Posts
Why Most Leadership Training is Complete Rubbish (And What Actually Works)
Forget everything you think you know about leadership development. I've spent the last seventeen years watching companies throw ridiculous amounts of money at leadership programmes that produce absolutely nothing except fancy certificates for the office wall.
The truth is brutal: 73% of leadership training fails within six months because it treats leadership like a checklist instead of what it actually is—a deeply personal journey of authentic human connection.
The Great Leadership Training Scam
Let me be clear about something. I'm not against all training. Managing Workplace Anxiety is absolutely essential in today's pressure-cooker environment, and proper Communication Skills development can transform teams overnight. What I'm against is the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach that dominates the industry.
Walk into any leadership seminar and you'll hear the same tired mantras: "Lead by example," "Communicate effectively," "Build trust." Well, no kidding. That's like telling someone to "drive safely" and expecting them to become a Formula One driver.
What I Got Spectacularly Wrong
Five years ago, I was convinced that emotional intelligence workshops were the answer to everything. Spent a fortune sending my entire management team through a three-day intensive programme. The facilitator was brilliant, the content was solid, the workbooks were gorgeous.
Results? Absolutely nothing changed.
My most aggressive manager remained aggressive. My conflict-avoiding supervisor kept avoiding conflicts. The micromanager? Still micromanaging with renewed enthusiasm, armed with fancy new EQ terminology.
That failure taught me more about leadership development than any course ever could.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Natural Leaders
Here's what nobody wants to admit: some people are natural leaders, and some aren't. You can't train charisma. You can't workshop authentic presence. You can't PowerPoint your way to inspiring others.
But—and this is crucial—you can develop specific leadership competencies that make average managers significantly more effective.
What Actually Works (Spoiler: It's Not What You Think)
Real leadership development happens in three specific ways, none of which involve sitting in conference rooms talking about hypothetical scenarios.
Shadow Coaching in Real Situations
The best leaders I know learned by having an experienced mentor literally shadow them during actual challenging situations. Not role-playing. Not case studies. Real pressure, real consequences, real feedback in the moment.
Targeted Skill Development
Instead of generic "leadership skills," focus on specific competencies. Managing Difficult Conversations isn't just leadership—it's a measurable skill that improves with practice. Same with delegation, performance management, and conflict resolution.
Failure Analysis and Recovery
The most powerful learning happens when leaders analyse their actual failures with someone who's been there before. Not theoretical failures. Real ones that cost money, relationships, or opportunities.
The Australian Context Nobody Talks About
Australian workplace culture creates unique leadership challenges that overseas training programmes completely miss. We value egalitarianism, which makes traditional hierarchical leadership models feel artificial and forced.
Effective Australian leaders don't command respect—they earn it through competence and authenticity. They're approachable without being weak, direct without being harsh, and confident without being arrogant.
I've watched brilliant American leadership consultants completely fail here because they didn't understand this cultural nuance. Their "executive presence" training came across as pretentious corporate theatre.
The Problem With Leadership Competency Models
Every company loves their leadership competency frameworks. Lovely colour-coded charts showing the twelve essential leadership behaviours. Beautiful stuff.
Complete waste of time.
Here's why: competency models assume all leadership challenges are the same. They're not. Leading a sales team requires different skills than leading engineers. Managing through a crisis needs different approaches than managing during growth.
Generic competency models create generic leaders. And generic leaders create mediocre results.
What Worked for Me (Your Mileage May Vary)
Three things transformed my leadership approach:
First, I stopped trying to be someone else. Every leadership book tells you to model successful leaders. Terrible advice. I'm not Steve Jobs or Jack Welch, and trying to copy their style made me look like a corporate impostor.
Second, I focused obsessively on understanding what motivated each team member individually. Not personality types or generational theories—actual individual motivations discovered through real conversations.
Third, I learned to make decisions faster and own the consequences completely. Indecisive leaders create anxious teams. Even wrong decisions made quickly are often better than perfect decisions made too late.
The Rise of Anti-Leadership Training
Something interesting is happening in progressive companies. They're abandoning traditional leadership development in favour of what I call "capability amplification."
Instead of teaching generic leadership principles, they identify each person's natural strengths and build specific skills around those strengths. Introverted analytical thinkers aren't forced to become extroverted motivational speakers. They become incredibly effective leaders in their own way.
This approach recognises that leadership isn't a personality type—it's about getting results through people using whatever natural abilities you actually possess.
Why Most Training Fails (It's Not What You Think)
The real reason leadership training fails isn't poor content or bad facilitators. It's timing and context.
Companies send people to leadership training when they're already overwhelmed, stressed, and dealing with immediate crises. Then they expect them to implement new approaches while managing their current chaos.
It's like teaching someone to renovate a house while their kitchen is on fire.
Effective leadership development happens during stable periods when people have mental capacity to experiment with new approaches safely.
The Technology Trap
Don't get me started on leadership apps and online modules. I've seen companies spend thousands on digital platforms that promise to "gamify" leadership development.
Leadership isn't a video game. It's messy, emotional, and deeply human work that requires real relationships and actual consequences.
The best leadership development tool I know? Regular one-on-one conversations with someone who's been there before and isn't afraid to tell you the truth.
Final Thoughts (And a Confession)
I've probably spent more money on leadership training than most small countries spend on education. Some of it was valuable. Most was expensive entertainment.
The leaders who impressed me most learned their skills through necessity, not choice. They were thrown into challenging situations, made mistakes, got help from people they trusted, and gradually became more effective.
Maybe that's the real secret: stop trying to create leaders through training and start creating situations where leadership skills become absolutely necessary for survival.
But what would I know? I'm just someone who's watched this industry promise miracles for nearly two decades while producing mostly expensive certificates and unchanged behaviour.
Related Articles: