Leadership Development Superstitions
By Matt Richter
For the upcoming LDA Learning Sciences Conference, Clark Quinn and I have joined forces to run a session on Myths, Misconceptions, and Superstitions in learning and development. To be fair, I am mostly holding his book bag. Clark literally wrote the book on this topic. I have always found the distinctions he uses quite useful.
Myths are beliefs we have that are simply not true, but often get embraced despite that. For example, the notion that MBTI, DiSC, Insights, NLP, Enneagram, and True Colors are valid and reliable tools for understanding personality and behavior as a way of working more effectively together is a myth. Many believe in their effectiveness and accuracy, but they have been quite debunked by the scientific literature.
Misconceptions are ideas that have some support by science and research, but we tend to misapply, misunderstand, expand their usefulness, or confuse different parts of the concept. In other words, misconceptions are often more nuanced and complex than they seem. Examples of misconceptions are things like the collective intelligence, 70-20-10, or even evaluation models like Kirkpatrick.
But, I am more interested today, in Clark’s use of superstition! A superstition is a belief that is followed without question or scrutiny, usually based on anecdotal evidence, tradition, or assumptions, even if it’s not backed by solid research or evidence. Superstitions are often not openly acknowledged as true. In fact, with many superstitions, if quizzed or challenged, folks would deny them, but in practice, still employ them. So, different from myths- a superstition is denied or unsupported by science AND espoused by users as not true, but nonetheless, still used anyway.
As many know, I have been quite tough on traditional leadership development. Following the inspired path of such scholars as Jeffrey Pfeffer (Stanford University), Barbara Kellerman (Harvard University), and Ronald Riggio (Claremont McKenna) with my little booklet, Leadership Development: The Four Issues That Undermine Traditional Leadership Development Programs— available for free here on LDA— I tried to summarize the key research-based problems with how leadership development gets conducted. In it, I discuss the definitional problems we have identifying what we teach, the contextual problems we have aligning to the specific moment in time and preparing future leaders for the next set of situations, the validity and reliability of what gets taught, and the alignment issues between what is taught and what is modeled by current leadership.
For this article, I want to delve into superstitions— Clark style.
Below are a list of five superstitions related to leadership development. Of course, there are many more than five, but these are the ones top of mind for me as I write this. I will define the superstition and explain why it is a superstition. I am well underway on my next booklet on what we should do when running leadership development programs more effectively. And hope that will be out in the spring.
NOTE: SOME OF YOU DO NOT SUCCUMB TO THESE SUPERSTITIONS. THAT IS SUPER! THIS LIST IS TARGETED TO THE MAJORITY.
SUPERSTITION #1: Leadership Development Works Best in Isolation
Superstition: We design and develop a leadership development program that is based mostly in a classroom. Or, we do build in mentoring, or even some project-based action learning. But, the general superstition is that leaders should be developed in isolation, separate from their teams or broader organizational context, with mild, little, or no integration of their real-world work environment. We know this isn’t true, but an analysis of most leadership development programs shows participants all too often sent away to learn.
Reality: Leadership development is most effective when it’s contextualized within the leaders’ actual work environment and when there’s a strong connection between what they learn and the challenges they face. This also means we should align to the domain-specific environments these folks work in, or will work in in the near future. The learning design should Involve teams and ensure alignment with organizational goals and culture. The development process should provide content in multiple ways, not just classroom, but also informally when needed just-in-time, as well as structured field work and study.
SUPERSTITION #2: Leadership Skills Can Be Mastered Through a One-Time Program— One and Done!
Superstition: We schedule one program. It may be short, or over several months… but, nonetheless… one program and we now expect leaders are transformed. We know this isn’t true! Yet, due to resources, time, executive buy-in, we are lucky to get what we get. So, we go with it. But, this superstition is so obviously mythic— yet, we engage in it constantly despite that knowledge and awareness.
Reality: Given my perspective that I am not even sure what the heck we are teaching, or that what works today for leaders is unlikely going to work tomorrow, it is critical for us to contextualize all development OVER TIME, with the expectation that growth won’t happen immediately as a result of the program.
SUPERSTITION #3: Leadership Development Is Best Delivered Through Lectures, Discussions, and Other Classroom Activities
Superstition: The superstition is that the traditional interactive classroom formats will yield better leaders. Added to that, using discussions and case analysis activities will yield better leaders.
Reality: Since leadership happens within a context and requires different skills and approaches based on that context, we need our budding leaders to take what they learn in the classroom and actively— as a part of the program design— apply what they learned in as many different situations as possible. In other words, good learning design designed for transfer! We know this when we teach other topics. But, with leadership, often because of the senior status of the participants, we assume they will know how to make the transfer happen themselves, or more likely, we succumb to the extraneous pressures by the more senior powers that be limiting our exposure to making that transfer happen. Or, we embrace the false notion that participants are good judges whether, and of what, they learned throughout the program-- meaning they know what they need to continue to work on back at work.
SUPERSTITION #4: Leadership 360° Assessments Are a Great Way to Assess Leadership and Leader Behaviors
Superstition: 360° Assessments may border more on the mythic than the superstitious because so many swear by them. But, given many of us prefer not to take them, accept the feedback about ourselves when they are generally good, and dismiss the input when generally bad, that lack of faith in them for ourselves lends them more to the superstitious column. But, HR and executives love to hand them out. They are often integral to leadership development initiatives. But they have their very own inherent flaws.
Reality: While 360°s can certainly provide a broad range of data from subordinates, clients, peers, and bosses, they are often biased by the relationships connecting the raters who fill them out in the first place. They are also limited by a very small sample size. It is logistically impossible to assess a lot of participants with a sample size large enough to be truly reliable and overcome the aforementioned bias. And because the feedback is from differing constituents, that feedback may be conflicting— so without knowing the specifics of who said what, it is difficult to take context into play when evaluating the merits of it. There are huge issues with the questions themselves. The more specific to the domain and work environment, the less the tool is normalized and validated for language and meaning. And let’s not even get into the halo/horn effects, or the motivational ramifications of negative feedback from an unreliable messager. There are also language and culture factors when the assessment is either translated or left in its original language. Finally, big promotion and salary decisions get made as a result of these specious conclusions.
SUPERSTITION #5: . Leadership Style… oh my!
Superstition: Leaders should develop their self-awareness of how they prefer and naturally engage their environments. Whether that is taking a personality test like MBTI or a disposition tool like DiSC, or delving into a style inventory related to a specific model of leadership. These tools, like MBTI and DiSC are themselves in the Myths column. But the notion that we should adhere and identify to our personal leadership style ignores the notion of context. We all would argue that leadership is situational to the context at hand and that we need to flexibly adjust to those various contexts. We could argue that knowing our style enables us to know where to flex. But, the way these tools are taught is usually as strengths, where we get pigeonholed into a box. Even the agencies who sell these say don’t do that… and then do it. So superstitions all around!
Reality: It’s the context… all the way! And these tools, like MBTI and DiSC are debunked. As for leadership style, they, by definition employ a “one size (model) fits all (contexts). And this has been shown to not be accurate. Models like Servant Leadership, Transformational Leadership, etc., don’t work in all situations. So, using a style inventory associated with one model forgoes those more frequent variant scenarios. And while we can use more evidence-informed tools, like The Big Five, the question becomes why? Many of the great leaders in history never engaged in self-study of their personality... Maybe they should have... but do we know that a thorough analysis of personality leads to better leadership? Maybe it leads to being a better human? In other words, knowing one's personality isn't inherently bad, but how does it link into the leadership curriculum in a way that yields better leaders distinct from other factors? I'm not sure we know. So, a lot of money gets tossed assuming it is so based on cherry-picked and anecdotal data.
CONCLUSION
I am not saying we can’t incorporate multiple teaching and experiential approaches to leadership development. I am also not implying we should avoid more explicit instructional methods (especially for new and budding leaders). I am saying that we need to be careful to align our practices to what we know works and avoid what doesn’t work.
If you disagree with me about some of the examples I give for my listed superstitions, that is ok, as well. I would challenge you to explore them and research them on your own to see what you find. For example, there is a tremendous amount of literature out there outlining the problems with myths like MBTI (many included in the references below). I would also urge you to read the wonderful Alex Edmans' recent book May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics, and Studies Exploit Our Biases—And What We Can Do about It. In it, he provides a very easy to follow LADDER OF MISINFERENCE. Or, you can use LDA's very own Research Checklist, available here to more deeply analyze research claims.
I am making some assumptions myself. The first is that when we teach leadership, we are often teaching those with a bit of mileage under their belts. They have some experience. They are not completely new to the concept of leadership. If they are new, then classroom and explicit learning techniques is indeed the prescription, but for the moderately experienced and senior participants most leadership development initiatives target, we need to blend explicit instruction with various forms of action learning.
More to come!
LOTS AND LOTS OF REFERENCES
Arnold, J., Randall, R., Patterson, F., Silvester, J., Robertson, I., Cooper, C., & Burnes, B., Swailes, S. Harris, D., Axtell, C., & Hartog, D. (2010). Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behavior in the Workplace.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (Fourth ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Boyle, G.J. (1995). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations. Humanities & Social Sciences papers. 30. 10.1111/j.1742-9544.1995.tb01750.x.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership : a new pursuit of happiness. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Carnes, A., Houghton, J. D., & Ellison, C. N. (2015). What matters most in leader selection? The role of personality and implicit leadership theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(4), 360-379. doi:10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0087
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
De Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P.A., & Hulshof, C.D. (2015). Urban myths about learning and education. Academic Press.
De Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P.A., & Hulshof, C.D. (2020). More urban myths about learning and education: Challenging eduquacks, extraordinary claims, and alternative facts. Routledge.
Edmans, A. (2024). May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics, and Studies Exploit Our Biases—And What We Can Do about It. University of California Press.
Edwards, G., Schedlitzki, D., Turnbull, S., & Gill, R. (2015). Exploring power assumptions in the leadership and management debate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 328-343. doi:10.1108/LODJ-02-2013-0015
Egbunike, H. (2024). Pseudoscience: A Review of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). Behavioral Today. January 20, 2024. https://www.behavioraltoday.com/articles/pseudoscience-a-review-of-neuro-linguistic-programming-nlp
George R. Goethals, G. J. S., James MacGregor Burns (Ed.) (2004). Encyclopedia of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 960–968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.960
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership.’ Human Relations. 58 (11), 1467-1494.
Grint, K. (2010). Leadership: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Inc. New York.
Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper Business, An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers.
Kellerman, B. (2015). Hard times : leadership in America. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press.
Kirschner, P.A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens. Routledge.
Lacerenza, C.N., Reyes, D.L., Marlowe, S.L., and Joseph, D.L. & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership Training Design, Delivery, and Implementation: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 102. 10.1037/apl0000241.
McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of personality. 57. 17-40. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78-102. doi:10.2307/2392813
Mercer, J. (2015). Controversial Therapies. In The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology (eds R.L. Cautin and S.O. Lilienfeld). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp515
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership : theory and practice (Eighth Edition. ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a Contextual Theory of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 13. 797-837. 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00154-6.
Paine, N. (2016). Building Leadership Development Programmes: Zero-Cost to High-Investment Programmes That Work. London: Kogan Page.
Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS : fixing workplaces and careers one truth at a time (First edition. ed.). New York, NY: Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170497
Quinn, C.N. (2018). Millennials, goldfish & other training misconceptions: Debunking learning myths and superstitions. Association for Talent Development.
Richter, M.S., (2024) Leadership Development: The Four Issues That Undermine Traditional Leadership Development Programs. LDA Press.
Riggio, R. E. (Ed.) (2018). What’s Wrong with Leadership? New York: Routledge.
Rowold, J., Borgmann, L., & Diebig, M. (2015). A “Tower of Babel”? – interrelations and structure of leadership constructs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(2), 137-160. doi:10.1108/LODJ-01-2013-0009
Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(1), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.1.103
Sobotka, J.L. (2017). Leadership and Management Are One and the Same. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81. doi:10.5688/ajpe816102
Slemp, G.R., Kern, M.L., Patrick, K.J, Ryan, R.M. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 706-724. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y
Stacey, R. (2012). Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management: Meeting the Challenge of Complexity. London: Routledge.
Thompson, G., & Glasø, L. (2015). Situational leadership theory: a test from three perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 527-544. doi:10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0130
Toor, S.-u.-R. (2011). Differentiating Leadership from Management: An Empirical Investigation of Leaders and Managers. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(4), 310-320. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000138
Toor, S.U.R. & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership versus Management: How They Are Different, and Why. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 8(2), 61-71. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:2(61)
Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2007). Similarities and Differences between Leadership and Management: High-Performance Competencies in the British Royal Navy. British Journal of Management, 19(1), 17-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00534.x
Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don’t. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(1), 41-44.