Personal Reflection on Global Leadership Preparedness
Omoba
Salicru_Wassenaar_Suerz_Spittle2016.pdf
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299831446
A Case Study of Global Leadership Development Best Practice
Article · April 2016
CITATIONS
0
READS
1,059
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Refreshing leadership development for the 21st century View project
Sebastian Salicru
University of Technology Sydney
13 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sebastian Salicru on 07 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
A Case Study of Global Leadership Development Best Practice
“GLD is a challenging task that has become more important than ever for international companies. While there is clear recognition of the link between GLD initiatives and overall business performance, most companies continually fail to develop global leaders.”
We are operating in an entirely new global business context, hurled up by dynamic forces such as: rapid global economic integration, accelerated growth of digital technologies that are increasingly render- ing traditional companies and their busi- ness models obsolete, West-to-East shifts in economic and political power, and new generations’ changing social attitudes and learning behaviors. As a result, organi- zations with global interests need to oper- ate across geographic markets characterized by increasing compet- itiveness, complexity, uncertainty, ambi- guity, and inherent cultural differences.
Effective global leadership develop- ment (GLD) is vital to organizational effec- tiveness and competitive advantage, but the current shortage of global leaders has become a major threat to the future growth of international companies. The evidence is compelling.
According to Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trends 2014: Engaging the 21st-century workforce, organizations need to develop leaders more quickly in all geographies and across all functional areas.
Further, survey results in Develop- ment Dimensions International’s (DDI) Global Leadership Forecast 2014–15, of 13,124 global leaders and 1,528 human resource executives within 2,031 organizations
representing 48 countries, only one in five organizations emphasize GLD, and only one-third of their leaders reported being effective in leading across countries and cultures – the lowest single skill effective- ness rating in the survey. The same study reported that out of 900 multinational organizations surveyed, 52% were planning to expand their operations within the next
few years, but only 16% reported having enough globally ready leaders to fill their critical roles.
Similarly, the Bersin by Deloitte’s WhatWorks Awards 2015: Lessons from Best report – the latest research available on Global Human Capital Trends – indicates that 86% of HR and business leaders mentioned leader- ship as a critical issue, and half of the respondents
admitted leadership deficiencies within their organization were a very important issue. With respect to developing tomor- row’s leaders, the report indicates that only 6% of respondents believe their leader- ship pipeline is ready. The report adds that this capability gap represents a serious threat to long-term organizational success and places companies that have failed to develop a strong pipeline of leaders in a position of competitive disadvantage.
GLD is a challenging task that has become more important than ever for international companies. While there is clear recognition of the link between GLD
By Sebastian Salicru, Elly Wassenaar, Erika Suerz, and Jonathan Spittle
Out of 900 multinational organizations surveyed, 52% were planning to expand their operations within the next few years, but only 16% reported having enough globally ready leaders to fill their critical roles.
12 OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 48 No. 2 2016
initiatives and overall business perfor- mance, most companies continually fail to develop global leaders.
Proving Global Leadership Development Best Practice
To help address the GLD gap, we pres- ent the case of Wärtsilä, a global leader in advanced technologies and complete life- cycle solutions for the marine and energy markets, with an unparalleled history of over 180 years of organizational renewal and a long-standing commitment to GLD.
Wärtsilä » Headquartered in Helsinki, Finland,
since 1834. » Listed on Nasdaq Helsinki. » Net sales totaled EUR 5 billion in 2015. » 18,800 employees of 120 nationalities
in 70 countries.
Having installed 58 gigawatt of power plant capacity in 175 countries using power from mixed sources, providing innovative prod- ucts and integrated solutions to marine and oil & gas industries, and delivering services to more than 12,000 customers every year, Wärtsilä is at the frontier of engineering innovation. It emphasizes technological innovation and total efficiency, and is com- mitted to sustainability and the provision of environmentally sound products and services, while ensuring responsible busi- ness conduct.
LEAD Wärtsilä also aims to create a culture of high performance and world-class leader- ship. Its company-wide GLD program, LEAD, is a critical component of its people strategy. LEAD is a one-week intensive residential program that:
» Targets experienced managers company wide.
» Aims to develop manager’s leadership skills to lead, motivate, and engage their employees to achieve business targets.
» Is delivered globally (Americas; Middle East and Asia; South Europe and Africa; and North Central Europe) since 2003.
The consistent feedback received from over a thousand LEAD participants who have attended the program has been extremely positive. As a result, LEAD’s reputation throughout the company is well-known as it has been passed from one generation to another via word-of-mouth and attendants’ anecdotal evidence. Many of the com- pany’s senior managers who attended the program years ago, consistently nominate their direct reports to attend this highly regarded program. So, what makes it so successful? This is precisely the aim of this study.
The Challenge Wärtsilä is critically challenged to generate and maintain a healthy pipeline of leaders with the strategic thinking, global business acumen, and intercultural competence to take the company into a successful future in any location around the world. With 55% of its business currently in emerging markets such as China, Wärtsilä must have leaders able to adapt to local cultures and market needs, and progressively shift to
decentralized and collaborative decision making, while promoting and preserving the company’s unique culture, values, and behavior.
The Study
Why? – Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of the study was threefold: 1. To investigate what evidence could
qualify LEAD as GLD best practice. 2. To explain how and why its components
made an impact on participants’ trans- fer of learning and behavior, and on the business.
3. To advance the theory and practice of GLD by contributing to the limited body of literature on this topic.
How? – Originality and Methodology The study differed from previous stud- ies investigating GLD because it used the case study method as an evaluation, employing a mixed-method triangulation design at multiple levels (see Figure 1), which included using Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2014) evaluation model (see Figure 2). The triangulation used included: external benchmarking through a review of current industry GLD best practice and a review of the literature; analysis of primary data (interviews, direct observations, and an online survey); and analysis of second- ary data (documentary analysis, analysis of archival records, and end-of-program participant evaluations).
Having built around 5000 power plants in 175 countries using power from mixed sources, Wärtsilä is at the frontier of engineering innovation.
’
QUANTITATIVE Data and Results
Analysis of Secondary Data End-of-program participants’ evaluations
Analysis of Primary Data Online survey
Analysis of Primary Data Interviews
Analysis of Secondary Data Documentary analysis
Direct observations
External benchmarking by conducting a review of the
GLD best practice currently in use by
industry, and a review of the literature
QUALITATIVE Data and Results
Interpretation
Figure 1. Research Design
13A Case Study of Global Leadership Development Best Practice
While 86% of organizations evaluate at the level of participants’ reactions (sat- isfaction), only 11% evaluate at the organi- zational level, and only 3% assess the ROI (return on investment).
Results –Findings We identified 14 general principles of GLD best practice embedded in LEAD. They included formal processes and practices comparable to those in place in the pro- grams of 18 global companies: Ameritech, BP, Boeing, Cisco, Citibank, Colgate- Palmolive, Dell, Ericsson, FedEx, GE, HP, IBM, Johnson’s, Motorola, Pepsico, Prudential, Shell, and Vodafone.
Evidence for each of the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model was also found. Par- ticipants reported satisfaction rates from good to excellent, averaging 93.5% upon completion of the program, and more than two-thirds (68.61%) of respondents stated that they believed they were able to have a significant to high degree of impact on the business as a result of having attended LEAD.
Overall, LEAD was found to be based on a comprehensive and well-integrated
design and delivery system that supports the achievement of business outcomes and results. Based on these findings, the study concluded that Wärtsilä’s LEAD is a GLD best practice program.
Defining Global Leadership Development Best Practice
What constitutes best practice? In formulating our research questions, we used the following operational definition of leadership development best practice: “one that has resulted in positive outcomes for the organization and is recognized by independent analysis as contributing to the organization’s performance” (Leskiw & Singh, 2007, p. 446).
So what are these 14 principles, com- mon to successful leadership programs worldwide?
1. CEO’s commitment LEAD places a strong emphasis on equip- ping participants to acquire the necessary leadership capability to achieve Wärtsilä’s long-term aspirations. Based on obser- vations, this strategic orientation was
During the Global Financial Crisis, when many companies cut their training budgets to cut costs, Wärtsilä kept rolling out LEAD. In doing so, the company made clear its commitment to developing its people.
RESULTS
TRANSFER
LEARNING
REACTIONS
Level 1 Reactions
Level 1 – Satisfaction Was the environment suitable for learning?
Level 2 – Knowledge What did they learn?
Level 3 – Behavior KSA (knowledge, skills, and abilities) being used on the job?
Level 4 – Business Impact Was it worth it?
Chain of Evidence
Check Requirements, Systems, and Processes
Check Performance Environment
Check Knowledge/Skill transfer
Check Learning Environment
Level 2 Learning
Level 3 Transfer
Level 4 Results
Figure 2. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model
Significant Moderate
Slightly Low
1.16% 9.30% 20.93%
56.98%
11.63%
High
Figure 3. Impact on the Business
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 48 No. 2 201614
supported with a strong commitment from the CEO and other senior managers. This feature of LEAD is consistent with the mes- sage that top management needs to com- municate clearly to make GLD programs successful and to give people the opportu- nities to tackle strategic challenges.
During the Global Financial Crisis, when many companies cut their training budgets to cut costs, Wärtsilä kept rolling out LEAD. In doing so, the company made clear its commitment to developing its people. CEOs can demonstrate they value investment in people as much as invest- ment in assets or businesses.
2. Strategic orientation, alignment, and scope (including strategic projects) LEAD has a strong overall strategic ori- entation, alignment, and scope. This was demonstrated through the alignment and integration of the program’s curriculum with a subset of features and activities aligned with Wärtsilä’s business goals, and goals to develop leaders with competencies to grow the business. These elements (e.g., senior leaders’ active involvement during the presentation of strategic projects con- ducted by participants, meta-competencies, simulations, journaling, peer coaching), were grounded in organizational develop- ment theory and practice.
3. Senior managers’/leaders’ involvement in the program Senior leaders’ involvement in LEAD is a practical application of LEAD’s strategic orientation and scope, and it occurs dur- ing strategic project presentations. This active involvement of the senior leader- ship usually entails a vice president, or member of the senior management team, attending LEAD as guest speaker during the team-based strategic project presenta- tions. Executives consider projects for
implementation that demonstrate they can add value to the business.
Industry examples of other organi- zations that used senior leaders in their leadership development initiative include: PepsiCo, whose former CEO, Roger Enrico, spent 100 days a year engaged in running development programs for top executives; General Electric’s (GE) leadership center, where executives at all levels were largely responsible for running activities; and Dell, where Mort Topfer, board vice chairman, was involved as a sponsor and coach of the leadership development program. Com- paq, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, Shell, ServiceMaster and McKesson have adopted similar initiatives.
4. Clear and relevant program goals and objectives LEAD’s goals are: 1. To contribute to creating the company’s
culture in developing a common under- standing of the group’s values, vision, strategy, and way of working;
2. To develop people and their leadership abilities; and
3. To help participants be aware of the influence of their actions and decisions on the group results.
These goals are designed to support the development of individual technical expert contributors (predominantly engineers) into leaders of teams, and strategy imple- menters (middle/senior managers) into strategic thinkers who can effectively contribute to the business. The above goals and objectives are in line with the best practice principles in that they are tied to specific business imperatives. Further, to face complex global challenges, leaders must acquire a global mindset, develop the capacity to innovate and inspire oth- ers, and acquire self-reliant leadership
development. This is also consistent with the notion that a key competitive advantage is gained by attracting and developing lead- ers who not only operate effectively across cultures but also influence and motivate people at a global level.
5. Careful selection of participants The criteria for selecting candidates attend- ing LEAD comprise three key elements: 1. The managerial experience of the candi-
dates within Wärtsilä. To be considered for the program, candidates need to have a minimum of two years’ manage- rial experience within the company.
2. Candidates are also required to have completed the “Essentials of Leader- ship” program or another comparable leadership program.
3. In line with the talent management and business decision policy of “whom to invest in,” candidates can either self- nominate (with the approval of their line manager), or be nominated by their line manager, division director, country HR manager, or area HR director.
Selected candidates do not necessarily come from the same organizational level, type of role, or geographical region – this is not a requirement. The aim is to seek diversity among participants. Aiming for this mix of participants is consistent with best practice organizations.
6. Comprehensive and integrated assessment (two components) LEAD uses a comprehensive and inte- grated pre-assessment process, completed via an online survey and including the fol- lowing two components: 1. A personality assessment; and 2. An integrated 360-degree feedback
assessment using Wärtsilä’s 7 leader- ship competencies clustered in core meta-competencies (leading people, leading business, delivering results) and other dimensions including the overall level of pressure participants are working under to deliver results; the degree to which their teams have the capabilities, resources, systems, and processes in place to achieve their objectives; and items related to the
“I now feel I lead the team, whereas before I was managing the team. The team owns the product, where 12 months ago I owned the product and the team followed my every decision/ command. Last year my team produced $6 million of product, this year we are heading towards $17.5 million.”
15A Case Study of Global Leadership Development Best Practice
degree and pace at which various types of changes are taking place within their teams and the organization.
The relatively simple competency model used by Wärtsilä is not dissimilar from other well-established competency models that use adaptive or meta-competencies. Many organizations use complex compe- tency models of leadership development, while others use simpler ones. Chase Manhattan Bank’s leadership competency model, for example, comprises 250 com- petencies. The competency frameworks of IBM and 3M comprise 11 and 12 competen- cies respectively.
7. Thorough preparation process (three components) The preparation process included the fol- lowing three components: 1. A goal-setting discussion with line
managers; 2. Initial development of a Personal
Action Plan (PAP); and 3. Strategic project preparations.
This last feature gives participants the opportunity to get to know each other by experiencing how to engage as a virtual team. Virtual teams, although relatively new to the global business landscape, have been recognized as a critical issue for global organizations and are an emergent area of research.
Cisco’s C-LEAD model and Executive Action Learning Forum is a good industry example of a company that has successfully used work projects to uncover strategic opportunities.
8. Pre-entry feedback/coaching session Typically, participants receive feedback on their personality profile and 360-degree competency assessment during a one-to- one pre-entry feedback/coaching ses- sion, which they attend the week before their immersion in the one-week intense residential program. This session is usu- ally conducted by the assigned LEAD facilitator/trainer and whenever possible, it is conducted face-to-face. This is a good opportunity for facilitator and participant to get to know each other. The facilitator is
also able to coach participants in further developing their PAPs based on their report results. Further, the facilitator becomes cognizant of each participant’s specific issues and challenges, which gives the facilitator an opportunity to provide further individualized coaching or guid- ance during and/or at the end of the program.
9. Coaching and peer coaching During and at the end of the LEAD pro- gram, participants are offered individual- ized coaching by the facilitator, who takes a coaching role on a needs basis as outlined above. Executive coaching is an effective short-term leadership development activity with a strong focus on goal setting, feed- back, and performance, and is designed to address knowledge gaps or skills. Coaching is experiencing exponential growth, and research suggests that it boosts organi- zational productivity (Bartlett, Boylan, & Hale, 2014; Ladyshewsky, 2010).
Further, on the first day of LEAD, par- ticipants are paired with a coaching partner and introduced to the GROW coaching model. Peer coaching entails arranging performance partnerships to achieve new behavior, increased organizational effective- ness, and improved personal productivity. It can enhance personal and professional development, and has been reported to successfully accelerate learning and culture change in organizations such as Vodafone, Dell and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
10. A highly experiential approach incorporating action and experiential learning One of LEAD’s strongest features iden- tified via documentary analysis, direct observations, and interviews, is its expe- riential approach. The program is pre- dominantly experiential in nature and participants’ learnings derive mainly from
their experience while working collabora- tively on a range of projects and challenges that address each of the seven leadership competencies identified by Wärtsilä, with a progressive escalation in intensity and complexity during the week. As a result, participants acquire new knowledge and perspectives from the combina- tion of working together and collectively
debriefing their experiences. From this per- spective, LEAD clearly incorporates Kolb’s (1984) four modes of the experiential learn- ing cycle (concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation, and active experimentation).
Our study also found that LEAD incor- porates action learning. This is a powerful way to contextualize training and enhance the transfer of new knowledge and learned skills. It is the process of learning and reflection, supported by a group of col- leagues, working on real-time problems with the intention of getting things done. Further, action learning engages partici- pants in emotionally intense, team-focused experiences that directly address the immediate needs that strategically impact the organization. In this way, it encourages participants to learn with and from each other, while finding solutions to immediate real problems. Action learning affords the means of linking leadership development with the solution of business problems, and has been incorporated in the LDPs programs of various global organizations such as: GE; Prudential Assurance; Shell; Citibank; Ameritech; Johnson & Johnson; Cisco; Boeing; and Motorola.
11. Reflective learning, including journaling Another strong feature of LEAD is the use of reflective learning, including journaling. Firstly, this was demonstrated by par- ticipants carefully debriefing each activity
“It was very useful getting a better picture of myself – a critique, and to see and accept. I’m pacing myself more now. I used to have a more confrontational style. During the training, I became more cognizant of my own pushing style with others in the room.”
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 48 No. 2 201616
in the program. During such sessions, team members learn on different levels, including the nature of the project, group processes and dynamics, and personal approaches and styles of the individual members. The notion that reflection is cen- tral to learning from experience is strongly supported by the literature.
Further, at the beginning of each day, participants were provided with the oppor- tunity to do some journaling based on their learnings of the previous day. The use of reflective learning journals as a tool to aid critical reflection, a process that medi- ates between experience, knowledge, and action, is also supported by the literature.
12. Building social capital through networking Networking is a strong feature of LEAD. During the program, participants from dif- ferent geographical regions, cultures, and
levels of the organization come together and live a very intense experience. In turn, this social networking creates strong emo- tional bonding between the participants. One program facilitator explained that it is not uncommon for some participants to declare at the end of the program that they got to know some of the members of their teams better than some of their closest friends or family members.
The nature of these relationships can be linked to the concept of “social capital” – the informal relationships that promote cooperation between two or more individu- als, and the social networks and norms
of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. Specifically linked to the example above is a particular dimension of social capital called “bonding capital,” which denotes ties between people in similar situations, such as immediate fam- ily, close friends, and neighbors. Ericsson, for example, makes extensive use of social networks, as part of their Excellerate Global Leadership Program.
13. Online and one-to-one follow-up Upon completion of the one-week residen- tial program, participants are required to reinforce their learnings by engaging in two activities: 1. A follow-up discussion with their line
manager to review how their PAP will be implemented and how the expected changes will be demonstrated in their leadership behavior, and to ascertain the support and resources they will require to do so; and
2. Completion of two, one-hour e-learning modules – “Motivating employees” and “Communicating vision.”
In addition, participants are encouraged to: 1. Seek coaching from their line managers
over time on actions defined in their PAPs so that the follow-up becomes a continuous process rather than a one- off review of the PAP;
2. Seek a mentor or become a mentor for someone else within the company; and
3. Consider continuing the peer-coaching relationships initiated during the training.
14. Evaluation After each LEAD program, Wärtsilä con- ducts regular evaluation of Level 1 (partici- pants’ reactions to the training) and Level 2 (participants’ learning or acquisition of new knowledge) of Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model. Links to access end-of-program evaluations are sent elec- tronically to participants a few days after the one-week program and the evaluations are completed online.
Further, by commissioning this study, Wärtsilä demonstrated a commitment to evaluating Level 3 (transfer of learning) and Level 4 (impact on the business). This is
also consistent with best practice recom- mendations of data collection when evalu- ating leadership development programs, and the methods used by companies such as BP, Colgate-Palmolive, and IBM.
Practical Implications for OD Practitioners
This study has various practical implica- tions relevant to OD practitioners who design, implement, or evaluate leadership development programs (LDPs). These are presented using the following five main categories: design; implementation; social networking; evaluation; and impact on the business.
Design Implications Program design is critical, as it is the foundation that drives the whole program. The fourteen design principles embed- ded in LEAD were the key drivers of the outcomes identified. This addressed the question of how the program delivered what it was intended to deliver. More specifically, the progressive sequencing of the program content enabled the delivery of the intended results. From this perspec- tive, practitioners who wish to achieve the desired results from their LDPs should take into account three critical elements: 1. Align learning outcomes to business
goals and translate outcomes into effec- tive activities/experiences.
2. Carefully consider the amount and type of experiences that progressively build upon each other to create rich developmental experiences, which in
“I had the opportunity to work closely with a particular colleague. Together, as well as with other colleagues outside the LEAD course, we put together a unique business deal and successfully won this particular project. LEAD definitely aided in this success.”
“For me, the best takeaway was learning a new negotiation vendor strategy from a European colleague. When I got back home, I applied this new negotiation approach and, in less than a year, I was able to generate savings of just over $100,000.”
17A Case Study of Global Leadership Development Best Practice
turn are likely to deliver the intended learning outcomes while also providing a balance of three key dimensions: self- assessment/self-awareness, challenge, and support. This includes consider- ing the length, intensity (mental vs. emotional labor), and facilitation style required to debrief each experience. In doing so, it is important to remem- ber that the program starts during the assessment and pre-entry phases – before the one-week residential training program begins – and continues after that period (transfer of learning and evaluation).
3. Integrate a balanced mix of experi- ences, taking into account – and match- ing – the various learning modes (e.g., experiential, imaginal, conceptual, and practical learning), level of participant involvement (e.g., individual, small group, and plenary sessions), and the facilitation style (e.g., directive vs. non- directive styles).
Implementation Implications Based on our findings, by using prin- ciples that are grounded in OD theory and practice while following this sequence, OD practitioners are very likely to assist par- ticipants to uncover their blind spots and enhance their self-awareness, which were the most important things participants identified as their learning during the pro- gram. Fostering participants’ understand- ing and appreciation of group dynamics, team building and team dynamics, and how to better listen to others, were identi- fied by participants as their main learnings.
OD practitioners would also benefit from taking into account the findings relat- ing to the second research question – why the above mentioned sequence worked. From this perspective, they should pay attention to the chain of psychological dimensions (namely, cognitive – mental, emotional, and behavioral) that emerge from the cohort, by carefully monitoring participants’ reactions to each activity.
The overall implementation of the program has three main stages: (1) entry, (2) encounter – learning from experience, and (3) integration and exit (see Figure 4). Taking a participant – learner centered
perspective, this process can best be described as taking the form of a U-shape, through which participants navigated the various psychological states described above. To begin, during the entry stage, participants went through an assessment phase, which is cognitive – the starting point of the U-shape. This stage included conducting the 360-degree feedback, the personality assessment, and the pre-entry feedback/coaching session.
The encounter or learning from experience stage followed. This stage is characterized by exposing participants to activities grounded in experiential methods and action learning principles, including the debriefing of these sessions. Dur- ing this stage, participants progressively transition from the surface – the cognitive/ mental labor stage, to a more reflective and emotional state. This culminates at the inflection point in the bottom of the U-shaped curve.
Finally, during the integration and exit stage, participants progressively emerge on top of the end of the U-shape. In doing so, psychologically they go back to a more cognitive state where they integrate their experiences and plan for action. This stage includes the presentation of the strategic projects, completion of their PAPs, the fol- low-up discussions with their line manager, and completion of the online modules.
Facilitating participants’ sense-making during these three stages becomes critical to enable their learning from experience. From the trainer/facilitators’ perspective, initially, it is important to notice partici- pants’ learning mindsets – the attitude that predisposes individuals to be open to new experiences and to intentionally grow and develop from their experiences. This learning-oriented attitude is particularly rel- evant when running LDPs, as they increase participants’ ability to draw new insights, gain greater awareness, and develop new skills, behaviors, and attitudes directly from their own experiences. Secondly, trainers/ facilitators should carefully observe, listen to, and prompt participants, when appro- priate, to enable them to: 1. Maximize learning opportunities dur-
ing plenary group interactions. This includes facilitating the recognition of
communications patterns and factions within the group, and their impact on the group as a whole.
2. Carefully observe small group work, and occasionally check participants’ observations and sense-making of group processes and dynamics, by encouraging them to listen to one another; voice their unique experi- ences; distinguish between the groups’ task and processes; recognize how the group/team makes decisions and deals with conflict; make connections on what and how group processes lead to specific outcomes; and links (transfer- ability) of learning to their home work teams.
3. Recognize parallel processes, and emer- gence or replication of here-and-now dynamics, communication patterns or leadership styles that reflect their unique organizational culture, and how those are likely to impact the business as a whole (e.g., teamwork, overall execution of the company strategy, pro- ductivity, customer service, adaptability to change, capacity to innovate, degree of shared leadership, etc.).
4. Ensure throughout the program there are ample opportunities for participants to debrief and reflect on each expe- rience, and share those with their peers. Each main experience should be debriefed, and journaling should be encouraged at the beginning of each day.
Social Networking Social networking happens spontaneously during the implementation of a residen- tial program. Naturally, this is an aspect of the program in which facilitators have less control over the desired outcomes, yet according to our findings it can also be one of the most effective.
One of the most compelling responses provided by one of the participants in rela- tion to the return on investment (ROI) of the program to the company was this:
The program was a great opportunity to meet people from different geo- graphical locations and cultures. For me, the best takeaway was learning a
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 48 No. 2 201618
new negotiation vendor strategy from a European colleague. When I got back home, I applied this new nego- tiation approach with mobile phone vendors and, in less than a year, I was able to generate savings of just over $100,000.
This valuable exchange of information occurred during a casual pre-dinner drinks conversation. A practical implication from this finding is that program outcomes will not necessarily occur as a result of deliber- ate attempts by practitioners during the program delivery phase. Hence, partici- pants should be encouraged to network with their peers, as this builds the firm’s social and relational capital.
Evaluation as an Important Component of the Program Itself A further practical application that emerged from this study was that conduct- ing an evaluation is an important compo- nent of leadership programs. This became evident via the unsolicited feedback pro- vided during the interviews. Some partici- pants stated that conducting this evaluation was a very good idea, as it assisted them to reflect about the program and reinforced what they had learned and how they had applied it. This theme is represented in this participant’s response, who attended the program over 12 months ago:
This is how the evaluation should be – like this interview. If you send an email, nothing happens.
From this perspective, it can be reasonably assumed that conducting an evaluation
extends the reflective dimension of the program well beyond its implementa- tion, while fostering transfer of learning, employee engagement, and loyalty. Based on these finding, we propose that while conducting impact evaluations is the most neglected aspect of LDPs, it is also one of the most critical. This is because of the reasons just mentioned, the fact that evaluation results yield the data required to assess the impact of the program, and also provide valuable information on how to improve the program being evaluated over time. OD practitioners should take this into account and always incorporate an evalua- tion component in their LDPs.
Impact on the Business The final practical application for OD prac- titioners relates to assessing and evaluating the impact of LDPs on the business/orga- nization. Traditionally, assessing this type of impact is associated with measuring the ROI to the organization. This is often seen as a contentious and challenging task.
There are different ways to demon- strate the value of LDPs, or any other OD intervention for that matter, which are not necessarily expressed in financial returns to the business nor easily captured on the balance sheet – a case of “show me the money” exercise, as many authors and practitioners portray it to be. We subscribe to the view that considering ROI alone is an impoverished, unreliable, and insuf- ficient measure of outcomes and success. Hence, the alternative approach used in this study that OD practitioners should consider for evaluating the impact of LDPs – and other OD interventions – is the more holistic concept of return on expectations
(ROE). Initially developed by Kirkpatrick Partners, ROE is a holistic measurement and ultimate indicator of the value of all the benefits (both qualitative and quantita- tive) realized from a program or initiative, which is delivered using a set of inter- ventions, with formal training typically being the foundation. From this perspec- tive, practitioners can use wellbeing and engagement as indicators of improvement – outcomes that are not directly quantifi- able but are nonetheless real and assess- able. A qualitative response, as the example provided above, can be a good indicator of the value delivered by the program. This may include indirect returns or financial windfalls as a result of individuals applying new competencies that result, for example, in attracting new clients, building better teams, coordinating actions/executing more effectively, or positive changes in management/leadership style, improved quality of work, and higher productivity.
Using this broader perspective, OD practitioners should keep evaluations as simple as possible, and not be detracted from efforts in attempting to evaluate pro- grams because there is widespread belief among some practitioners that to do so, complex formulas and calculations must be used. In fact, we recommend applying the principle or law of parsimony (also known as Ockham’s razor) – a fundamen- tal aspect of scientific research that is often overlooked, which refers to adopting the simplest explanation of a complex phenom- enon. The rule of “if you don’t ask because you assume it’s too hard to measure, you will never know,” applies here.
Further, OD practitioners would benefit from identifying the key indica- tors (from either an ROI or ROE perspec- tive) that will be used to assess the impact the strategic projects emerging from the training will have on the business, and follow-up such outcomes to track resulting business improvements. This is something that Wärtsilä intends to do more rigorously as a result of conducting this evaluation.
A Systemic Perspective
Finally, the authors would like to highlight that despite the reductionist approach
Figure 4. Program Implementation Sequence
19A Case Study of Global Leadership Development Best Practice
taken in writing this case study, the prin- ciples outlined above should not be con- sidered as working in isolation. Leadership development warrants taking a systemic perspective in which the integrated whole impacts the culture of organizations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this case study evaluated whether Wärtsilä’s LEAD GLD program could be considered a GLD best practice program. Results identified 14 principles embedded in the program evaluated, which included formal processes and practices comparable to those in place in programs of 18 global companies. Such principles are likely to apply to organizations who aspire to develop, implement, and evaluate GLD best practices. Further, we found evidence for each of the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model. This included program participants reporting satisfaction rates averaging 93.5%, and more than two thirds (68.61%) of respondents stating that they believed they are able to have a significant to a high degree of impact on the business as a result of having attended LEAD. The main limitation of the study was that it did not use focus groups. This paper offers practical applications to OD practitioners who seek to identify evidence-based ways of conducting GLD by offering practical advice and real world examples, contributes to the existing body of knowledge on GLD, and advances both the theory and practice of OD by adding to the scarce body of literature on this topic.
References
Bartlett II, J.E., Boylan, R.V., & Hale, J.E. (2014). Executive coaching: An integra- tive literature review. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2(4), 188–199.
Bersin by Deloitte (2015). The WhatWorks® Awards 2015: Lessons from the best. Retrieved from https://www.bersin.com/ Practice/Detail.aspx?id=18617
DDI & The Conference Board. (2014). Global leadership forecast 2014|2015. Ready now leaders: 25 findings to
meet tomorrow’s business challenges. Retrieved from http://www.ddiworld. com/ddi/media/trend-research/global- leadership-forecast-2014-2015_tr_ddi. pdf?ext=.pdf
Deloitte Consulting LLP & Bersin. (2014). Global human capital trends 2014: Engaging the 21st-century workforce. Retrieved from http://www2.deloitte. com/sa/en/pages/human-capital/articles/ human-capital-trends-2014.html
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2014). The Kirkpatrick four levels: A fresh look after 55 years (1959–2014). Kirkpatrick Partners. Retrieved from http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/ Resources/tabid/56/Default.aspx
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2010). The manager as coach as a driver of organizational development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 292–306.
Leskiw, S. L., & Singh, P. (2007). Leader- ship development: learning from best practices. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 444–464.
Acknowledgments The authors thank all those who partici- pated in this research and the Learning and Development Group HR as whole. We also thank Päivi Castrén, Executive Group Vice President, HR, for having made this study possible.
Sebastian Salicru is a leadership development expert, executive coach, facilitator, applied researcher and author. With over 20 years of experience working across sectors and industries, Salicru takes leaders and their teams to new levels of performance and business results. He has worked in Austra- lia, USA, Europe, UAE, China, and Singapore, assisting organizations to build the leadership capacity required to thrive in an increasingly demanding global economy, where hyper-complexity and adaptive challenges are the new nor- mal. Salicru can be reached at [email protected]
Elly Wassenaar is Director of Learning and Development for Wärtsilä and with her team supports Wärtsilä’s strategic targets by providing effec- tive learning solutions and services. Wassenaar has more than 20 years of experience within Wärtsilä with more than 10 years in Learning and Develop- ment with a specialty in leadership development and coaching. She can be reached at [email protected]
Erika Suerz is a Learning and Development Professional with a business background in management consultancy, business workshop facilitation, and project management developed with over 12 years of experience in the UK, Germany, and Italy. She focuses on leadership development in Wärtsilä at the global level and previously managed the L&D function for the Wärtsilä business in South Europe and Africa. She can be reached at [email protected]
Jonathan Spittle is the Managing Director of EQ Road, a Sydney-based consulting firm specializing in leadership development and change manage- ment strategy. Prior to EQ Road, he was a Managing Director in Accenture’s Strategy practice in Sydney, where he worked as Accenture’s global Change Tracking Delivery Lead. Spittle has more than 25 years of experience in developing and conducting leadership programs and measuring the success of change initiatives in over 20 countries around the world. He can be reached [email protected]
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 48 No. 2 201620
View publication statsView publication stats
