How Strategic Focus Relates to the Delivery of Leadership Training and Development

• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Date: 01 July 2016
• Author: Malcolm Higgs,Nicholas Clarke
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21683

Human Resource Management, July–August 2016, Vol. 55, No. 4. Pp. 541–565

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21683

Correspondence to: Nicholas R. Clarke, University of Southampton, School of Management, Highfield,

Southhampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, Phone: +44 2380 59000, E-mail: n.r.clarke@soton.ac.uk

HOW STRATEGIC FOCUS RELATES

TO THE DELIVERY OF LEADERSHIP

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

NICHOLAS CLARKE AND MALCOLM HIGGS

Despite progress in the development of leadership development models over

recent years, these models fail to account for the differentiation in leadership

training and development (LTD) practices found between organizations. We con-

ducted an exploratory, multiple case study of formal leadership training and

development in 10 organizations, in different business sectors in the United

Kingdom. We show that the strategic focus of LTD was shaped by the business

goals pursued by these 10 organizations. We also found the strategic focus of

LTD to be a broad contingency factor differentiated by level of impact, which

then infl uenced the pattern of LTD delivery. The fi ndings offer support for a con-

tingency perspective in explaining how leadership training and development is

confi gured in differing organizational contexts. ©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: leadership training and development

Introduction

There exists an array of differing approaches

and practices employed by organiza-

tions in the pursuit of securing effective

leadership capability through leadership

training and development (LTD) (Van

Velsor, McCauley, & Ruderman, 2010). Despite

the absence of an overall theory of leadership

development (Avolio, 2007), leadership develop-

ment models to underpin practice are increas-

ingly appearing in the literature. Day (2001),

for example, distinguished between leader and

leadership development. He suggested that the

former was focused on human capital develop-

ment, while the latter was far more concerned

with fostering social capital. Since then, alterna-

tive LTD models have emerged that differ in their

levels of analysis. For example, both Reichard

and Johnson (2011) and Ely et al. (2010), focus-

ing on leader self-development and coaching,

respectively, have integrated relational perspec-

tives in their analysis of LTD. Others have sought

to better understand how LTD impacts at the

organizational level, through introducing inter-

mediary mechanisms such as leadership culture

(Martineau & Patterson, 2010) and network social

capital (Hoppe & Reinhelt, 2010).

These models have offered insights into the

theoretical mechanisms that might underpin

alternative approaches to leadership development.

However, there remains a limited understand-

ing of the factors that shape how organizations

configure their leadership training and devel-

opment (Chartered Institute of Personnel and

Development [CIPD], 2008; O’Leonard, 2007).

Although writers have suggested the need to link

leadership development with the strategic objec-

tives of the organization (e.g., Abernathy, 1999;

Conger & Benjamin, 1999), empirical investi-

gations into the strategic organization of LTD

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

542 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2016

A key step toward

developing more

expansive and

integrative theories

of LTD is that their

validity can be tested

through ensuring that

they are more closely

derived from the

realities of leadership

development in

practice.

For example, research has found that the com-

pensation strategy pursued was contingent upon

business context (Balkin & Gómez-Mejia, 1987).

Mayo, Pastor, Gómez-Mejia, and Cruz (2009) have

suggested that the adoption of telecommuting in

Spanish firms was associated with organizational

factors such as size, the proportion of international

employees, and variable compensation. A number

of studies have also suggested that the nature of

human resource development (HRD) is dependent

on expenditure, organizational size, and industry

(Bartlett, Lawler, Bae, Chen, & Wan, 2002; Lepak

& Snell, 1999; Noe, 2002; Van Buren, 2001).

The resource-based view of the firm posits

that organizations develop internal capabili-

ties or unique resources in response to the needs

and conditions found in their specific operating

environments (Oliver, 1997). Those organiza-

tions that achieve a closer match or alignment,

are able to develop highly valued internal capa-

bilities (organizational culture, knowledge flows,

human capital) that enable them to succeed over

their competitors, improve organizational effec-

tiveness, and increasingly pursue differentiated

pathways for the maintenance, enhancement,

and protection of these rare capabilities (Allen

& Wright, 2007). On this basis, it has been sug-

gested that training and development should be

targeted toward identified groups of employee

talent so as to achieve maximum impact on busi-

ness results (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2004; Lepak

& Snell, 1999). Leaders in particular have been

identified as representing a particular group of tal-

ent whose development can add significant value

(Daily, McDougall, Covin, & Dalton, 2002; Mabey

& Ramirez, 2005). Following this line of think-

ing, we should expect the deliberate planning and

implementation of LTD to be associated with stra-

tegic decisions regarding what type of leadership

better suits the particular demands of the business

environment (Burgelman & Doz, 2001; Probert &

Turnbull James, 2011).

An important consideration is that leadership

effectiveness may vary depending on the business

context (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001).

Stordeur, Vandenburghe, & D’hoore (2000), for

example, have shown how organizational culture

and structure influence leadership style. Vaccaro,

Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2012)

have shown how the impact of transformational

or transactional leader behaviors on innovation

depended on organizational size and complexity.

Elsewhere, transactional leadership has been found

to be particularly salient where organizations are

externally regulated, and there is a requirement

for probity and accountability (Bass, 1998; Parry &

Proctor-Thomson, 2003). Different organizational

practices have yet to appear in the literature. In

the absence of such studies, the literature on lead-

ership development risks the charge of prescribing

a universalistic perspective on its effectiveness.

Akey step toward developing more expansive and

integrative theories of LTD is that their validity

can be tested through ensuring that they are more

closely derived from the realities of leadership

development in practice.

Through gathering qualitative data drawn

from organizations located in 10 different busi-

ness sectors, we show that the pattern of LTD was

connected to the strategic context

in which these organizations oper-

ated. We find that the strategic focus

of LTD comprising LTD goals and

leadership philosophy is aligned

to the particular business goals

being pursued by these 10 organi-

zations. The strategic focus of LTD

is then connected to both the level

at which LTD is expected to impact

(individual, organizational, sectoral,

or community) and the pattern of

LTD delivery. We make a contribu-

tion to the literature theoretically,

through identifying a contingency

model of formal leadership training

and development that helps explain

the downstream strategic choices

made by human resource (HR)

departments in configuring this

area of human resource manage-

ment (HRM). On a practical level,

we aim to assist HR practitioners

make better decisions in how to configure their

LTD, depending on the particular outcomes they

expect.

A Contingency Perspective on Leadership

Training and Development

Within the broader field of strategic HRM, contin-

gency perspectives have been posited to explain

the variation in HR practices found between

organizations (Boxall & Purcell, 2008; Michie

& Sheehan, 2005; Pena & Villasalero, 2010;

Takeuchi, 2009). This posits that organizations

pursue different business strategies that require

employees to adopt differing behaviors (Schuler,

1989; Snell, 1992). Consequently, HRM practices

should also be different if they are to support the

particular behaviors thought necessary to imple-

ment business strategy (Delery & Doty, 1996).

More recently, this approach has been extended

to bring new insights into how the adoption

of specific HR policies and practices may vary

depending on an organization’s specific needs.