{"id":81068,"date":"2026-08-26T01:17:34","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T05:17:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=81068"},"modified":"2026-08-26T01:17:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T05:17:34","slug":"leadership-development-programs-how-can-they-be-better-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/leadership-development-programs-how-can-they-be-better-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Leadership development programs \u2013 how can they be better? (Part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Leadership development programs \u2013 what doesn\u2019t work? (Part 1)<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>was published last week and focuses on introducing the survey about leadership programs that I did a while ago. It discussed what respondents liked and disliked about the programs in which they participated.<\/p>\n

This second post reports back on one of the final the survey questions, which asked about what an ideal leadership program might look like. I then close out the post with some of my considerations for an effective program. Not surprisingly, many of the elements for respondents\u2019 ideal programs are the opposite of what they disliked.<\/p>\n

Even though the survey and the two posts in this series focus on leadership development, I would say that many of the elements listed below are relevant to researcher development more generally.<\/p>\n

An ideal leadership development program would have:\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n

1. Expert speakers and facilitators with good reputations and expertise who understand, and are relatable to, academic and researcher cohorts.<\/strong>\u00a0This is by far the most commented on aspect. If the people running the leadership development program are not credible to an academic\/researcher group, it\u2019s difficult to get the buy-in you need for development work. Facilitating is a specific set of skills and, as mentioned in Part 1, just because you occupy a formal leadership role doesn\u2019t mean you are a good, practised facilitator. One researcher said they wanted:<\/p>\n

Targeted, professionalised training: not enthusiastic amateurism or HR-derived instrumentalist bs. To be frank, I think that proper external courses run by Higher Education specialists that I have done\u2026have been better than any internal schemes, which can end up being compromised by too close relationships and internal politics.<\/p>\n

Generic, business-focused notions of leadership can\u2019t be transplanted to the university environment without significant participant resentment and frustration (or absence). Nor can any program that has a \u2018women in leadership\u2019 flavour only give lip service to the systemic inequalities within university systems and broader society. Facilitators need to be savvy about the groups they\u2019re working with and ensure that what they are doing is not actively causing harm or distress for participants.<\/p>\n

As well as individual facilitators needing to be credible, the organisational units behind the leadership programs in universities need to have good reputations. One researcher said that they had become skeptical of all offerings because they\u2019d been in \u201ca diversity course where the only brown person in the room was asked to stand up to speak while all of the white people sat; a wellness course mid restructure where [they] had a panic attack and [were] then used as an example of someone who wasn\u2019t \u2018well’\u201d.<\/p>\n

2. Practical workshop or project components for applying evidence-based concepts and ideas<\/strong>, not just a talk-fest or series of TED talk videos. As one respondent put it, \u201cLess \u2018inspiration\u2019, more perspiration\u201d. Another stated that they wanted a program that was \u201cdialogic, critically-engaged, actively seeking novel, inclusive, approaches that challenge the status quo\u201d. There was a thread of comments about leadership programs needing to include theories around influencing and challenging the system that exists. One person even suggested that a program from the NTEU (the National Tertiary Education Union is Australia\u2019s higher education union) would be welcome, to get rid of the status quo.<\/p>\n

3. Good opportunities for meaningful connection among participants<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 both peer-to-peer and with more senior research leaders. Given that working towards a common purpose is one of the prime ways to grow real connections, effective programs are those that take care to bring people together authentically and productively. One researcher talked about the 8-month long program they were in where participants were allocated to project teams and tasked with creating a plan to change an aspect or process within the university. Even though getting to know colleagues better during the process was valuable, the respondent commented that the project itself felt like busy work and the \u2018pitch\u2019 the team had to put together for senior executives felt hollow and a waste of time.<\/p>\n

4. Not just a one-off workshop, and not a \u2018one-size-fits-all\u2019 approach.<\/strong>\u00a0Participants wrote about how they appreciated high-value, multiple sessions that built understanding, knowledge, and cohort feeling. A distinct part of the value in the development was feeling that it was relevant to each participant. Many commented on the slightly muddled definitions and borders of \u2018leadership\u2019 in the programs, and expressed a wide range of elements they would\u2019ve liked to see. The common questions around \u2018what is leadership \/ what is management\u2019 cropped up, and researchers were split about whether they wanted one and not the other, or both. One person declared that the programs \u201cshould be based on a notion of leadership that HELPS people rather than MANAGES them\u201d.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll give the last word to the researcher who provided this wish-list for the kind of leadership development program they would like to see:<\/p>\n

One that allows you to develop a better understanding of your colleagues (e.g. occurs over time, rather than a one-off, half-day sort of job). One that recognises the gendered dynamics of what counts as \u2018leadership\u2019 in the academy and doesn\u2019t just either ignore that things are harder for women and gender non-conforming people in a \u2018male-default\u2019 system, or just tell us to \u2018lean in\u2019. One that focuses on ethical leadership and how to support others when you are in a leadership position. One that encourages people to recognise the way\/s in which they already lead and provide them with language and understanding of that. One that allows for people to share their challenges and provide potential ideas \/ solutions, rather than a \u2018one-size-fits-all\u2019 type of thing.<\/p>\n

Again, thank you to the researchers who completed the leadership program survey! I really enjoyed reading the responses and I hope you felt some solidarity with the others who provided their perspectives.<\/p>\n

To round off the post, here are a few of my thoughts as a researcher developer about leadership programs, addressed to those who may be running them for researchers:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n