[Management and Leadership Theory] I am trying to develop leaders. But can they really be developed?

Questioning the common belief that "leaders can be developed"

What am I doing when I am functioning as a leader?

Since staring at my worries doesn't produce anything, I don't look at them too closely. When faced with uncertain situations, rather than exhaustively examining every concern, I think while moving, keeping the big picture in mind. I don't observe competitors one by one. I look at the customers and think. Since I cannot wait until everyone involved is satisfied, I decide and act at a certain point.

Calling this "decisiveness" is a bit too flattering.
The reality is insensitivity to uncertainty.

What happens when you have high sensitivity?

So, what happens when a person with high sensitivity stands in the same position?

Every time they perceive a risk, the number of concerns to be examined before making a decision increases. The more they listen to everyone's opinions, the less defined the direction becomes. The more they observe the movements of competitors, the harder it becomes to see what they should be doing themselves. They tend to lose sight of the big picture because they worry too much about the details.

High sensitivity is an excellent ability within an organization. It acts as a realistic brake on a leader's judgment and prevents oversights. However, when that same temperament is brought into the leader's chair, it acts in the opposite direction. High sensitivity makes it difficult to take risks and leads to safe judgments.

Doubts about the question of "if you develop them"

Then, can this temperament be acquired through development or training?

"Leaders can be developed" is the common belief in modern human resource development. Leadership training, coaching, experiential learning. Organizations invest a large budget in this every year.

However, the reality shown by research seems to be a little different.

There is twin research that investigated the innate elements of leadership. It is a method of estimating the influence of genetic factors by comparing identical and fraternal twins. Multiple studies by Arvey et al. at the University of Minnesota have shown that about 30% of the probability of assuming a leadership position can be explained by genetic factors. As for leadership style, results show that the influence of genetic factors is even greater.

One could read this as "If 30% is innate, 70% can be changed through external factors."
However, there is an important caveat here.

According to research investigating the effectiveness of training, what changes through leadership training is mainly at the level of knowledge and awareness, and only about 10-15% of the training content leads to sustained behavioral change in the workplace. In other words, much of what can be changed through development is knowledge, not temperament.

I cannot say for sure. However, evidence pointing in the direction that "it is difficult to change the temperament level through development" is accumulating.

What organizational behavior shows

While holding the ideal of "developing leaders from within," it is not rare for companies to invite top management from the outside. Sony's Stringer, Nissan's Ghosn, SoftBank's Arora. At Nidec, candidates scouted from the outside left one after another, and the founder, Mr. Nagamori, said, "Everyone runs away quickly."

This practice itself shows one thing. It means that organizations know empirically that there is a limit to developing them internally.

The early selection seen in successful organizations shows the same structure. Instead of "developing" them, they identify them at an early stage and put them on a path. This is closer to "blooming" than development. It is a process of drawing out a temperament that is already there, not a process of creating it from scratch.

Thinking about a former boss

When I joined a certain organization, I looked at my boss at the time and thought, "He is talented, but he has failed at developing talent." Although he was a prominent leader in the industry, no one around him had grown to be his successor.

Being bold, I once asked that boss directly.
"Why haven't you developed a successor?"

The answer I received was this.
"They aren't something you can develop; those who become leaders grow on their own."

At the time, I could not accept that answer.
I thought to myself, "If it were me, I could develop them."

However, now that some time has passed since I reached the same position, I have realized something.
I am in the same situation myself. I have intentionally tried to develop people to be successors, giving them opportunities and so on. Yet, no matter how much time passes, they don't seem to be able to act as leaders.

There are parts that can be developed if you try. I won't deny that. However, the parts that can be changed through external influence are not that significant. Things at the temperament level do not seem easily changed. Perhaps the reason my former boss appeared to have failed at talent development was not a matter of ability or enthusiasm, but simply that it was determined by whether or not they had the temperament to become a leader in the first place.

And I myself don't really feel that I reached my current position because of some leadership training. My boss at the time also grew on his own.

In the end, I am standing before the same wall as my former boss.

Leaving this as a question

The common belief that "leaders can be developed" is not wrong. They can be developed at the level of knowledge and skills. However, at least within the scope of my experience, there is a limit to the parts that can be changed at the temperament level, and it seems that even if you try to develop them, they do not grow easily.

If that is the case, the problem of procuring leaders for an organization cannot be solved in the context of development theory. Rather than developing them, identifying them becomes the more essential question.

When you are trying to develop someone into a leader, is it truly "development"? Or are you just trying to help them bloom a temperament that was already there?

It seems that no one who could be my successor has grown yet. However, this is merely a judgment seen through my own lens. If I were to leave the organization, the organization would adopt a different way of moving, and work would begin to revolve in a different structure. It may just be that the people I currently think are insufficient will fulfill their roles as fine leaders within that organization.

Related articles