In this episode, Clark and Matt return to the topic of Leadership Development. Is traditional leadership development a worthy endeavor for most organizations? Well, the research, or lack thereof, indicates that at best, it is questionable, and at worst, it may actually undermine or act at cross purposes to what the company strives to attain.  Of course, in the end, they propose what they think might work more effectively. It’s about context! Matt and Clark discuss four inherent issues with traditional leadership development, based on Matt’s booklet on the topic, available for free download here: https://members.ldaccelerator.com/c/what-is-lda-press/leadership-development-the-four-issues-that-undermine-traditional-leadership-development-programs-3f451f4a-a52a-4ebe-9561-3d4e32cc23ba The Lacerenza, et. al. meta-analysis is below in the references.  Matt makes the case for a definition problem. In other words, we are rarely clear or consistent in our use of the word leadership. Because of this lack of agreement on what the term means, and more importantly, what knowledge, skills, abilities, and values embody effective leadership, it is very difficult to design effective learning.  They highlight the misalignment between what gets espoused by the "experts," the stakeholders in the organization, and the learning team, with how leadership actually shows up behaviorally in practice. Also, there is a tendency for all parties to idealize the factors that make up leadership and ignore, or sweep under the rug, some of the more nefarious behaviors that support leader outcomes.  Next, there is validity and reliability. When the learning team decides what to teach, is the model, the process, or the tools supported by research and experience? Do they work consistently over time? Matt uses Servant Leadership as an example. Of course, given the next problem of context, we know they are not consistent. But we make matters worse when we also use models unsupported by evidence and research… or, we use models that work once or twice in practice… but not in all circumstances. Finally, Clark and Matt explore the problem of the said context. Shifting situations, people, crises, opportunities, technology, and more make the environment in which one leads always unique and difficult to predict. What works today tends not to work tomorrow. What didn't work yesterday may work today.  Matt raises the Keith Grint model of leadership based on wicked, tame, and critical problems. Throughout the discussion, they reference lots of leadership and leadership development researchers and thought leaders (references below). They mention Jeffrey Pfeffer, Barbara Kellerman, Ronald Riggio, John Kotter, Warren Bennis, Bert Nanus, and David Grad.  Clark mentions the Cynefin framework by Dave Snowden as an alternative to the Grint framework. You can learn about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework  At one point, Matt refers to the hypocrisy of many corporate CEOs about Black Lives Matter. A good article on this was written by the BBC way back in 2020. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200612-black-lives-matter-do-companies-really-support-the-cause  Clark refers to The Gervais Principle by Venkatesh Rao when the two talk about psychopathy, or sociopathy, in leadership. Clark also calls back to a Matt favorite, Brian Klaas’ Corruptible.  REFERENCES: 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. Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership.’ Human Relations. 58 (11), 1467-1494. 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. Lacerenza, C.N., Reyes, D