Leadership training: Solutions or snake oil?

Leadership training: Solutions or snake oil?

Donna K. Woodward, Management Consultant, Medan, North Sumatra

On Feb. 3 the Executive Center for Global Leadership (ECGL)
was launched at the Bali Hilton Hotel in Nusa Dua, Bali.
According to media reports, ECGL provides world-class executive
education for business and government leaders of Southeast Asia.
In addressing the gathering, Minister of Industry and Trade Rini
Soewandi said that ECGL would be "clear proof to the world that
Indonesia is serious about improving its human resources and in
preparing good leaders." Undoubtedly, Minister Rini is sincere
in her hope that ECGL will transform Indonesia's leaders, as it
promises to do. The ECGL itself is no doubt capable of
delivering excellent management conferences, customized executive
development programs, and CEO briefings, as the press release
noted. All these offerings have value. But when it comes to
solving Indonesia's leadership problem, they are beside the
point.

See how many Indonesian leaders have already been through
excellent university or management training programs, either here
or overseas. Many Cabinet Ministers have world-class educations
and professional experience; but look at the state of the nation.
No; courses and development programs in themselves are not the
key to national transformation. For EGCL to present these as the
answer to Indonesia's leadership problems is like selling snake
oil to the country cousins. The program may look new and
interesting, it may be touted by the finest "suits." But we need
to ask, will it work?

Indonesia's business and government leaders already have the
knowledge and skills they need to set the country on a proper
course toward recovery. What is lacking is a sense of personal
accountability for their decisions. This is not an affliction of
Indonesians only; in other countries too officials and corporate
executives use their positions to serve their own interests
instead of for the common good. But many countries have laws and
procedures that restrain unbridled corruption. Indonesia's
governance systems are still weak, with little transparency in
policy- and decision-making and virtually no consequences for
poor performance or malfeasance. Via its rule-making mechanisms
Indonesia needs to enact effective laws and establish procedures
to control corruption. This points us to the heart of the
leadership problem.

Too often, leaders won't make difficult decisions. They won't
pass laws with teeth in them. When faced with making tough
decisions that might impinge on their private interests or
private friendships, they waver. To investigate a friend's
conduct; to deny a former benefactor special prison privileges;
to retract official privileges they've granted themselves; to
discipline subordinates; to turn away a friend who needs an
improper business favor: to do any of these things would mean
putting oneself in an uncomfortable position. And so, instead of
decisive action against incompetence or corruption or entrenched
privilege, there is timidity, procrastination, waffling and
backtracking. Can we even call them leaders? Or are they merely
persons holding powerful positions.

Because Indonesia is in a reform phase of nation building, she
needs a new type of leader. Indonesia needs leaders who are not
afraid to bite the hands that feed them. Who are not afraid to
rock the boat; not afraid to step on the toes of colleagues if
doing the right thing for the public good requires it. Will EGCL
give us such leaders? Look at its sponsors; they are a who's who
of Jakarta's old-boy status-quo network. Are these the hand-
biters that Indonesia needs? Were they voices of independent,
ethical leadership when they were building their enterprises
under Soeharto? Even now, do they embody the kind of daring
leadership qualities that Indonesia needs while in transition
toward reform? Look at how they launched their institute--from a
five-star Bali resort with a VIP invitation list. This raises
the specter that the institute is another expensive, elitist
marketing venture, with showiness rivaling substance. Who will
pay for this kind of five-star executive development environment?
Will international donors sponsor seminar costs? Will
corporations? When donors pay, it means future taxpayers pay.
When corporations pay high training fees there is less in the
budget for wages of those at the low end of the corporate ladder.
The ECGL describes itself as non-profit, but non-profit does not
mean low-cost and it doesn't mean that commissioners and patrons
are necessarily providing their services gratis or for a low fee.
It means that revenues are distributed as salaries, expenses and
travel stipends, not as profits. This is not to single out ECGL
for undue criticism. It is to question whether a celebrated
solution, sold in the guise of a new cure-all but looking and
smelling suspiciously like old snake oil, can do what its
sponsors claim.

Indonesia is a country creating itself. What a lost
opportunity it will be if Indonesia imitates the elitist,
consumerist, exploitative leadership style of developed nations.
Their leaders have given us a world where a few freely consume
the world's wealth while most remain in poverty and oppression.
Indonesia needs leaders who embrace the notion that simple
ethical principles like "Don't lie, don't cheat, don't exploit,
and share fairly" are sound and necessary norms of conduct not
just in private life, but in business and government. Who teach
by example that modesty of life-style is respectable, and that
worth is not proved by wealth. Who understand that affluence and
status are not substitutes for integrity, and that public honor
and integrity should be linked. Perhaps ECGL will explain how
its program will promote this kind of leadership.