Developing a Leadership Strategy: The Case of the Toy Research Society

Abstract

This case encourages students to consider organizational development needs when creating a leadership development philosophy and an associated leadership development design.

The Toy Research Society (TRS), a nonprofit organization, has been in existence for more than 70 years. The organization's mission has remained the same during this time, but the membership, the use of the Society by nonmembers and the competitive landscape have changed substantially. Driven primarily by a board of directors and regional volunteer leaders, the Society has never had a formal leadership development philosophy. Now, the long-time president has retired, and TRS leaders are reflecting on how to prepare for the future, especially with increased calls for leadership role clarity and more delegation of work to members. As a member, you have the opportunity to develop the needed leadership strategy.

Target Audience: This is a scenario-based case study with an optional exercise. It is intended for upper-level undergraduate students studying organizational development or behavior, leadership development or human resource development. Students in more “generalist” HR courses may find this case too removed from mainstream HR to fit their needs and may find the content too challenging.

This case was prepared for inclusion in Sage Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial purposes.

2024 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

You are not authorized to view Teaching Notes. Please contact your librarian for instructor access or sign in to your existing instructor profile.

Resources

Appendix A Supplemental Reading

Connecting Leadership Development Philosophy and Development to Overall Organizational Alignment

The anticipated metrics for any leadership development strategy are achieved value and reduced risks. However, it can be extremely difficult to demonstrate the analytical link connecting leadership development to organizational needs (Day, 2007). There is growing attention on fitting the desired leadership development outcomes to the organizational context (e.g., McGurk, 2010).

Not only does leadership development connect to overall organizational needs, it also connects with other talent management needs. Leadership development can be a part of a talent management dashboard because it contributes to the effectiveness of the organization when transitioned from merely reporting data to serving as a data-support mechanism for decision-making (Corporate Leadership Council, 2005, 2010). In fact, a key element of leadership development from a talent management perspective is looking to the future (Lawler, 2009), and the information obtained from a talent management dashboard is critical to that activity. The decision-making component is often demonstrated through a link between the leadership development philosophy and the leadership development program.

Designing a Leadership Structure at TRS

When designing the leadership architecture at TRS, it is important to consider the difference between leader development and leadership development (Dalakoura, 2010; Day, 2001). Leadership is not about individual skills but about the relationship among leaders and the social and organizational environment. A leadership architecture needs to account for the social and organizational environment. Leadership architectures vary by industry and organization (see Carter, Ulrich & Goldsmith, 2005, for examples of different approaches to leadership development).

The key questions are:

  • What intervention areas will affect overall organizational results?
  • What intervention areas will not have a significant effect (Day, 2007)?

Answering these questions will help identify the overall leadership architecture.

Sample diagnostic questions to consider include the following:

  • What results is your organization seeking?
  • How does your organization define leadership development?
  • What leadership development strategies are likely to work in your organization?

Once an organization can answer these questions, the message or vision that serves as the foundation for the leadership architecture can be determined (Carter, Ulrich & Goldsmith, 2005). This message or vision is absolutely critical because it represents the organization's leadership development philosophy. If an organization identifies an incorrect leadership development philosophy or does not identify a leadership development philosophy, the intended leadership development outcomes will be difficult to achieve.

For TRS, it may be appropriate to use a broad-based framework that focuses on the leader and the leadership development mode. Alternatively, it may make more sense to use a framework designed to take advantage of a particular organizational strength, such as the collective leadership framework (Friedrich et al., 2009), which espouses that leadership is a role that can be selectively distributed among individuals in a team depending on the expertise required. For TRS, it may be most appropriate to design a different framework that optimizes the fit for the context within which TRS and its industry operates.

Leadership architecture frameworks may refer to the larger structural pieces of the architecture that guide the details developed going forward (Byrne & Rees, 2006). Ultimately, the framework provides composition to the various components of the architecture and direction to future add-ons.

During the search for the framework, a discussion regarding critical leadership capabilities and risks for TRS may emerge. This discussion fits nicely with the HR role of strategy architect (Ulrich, Brockbank & Johnson, 2009). Specifically, the discussion relates to sustaining strategic agility. As part of this challenge, HR strategy architects look two to three years into the future and forecast the anticipated skills their leaders will need to have to sustain a competitive advantage. For example, there may be increased reliance on regional leaders to recruit new members. This may require sales, marketing or specific communication skills that were not required in the past. As an organization identifies its longer-range planning strategies, future skills that will be needed become clearer. Shifting to a new culture also causes these skills to be more pronounced.

Of course, skills may be relative to scope. Arguments have been made that effective leaders practice the same behaviors regardless of leadership level. For example, behaviors needed by all leaders might include the ability to:

  • Look to the future.
  • Manage performance.
  • Achieve minimal distance between self and those being led.
  • Communicate directly and effectively with members.
  • Model accountability for leadership development involvement.
  • Support shared leadership (Lawler, 2009).

Arguments have also been made that the level of work (e.g., manager versus director versus vice president) is essential to determine the needed leadership development skills (Jacques, 1998; Corporate Leadership Council, 2007). This also can help some organizations separate more critical positions from less critical ones. For example, with TRS, it may be more important to provide leadership development for regional leaders than for the board of directors, although the tendency is to consider higher-ranking work levels as more critical.

Segmentation can also help establish the focus of a leadership development architecture. In TRS's case, it may make the most sense to provide leadership development for regional leaders and not to the incoming president, or to revisit the leadership development needs for the incoming president at a later date.

After building the framework and determining scope, leader development practices can be applied to the architecture. Leadership practices categories can be broken into many typologies. One popular format is to divide the practices into education, assessment, coaching and experiential learning (Day, 2007).

Classroom training and corporate universities fall under the education domain. Educational opportunities provide leaders with similar exposure to concepts, plans, knowledge and skill growth. One of the questions revolving around educational opportunities is the transfer of training from the classroom to the job (Day, 2007). Some organizations have designed creative solutions that help facilitate the transfer of training by extending the classroom to the job (see Roche, Wick & Stewart, 2005, for an example).

Assessment includes personality inventories, 360-degree feedback and assessment centers (Day, 2007). Most of these practices are for leader development rather than leadership development. To make assessments organization-specific, the assessment can be combined with other practices (e.g., education or coaching) to make the content better fit the context.

Coaching includes executive coaching and mentoring (Day, 2007) and can enhance the value of assessments. Mentoring can benefit individuals newer to a skill or skill set by receiving development from individuals with more advanced experiences with the same skill or skill set. One of the most important contributions made by a coach or mentor is helping a leader step out of his or her role and view the situation as an insider and an outsider at the same time (Thomas, 2008).

Experiential learning includes job assignments and action-learning projects. A model for organizations wishing to use experience-based learning includes preparing, deploying and renewing (Thomas, 2008). In this model, leadership development opportunities occur naturally, and it is up to the organization to ensure that the proper tools are in place for a leader to make the most of a leadership development opportunity. Interestingly, many leadership development opportunities in this model occur outside of the workplace. The model also allows for combining experiential learning with the other types of leadership development practices.

For TRS, the question is, which leadership development practice(s) will best fit its leadership framework?

This case was prepared for inclusion in Sage Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial purposes.

2024 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles