The majority of leadership development interventions are short-term in nature. In essence, they are “camps.” Two days here, six days there – very few have a long term perspective on development. Turning to a sports analogy, even if you were with the greatest coach in the world, how much could your basketball skills improve in a 3 day event? Perhaps some, but most would agree that long-term practice and training would most likely yield better results. As a result, we need to view leadership development as “deep work” that is long-term in nature. “Camp-like” experiences are important and have a place, but they should only be a part of the overall approach to development. – Scott J. Allen

Another element that needs to be taken into consideration is a better understanding of how students/adults change behavior. Psychologists have been working on this for hundreds of years – why is leadership development any different? After all, we are asking human being’s to change behavior. Better understanding of these psychological approaches among practitioners hoping to “develop” leadership may be needed. For instance, from a student development perspective, we could look to Chickering & Reisser’s Seven Vectors of College Student Development. Interestingly, their theory aligns nicely with leadership development. Is anyone intentionally incorporating the thinking of Chickering and Reisser into the design of programming? I believe some have (e.g., The LeaderShape Institute), but this seems to be the exception rather than the norm. I have attempted to align the two in the CLD Wiki and would love to hear your thoughts. What is missing? Check it out and let me know what you think. – Scott J. Allen

One way to re-frame leadership development is by moving from a strictly cerebral event to an activity with a practice field.  One does not become an excellent baseball player strictly through participation in classroom activities.  Of course it can be a part of the process, but all too often in leadership development, it ends up being the majority of the development experience. The event I spoke of yesterday (a team building event) can serve as a practice field, if it is linked to a set of skills or competencies being reinforced.  However, these activities often do not serve that purpose – as a result, I would suggest that opportunities for learning may be lost or muddled. What do you think? – Scott J. Allen

I was with a group of juniors in high school this morning. They are taking part in a leadership development “camp” for five days.  I helped with a short team building section – really easy, just your standard low ropes initiatives.  Later today, they are taking part in the Enneagram.  Interestingly, a few of the participants had completed some of the initiatives we had planned for them.  This experience got me thinking. If these students are already REPEATING these initiatives as sophomores and juniors in high school, by the time they get through Freshman New Student Weekend or the collegiate New Leaders Program, they will be thoroughly tired of the same old approach to leadership development. Take it to the next level, and in just a few short years, a number of corporate trainers/consultants will be in big trouble if they rely on the same old bag of tricks. So what’s next?  What is Leadership Development Version 2.0?  I have some thoughts (and will share them over the next few days), but would love to hear yours as well. – Scott J. Allen

What if you walked into work on Monday and your boss said, “Take the next few months off to develop your leadership competencies!” Wouldn’t that be great?! Interestingly, it is not completely unheard of. As a result, I have written a small piece on sabbaticals as a source of learning in leadership development. Take a look here! – Scott J. Allen