Leadership Development


There are more than 1500 definitions of leadership and 65 classification systems. You might well say the world doesn’t need another one! So why would you be interested in what we have to say or come to us for help?

Firstly we think approaches to leadership should be based on rigorous research as well as personal experience. Here are 3 fundamentals for us:

  1. The evidence shows that the personal qualities of a leader are fundamental for transformational leadership. We believe that they are best expressed by what Collins calls Level 5 leaders in Good to Great – people who are humble, focused on the core purpose of their organisation and disciplined in pursuing their goals.
  2. We agree with Ancona, Malone, Orlikowski and Senge in their excellent Harvard Business Review article of February 2007, ‘In praise of the Incomplete Leader’, and their advancement of distributed leadership.
  3. We agree with all the good practice around succession planning in leadership to help create continuity and legacy.



Here’s where we offer something new to the groaning bookshelves on leadership development and thinking.

We think that organisations should not have to gamble their futures on the chance of attracting and keeping the single ‘right’ leader for them. Succession planning is a great place to start, but we believe you can go further and design good leadership into the very fabric of an organisation.

Our Distributed Leadership model designs good leadership into the fabric and governance of an organisation in an enduring way that builds on the evidence base.


Related Areas of Work


 

“The strength of any organisation is a direct result of the strength of its leaders. Weak leaders equal weak organisations. Strong leaders equal strong organisations. Everything rises and falls on leadership.”

Maxwell, 2005

“It’s time to end the myth of the complete leader: the flawless person at the top who’s got it all figured out. In fact the sooner leaders stop trying to be all things to all people, the better off their organisations will be.”

Ancona et al, HBR, 2007