They might not like to admit it, but occassionally even big bosses needs training. That’s where executive development comes in. With a plethora of options from a variety of providers available, getting help to make the head honchos even better at their job isn’t a problem but what can be more challenging is deciding who is responsible for managing a company’s executive development needs. Should senior managers be left to decide, dictate and organise their own training or should L&D take the lead? Dan Martin investigates.

If pushed, most people, no matter on what rung of the business ladder they are, will admit there’s room for improvement when it comes to the way they do their job. Even the most experienced chief executive of a multi-national corporation could probably do with developing their expertise in areas such as leadership, communication and strategic thinking.

Throughout the UK there are a multitude of business schools, universities, training firms and coaching specialists offering courses on improving the skills, knowledge and behaviours of Mr or Mrs CEO.

So signing up to a training course – whether it involves sending employees offsite or running an in-house programme – isn’t a problem. But the key challenge for businesses is ensuring that the real development needs of an organisation are being met and making sure the training is appropriately managed.

Many senior executives will probably believe they have all the answers and it should be up to then to decide what training they need. But what about when it comes to picking a programme and ensuring it runs smoothly. Surely that’s where HR should step in?

The CEO knows best?

What the senior executives in an organisation say goes. They have got to where they are because of skills and experience that allow them to successfully run a company from the top and ultimately they make the final decisions. For many firms, this applies when selecting executive development training.

Research released last year by Oxford’s Saïd Business School found just 21 percent of executives believe their organisation’s executive development strategy was delivering the skills and development needed to meet their corporate objectives. The fact that so few programmes are working, says David Feeny, director of executive education at the school, is why executives need to take much of the responsibility for driving forward development programmes. “Top executives need to be drawn into any major executive development decision,” he says. “They need to be completely aware, agree on its objectives, get involved and offer support.”

Despite all this, however, it is clear that HR has a key role in the process. Learning and development is the main reason why many people in the department were employed in the first place. It’s HR who can make sure any adopted training really is appropriate to an individual’s – and perhaps more important – an organisation’s needs.

Jo Hennessy, director of open programmes at training institute Roffey Park, believes HR can play a guiding role in the process. She admits that if senior managers are taking responsibility for their own development and thinking responsibly about the issues, HR departments should not muscle in and take over but they should make sure they are kept up to date with progress. They can also, she adds, take in lead in more longer term thinking.

“HR often has a significant role in guiding senior managers over which training option to go for,” Hennessy says. “They are more likely to be better at longer term issues such as evaluating the success of a programme rather than just basing it on the kudos of an institution.”

Feeny agrees that HR has a vitally important role to play. “No CEO is going to have the personal time available to follow through with detailed alignment of matching a development programme to company objectives,” he says. “Even if the programme was first instigated by the CEO, it’s nearly always procured and managed by someone within the HR function.”

Dr Clare Kelliher, from Cranfield School of Management, argues that the reason why HR should be involved is obvious. “Depending on how the HR team is structured, it is likely that they will have expertise in learning and development,” she says. “So whilst other managers may have a role to play in deciding what development needs to take place, the HR team should be able to provide specialist advice on how this can be brought about.”

Breaking into the inner circle

Most senior executives will probably accept that when learning and development issues arise, leaving out the HR function is unwise. However, in some organisations that may not be the case and the department may struggle to contribute to top level strategic discussions. In such a case, just how can HR break through into the senior ranks?

Credibility counts but as Eileen Arney, learning, training and development adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, claims, this is sometimes problematic. “HR needs to speak credibly and have an understanding of what sort of things development will support,” she says. “HR needs credibility at a strategic level but unfortunately this is an area in which it often doesn’t succeed.”

If such a situation does occur, HR should step back and work out why. Being self questioning and reflecting on their credibility at the strategy defining level of an organisation will help.

One way to get noticed is through communicating knowledge. Most executives will be won round by showing that a development programme will bring value to their organisation. “HR employees need to know their stuff,” adds Arney. “Show how development works and why the Board can expect executive development to produce results. Quite a lot of decisions are made on the basis that there is somehow a belief that it will work but not why it will make a difference. HR can make a sensible choice and weigh up all the options.”

HR can also provide useful information executives may well have overlooked. For example, as Hennessy from Roffey Park advises, HR is well placed to factor in employee attitude and engagement survey results which may indicate where top management is failing employees. “Senior managers may not refer to such data when looking at leadership development needs,” Hennessy adds.

Taking the action of looking outside of an organisation and seeing what other companies are doing will also arm HR departments with information useful to extending their strategic involvement. With continual developments in the industry, it is easy for businesses to become out of date with the latest trends.

How shall we do it?

So the strategy has been thrashed out – with HR involved – and agreement has been reached on how executive development ties into an organisation’s overall needs. What next? Selecting what type of training to adopt, that’s what.

Deciding which programmes are most appropriate to their needs is one of the biggest challenges involved in executive development. “Organisations should firstly look at the outcome,” says Hennessy. “What is it that executives are seeking to achieve as individuals and more widely as an organisation? Decide what the organisation needs individuals to do and how that is linked to organisational goals.”

Once the required outcome has been settled upon, the type of training to be put in place needs to be selected. Courses focusing on executives’ content and knowledge will be appropriate for some organisations, while those dealing with behaviour and attitudes will be most suitable for others. When it comes to the method of learning, several options are available – group based, mentoring, coaching, self managed among them. Many experts argue that programmes which include a combination of all such options are the most successful.

Providers will usually offer the option of open or bespoke training. The former are generally public, offsite courses, while the latter are usually individually designed training brought into an organisation. Hennessy argues that bespoke training will work well for organisations which have identified a particular business imperative for a number of people in an organisation. “Training all those involved at the same time in a common experience has many merits,” she says. “There are often unanticipated outcomes from bringing people together.”

Open programmes meanwhile, Hennessy adds, will be best for those wanting to develop a specific individual’s needs which are not common to others but they are in a pivotal role and need to be developed immediately. “Open development is particularly useful for someone who needs to develop their personal effectiveness,” she says. “The more confidential environment of open courses enables people to experiment and show a bigger shift of behaviour than they would in front of their own colleagues. We often recommend for this reason that people from the same organisation don’t come together to such courses.”

Prove you can help us

With such an abundance of institutions offering executive development training opportunities, it is crucial to ensure the most appropriate one is selected.

For Kelliher, the benefits of external providers is clear. “They can often create a development experience not available internally in the organisation, by bringing people together from different contexts – very often real learning takes place by helping people see ‘outside the box'”, she says.

When deciding on which provider for opt for, organisations should ensure the institution understands just what they are trying to achieve. Making sure the institution is providing training appropriate to the organisation’s needs and not just what they have provided for the past half dozen clients is vitally important.

On this issues, those providing the training share the responsibility. “Providers must satisfy themselves that they have really understood a client’s agenda,” says Feeny. “However well HR have described their needs, we have to make sure we’ve really understood it.”

Organisations should also question providers on their past record. “Firms must seek evidence that they are delivering results in other businesses,” Arney advises. “How do they know? How did the client recognise that the investment made worked? Executive development can be very expensive and providers should be able to provide the answers. It’s something HR should be quite strict about.”

By Dan Martin