Q&A . . . With Dan Stalp

PUBLISHED APRIL 2024

Q: The modern workplace is confronted with challenges on recruiting, retention, employee expectations, hybrid and remote workplaces, heavier workloads and a lot more. Is that a dramatically different cocktail than leaders have always faced?
A: I think it’s never been harder to lead. What happened in the last four years—previous to this, would have likely taken 15 years. The pandemic, the push for remote work, the supply-chain issues, costs and inflation, interest rates tripling. Normally, that would have spanned over a much longer period of time. That makes leadership much more of a challenge.

Q: Does that then change the nature of development itself?
A: The part that’s exasperating is this: I’ve been doing this for 18 years, but there’s now a whole generation where leaders simply haven’t been developed. It’s kind of like people in Johnson County when they want to buy a house. They want to move in, not have to do anything to it. Nobody wants to do that work. That’s happened with leaders; too many companies want their leaders to be already developed, yet rarely are they being developed.

Q: What’s driving that?
A: Well, there are peer groups for CEOs, so for the most part that group is doing well. What’s not happening is developing the second-in-command and emerging leaders. They’re not being developed at the same level. It’s almost a Catch-22 situation: There are more challenges than five years ago, and those same leaders are not being developed.

Q: Is this across all business lines?
A: Here’s some context to that. I’m referring here to companies that maybe have—which is primarily what we have in Kansas City—750 or fewer employees. I can’t really speak to the T-Mobiles, but even within big companies, we’ve had so many acquisitions, my sense is that things are slipping through the cracks at the big ones, too.

Q: One would think that senior leaders and owners would see the potential perils of ignoring this particular need.
A: Well, it could be partly about cost, but I think it’s more that people feel like they don’t have the time to truly be developed. They don’t know how to do it themselves, and don’t want their folks out of office. It’s money and time. To develop leaders, it’s got to be done on a regular basis; you can’t modify behavior long term if you’re not doing it consistently. You have to master it, and that takes time. Everybody is overworked and understaffed—that’s the case even for those up-and-coming leaders.

Q: So what are companies with less than 1,000 employees doing?
A: What commonly happens, and it sounds good, but doesn’t have legs, is that they’ll read a book together and discuss it. The problem is, they don’t have somebody facilitating that training who actually knows the material. It’s a lot more effective if it’s coming from the person who wrote the book or had been trained with the material. Train the trainer can be a huge mistake, because what you end up with is so watered down before it gets to others that it’s not really worth much.

Q: It can be hard for some in the top position to become that developmental figure, can’t it
A: Yes, and most people in that position won’t talk about stuff they don’t like to talk about and tend to talk about what comes easy to them. That’s not leadership training. You have to go both places. A lot of times, people make the mistake of taking someone who is a really good contributor—in human resources, technical or sales–someone who’s really good at their craft—and automatically promote them to a leadership role. That’s usually not a good idea unless they’ve been assessed for leadership qualities.

Q: Why doesn’t that approach work?
A: Say I’m a really good engineer, That does not mean I am good leadership material. There’s so much more to it. Leadership means working through people, having a different skill set than someone who’s managing their own behavior. Just because you’re skilled in your craft, doesn’t mean you’re ready to lead.

Q: Is it your sense that the failure to train isn’t limited to particular sectors?
A: It’s definitely a widespread problem. I can’t think of an entire industry where they’ve just nailed leadership development. There might be a company or two that has things figured out, but they’re not necessarily representative of the whole industry.

Q: What’s hindering the ability of senior executives to identify future leaders, train and retain them so the company doesn’t become a minor-league developer of talent for the majors?
A: A lot of times, they’re looking at what it costs to do something, but they’re not looking at what it costs to do nothing. We have assessments we use for clients, and there are some really good pre-selection assessments out there. It could be that I have an internal person I consider promoting, so you take the assessment based on their current role, then put the results into the role you’re considering them for. But that’s only about 15 to 20 percent of the decision. It’s an X-ray. Before we prescribe treatment or do surgery, we’re going to look at this and make a more informed decision. These assessments aren’t that expensive, compared to the cost of a bad hire. I know someone personally who felt pressured to be promoted, took it and hated it. The company didn’t do any assessment prior to promoting that person, and the last time we talked, that person said if things don’t change, they were going to quit after 26 years with that company. So not only is the position not working, the company could lose a key person.

Q: What questions do senior leaders or owners today need to ask themselves if they want to identify hidden threats to their own developmental programming?
A: One common mistake, if they have a good technical person or contributor who wants to make more money, is to automatically make them a leader. There are certain qualities and competencies you need to be leader, so you need to go in with your eyes wide open. You don’t just lead by title.

Q: So what motivates people to be good leaders?
A: I break that down to four main areas. Some people are motivated by all four, some by none—and everywhere in between: 
1. Paycheck, the money. If I’m an engineer capped at $110,000 a year but want to make $175,000, one way to do that is be promoted to engineering manager or director of engineering. 
2. Recognition, or a sense of progress. Being promoted, I get that recognition. 
3. People or being a part of something bigger than themselves. Sometimes, people will promote someone who doesn’t like other people, but they were a good contributor. 
4. Some leaders are motivated by a job well done. They are driven by purpose or want to see the company grow. 
Not all leaders are driven by money. Many leaders are making great money, but they’re miserable. They feel trapped by their role.

Q: Do you have to create your own training program as a company, based on your unique mission, product or service?
A: No, you don’t. Good leadership professional development is transferable to all industries. it just needs to be morphed to your industry. Leadership does not change that much from industry to industry—there are a lot of timeless principles that need to be taught. It’s a mistake to assume that someone has to be in your industry to help. That’s a fallacy. There are advantages to industry specific leadership training and some disadvantages from not getting exposed to what other companies may be doing that could be transferrable. To think that someone from Boeing couldn’t have a big impact on Ford would be short-sighted.

Q: What about timing and duration of development efforts?
A: With the most effective development programs, people stay in for years; you can’t get it all at once. And if you’re growing as a leader, the same material a year later and comes alive in a different way, because you’ve changed. Again, that’s a mistake people make: Seeing developing leaders as an event, rather than a continual process to modify behavior long-term.  It’s a continual process.

Q: There’s also the matter of how people at the very top continue to develop, isn’t there?
A: Honestly, if they built the place, they’ve done something right. A lot of times, they may think people need to be like them to be successful. It’s not that easy. Successful leadership can manifest itself in different ways. Sometimes the top leader in an organization may be a mediocre leader, but they are best at their company. They don’t get that diversity of thought. That’s where outside assessments come in. If the results are average, how can that be? there could be a lot room for development.

Q: Do generational differences play a role in the way potential leaders should be identified
A: Well, there’s not as much of an issue with the new people today; it’s more with the older people. You look back 25 years, it was definitely more top-down leadership in business. You tell people what to do and they did it. Employees were more loyal and stayed with that company. People are not willing to do that now. It’s not so much about telling people, it’s about influencing people. You need a higher emotional intelligence  to influence people, more than telling them what to do. The younger work force isn’t having it.

Q: What accounts for the generational change?
A: The younger people have seen their parents loyalty not rewarded via buy-outs and layoffs. They stuck in a role because they felt they didn’t have options. Today, they’re saying “I’m not doing that.” People assume money motivates, but only 20 percent of the population is motivated by money. If you’re leading that way, you’re really missing out. Many leaders today say they would gladly quit and take a reduced salary for a better quality of life. Money is tangible, but it’s not about money alone any more; it’s about purpose and recognition, too.