Self-Deception and Corporate America

Have you ever been required by your job to attend a professional development seminar or workshop? I am not referring to technical training but rather the “people” and “productivity” sides of business training, such as leadership or management training, team building, business skills, emotional intelligence, time management, etc. I personally have no idea how large this industry is, but my guess would be that training services which cater to businesses and other organizations easily amount to a multi-million (if not multi-billion) dollar industry. No doubt plenty of high-level managers and executive assistants (perhaps even President's, VP's, CEO's and COO's) spend a considerable amount of time herding their “people” into such programs.

Given the amount of time, attention and money poured into this industry by many companies and organizations, one would assume such programs to be extremely beneficial. At least the “powers-at-be” perceive them as such. But before I go any further, let me first clarify that it is not my intention to disparage anyone who may advocate or represent such programs. There is, after all, a tremendous amount of evidence which suggests that such programs have helped many organizations in a variety of different ways. Besides, how could any industry exist if it wasn't perceived to be helpful or beneficial to someone?

Although such programs and workshops exist to benefit organizations of all shapes and sizes, it is Corporate America which is often seen as the poster child for this industry. Thus, I will be using Corporate America (CA) as the central example in this post.

It is within the structure of CA (especially within middle and upper management) where we most often find mandatory training programs, seminars and workshops. The majority of which are geared toward some form of leadership development or team building. The corporate motive for sending these individuals off to paid seminars and workshops is, of course, to increase their personal effectiveness, which in turn will (hopefully) increase the effectiveness of their team, enable them to “synergize” (arguably the most overused buzzword and sacred cow in CA), and at bottom, increase profits.

This is naturally advantageous to employees for a number of reasons. First, their company will generally pick up the tab for the cost of the seminar. Also, though in more rare cases, the company will also pay them their hourly rate for attending, especially if the seminar falls outside normal business hours. Lastly, the training itself is not only helpful (let's assume), it also provides them with a “mini vacation” from the daily grind, and, lest we forget, enables them to add yet another notch in the “training” bedpost of their résumé.

Now, one would think, considering the millions (though probably billions) of dollars spent on professional development annually, that CA would boast one incredibly effective, efficient and leadership savvy workforce. Does it? Yes—in very rare and isolated incidents—beyond which, the answer is a resounding no. In general terms, it is a well documented fact that CA bears a staggering amount of waste and inefficiency (transaction costs if you wish), which is perhaps exceeded only by government bureaucracies (again, speaking in general terms). And this is before we even consider CA's glamorous reputation of being a somewhat psychotic bare knuckled mosh pit that is often riddled with internal political turmoil.

Let's take a moment to consider exactly what we're saying.

Billions of dollars are being spent on professional development every year within a specific demographic (CA) with the expressed goal of enriching leadership ability, teamwork, and overall effectiveness, and yet this same demographic also happens to be notoriously plagued by internal politics, inefficiency, and a general lack of leadership? Yes—exactly—impressive isn't it?

There may be thousands of reasons for this (we are, in fact, dealing with humans), but today I wish to discuss only one. For the sake of example, let us assume that the information provided at these seminars or workshops is 100% spot-on accurate. In other words, if the participants applied what they learned, in most cases, it would result in increased effectiveness, communication and efficiency within their team. Now, every program which seeks to improve an individual is “standard” based. For instance, there are specific “do's” and “do not's” in basic leadership. The “do's” essentially create a “standard” that we ought to practice. Naturally it follows that the “do not's” create a “standard” that we ought not to practice. These “standards” provide us with the criteria with which we are able to judge our performance, analyze our results and make changes to improve.

After attending the seminar or workshop the participants will eagerly return to the workplace, excited to apply the new information they have acquired. It should be mentioned that this “new information” is intellectual by nature. Meaning, the participants intellectually understand the information which has been presented to them. They do not, however, at this point, understand it functionally. Functional understanding is only possible through the consistent application of what was learned. Any training whatsoever, is effective only to the extent with which it is applied. In other words, individuals or groups will only produce results if they, on an individual case-by-case basis, apply (functionally) what was learned (intellectually). It must also be noted that the said individuals must not only apply this new information in the immediate, but consistently in the future as well.

Unfortunately, most of the participants will never take the time to functionally understand what they have learned. How can this be? After all, haven't they just learned what they should and should not be doing? Yes—but intellectually “knowing” how or how not to do something is infinitely different than incorporating it into one's life. Most people will only “apply” their training intellectually. In other words, they simply become masters of the information. They learn all the “right answers” to given situations, become experts in what should or should not be done and inevitably begin measuring everyone else against the standards they have become so proficient in memorizing. But they never seem to disassociate themselves from those around them and take the time to look in the mirror and determine if they embody these qualities. Knowing the components of leadership intellectually is very different from embodying them personally. By not directly practicing what they “know,” they deceive themselves in thinking they are qualified to lead. They simply assume that because they “know” what it means to be a leader, that they are a leader. Needless to say, in CA we have many people who think they are leaders, but few who actually are.

Perhaps the phrase "psychotic bare knuckled political mosh pit" makes sense after all.