Mike Myatt, Chief Strategy Officer N2growth, recently posted a very savvy article regarding the difference between training (a typically rote, stale process) and development (more dynamic, needs-based, and effective) in the context of leadership. What I really liked is his point-by-point comparison of the strengths and weakness of training versus development:

1. Training focuses on the present — Development focuses on the future.
2. Training focuses on technique — Development focuses on talent.
3. Training adheres to standards — Development focuses on maximizing potential.
4. Training focuses on maintenance — Development focuses on growth.
5. Training focuses on the role — Development focuses on the person.
6. Training indoctrinates — Development educates.
7. Training maintains status quo — Development catalyzes innovation.
8. Training stifles culture — Development enriches culture.
9. Training encourages compliance — Development emphasizes performance.
10. Training focuses on efficiency — Development focuses on effectiveness.
11. Training focuses on problems — Development focuses on solutions.
12. Training focuses on reporting lines — Development expands influence.
13. Training is mechanical — Development is intellectual.
14. Training focuses on the knowns — Development explores the unknowns.
15. Training is finite — Development is infinite.

I couldn’t agree more. When it comes to leadership development, you can’t “train the leader.” Training on technical, procedural topics is of course highly effective, but leadership requires too much contextual differentiation, too much innovation, and frankly relies much more on innate skills that can only be developed over time, not absorbed from a short training course.

Related posts:

1. Why heroes are bad
2. Tackling the global project problem
3. Boomers at the exit gates
4. Training is number one
5. Fix your boss (or, reduce risk to quality using a matrix approach)