Leadership development programs – what doesn’t work? (Part 1) was published last week and focuses on introducing the survey about leadership programs that I did a while ago. It discussed what respondents liked and disliked about the programs in which they participated.

This second post reports back on one of the final the survey questions, which asked about what an ideal leadership program might look like. I then close out the post with some of my considerations for an effective program. Not surprisingly, many of the elements for respondents’ ideal programs are the opposite of what they disliked.

Even though the survey and the two posts in this series focus on leadership development, I would say that many of the elements listed below are relevant to researcher development more generally.

An ideal leadership development program would have: 

1. Expert speakers and facilitators with good reputations and expertise who understand, and are relatable to, academic and researcher cohorts. This is by far the most commented on aspect. If the people running the leadership development program are not credible to an academic/researcher group, it’s difficult to get the buy-in you need for development work. Facilitating is a specific set of skills and, as mentioned in Part 1, just because you occupy a formal leadership role doesn’t mean you are a good, practised facilitator. One researcher said they wanted:

Targeted, professionalised training: not enthusiastic amateurism or HR-derived instrumentalist bs. To be frank, I think that proper external courses run by Higher Education specialists that I have done…have been better than any internal schemes, which can end up being compromised by too close relationships and internal politics.

Generic, business-focused notions of leadership can’t be transplanted to the university environment without significant participant resentment and frustration (or absence). Nor can any program that has a ‘women in leadership’ flavour only give lip service to the systemic inequalities within university systems and broader society. Facilitators need to be savvy about the groups they’re working with and ensure that what they are doing is not actively causing harm or distress for participants.

As well as individual facilitators needing to be credible, the organisational units behind the leadership programs in universities need to have good reputations. One researcher said that they had become skeptical of all offerings because they’d been in “a diversity course where the only brown person in the room was asked to stand up to speak while all of the white people sat; a wellness course mid restructure where [they] had a panic attack and [were] then used as an example of someone who wasn’t ‘well’”.

2. Practical workshop or project components for applying evidence-based concepts and ideas, not just a talk-fest or series of TED talk videos. As one respondent put it, “Less ‘inspiration’, more perspiration”. Another stated that they wanted a program that was “dialogic, critically-engaged, actively seeking novel, inclusive, approaches that challenge the status quo”. There was a thread of comments about leadership programs needing to include theories around influencing and challenging the system that exists. One person even suggested that a program from the NTEU (the National Tertiary Education Union is Australia’s higher education union) would be welcome, to get rid of the status quo.

3. Good opportunities for meaningful connection among participants – both peer-to-peer and with more senior research leaders. Given that working towards a common purpose is one of the prime ways to grow real connections, effective programs are those that take care to bring people together authentically and productively. One researcher talked about the 8-month long program they were in where participants were allocated to project teams and tasked with creating a plan to change an aspect or process within the university. Even though getting to know colleagues better during the process was valuable, the respondent commented that the project itself felt like busy work and the ‘pitch’ the team had to put together for senior executives felt hollow and a waste of time.

4. Not just a one-off workshop, and not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Participants wrote about how they appreciated high-value, multiple sessions that built understanding, knowledge, and cohort feeling. A distinct part of the value in the development was feeling that it was relevant to each participant. Many commented on the slightly muddled definitions and borders of ‘leadership’ in the programs, and expressed a wide range of elements they would’ve liked to see. The common questions around ‘what is leadership / what is management’ cropped up, and researchers were split about whether they wanted one and not the other, or both. One person declared that the programs “should be based on a notion of leadership that HELPS people rather than MANAGES them”.

I’ll give the last word to the researcher who provided this wish-list for the kind of leadership development program they would like to see:

One that allows you to develop a better understanding of your colleagues (e.g. occurs over time, rather than a one-off, half-day sort of job). One that recognises the gendered dynamics of what counts as ‘leadership’ in the academy and doesn’t just either ignore that things are harder for women and gender non-conforming people in a ‘male-default’ system, or just tell us to ‘lean in’. One that focuses on ethical leadership and how to support others when you are in a leadership position. One that encourages people to recognise the way/s in which they already lead and provide them with language and understanding of that. One that allows for people to share their challenges and provide potential ideas / solutions, rather than a ‘one-size-fits-all’ type of thing.

Again, thank you to the researchers who completed the leadership program survey! I really enjoyed reading the responses and I hope you felt some solidarity with the others who provided their perspectives.

To round off the post, here are a few of my thoughts as a researcher developer about leadership programs, addressed to those who may be running them for researchers: 

• Give participants a clear idea of what forms of leadership are being developed. If you’re dealing with a mixed cohort of professional staff and academics, this can be a challenge and in fact should be a challenge – the kind of leadership that’s called for for professional and academic staff can be quite different. Left unaddressed, this can be a real source of frustration. Are you talking about institutional leadership? Leading within a discipline? Foundational leadership skills (necessarily generic)? Leading for change? It is useful for researchers to have clarity about what the program aims to enable or build, or the opportunities it offers (e.g. connecting with senior leaders in productive ways – not just a meet’n greet). Most importantly, how do you know that what you’re offering is what researchers are looking for?
• Panels, while interesting, are not development. Many programs feature panels of senior institutional leaders talking about their careers and approaches to leadership. Just as the facilitators of programs need to be credible and relevant, so do panel speakers. From the start, the program convenors need to know what kind of leaders the speakers are. As has been mentioned, just because someone occupies a role, it does not make them a good leader. One of the survey respondents said that all the senior leaders in their institution should have to do the leadership program they had just done (which they’d found valuable), and several commented on how the speakers they had were not considered good leaders at all. It’s important not to just have a panel. Build on the examples and narratives to generate discussions and potential critique of what was said.
• Ensure the resources you use and examples or anecdotes you give are inclusive and engaging for researchers. Trying to provide inspo with videos of white tech-bros and CEOs may not land that well. If your leadership program aspires to recognise the diversity of researchers and researcher careers, you need to reflect this in the format and content of the entire program. I am not a fan of ‘hot-housing’ only a few high-achieving sorts. As a researcher developer, I believe that institutions benefit from lifting the tide for all their boats. That is, institutional systems and culture can improve the outlook and outcomes for all researchers.
• Don’t contribute to the hypercompetitive rhetoric of academia and research. Just don’t. There’s enough toxicity out there. The leaders we truly need in universities and for research are those who see value in diversity of contributions, different ways of thinking, respect for colleagues and community, and striving for a better world for all. We do not need more selfish ‘stars’ who burnish their own reputations and demand the spotlight. Good leaders work hard to bring others with them and know how to grow positive research culture. This results in benefits for an institution far beyond numbers of citations and an individual’s awards.

Leadership programs are a university’s chance to present role-models and strategic blueprints for the kind of workplace they want to cultivate. For researchers, I would hope such a program would look to the sustainability of the sector and not condone overwork or exploitation at any level. It is not normal, or acceptable.