The Nonsense Dialogues

Following from our previous episode on Bad Leaders, we look for lessons in leadership from the case study of Citizen Musk. David takes a psychologist's perspective and examines if Elon's self reported Autism Spectrum Disorder and his apparent narcissism offers both explanations for his combination of extraordinary achievements and appalling / idiosyncratic behaviours. Randal questions if he can be considered a leader at all - why not just an entrepreneur?  We go on to debate neurodiversity in the workplace, rockets, charismatic leaders, the need for transformational leaders to have complementary transactional managers, and if the social identity approach can help us understand Elon's appeal. Throughout Randal maintains a very sceptical attitude towards Elon, whilst David speaks as a transitioning fanboy. The narrative arc of the episode climaxes with what appears to be a reconciliation between the two protagonists but then, in a stunning and unexpected twist, we end up shouting at each other yet again over what we should take from Elon's story. Plus ça change…Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

In this episode we take a positive approach to discussing leadership development by considering what can we learn about good leadership from bad leaders. And also, can bad leaders grow into good ones?  Elon is mentioned. But will it be as a bad leader or as a champion of the iterative fail and learn development model? Listen and find out! Our conclusions (spoiler alert) is that leadership has to be learned and that even initially inept leaders can become good ones with the right mindset and sustained iterative efforts to learn and improve. Good news! Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

We are very pleased to welcome Prof Mark Williams to the Nonsense Dialogues. Mark is the author of the best selling book “The Connected Species” and is a cognitive neuroscientist with an extensive international career. Randal invited him to present the neuro cognitive perspective of psychometric assessments with the obvious expectation that Mark would join him in denigrating the whole domain. Well, Mark sort of does do this but also provides a great range of insights into the challenges of transferring psychological science to practical applications. David does his best to defend the interests of the psychometric industrial complex but finds himself being less antagonistic than he expected. Did we come to a conclusion? You'll have to listen to find out. All in all, we think having a guest with actual expertise greatly improved the quality of the discussion. Have a listen and see what you think. We'll probably do it again. And sooner, if we get some positive feedback on this episode. Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

Randal has a lingering suspicion about anything that reminds him of cults, mysticism or good old fashioned snake oil. What has been attracting his sceptical attention of late are the various claims made by the proponents of Mindfulness for improving psychological health, well being and performance in the workplace. This episode is mostly Randal checking in on the evidence around these issues and best practice on mental health in the workplace with an authoritative practitioner in workplace mental health who has over 40 years of professional experience as a registered allied mental health practitioner. Unfortunately, that person didn't turn up so he spoke to David instead. PS. Just a small request. If you like this rubbish and think someone you know might also like it, please pass on a link and recommendation. Word of mouth and recommendations are the best way for the Nonsense Dialogues to grow. Also please mention and recommend us on social media, in the campus common room, at the Qantas Chairman's Lounge; wherever you think prospective Nonsense Dialogues aficionados may be. Thank you. Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

Where Randal and David unfurl their inner Boomer and look fondly back on how leaders used to develop before those horrid consultants came along and ruined everything.  Was leadership development much better in the past – slow, natural, organic and bespoke  – compared to our modern, industrialised model of rapidly producing leaders in bulk by force moulding them into a generic corporate leadership template? But is this just a nostalgia driven view of preindustrial leadership development which unfairly depreciates the more deliberate modern “artificial” approach?  David draws the analogy between leadership development and the Japanese practice of growing melons inside a rectangular box so as to make them fit better into display shelves and perhaps produce a more aesthetically pleasing uniform shape. He is way too self satisfied with his own cleverness in making this analogy. Please don't encourage him anymore as his ego is already insufferable.   This takes us down the path of do the competency profiles (the moulds) help produce ineffective but compliant leaders? And is this any better than the inheritors of the Human Potential Movement who aim to make better leaders by unlocking the infinite potential that lies within each of us…man. ✌️And in a diversity and inclusion prioritised world, shouldn't we be changing the organisations we work within to be accommodating of leaders who aren't old, rich, white men or at the very least, be better environment in which to lead? Maybe it's not our leaders who are ineffective but our organisations, and we need to be developing them not our individual leaders? We also briefly address the issue of the individual motivation of participants in leadership development program. Perhaps the failure of the collective mindset in leadership is reflected in the motivation of LD participants for personal career success rather than advancing the common good? But is Adam Smith and his Invisible Hand is right even about leadership and we all benefit from the selfish ambitions of our leaders? If you disagree with that or anything else we say, please make an angry post on our Twitter account @NonsenseDilogs. Next time, we'll bring you some case studies of our experiences in developing leaders. Until then, it's goodnight from me and it's goodnight from him. Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

In episode 4 part A we talked shite about leadership development practices and in this next episode, part 4B, we explore what we think effective leadership development programs should do to be actually effective in developing leadership for results. To save space, here is a summary of the episode as a series of lists. First list:Leadership programs should:Be tailored to the organisation's strategy and people. Focused on non trivial strategic changes that leads to a distinctive team identity and sustainable performance. Aimed at the group level rather than solely focused on individual leaders. Long term changes require long term interventions not just a single workshop or point of intervention. Second List: In our view the 5R leadership development program is, at present, the best evidence-based approach to helping people become better leaders. It is based on the decades of research into the social identity approach and developed by a team led by Prof Alex Haslam at University of Queensland. The 5Rs are: Readying - Why do we matter? Raising awareness of the importance groups and social identity to leadership.Reflecting - Who are we? Understanding followers.Representing - What are we about and what do we want to be? Clarifying group aspirations and values.Realising - How do we become what we want to be? Implementing strategies to achieve group goals.Reporting - Are we becoming what we want to be? Monitoring progress to group goals.For a more extensive presentation of the 5Rs and the whole area of social identity leadership we recommend you read Haslam, Reicher and Platow's “The New Psychology of Leadership” Second Edition, 2020.  Third List:And once again our 4Cs. Leadership development programs need to be: Consistent - the same leadership theory and practices throughout the organisation.Coherent - development theories, practices, tools and assessments, etc  Credible - evidence basedContemporary - not what you grandad learned.So that's the TLDL(listen) summary. If you want more details, you'll have to listen to the podcast. Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

In this episode we take a look at the effectiveness of leadership development programs and question if they are truly worth the time and money organisations spend on them. David reviews his possibly wasted career in leadership development and defends against Randal's accusations that the dominant individualistic approach emphasising self reflection and self actualisation, is just indulging the narcissism of our clients and has no evidence to support its efficacy. David presents a somewhat defensive argument that there actually is evidence in the literature that approaches focused on competencies and behaviours, such as transformational leadership, do seem to make a positive impact. Randal presents the argument that leadership development may be effective but “it depends”.  Sounding like every psychologist and consultant ever.   Context, group attributes and tailoring our interventions to these variables are presented as the way forward. In Part B we will follow through on these arguments with our own ideas of what is required for effective leadership development rather than the same old rubbish that everyone else has been doing. Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

In which we explore the very lucrative business of Leadership Development. We initially look to distinguish leader development from leadership development but soon wander through a series of increasingly discursive topics including: diversity of identity and skills, do these help or hinder?, the commercial imperative vs evidence based practice in leadership development, how a lack of a clear definition of leadership leads to mixed methodologies for leadership development that lack focus and thus impact, with organisations being complex systems beyond the ken of our simple primate brains, we thus use simple interventions that we can only hope will have the desired impact of better leadership, role of social engineering and elitism in leadership development, Randal says the best way to learn to become a leader is to become a good follower first and this is how naturalistic leader development used to happen,one study showed that team members prefer to follow  team members who are good  followers but the current leaders prefer as future leaders who distinguish themselves by taking charge and setting agendas for others. why don't organisations follow the literature on experiential learning, facing challenges and 702010? Randal and David disagree that these approaches are valid,but do agree that this is part of the much larger question of organisational change which should be covered later as this episode is already too long. Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

In this episode ask whether our current crop leaders are hopeless? Lots of talking in circles as usual but surprisingly, we end with a quite decent (in our humble opinion) definition of leadership. Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.

Our first published podcast, where we sabotage our careers by pointing out how CEO pay may be making it harder for them to lead. We also debate leadership,  individualism vs collectivism, rats and lawyers, Plato's anti democratic beliefs, and a brief mention of Hitler (but I think we got away with it). Being good evidence based practitioners, we are seeking feedback from our audience on our podcasts. So please tell us all the things we are doing well as well as pandering to your innate drive to criticise the work of others. We may listen and adjust or we may just continue to be ourselves and do things our own way, dammit.