From Don Blohowiak at Leadership. Now., August 4th 2005
"Yesterday, Dan Tobin succinctly made the case why so much well-intending leadership development falls short of the mark.
So what works?
Every couple of years, the HR consulting firm Hewitt Associates identifies twenty top 'financially successful companies' that 'consistently produce great leaders.' In identifying the 20 firms best at leadership development, researchers drew from 373 public and private companies in the United States in early 2005. The median revenue of participating companies was approximately $2 billion, with a median employee size of 7,300. Obviously, that's the big leagues. But the instructive lessons they provide can be applied universally to all types of organizations.
In summarizing Hewitt's Top Companies for Leaders research, the Wharton Leadership Digest notes:
Hewitt found that the top 20 companies differed from the other firms in several key practices.
- The chief executive and board directors are more actively involved in leadership development initiatives.
- Of the top 20 companies, 100% of the CEO are engaged, but of the other firms, 65%. - High-potential managers are more often identified, paid more, given greater development, and brought into more frequent contact with top executives.
- Of the top 20, 95% identify high potential managers, but of the others, 77%. - Leadership development programs are more closely tied to compensation.
- Of the top 20, 65% link explicitly leadership capacities to long-term incentive pay, but of others, 23%. - Company executives are held more accountable for leadership development programs. - Of the top 20, 80% hold management responsible for developing high-potential managers, but of others, 35%.
- ...... "
Read the rest of the article ....Technorati leadership development tag