And why we keep propping them up.
Finally Forbes published the article that had been stewing in my mind for a handful of years.
Admittedly and thankfully, while my article was stewing, some other clever boots had all the right stuff (notion, research, and words) to do what I wanted to have done; provide insight into what is missing in many leadership development programs and why they fail.
But First, a Story.
I have shared this story before, and will do so again in the future, as it was a pivotal experience in my commitment to exploring new ways of understanding, approaching, and coaching leadership development.
Years ago I was invited to attend a leadership development program. I was hesitant about attending (at the time it sounded a little creepy and boring) but I was ambitious and wanted to rise further in my career, so I asked my manager, “why this program for me?”. I was told something along the lines that this program is where leaders in our sector were made (the phrase “climbing the mountain” may have been used). I responded back with something like, “given how long this has been around and the number of people who have attended, where are the leaders?”. I may have had a small attitude problem back then, but I still stand by the curiosity of my question.
Today I have a better question, “how are we talking about, defining, and supporting leadership so that organizations and the communities they serve have the leaders they need and deserve?”.
Now Back to the Article I Didn’t Write.
Leadership Development Is Training Absence, Not Presence, by Vibhas Ratanjee (February 3, 2026), hits all the right marks in poking at our stubborn persistence in training “absence” while discouraging “presence” and imposing a “courage tax”.
Ratanjee, referring to the work of Otto Scharmer and Peter Senge who both influenced much of my early thinking on organizational learning and development, provides the following:
- “Absencing produces closing: downloading familiar patterns, retreating from discomfort, applying past solutions to new problems.”
- “Presencing requires opening: suspending judgment, connecting empathically, sensing what wants to emerge.”
- “Leadership development economics measure everything. ROI calculations. Learning hours. Completion rates. Behavior change scores. Cost per participant. Program satisfaction. What they never measure: the courage tax — the immediate professional cost leaders pay when they choose presencing in systems optimized for absencing.”
- I would add that a lack of understanding about and the poor or diluted application of psychological safety bolsters up this courage tax.1
So what? The Propping Up of the Failure of Leadership Development Programs.
Absencing is hard-baked into many leadership development programs. The best many of these programs can do, and too often fail at even this, is open a door to curiosity about personal and leadership (one and the same) growth through emotional intelligence, self-actualization, humility, ethics, and courage.
Due to constraints of time, program content (those ROI calculations), and most importantly ethical and legal considerations2, most leadership development programs are not the place for developing presencing. Presencing requires deep personal awareness which is occasionally arrived at through an ideal progressive path of maturation into adulthood. For many of us (my hand is up), it’s a long hard bumpy journey that starts sometime in adulthood when we realize that we need to explore and confront habits, triggers, beliefs, and stories born of past hurts that have overloaded our brain and self-regulation and bolster delusion and harmful survival strategies. Without this work we stay stuck in emotional immaturity and for the most part don’t develop the leadership behaviours and skills needed for a better workplace and world.
Again for emphasis, most leadership development programs are not the place for developing presencing.
Given these understandable constraints we continue to prop up leadership development programs that default to:
- Offering a Ouija board type assessment such as Myer-Briggs Type Indicator, colours, DiSC, or Enneagram. While some may find these assessments an opening to self-awareness and better understanding others, many more will wear the assessment like an armoured identity that gets in the way of change and growth. I have seen people at leadership workshops and retreats milling about declaring their alphabet, number, or colour like they are at a 70’s swingers party with the car keys and looking for the driver. And like a 70’s swingers party some have learned to game the system to get the letters or numbers they want while others go home wondering who they are and if maybe this isn’t for them.
- Forming group-think networks and polishing each other’s halos. Without the deep and uncomfortable work of self-awareness and actualization, the program risks becoming performative with mentorships and networks built on a belief of “I’m here, you’re here, so we must all be great leaders”. There is no room or appetite for discomfort or challenging the status quo of the leadership culture (some thoughts on Picking Leadership Pals).
- Learning (often rote even if presented as experiential) of frameworks, templates, case study or scenario projects, techniques, and models. Ratanjee wrote “we train for visible behaviours. Decision-making processes. Communication techniques. Strategic thinking models”. These tools and skills are important and are part of my coaching with clients, but as pointed out in Ratanjee’s article, they are not enough without presencing and on their own will result in absencing.
Again, So What? The Call for a Renewed and Different Conversation about Leadership Development Programs.
We need a conversation about leadership development programs that is generous and appreciative for what has been, curious about what is possible, high-minded about the desired results and long-term outcomes, and specific in describing, as well as committed to supporting, the type of courageous and ethical leadership that is needed for complexity, uncertainty, innovation, creativity, and impact. All good conversations have questions of curiosity. Here are a few for consideration.
- Are we achieving the desired result from current leadership development programs? (Musings on More Training Not Being the Solution and Investing in People During Times of Economic Uncertainty)
This is a tougher question than it first appears. The answer depends on if the desired result is that people apply for leadership positions and rise up in their organizations. Or, if the desired result is that organizations are being led, at all levels, by courageous, ethical, and present leaders that expand and deepen the impact of the organization’s mission and values internally and in the communities they serve.
- How do we talk about leadership? Is it more about “what” people do or about “why” and “how” they do it? (“How” is key to courageous leadership, see Reflections on Asking “How am I Doing?)
I’m not saying that the “what” isn’t important (incompetent people bring their own set of problems), but without the “why” or “how” we get something along the spectrum from mediocre technocratic-style leadership (see Musings on Expertise) that can turn out the widgets but not lead a culture of innovation, creativity, or greatness to emotionally immature bullies who sow fear, distrust, poor ethics, and are also not able to lead a culture of innovation, creativity, and greatness (I have strong thoughts on Thwarting Bully Leadership).
- Building on the above question, are we being clear about the difference between management development and leadership development?
As much as I think of Stephen R. Covey as the popularizer of what I call the “magic number business self-help books” (more on this in part two of this series where I poke at the leadership publishing industry), his work is spot on about the difference between the two.
Management is a bottom-line focus: How can I best accomplish certain things? Leadership deals with the top line: What are the things I want to accomplish? In the words of both Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis, “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall. Leadership and Management, Stephen R. Covey, 2011.
- Given the constraints of time, program content, and most importantly ethical and legal considerations, what are reasonable expectations of leadership development programs?
- If it is not reasonable to expect deep presencing as a result from most leadership development programs, how might we better set the expectations and provide the supports for leaders to continuously grow their emotional intelligence, self-actualization, humility, ethics, and courage? (hint: growth mindset might be the key here, see Done with Learning: A Frank Discussion Among Leaders).
- Do we believe in upcoming leaders, their abilities, and that they deserve the best that we can give?
Thank you for reading this post and I hope that you will be part of conversations calling for a different approach to leadership development: an approach that results in emotionally intelligent, curious, engaged, trust-worthy and all things courageous leadership.
This post is part 1 of a series where I poke at the triumvirate of leadership institutes (done, for now), publishing industry, and the dime a dozen gurus (coming up!) to which we have handed over our personal responsibility and accountability to do the hard (really, really hard) work of attaining the privilege of being a leader and behaving ethically, wisely, and courageously as a leader.
This past season has been delightfully full with one-on-one coaching, leadership team retreats and workshops, project coaching, governance workshops, and speaking engagements.
Let’s talk, my calendar fills up and I don’t want to miss working with you!
You can find out more about how I work with executives, managers, and organizations who are ready to lead with more courage, clarity, and care, in their work and in themselves at the Courageous Leaders Project.
If you are curious about how we might work together, email me at [email protected].
- Some time ago I completed a program in organizational development and psychological safety and have since gone on to do further work in how psychological safety fits with organizational systems, structures, culture, and leadership teams. My big take-away is that there are no short-cuts, no quick reads, no one-and-done session, and no one-size fits all application. In fact, any of the grab and go short-cuts will do more harm to an organization than good. See Hey Babs: Talking About Psychological Safety and Feeling Humiliated by Staff, Babs responds with, stop talking. ↩︎
- Ethical and legal considerations? Yes, in Canada work-based staff or leadership development programs (different from family employee assistance programs) are wisely advised to not step into the personal needs of employees, particularly if there is not a skilled professional present to address trauma or retrauma. ↩︎