kristopherpvv

Profile

Registered: 2 months, 1 week ago

How Professional Training Enhances Leadership Skills

 

The Truth About Professional Development Nobody Wants to Admit

 

A few months back, I was sitting in a Brisbane boardroom watching a CEO explain why their star performer just resigned. "We threw $15,000 in her development this year," he said, genuinely baffled. "Leadership courses, communication workshops, the whole lot.""

 

I've heard this story so many times I could write the script. Organisation pours money into development programs. Star player walks out the door. Leadership teams sit there confused about where they messed up.

 

Through eighteen years of helping Australian businesses with their people development, I've seen the same pattern repeat itself like a scratched record. We've reduced professional development to a bureaucratic process that serves everyone except the employees it claims to develop.

 

Here's what no one wants to admit: professional development is more about corporate image than real employee growth.

 

What drives me totally mental is how professional development gets treated as a optional benefit. A token gesture that appears magically when someone asks about career progression.

 

Wrong. Dead wrong.

 

Professional development should be the backbone of every business strategy. Instead, it's become this afterthought that gets squeezed between budget meetings and compliance training.

 

There was this Adelaide construction firm I consulted with where the supervisors could build anything but could not lead teams. Instead of addressing this directly, they sent everyone to a standard "Leadership Essentials" program that cost them $48,000 dollars. Months later, the supervisors were still having the same same issues with their crews.

 

Professional development works fine when done properly. We're just approaching it arse-about.

 

Too many organisations begin with assumptions about employee needs instead of asking what people genuinely want to develop. There's a huge difference between those two things, and it's costing Australian businesses millions every year.

 

Effective development begins by asking: what barriers prevent you from doing your best work?

 

Skip what your supervisor believes is important. Disregard what the development brochure promotes. What YOU know is holding you back from doing your best work.

 

There's this marketing manager I know, Sarah, working for a Brisbane company. Her company kept sending her to digital marketing courses because that's what they thought she needed. The genuine issue Sarah faced was navigating an erratic CEO who couldn't stick to decisions.

 

Digital marketing workshops had zilch relevance to her real workplace obstacle. One chat with a mentor who understood challenging boss dynamics? Complete transformation.

 

This is the point where companies absolutely miss the mark. They focus on hard skills when the real barriers are usually soft skills. And when they do address soft skills, they do it through workshops and seminars instead of practical coaching and mentoring.

 

Presentations will not develop your ability to navigate tough interpersonal situations. You learn by having tough conversations with someone experienced guiding you through the process.

 

Outstanding professional growth happens while doing actual tasks, with immediate mentoring and feedback. Everything else is just pricey entertainment.

 

Something else that makes me furious: the fixation on degrees and professional credentials. I'm not saying qualifications are useless – certain positions require particular certifications. But the majority of roles need skills that no certificate can validate.

 

There are marketing executives with no formal training who understand their market better than qualified consultants. There are project leaders who developed their skills in the field and deliver better results than accredited specialists.

 

Yet we keep pushing people toward formal programs because they're easier to measure and justify to senior management. It's like judging a chef by their knife collection instead of tasting their food.

 

Organisations that excel at development understand it's not about training schedules or qualification frameworks. It's about building workplaces where people can explore, try new things, and develop through purposeful activities.

 

Google exemplifies this approach with their dedicated learning and experimentation time. Atlassian promotes hackathon events where staff tackle challenges beyond their regular duties. These companies understand that the best learning happens when people are solving actual problems they care about.

 

You don't require Silicon Valley resources to build these learning experiences. The best development sometimes occurs in modest organisations where people handle various responsibilities and grow through hands-on demands.

 

The key is being intentional about it. Rather than hoping development happens naturally, intelligent companies design challenging projects, collaborative opportunities, and coaching relationships that push people appropriately.

 

Here's what actually works: pairing people with different experience levels on actual projects. The junior person gets exposure to new challenges and leadership processes. The senior person develops coaching and leadership skills. Everyone learns something valuable.

 

This method is uncomplicated, affordable, and linked to real company performance. But it requires managers who can coach rather than just assign tasks. And that's where most organisations fall down.

 

Organisations elevate staff to management based on their job performance, then hope they'll instinctively know how to grow their teams. It's like advancing your strongest accountant to accounting supervisor and being shocked when they struggle with team management.

 

If you want professional development that genuinely develops people, you need to invest in developing your managers first. Not via management seminars, but through regular mentoring and assistance that improves their ability to develop others.

 

The contradiction is that successful development frequently doesn't appear like formal learning. It manifests as compelling assignments, stretch opportunities, and leaders who authentically support their team's growth.

 

There's this Canberra accounting practice where the managing partner committed to giving everyone at least one challenging assignment annually. No formal program, no certificates, just interesting work that stretched people's capabilities.

 

Staff turnover was practically non-existent. Employees remained because they were developing, discovering, and being pushed in personally meaningful directions.

 

Here's the winning approach: development linked to important work and personal motivations rather than standard capability structures.

 

The majority of professional development fails because it tries to be everything to everyone. More effective to concentrate on several important areas relevant to your particular staff in your unique situation.

 

This leads to my greatest frustration: universal development solutions that supposedly work for everyone. These mass-produced solutions overlook how people learn distinctively, carry different inspirations, and confront different barriers.

 

Some folks learn through direct experience. Others favour observation and consideration. Some individuals excel with open praise. Others prefer discreet guidance. Still we funnel everyone through identical training sessions and question why outcomes vary.

 

Smart companies customise development the same way they customise customer experiences. They understand that what works for one person might be absolutely wrong for another.

 

This does not require building numerous separate initiatives. It means being flexible about how people access learning opportunities and what those opportunities look like.

 

Maybe it's job rotation for someone who learns by doing. It might be a study circle for someone who understands concepts better through dialogue. Perhaps it's a public speaking opportunity for someone who requires outside recognition to develop self-assurance.

 

The objective is aligning the development method with the individual, not making the individual conform to the method.

 

I predict that in five years, businesses with the strongest people will be those that discovered how to make development personalised, relevant, and directly tied to important activities.

 

The others will keep shipping people to uniform programs and puzzling over why their star performers move to rivals who appreciate that outstanding people want to advance, not simply gather credentials.

 

Professional development is not about ticking requirements or meeting learning targets. It's about creating workplaces where people can become the best versions of themselves while contributing to something meaningful.

 

Master that approach, and all other factors – staff loyalty, involvement, results – fall into place naturally.

 

Mess it up, and you'll continue those executive discussions about why your top talent leaves despite your significant development investments.

 

Your choice.

 

 

Here is more info regarding Australian Training look into our site.

Website: https://equilibriumonline.bigcartel.com/product/delegation-skills-training-sydney

---

Forums

Topics Started: 0

Replies Created: 0

Forum Role: Participant