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.