There is no ‘standard definition’. The answer depends more on how management and/or leadership have come to be defined within individual organisations – or how you would like them to be defined. In our opinion, management development should always include a strong element of leadership development, alongside a wide range of other skills and attributes. Leadership development is a more specific dynamic focus, that can be an excellent programme for more experienced managers, or a strong cultural programme equipping both managers and non-managers with confidence and ability to lead, according to organisational needs and opportunities.

This is clearly a key question. It’s interesting to observe the vast sums that some organisations spend on ‘systems’, some of which (on balance) do little to enhance performance. Some even work against it!

This phenomenon occurs through a desire to control standards through a system. Appropriate systems can provide excellent support but they cannot be the driver of good management, because at the heart of good management is the ability to relate well to people. This involves emotions, energy levels, opinions, ingrained habits, beliefs, attitudes, spontaneous actions, reactions, and more emotions! These things cannot be systemised, but it is investment in the effective management of these areas that will pay greatest dividends. Results arising from changes in individual behaviour, and organisational behaviour (culture) are measurable, and they are significant.

We all respond to something when we see the value. This is a mixture of value to ourselves, value to our colleagues/teams, value to our organisations, and sometimes value to the wider community. Understanding this mix, and relating to it, is key.

Like any other spend, an estimated return-on-investment needs to be worked out and then ‘proven’. In our experience, when it comes to learning and development, there is sometimes an imbalanced emphasis placed on the lack of ‘concrete’ figures and lack of ‘evidence/proof’, as compared with other return-on-investment evaluations and expenditures. This may need to be challenged. Secondly, when submitting estimates/evidence based on subjective data, the parameters of accuracy are inherently wider than that based on objective data. However, once those wider parameters are identified, estimates/evidence based on subjective data are equally valid.