“I start with the premise that the function of leadership [courses] is to produce more leaders, not more followers.” – Ralph Nader

I was fortunate in both of my careers, the police department and the Army National Guard, that leadership development was considered an important requirement within each organization.  While more prevalent and organized in the Army, the department also attempted to prepare its future leaders by guiding its members through a career development program.  While the Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) program was substantially shorter and less substantive than its Army counterpart, it was still a worthy effort in providing education for career-oriented police officers.  From First Line Supervisor through Executive Development, the structured program attempted to deliver an advancing curriculum based on leadership levels. 

I also took an interest in my own development, so whenever the department would post a training announcement on the bulletin board, I would put in to go if it met my interest.  As a result, I attended many one or two-day leadership seminars put on by some of the “names” in law enforcement and private industry organizational education.  These were usually persons recognized as subject-matter experts, there to expound upon leadership and to share their knowledge.  Often, they had published books or articles, been educated at the “right” schools, or had been involved in some major event or innovation within law enforcement or private industry.  They were almost always highly entertaining.

After a while, though, I began to realize that I was leaving these seminars with no actual improvement or understanding in what to DO to become a better leader.  I had been entertained, I had enjoyed listening to their stories and examples, but, in reality, I was no better off than I had been before I attended the class.  In many of them I left supercharged about the subject of leadership, but realized the next morning that I had not taken away anything that I could actually use except another training certificate for my file.

I began to refer to these presenters as leadership “cheerleaders.”  They were some of the finest presenters I had ever seen.  They could energize a roomful of people with high levels of enthusiasm, they had the best style, exceptional poise, and were fun to watch.  They could wave the leadership pom poms and dance and chant and cartwheel across the room (not really, although one did phenomenal magic tricks).  They were highly animated and could make you laugh or cry, literally, through their storytelling and their sharing.  But, provide actual and useable leadership development recommendations?  Not so much.

So, as a result, I developed my own presentation criteria in order to not waste my time, or the department’s money, and you should do the same.  Before you sign up, do your research.  Anybody can write a cool bio on themselves, so look for their actual curriculum vitae.   You can google anybody these days and find myriad sources relating to their experience and success.  You can go into online chat rooms and ask for feedback from previous attendees.  You can review the information and decide if the seminar is right for you.  You can build your own checklist.  Here are some of the key measures I used:

1.  Have they actually led an organization?  If so, is the nature of the organization they led relevant to your current leadership development needs?

Because someone leads a platoon doesn’t mean they know anything about leading a brigade.  Just because they write a book, do podcasts, or are highly entertaining doesn’t mean their experiences are relevant.  The complexity level of the presenter’s organizational experience should match the level relevant to you in your current development phase.  If you’re trying to learn to be a good Sergeant, then the platoon leader’s experience is relevant.  If you’re trying to increase your capability for promotion to Deputy Chief, then it does not.  Let’s face it, the reality is that most generic leadership books and most podcasts say the same things, they just differ in the manner of presentation.  How many times do you want or need to hear the same things?

2.  Have they actually achieved their purpose and been measurably successful?

You cannot be successful at leading without understanding and applying key principles related to working with and through people.  Leadership is all about people, creating teams, designing effective environments and cultures.  The higher in the organization one goes, the more complex the challenges.  As a Sergeant, I was responsible for a squad of five to eight officers and ensuring they accomplished squad-level goals.  As a Chief, I was responsible for 255 employees and a $21M budget.  As a Sergeant, I supervised specific activities directly.  As a Chief I worked through subordinate leaders to accomplish the Department’s strategic mission.  In order to become a Chief, I had to have been a Sergeant, then a Lieutenant, then Commander, and so on.  In most, but not all, organizations, one must have been deemed successful at the preceding level before ascending to the next.  There are always exceptions to the rule, ask any senior patrol officer, but most senior executives get to that level because they are good leaders who accomplished their organizational goals and objectives and were, therefore, deemed ready for the next level.  Again, do your research.  Was this presenter successful in real life leadership or is his/her experience only academic or theoretical?

3.  Does their presentation include not only what to do to be a good leader, but also how to do it? 

The books contain the what to do, we look to the presenter to focus on the how to do it and support that with personal examples.  Dr. Albert Schweitzer once said, “Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it is the only thing,” and leadership examples demonstrating how to apply effective leadership techniques to realistic situations are critical to our skill development. 

Are the “war stories” told relevant to the material at hand or just another way of self-aggrandizement by the presenter?  Does the presenter speak to things such as conducting your own leadership skills inventory, receiving feedback through valid tools such as 360-degree and peer reviews?  Do they provide you links to leadership personality indices, surveys, other self-diagnostic tools?  Do they provide critical thinking and problem solving models, and then walk you through examples on the utilization of such?  Do they present information on data analysis and demonstrate how it applies to measuring performance?  Do they give you specific strategies on dealing with problem people, or do they just provide the same broad suggestions you’ve heard before?  Is the presentation filled with  generalities or specifics?

We attend leadership lectures and seminars to gain leadership skills.  Being skilled means we know not only what to do, but, more importantly, how to do it.  We should be leaving these presentations with additional pages for our personal leadership manual.  We should not be leaving these seminars having just enjoyed the show.  If that’s so, then all we’re doing is watching the cheerleaders, we’re not getting in the game.

Next time, we’ll talk about what leadership actually means.

Randy Watt is a decorated combat veteran of the War on Terror and is a retired Chief of Police with thirty-seven years of law enforcement experience.  He is the author of One Warrior’s Creed