Novartis

Speaking to leaders (or managers), I’ve heard statements like: “I’m exhausted,” “Year on year, I’m expected to do more with less,” “Pressure from the top is escalating,” “my responsibility for developing others is greater,” “HR & L&D teams are smaller or disappearing altogether,” “my job is not what it used to be…” The pressure on leaders is mounting.

Speaking to HR Directors, I’ve heard comments like: “Leadership effectiveness is our top priority,” “Our managers are more critical to success than ever,” “Leadership development is a strategic priority,” and “We need to prioritize skills for leading effective teams and leading change…” Organizational reliance on leaders is escalating.

Compared to individual contributors, the number of tasks, decisions, and complexity of leaders' responsibilities has grown twofold. This requires new skills. Liz Gottung (Former Chief HR Officer and Executive Vice President of Kimberley-Clark) warned, “We can throw all kinds of training at these managers, but we haven’t solved the fundamental problem that they have too much on their plate…” 

In 2018, Josh Bersin coined the phrase “learning in the flow of work,” which is simply an employee’s ability to develop skills without disrupting work or adding to their workload. This is enabled through access to the right knowledge or opportunity at the right time.

When thinking about leadership development, we must be cognizant of the competing priorities of already overwhelmed and time-poor leaders. Instead of expecting our leaders to make time to attend development programs, there’s a case for developing them in the flow of work. 

"Connector managers are the most effective leaders and best able to manage their jobs. They demonstrated the ability to prevent burnout, maintain work-life balance and confidently lead teams to success."

The evidence is compelling!

Leadership effectiveness absolutely impacts talent, engagement, productivity, performance, and well-being outcomes. Gartner says, ‘It’s the job, not the skills’ that negatively impact manager effectiveness. 

Workload challenges could be addressed by removing or limiting non-value work, simplifying processes, and automating or delegating administrative responsibilities. A more impactful approach is to reset expectations that address leaders' evolving roles. Dialogue about expectations should include the ‘unrealistic’ expectations that leaders often impose on themselves.

Gartner describes four types of managers and the impact of manager type on effectiveness:

(1) “always on” (I continuously coach everyone)

(2) “teacher” (I coach everyone to work like I do)

(3) “cheerleader” (I empower and give autonomy) 

(4) “connector” (I diagnose needs and connect people with opportunities) 

Connector managers are the most effective leaders and best able to manage their jobs. They demonstrated the ability to prevent burnout, maintain work-life balance and confidently lead teams to success.

In addition, Connector managers have a unique approach to coaching and developing others - they orchestrate shared responsibility! Connector managers do three powerful things: 

(1) Assess individuals’ skills, strengths & needs

(2) Facilitate peer-to-peer skills visibility and skills sharing

(3) Know the best-fit people, opportunities for skill development across their organization, and how to appropriately connect employees

Connector managers don’t shoulder the burden alone; they connect the dots – they connect employees to the people or opportunities that can best support their coaching and development needs. 

We could develop our leaders as connector managers in the flow of work by:

● Changing our expectations: Reframing how we think about coaching and development responsibility. Leaders may not be in the best position to coach everyone on their team on everything, but they are certainly in the best position to identify the right coach for everyone on their team.

● Measuring what counts: Changing our coaching KPIs to reflect shared accountability. For example, a KPI previously stated as “x hours coaching per employee/month by their manager” might become “x hours coaching per employee/month by an identified/contracted coach.”

● Creating frameworks, visibility, and connections: Changing outdated HR/L&D practices around coaching and development. Creating frameworks simplifying skill identification, development planning, skills visibility, and the availability of coaches and learning opportunities. 

These examples illustrate how leadership development is not always training. The reward for changing our approach to developing skills in the flow of work is increased leadership effectiveness while making the job of leaders more manageable.