Training design elements and considerations

The review of the developmental research literature indicates that traditionally, LDPs have focused on the individual learner (Conger & Riggio 2007). Earlier developmental strategies aimed at developing individual’s intrapersonal skills and abilities, which were hoped to contribute to better performance (Day et al. 2014). However, a noticeable change occurred in 1980s, when leadership involving several different individuals started to be viewed as an alternative leadership approach. As leadership has been noticed to be occurring within the social context and not a vacuum, meaning, it is often the result of networked relationships, other leadership elements started to be conceptualised as important in the leadership developmental domain (Orazi et al. 2013). Social or relational skills started to be therefore integrated into the context of leadership development efforts. Today, leadership skills that are encapsulated in these two leadership domains contribute to leadership effectiveness

(Crawford et al. 2014). Conger and Riggio (2007) argues that individual leadership development that concerns the development of an individual through the acquisition of emotional intelligence, suitable leadership skills, knowledge and attitude, forms the base to social and relational skills development. Based on these findings it is therefore recommended that today’s LDP developers consider both leadership skills domains (individual and relational) and conduct a needs analysis to embed the right leadership skills into the content of the required LDP.

The literature also suggests that effective LDP design also includes the consideration of key program stakeholders before specific program goals and objectives are set. Thorne and Wright (2005) describe LDP as an intervention through which an identified gap between the current and ideal states of leadership capabilities is narrowed down. Effective LDPs are therefore programs that are able to meet the needs of various stakeholders, such as the program participants, program designers and developers, and organisations, which are being led by the participating program leaders. LDPs must be designed in a way to meet the pre- established goals and objectives set by the relevant program stakeholders (Kaufman et al.

2012). Mumford et al. (2000) state that LDPs should be first planned in accordance to the developmental needs and goals of an organisation requesting leadership training. Depending then on the various organisational needs and close stakeholders’ interests, the content and method of delivery should be carefully crafted. This means that leadership developmental needs in one organisation might be significantly different to another organisation. Within the extant literature Leskiw and Singh (2007) find many organisations often develop their programs in-house. Through this approach, organisations are more likely to align their program goals and objectives with identified leadership needs. Organisations taking this approach are therefore more likely to achieve congruency and better effectiveness through their leadership development efforts (Leskiw & Singh 2007). In a situation, where a program is designed for participants belonging to other external organisations, the effectiveness might be compromised if any of the program stakeholders perceive that their goals were not attained sufficiently through the training intervention (Kaufman et al. 2012). Therefore, in the networked context, where a leadership development activities are designed for managers and leaders belonging to different businesses and organisations, it is important to engage with key stakeholders who will help to define the needed leadership and therefore help to maximise the effectiveness of the leadership development efforts.

Allio (2005) further stresses that LDP designers consider the inclusion of activities, such as real-time experimentation, reflection and dedicated practice of taught learning. An information-based approach to training that only aims to offer a cognitive understanding of the key leadership theories and leadership qualities contributing to development of suitable behaviours should be avoided. Allio (2005) states that surface cognitive learning is unlikely to result in long term change as the LDP participants are very likely to return to their former behavioural patterns. Thus, LDPs should serve to develop an awareness of what effective leaders do now days (e.g., emphasise the relevant leadership theories, approaches, and skills and behaviours to effectively perform in their leadership roles), but also enable one to develop in their best possible way to achieve better performance outcomes.

In addition, Bandura (1977), a proposer of social learning theory, also suggests that individual learners engage in learning with other like-minded individuals. Black and Earnest (2009) find that individual participants learn through observations, modelling of others’ actions and behaviours, cognition and the reinforcing environment. Black and Earnest (2009) also find that learning in the social context results in improved self-confidence, actual behavioural change, development of powerful or influential relationships and feeling of mutual purpose. Overall, as these aspects collide, change is achieved and might be noticed within the individual learner, the organisation, and if significant enough, the wider community as well. For this reason, leadership development program providers may need to strategically facilitate the right classroom environment that will effectively foster participants’ learning and transfer of knowledge through social interactions and engagements.

Allio (2005) further states that leadership program participants learn best from the trial and error approach, so the program should consider an inclusion of suitable learning challenges. Allio (2005) also recommends including a mentoring component within the LDP content to enhance the overall developmental outcomes. This may also help to maintain the training transfer for a longer period of time, as conceptualised earlier by Baldwin and Ford (1988).

LDP designers should also use metrics, which clearly define what leadership elements are needed (e.g., leadership style, approach, skills, knowledge) for what leadership program, as this will not only guide the program development and leadership development but also the evaluation of the program and leadership effectiveness. At the initial stage, the use of metrics can guide the selection of suitable leadership skills and knowledge, which would form the

content of LDP. However, once the set of needed leadership skills is identified, the program developers also need to consider how such skills could be effectively turned into the needed leadership competencies. In this case, Allio (2005) emphasises the importance of practical application. Program designers need to understand that simulated environment may not effectively facilitate such development as the real business challenges are surrounded by other external and internal forces that need to be a part of the leadership developmental process; these variables are often excluded from the simulated learning environment.

However, it appears that additional element needs special attention in situations where LDP is designed for individuals belonging to business network, such as the tourism destination context, as individual learners would come from more varied work environments and rather than just meeting their organisations’ needs, they might be expected to meet the needs of their destinations and communities. It is therefore conceptualised that stakeholders’ perspectives and support should be an additional aspect to the existing considerations as it may also affect the transfer of training and the outcomes eventually.