In de stream Leiderschap en Leiderschapsontwikkeling gaan we in op de actuele ontwikkelingen bij het thema Leiderschap en schetsen we hoe Leiderschaps-ontwikkeling voor een (al dan niet grotere) organisatie kan worden opgezet.
De volgende thema's vind je onder Leiderschap en Leiderschapsontwikkeling:
In Onze visie op leiderschap geven wij onze interpretatie van hoe wij het thema leiderschap benaderen bij het invullen van onze rol bij de levering van onze diensten: het helpen versnellen van de ontwikkeling van individuele leiders en het bijdragen aan de effectiviteit van teams en organisaties.
In Organisatie van de Leiderschapsontwikkeling vertellen wij hoe we de functie van Leiderschapsontwikkeling vormgeven, met name in grotere organisaties.
In Concepten en Modellen beschrijven wij een aantal modellen die in de Leadership Development Toolbox (LDT) gebruikt worden.
En in Format voor LDT ondersteund Leadership Programma wordt een format getoond voor een omvangrijk leiderschapsprogramma: acht driedaagse workshop voor een aantal teams, die werken aan een teamopdracht.

'Leiderschap Industrie' geeft  les op basis van verouderd denken

In de tweede helft van de vorige eeuw is Leiderschap een belangrijk thema geworden en de ontwikkeling van leiders een populaire activiteit bij de meeste zich zelf respecterende organisaties. Over leiderschap zijn ontelbare boeken geschreven en er zijn nogal wat modellen ontwikkeld.
Leiderschap is een mantra geworden en rond het thema leiderschap is een enorme 'industrie' ontstaan, die zichzelf in stand houdt en suggereert dat onderwijs en training in leiderschap bijdraagt aan goed ondernemerschap.
Maar is dat werkelijk zo? En brengt het onvermoeibare lesgeven over leiderschap ons wel dichter bij het succes van leiderschap? Dragen de modellen en theorieën van de twintigste eeuw nog wel bij aan het 'goede' ondernemerschap in de éénentwintigste eeuw?
Of moeten we ons opnieuw afvragen hoe de veranderingen in de context van besturen en ondernemen in de laatste decennia vooral ook het begrip 'Leiderschap' heeft geraakt en vooral ook ons denken daarover.
Of behoeven we daarover een forse 'update'?

In haar recente boek 'The END of LEADERSHIP' veegt Barbara Kellerman de vloer aan met de zgn. 'Leadership Industry', de Leiderschapsprogramma's, congressen en publicaties over Leiderschap, die een sterk verouderd beeld scheppen van leiderschap.

Fragment op blz. 70-73
In times past, the contract between leaders and followers was based on traditional sources of power and authority.
They included, for example, might, as in might makes right; and heredity, which entitled the son of a king one day himself to be a king, and charisma, which depended on the leader’s personal capacity to attract, even enthrall, groups of followers.
More recently, the contract evolved into something more equitable. Might no longer makes right, certainly not in theory and certainly not in countries or companies considered exemplars of good governance. Nepotism, while hardly obsolete, is a much less legitimate claim to power and authority than it used to be. And in these days and age, again for reasons of culture and technology, charisma is difficult to sustain. Moreover, for their part, ordinary people – followers – have at least since the Enlightenment increasingly insisted on a measure of equity, a trend that in the last half century has only accelerated.
So the assumptions on which the contract is based have change, first, because the old justifications for having power, authority, and influence are no longer persuasive, and second, because people in the present think of themselves as more omportant, more entitled, than people did in the past. What, then, is the basis of their contract in the second decade of the twenty-first century? What reasons do followers now have for going along with leaders?

There are only two: either we go along because we have to (or think we do), or we go along because we want to. In general, the first applies to the workplace. Subordinates go along with their superiors because they think they must to avoid the risk of losing their jobs.
And in general, the second applies to the community at large. Good governance, including good corporate governance, implies that the contract between leaders (governors) and followers (governed) is based on merit: merit is the basis of the exchange between the presumably estimable leader on the one hand, and the presumably pliable follower on the other.
In theory, at least, we presume that people get elected president or minister, or for that matter mayor: because they deserve to, because their capacities attest to the legitimacy of their claims to power, authority, and influence. And, similarly, we presume that people are selected to be chief executive officer based on their excellence, a professional history that testifies to their superiority as leaders and managers. Further, we believe that political leaders hold to their end of the bargain when government is functional – when it protects against threats foreign and domestic. And we believe that corporate leaders hold to their end of the bargain when business is functional – when it makes money and provides jobs.

The END of LEADERSHIP tells us two tales:
The first is about change – about how and why leadership and followership have changed over time, especially in the last forty years. As a result of cultural evolution and technological revolution, the balance of power between leaders and followers has shifted – with leaders becoming weaker and followers stronger.
The second narrative is about the leadership industry itself. In her provocative and critical volume, Barbara Kellerman raises the question about leadership as both a scholarly pursuit and a set of practical skills: Does the industry do what it claims to do – grow leaders? Does the research justify the undertaking? Do we adequately measure the results of our efforts?
Are leaders as all-important as we think they are? What about the followers?
Isn’t teaching good followership as important now as teaching good leadership?
Finally, Kellerman asks: Given the precipitous decline of leaders in the estimation of their followers, are there alternatives to the existing models – ways of teaching leadership that take into account the vicissitudes of the twenty-first century? 

This then, has been the arrangement for at least the last one hundred years. Among other reasons, as government grew in size, and as corporations became organisations, arranging the collective in accordance with merit simply made good sense. More work needed to be done and more people were required to do it. So it was obvious that the best wat to arrange te group was hierarchically, and the best people to slot at the top were those who were both honest an competent. In short, for a century or more, democratic leadership particularly has been, or was presumed by the majority to be, meritocracy, which is why we came to conclude that anyone can be a leader – so long as he or she had the right stuff.
So, what exactly is “the right stuff”? What, more precisely, does meritorious leadership consist of? The answer is deceptively simple, for no matter how gussied up the language, no matter how many leadership traits, skills, characteristics, and capacities you can think to name, leadership is judged on only two criteria: ethics and effectiveness. A good leader is presumed to be ethical. And a good leader is presumed to be effective. Conversely a bad leader is unethical, ineffective or both. It’s as simple as that – which is precisely the problem.
For as the culture has changed and technology along with it, followers are familiar with the flaw of leaders, with the foibles of leaders, as they never were before. What this familiarity has bred is contempt. Put directly, when te contract between leaders and followers is based on merit, as opposed to self-interest, the game changes. That is, if merit is perceived to be lacking, either because the leader is being seen as being in some serious way corrupt, or because the leaderis seen as being in some serious way inept, the contract is weakened or even abrogated altogether. Again we go along with our leaders and managers, particularly in the workplace, for any number of self-interested reasons, including the benefits of material reward and the fear of personal or professional punishment.
But the best reason, certainly the ideal reason, to follow, is that we want to follow – because we genuinely believe in the integrity and competence of those with power, authority, and influence. Small wonder, then, that when merit matters most, and when merit is viewed as meager or even absent altogether, disappointment and disillusionment set in.

This, in a nutshell, explains why political America has come to be considered nearly ungovernable, and why corporate America is viewed as little short of rapacious. Since so many leaders seem to so many followers to be inept or corrupt, hapless or greedy. Americans have changed, gradually but ineffably, into a nation of malcontents: unwilling to support those in charge unless they must, and unable ourselves to fix what’s broken. Add to this disappointment the fact that many followers increasingly feel entitled and act emboldened, and you have a difficult mix, one spelling trouble for individuals and institutions not only in the United States but, as we know by now, the world over.

Onze aanpak: focus op de versnelde ontwikkeling van mensen, teams en organisaties

Hoe kijken wij, LDpe, naar al deze ontwikkelingen en wat is de visie van onze onderneming op het thema Leiderschap in de zich sterk veranderende context van de 21e eeuw?
Het antwoord is dat wij, natuurlijk net als anderen, de wijsheid niet in pacht hebben.
Wij proberen de ontwikkelingen in de snel veranderende context nauwgezet te volgen en onze focus ligt vooral op de mensen in de context van werk en ondernemerschap. En, vooral ook, proberen wij de mensen in ondernemingen vooral te ondersteunen bij het verkrijgen van diepere inzichten over zichzelf en hun (veranderende) omgeving. Om ze te helpen bij de versnelling van hun eigen ontwikkeling, en die van de teams waar ze onderdeel van uitmaken en van de organisaties waarin ze werken, om daarmee bij te dragen aan het succes van ondernemen en het plezier in werken en samenwerken. 

Essentieel voor het verdiepen van inzichten en het op gang brengen van reflectie is het tot stand brengen van een verhelderende vocabulaire, een gestructureerde 'taal', gebaseerd op algemene
moderne inzichten.
Onze toolbox levert zulk een vocabulaire, meet de gedragsstijlen van deelnemers en brengt die in lijn met de constructen van die taal. De 'woorden' van de taal zijn ontworpen en gedefinieerd in lijn met de meest gangbare en geaccepteerde modellen en concepten in de domeinen van leiderschap en psychologie.