Leadership Training Goes Global
Leadership training is a global phenomenon in many large companies, suggests a new survey conducted by the Human Resource Institute. Not only does such training tend to be managed at a global level, but within corporations leaders all over the world tend to receive the same leadership development (LD) training. LD training tends to be significantly more global in content and delivery than training that focuses on the personal effectiveness of individual employees, according to the survey of 42 organizations responding between February and April 2002.
Of the participating companies, all of which employ over 1,000 workers and have an average of 42,000, about 60% say that leadership development training in their organization is managed, at least in part, on a global basis, whereas 26% and 14%, respectively, say it's managed on a regional and national basis.
This is considerably different from responses to questions about individual effectiveness (IE) training, which focus on employee knowledge, skills and abilities. (Examples include training employees how to better manage their time, understand their business, or work on teams.) Only about 40% of respondents, mostly HR professionals, say IE training in their organization is managed, at least in part, on a global basis.
Most of responding companies provide LD training at every leadership level, with about 86% giving it to middle managers, 79% to first-level managers, 76% to senior-level managers, and 64% to senior executives. In response to the question "Are the same leadership development training programs used corporate-wide?" fully two thirds say yes, while another 5% say this is the case with some LD training programs. It appears that many corporations are trying to provide their leaders with a standard set of capabilities that are required across a variety of regions and nations. In future surveys, it would be interesting to determine whether most of these programs teach a variety of leadership models that accommodate different cultures or whether they focus on a single model used to cultivate an organization-wide corporate culture.
Perhaps one reason that so much emphasis is being placed on a global approach to LD training is that many of the surveyed organizations are headquartered in the U.S. A May 2002 article in T+D magazine notes, "In the United States, fewer top leaders have international experience or speak multiple languages, so their capacity for global leadership must be developed. T&D approaches typically emphasize the development of cross-cultural skills that are effective across borders, creation or revision of training materials to be more international in scope, and development of global leadership capabilities."
Another reason, according to one of the HRI survey respondents, is simply that more companies are becoming truly global in nature. If they don't teach the same leadership principles across the world, they become more likely to run into serious organizational troubles such as inconsistent communication and fractured strategic approaches.
In the majority (67%) of firms responding to the HRI survey, the training needs assessment for LD training is performed solely in-house, although outsourced training suppliers seem to play a significant role in a third of the firms. In contrast, fewer than a fifth of firms outsource any part of their training needs analysis when it comes to individual effectiveness training.
In the process of designing, developing, and delivering LD training, corporations become considerably more likely to outsource at least part of the process. In the delivery of LD training, for example, the most common strategy is to use a combination of in-house sources and multiple outside training suppliers (45%). Fully 81% outsource some aspect of delivery to one or more training vendors, whereas just 19% deliver everything via in-house agents. Even when external vendors are used, however, companies seem to want to keep the number of vendors down. They used an average of only 4.5 vendors per corporation to deliver LD training, compared with about 11 vendors per corporation to deliver IE training.
To the degree that e-learning systems are used to provide leadership development training, the most common strategy is to use externally purchased training content (48%), while 39% use a combination of internally and externally developed content. On the other hand, the vast majority (88%) use in-house personnel to administer LD programs.
It will be interesting to watch how these trends develop over time. Will leadership development training become even more global? What type of leadership competency models will be used? Will the average number of LD training vendors used increase or decrease? In a world of growing globalization, such questions may have a significant impact on the failure or success of many large organizations.
For a summary of "The Global Pendulum" in T+D magazine, see
http://www.astd.org/CMS/templates/index.html?template_id=1&articleid=27650
Of the participating companies, all of which employ over 1,000 workers and have an average of 42,000, about 60% say that leadership development training in their organization is managed, at least in part, on a global basis, whereas 26% and 14%, respectively, say it's managed on a regional and national basis.
This is considerably different from responses to questions about individual effectiveness (IE) training, which focus on employee knowledge, skills and abilities. (Examples include training employees how to better manage their time, understand their business, or work on teams.) Only about 40% of respondents, mostly HR professionals, say IE training in their organization is managed, at least in part, on a global basis.
Most of responding companies provide LD training at every leadership level, with about 86% giving it to middle managers, 79% to first-level managers, 76% to senior-level managers, and 64% to senior executives. In response to the question "Are the same leadership development training programs used corporate-wide?" fully two thirds say yes, while another 5% say this is the case with some LD training programs. It appears that many corporations are trying to provide their leaders with a standard set of capabilities that are required across a variety of regions and nations. In future surveys, it would be interesting to determine whether most of these programs teach a variety of leadership models that accommodate different cultures or whether they focus on a single model used to cultivate an organization-wide corporate culture.
Perhaps one reason that so much emphasis is being placed on a global approach to LD training is that many of the surveyed organizations are headquartered in the U.S. A May 2002 article in T+D magazine notes, "In the United States, fewer top leaders have international experience or speak multiple languages, so their capacity for global leadership must be developed. T&D approaches typically emphasize the development of cross-cultural skills that are effective across borders, creation or revision of training materials to be more international in scope, and development of global leadership capabilities."
Another reason, according to one of the HRI survey respondents, is simply that more companies are becoming truly global in nature. If they don't teach the same leadership principles across the world, they become more likely to run into serious organizational troubles such as inconsistent communication and fractured strategic approaches.
In the majority (67%) of firms responding to the HRI survey, the training needs assessment for LD training is performed solely in-house, although outsourced training suppliers seem to play a significant role in a third of the firms. In contrast, fewer than a fifth of firms outsource any part of their training needs analysis when it comes to individual effectiveness training.
In the process of designing, developing, and delivering LD training, corporations become considerably more likely to outsource at least part of the process. In the delivery of LD training, for example, the most common strategy is to use a combination of in-house sources and multiple outside training suppliers (45%). Fully 81% outsource some aspect of delivery to one or more training vendors, whereas just 19% deliver everything via in-house agents. Even when external vendors are used, however, companies seem to want to keep the number of vendors down. They used an average of only 4.5 vendors per corporation to deliver LD training, compared with about 11 vendors per corporation to deliver IE training.
To the degree that e-learning systems are used to provide leadership development training, the most common strategy is to use externally purchased training content (48%), while 39% use a combination of internally and externally developed content. On the other hand, the vast majority (88%) use in-house personnel to administer LD programs.
It will be interesting to watch how these trends develop over time. Will leadership development training become even more global? What type of leadership competency models will be used? Will the average number of LD training vendors used increase or decrease? In a world of growing globalization, such questions may have a significant impact on the failure or success of many large organizations.
For a summary of "The Global Pendulum" in T+D magazine, see
http://www.astd.org/CMS/templates/index.html?template_id=1&articleid=27650