesn't get aired. And I think there's sort of um models of power or theories of power that talk about understanding where power lies in an organization is what gets neglected or what doesn't get discussed, uh, or even what gets trivialized. So that in that of itself then draws attention to what an organization thinks is important and and therefore um what matters most uh going going forward. So I think these are all really excellent um points of discussion and debate uh that that we need to have. We need to sort of have these critical uh discussions in our leadership development uh activities.
SPEAKER_00As we talk here about essentially operationalizing leadership development in in a given culture, as a final question, I'm wondering about how you see the role of coaching and mentoring within that.
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. I think uh mentoring, coaching, sponsorship, those kinds of developmental relationships are absolutely key to the development of leadership, is skills and behaviors and competencies, whatever we want to hear, you know, what whatever we want to call them. Um and it is critical. In fact, when I do programs for different organizations, longer-term programs, that is a conversation we have all of the time in terms of what are, and and the broader term that we use really is developmental relationships. So you can have relationships, but then there's developmental relationships. And those, there's a big difference between just relationships and and those that really develop people. And what we're talking about in leadership development is developmental relationships. So they could be um mentors, like I said, or coaches or sponsors, or or even there's differences between that and role models, or peer coaches, or peer mentors, or people that just advise or support or encourage you. Sometimes we throw things all. I've I've heard so many conversations where everything is called mentoring, and there really is a difference between those. But that definitely is something that we work into really important leadership development experiences. And and I'll just give you before I stop, I'll just give you um uh a little thing that I speak about often because people will, in fact, this morning I get up very early to get through three hours of email each morning, very, very early. And I probably had three or four emails with people asking me to mentor them. That's how many requests I get. However, what I always say to people, don't just ask people to mentor them. You think of how you can develop a relationship with them. What can you do for them that then in that relationship of you giving, it's more reciprocal. I hope that makes sense. So, my best people that have sponsored me or mentored me or any of those relationships are people I've made them look good, I've done work for them, I've dug in, and through that relationship, there is a I just get mentoring or sponsorship through that. I don't go up and ask them for that. And I do think that those relationships are really foundational to a really good program, more comprehensive program for employees in your organization in terms of how do they develop leadership. Again, some would be a formal program, some more informal, some would be challenging assignments, different kinds of relationships. I think you've got to look at all of those things together if you're talking about really good leadership development programming that will move the needle.
SPEAKER_02I agree that uh leadership development has got a huge role to play in in coaching and mentoring. And I would certainly see coaching and mentoring as uh as a very significant element in any um suite of leadership development activities or or programming. And I think where where it's really helpful is to connect that learning to to a particular context to sort of bring people back to thinking about well, what's happening for me where I am, and how can I help things to change there, and what development do I need in this particular role, you know, with this particular task, etc. Um I I also like very much Susan's emphasis on the relationship, and it's very much uh it's it's not a one-way street, it's very much a relationship and the developmental relationship. And so it has to change depending on where people are in the organisation and depending on on needs at different stages of careers. Um so certainly in higher education, we often think about mentoring as really important for our early career researchers. But having gone through the different stages of academia, I I know myself that mentoring is really important for all stages of our careers. We need safe spaces to think things through and to test out ideas and learning. So I think leadership development has a very clear role to play here in thinking about what's important uh in coaching and mentoring, and at what point in our careers can that really be a very um useful and beneficial relationship for everyone concerned.
SPEAKER_00Well, this has been a truly fascinating conversation, but unfortunately, we've reached the end of our time for today. I wanted to say a big thank you to both of you for all of your time and for our conversations and for being a part of our discussion on leadership development.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Darren. Thank you very much, Darren.
Wrap-up
SPEAKER_00Thank you so much for joining me for this episode. It was wonderful spending time with Valerie and with Susan. If you enjoyed this episode, check out all of our others. There were eleven episodes in the first season, and we're releasing a further eleven here in the second. Between them, they provide access to conversations with over 50 leading HRD scholars. New episodes release weekly. To learn more about the series, check out HRDmasterclass.com. And to learn about the Academy of Human Resource Development, check out ahrd.org. By becoming a member, you can access extra bonus materials not included in the podcast. Also, don't forget to look into our sponsors, Interpretive Simulations. Find out about their services at interpretive.com and by the John M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University. Check them out at huntsman.usu.edu. I'm looking forward to being with you in our next episode. Until then, this is Darren Short signing off from the HRD Masterclass.com.
