Human resource development is oftenthought of as a branch of human resource management.It's essentially concerned with the studyof learning processes and change; individual,team, and organizational levels in the organization.It's a relatively new discipline.Its background is within the areaof instructional psychology and training, and over

recent years, has developed to becomefar more sophisticated and looking at learning processmore widely.Its importance has grown significantly, not leastbecause of the rise of the knowledge economy,the importance of knowledge workers,and the significance of knowledgeor learning as being a real source of competitive advantage

for organizations.Individual level learning, we oftenlook at perhaps formal learning processes,such as coaching, training.Informal learning processes, such as the typeof learning that occurs on the job, what's often calledsometimes, incidental learning.You can imagine, with about 85% of organizations

globally operating in team based structures,that team learning has become far more significant.And we know that factors, such as trust, respect, social tiescan affect learning within teams.And if you think of learning as an information processing,in terms of how you might acquire, use, store, knowledge,

then we can also think of learning as occurringat the organizational level.So over recent years, the study of human resource developmenthas become quite significant for organizations,which is why often, it's located in business schools.

What does the term, "emotional intelligence" mean?This is a difficult question to answer,not least because over the past 15 years, the term,emotional intelligence, and the constructof emotional intelligence has been quite controversial.You can go back to 1995, when Daniel Goleman produced

his first book around the term, emotional intelligence, whichwas a very popular account of this concept.And some the claims he made were discounted.He claimed at the time, that emotional intelligencewas more important than IQ.Subsequently, we haven't actually shown that,empirically.But the first, if you like, academic study of the subject

really began in '97, with Mayer and Salovey's work,which looked at emotional intelligenceas a set of abilities which individuals possess whichare associated with how people process emotional information.And this built on work that was alreadyin the scientific domain, following

the publication of Gardner's work, whichlooked at intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences;the idea that IQ alone really wasn't sufficient to accountfor the type of intelligences that people were usingand which were associated with their effectivenessand success.So over the last 15 years, we've had

the emergence of the concept of emotional intelligence.And there have been, if you like, three major streamsof thinking regarding what this concept actually means.And they can be categorized as the ability model,by Mayer and Salovey, which I just referred to.And they talk about emotional intelligenceas essentially, about four distinct abilities.

The way we perceive emotion, the way we use emotionto facilitate thinking and behavior,the way we manage emotions, both in ourselves and in others,and the way we understand emotions.What causes emotions?And how do different emotions combineto perhaps form other, more larger types of emotions

in individuals?And then there is what's called the school whichthinks of emotional intelligence as a personality disposition.This is people like Schutt or Petrides,who talk about emotional intelligenceas being about traits.So it's about a personalized disposition,not in intelligence.And the third school tends to see emotional intelligence

as a set of competences.This is very much Goldman's work, also includesMalcolm Higg's work in the United Kingdom.So these are very distinct ideas about whatemotional intelligence is.But they all have in common one thing,which is the significance of the emotional context surrounding

what we do, how we interact, and howthat can be used to facilitate social interaction.And of course, research for the last 15 yearshas shown emotional intelligence to be associatedwith quite a number of important outcomesfor individuals, in terms of well being,but also, in terms of performance work,

student performance, et cetera.What started me off in this field of working in academiaresearching, it was around leadership and leadershipdevelopment.I think I can trace it back to about 20odd years ago, when I initially graduated

as a clinical social worker.And I worked in various areas, particularly in health care.And this time was about the 1980s.And by that time, it got to 1990s,and it was the whole AIDS crisis.And I was working in Australia at the time,in the office of corrections.And the Australians were doing something

quite different to what we had been doing in the UnitedKingdom, in terms of trying to deal with the AIDS epidemic.And the leadership that was shownby a number of individuals who wereable to bring bleached sashays into the prison service, whichin a sense, was a tacit acknowledgment that therewas drug use going on.

And of course, if you compared this to what was going onin the United Kingdom, where basically,you couldn't actually accept the ideathat people were using drugs in prisons,despite the fact that the evidence to the contrary.So it really showed me one thing thatwas quite important was the power of leadership to createsignificant change; leadership in organizations

that really had a huge impact.And this was in relation to public policy.And the impact of this was it's saving lives.So I began, in my career, to see differences in leadershipwithin organizations, particularly, in my case,within health and social care, had a huge impact,in terms of both people who work in there.

But also, beyond that, in terms of perhaps health outcomes,social outcomes.And that's really what got me interested firstof all in this area of leadership,and subsequently, leadership development.The key thinkers in the field of leadershipthat really had an impact to me, it's an interesting question.

But I think there are two that really stand out.The first one is Professor Neal [INAUDIBLE].He has really spent a great part of his career of recent years,looking at the year of emotions.And it's significant, particularly,in relation to leadership.And for many years, organizations really

tended to consider emotions the irrational part of life.Organizations were rational centers,and anything that was emotional was generally discarded.And he spent great of his career of recent years,in particular, looking at emotional intelligenceand arguing its significance in the area of leadership,

often, against quiet, vociferous criticism within the field.But he's persevered.He built up an academic communityin the area of emotions and emotional intelligencethat has grown stronger over recent years.And it's had a huge impact, I think,in the area of leadership.Apart from anything else, it's begunto recognize those aspects of leadership, which

ought to do with working with people that have becomesso important over recent years.And of course, when you think about the organizations thatare flatter, we have drives right across society,in terms of becoming more democratic.When we think about organizationsthat are especially within developed economies

are working to create new knowledgeto look at innovation, which requires you to workwith people, then leadership, whichis about working with relationships,really does begin to put the focus on areas,such as emotional intelligence.So he's definitely been, for me, a very important thinkerin the field.

Related to that is another, I think well respected writerand thinker, which is Mary [INAUDIBLE].And she's done a great deal of work, particularly,in the area of what's called relational leadership.Now, for many people, if you talkabout leaders and leadership, theytend to think of leadership-- it's almost like a default

position as a heroic model.So if you ask me, as a British academic, whatdo I think about leadership, often, peoplepick out individuals.Churchill, this sort of thing.And that has a dominant impact, in termsof thinking about what the nature of leadership is.

And associated with that then, whenpeople think about what is good, what leadership,they tend to think about leadershipas being about individuals and about traits that peopleposses.And of course, what's been missing from the equationfor quite a long time is the fact that whereare the followers in this?Where are the people that are actually part of the leadershipequation?And Mary [INAUDIBLE] has done a great deal of work,

trying to relocate the focus of leadershipaway from necessarily thinking about leadersand what leaders do, or what characteristics leaders have,to actually thinking about leadership more,as a relational activity, somethingthat goes on between people, between a leaderand a follower.And this has been quite significant,

because once you begin to see leadershipas a relational quality, it meansyou start focusing on other aspects,in terms what makes good leadership.So what makes good leadership is to dealwith the quality of the relationshipthat we might have, me, as a leader, and you, as a follower.So this has had quite a large impactin shifting our focus away from if you like,

behavioral, or trait theories of leadership, to thinkingabout leadership as a relational quality.More recently, she's been doing some very exciting work,introducing complexity science into the area of leadership.And this takes the ideas of relational leadershipa sort of step further.If we think about the messy problemsthat we're having to deal with in society today

and what organizations are having to deal with,we think about the pace of changewhich organizations are having to move and deal with problems.Then the whole area, it's become far more complex.It means that we need to think about leadership as movingfrom just being located in formal leader positions

to perhaps, leadership as a far more fluid concept that movesaround organizations, that is self emergent; that peopleemerge and become leaders as a result of dealingwith particular problems.So concepts like shared leadershipbecome really significant, important,mainly because the problems we are dealing with, often,

many of them are so intractable or so problematicthat we need as many people engagingin leadership as possible.So the idea of leadership as being relational,leadership, in terms of dealing with issues of complexity,I think, are really having some significant impacton the field.

Certainly, in relation to complexity ideas of leadership,they're very much in their infancy.But I suspect in the future, they'regoing to have quite a large impact.The importance of studying leadership-- well,I think for many people at a national level,

they'll recognize when leadership has becomeimportant, both in terms of politicians,or in more recent years, in terms of dealingwith a period of austerity.And people have looked to leaderseven to blame for the current crisisor to get them out of the current crisis.But certainly, in the business context,leadership becomes significant, because leadership is

associated with productivity.It's association with organizations achievingthe goals they need to follow through, in order to becomesuccessful, to be effective.So leadership is important, because apartfrom anything else, it shapes the personalityof an organization.It helps to think about where the organization is going.

It drives performance, and it drives productivity.And that's why leadership is so important today.Perfect.When studying leadership, two factors, I think,are very important to think about.One is organizational culture, and the otheris employee relationships in organizations.

Let me talk a bit about first, the importanceof organizational culture.Edgar Schein talked about the leaders and leadershipas influencing the culture of an organization.But just as importantly, the culture of an organizationalso influences perhaps leadership and the nature

of leadership that takes place.Now, we know from studies that have looked at leadership crossculturally, that's some aspects of leadership are actuallyshared universally.So for example, supportive styles of leadership,and even charismatic styles of leadership.You can find these as being effective in most cultures

across the globe.But aspects of leadership such as democratic forms,or participative forms of leadership,or more directive forms of leadership, theseactually have more cultural significance.So for example, if you look at Hofstede's dimensions of powerdistance, which refer to how comfortable countries are

in relation to distribution of power between different people,you'll find that where there is high power distance, thencountries, such as in France, for example,they are less comfortable with participative formsof management.They're actually quite comfortable with directiveforms of management, whereas if you

look at countries which score quite low in power,distinct of which perhaps the United Kingdom or the UnitedStates, then what you find is actually peopleare less comfortable with directive focus of leadership,and far more comfortable and expect more participativeforms of leadership.Now, if you take that a step further and begin to ask,well, are there differences-- Not, just culturally,

in terms of different countries, but whatabout if we look at different business sectors,or if we look at different industries?Or even if we look at different organizations?And I think that what we can see is certainly,if you look at public sector organizationscompared to private sector organizations,they have different types of culturesthat operate within them, which means

the type of leadership that's expectedcan look and be quite different.It's also shaped by people.It's what's called implicit leadership theories.These are often culturally determined,but they're to do with the way in which we have expectationsof what leaders should be like, and what they should do,and what we think effective leadership is.

So culture within organizations is an important factorwhich shapes, if you like, what leadership looks like.In terms of employee relationships, of course,the significance here is the notionof relational leadership, that if you think of leadershipis about achieving goals in organizations through people,

and that's done through the locus of a relationship.And so if you look at factors about whatmakes good leadership, you'll oftenfind it's to deal with the quality of relationship thatexists between a leader and the followersin those organizations.So are those relationships characterizedby high levels of trust?Are they characterized by high levels of respect?

How much do they like one another, at a simple level?These factors really have an importin terms of their impact on employee performance,on whether employees are going to becommitted to the organization, their job satisfaction.And you have to remember one thing, whichis if you look over the last 50 years, there'sbeen huge changes to organizations,

not least, different types of people working there,far greater diversity of the people that are working there,far greater numbers of women than ever before.And another significant issue is lots of layers of managementhave been removed.Organizations have gone from being quite bureaucratic timestructures which were very slow to respond to change.

They're not very good in a very competitive business structureand business environments.So if you remove away, take away the typical forms of controlthe organizations used to rely on to, if you like,get employees to perform in the ways that they desired.So lots of supervision, lots of surveillance type job

descriptions.If you remove those things because they're too expensive,and because they deal with change very well,what do you replace them with?Well, of course, the general way of thinkingis that you replace it with commitment, your commitmentfrom the employees.You don't need to control them, because the employees will be

committed to your organization.But commitment comes up at a price,and commitment can be difficult, especially when you'reworking in an organization where organizations no longerguarantee you a job for life.Often, there are different types of contracts thatnow exist within organizations.So if your organization's expecting commitment

within this type of environment, howdo you actually obtain that?Well, one of the key ways of doing it is through leadership.And of course, that puts a real spotlightin what leaders are doing and how they're doing it.One of the more interesting questions, I think,over recent years is this issue of whether

if leadership may differ between different organizations.Do we see differences in leadership development?And one might expect that if you havegot different forms of leadership that are going onin the different organizations, than perhaps,the type of development activities that are going onto support that particular form of leadership may differ.

In fact there's very little evidenceat the moment that support this, apart from very recently,from a research study that I was involved in with Malcolm Higgs.And we looked at to 10 different business sectorsin the United Kingdom.These included telecommunications, health,risk management, the police, local governments,

so a range of private and public sector organizations.And we tried to identify, what were their businessprocesses that were going on?What was their strategy?What were the goals they were tryingto achieve within their particular businessenvironment?And how did that impact on the type of leadershipthey were looking for?

And then how did that impact on whatthey did around the leadership development?And what we found was something that we suspected, but no one,up to this point, had ever found, which was that in fact,the type of leadership that they were supporting very muchwas in a line within the strategic focusof the organization.So let me give you an example.

If we look at the telecommunications company,this was a global telecommunications playerbased in the UK, their big problem at the momentwas trying to secure major culturechange in the organization.They needed to be far more businesssavvy to deal with the broadband market they were in.

And they were looking at a model of leadershipwhich was about how can they empowertheir managers to manage change and secure culture change?So they adopted a form of leadership,which was called transformational leadership,which is very much trying to get change within organizations.And this was very much in line with the typeof business problems that they were having to contend with.

If we look at, for example, another organization we lookedat, which was in health care, theywere dealing with complex problems, messy problems.When you're dealing with health it'svery difficult to locate that within just one organization.Often, in health care, there are many organizationsthat are involved in trying to improve the quality of health

care for individuals.And when we looked at their ideas of leadership,they very much adopt what's called a complexityperspective.They saw leadership more as an emergent phenomenon,because it had to be to deal with the complex problems thatinvolved more than one organization.So they had different problems they were dealing with,

these organizations.They looked at and adopted very different leadershipphilosophies.Now, what became interesting was the type of activitiesthey then used to support that leadership philosophy.Because it's often thought of, and if youpick up many leadership developmentbooks, or leadership training books, in particular,

you get the view that these things work anywhere.They work in every organization, all the timeand what's called a universalistic perspective.There's no context.It doesn't count.When in fact, what we're seeing here is actually,the context does count, because the different business,the strategic focus shapes the type of leadershipthey think is important.

And then what was important was the waythey tried to bring about that leadership differed.So, for example, in the telecommunications company,they adopted a very formal leadership training program,where they specified precisely what their managers neededto know and how they needed to go about transforming

the organization.In the health care organization, their leadership developmentwas very different.It was about giving managers the freedomto try to come up with particular projectsto deal with quality improvement.It wasn't specified.So the type of learning in one instancewas specified and formal, and in the other instance,

it was not specified.It was up to the individual leaderto come up with, if you like, their own development program,and to base it very much around a project around qualityimprovement in health care.So it's interesting to see how leadership and leadershipdevelopment can be traced to very different business

conditions that are facing different organizations.This is very new work though, so we are hopingto extend it further shortly.One of the more interesting questions, I think,when you start thinking about contextualized leadership,as well, is this notion of leadership brand.And one of the writers in the field of [INAUDIBLE], I

remember, in particular, an academic by the name of DaveWoolrich, talks about the significanceof leadership [INAUDIBLE].Now, he argues that in most organizations, about 70%of what leaders do is the same.But he goes on then to also suggest there's about 30%that should be very different, and that the type of leader

behaviors that leaders exhibit shouldbe very much connected to the type of brandof the organization.So, for example, he talks about the wayin which if you look at innovation within Apple,for example, that the type of leaders behaviors

there are to deal with how you sponsorand you allow a risk taking amongst employees.So you can really connect.The way leadership looks, the 30% is very different.What leaders are doing are allowing people to experiment.They're giving people freedom to create knowledgein ways that are quite different from perhaps,

leaders in other types of organizations.People often ask me what are good qualities in leadership.And sometimes, I'm hesitant to answer that question,because it always reminds me of going backto this heroic leadership model.

What are the qualities of good leadership?Often, it assumes it's to do with the personalcharacteristics of individuals.And I'm very much of the view that in orderto deal with the complex problemsand deal with change the organizations are facing today,we need to think of leadership as a far more fluid concept.We need to think of leadership as emerging.

So we can think that then in two ways.First of all, what does that mean for formal leaders?And I suppose for formal leaders in organizations, that'sby leadership by virtue of the oppositional,or of the authority.I think for those people, they needto be able to bring about the conditions which foster what's

called emergent leadership.So they need to give people opportunitiesto lead on projects.They need to empower people in their organizations.And they need to let go.They need to trust people in their organizations,because they will come up with the ideas to solve problems.So for formal leaders, they need to have the willingness

and trust employees to develop their own leadership skills.For other people in the organization whoare not necessarily formal leaders,they need to be given the confidenceto be able to lead projects when they need to.So when problems come along, theyneed to have the confidence to bring their skills

to bear, to bring their knowledge to bear,to solve problems that are going to beimportant to the organization.So when I think about qualities for leadership,I think of that, in terms of both qualitiesfor formal leaders, but also, qualities far more widelyfor other people in the organizationthat we need to fulfill leadership positions.Leadership is too important to leave just to formal leaders.

Can you teach emotional intelligence?This is interesting question, quite controversial, not leastbecause the topic of emotional intelligenceis a controversial one.I, myself, have been involved in tryingto look at conducting research as to whether youcan develop emotional intelligence in individuals.

And I think the evidence is mixed,and it rather depends on the typeof model of emotional intelligence that you're using.So when we look at, for example, the literature,we can see studies that have used emotional intelligenceas a set of competencies.This tends to show more positive results.And it's not surprising really, because the way

they measure emotional intelligence in their studiesoften really relies on either self report,or peer report, or feedback from manages.So in those studies, you tend to get far more positive resultsif you think of emotional intelligenceas a set of competencies.Then, of course, if you think of emotional intelligence

as a set of dispositions, as a set of traits of personality,then of course, if you think of emotional intelligencein this way, then the idea of developingemotional intelligence is a bit of a nonsense,because most the general view is that personalitiestends to be fairly fixed.So there's not a lot of scope for developmentif you see it in these trait like ways.

When you think of emotional intelligenceas a set of abilities, such as the Mayer and Salovey model,the evidence here is difficult to assess.It's very varied, and often, I think the programsthat people are evaluating, they simplydon't seem to be long enough to get some type of change

in individuals.There are some abilities, such as understandingemotions, which I think, are much more easier to bringabout some lasting change.But if you think about [INAUDIBLE]emotional intelligence [INAUDIBLE],such as managing emotions, perceiving emotions,these things take perhaps, a much longer period of time.

Now, what is interesting is there are certainlya number of studies that have shown that you can--people use it in the police service.You can train individuals to be farbetter at perceiving emotions.And that's one emotional intelligence ability,so there is evidence for that.There's also evidence, quite a bit

of evidence from the health care fieldin the area of emotional self regulation,that we try to teach people how to managetheir emotional states.This been going on for quite some time,and there's quite a bit of evidence to support that.But the interesting thing about those two areas of workis that they don't often call it emotional intelligence.

From my own experience, it's much moredifficult to develop emotional intelligencethan perhaps many consultants would have us believe.And certainly, there was one studywhich I looked at the emotional intelligence of nursesworking within hospices.

Hospices are organizations which lookafter people who are often going to dieat the final stages of their life.And it was my view that if you're going to look,the best place to look to see if you could developthese sorts of abilities is perhaps,in an area where there's it's to be quite emotionally intensive.And one of the things I found looking

at nurses who work in those areasis that their abilities around the way they perceive emotionsand the way they manage emotions, both in themselvesand with their patients, that these do develop,but they develop over quite a long period of timeto do with experience, to do with working on the job,and often, to do with the way they interact

with other nurses, with their other professionals,so through dialogue with other nurses.So it's a much longer process of development.And the other interesting thing wasa lot of this learning was often tacit.By that, I mean it was often going on an unconscious level.They were learning, perhaps by modeling other nurses,

or by observing interactions with other nurses and patients.So I think emotional intelligencecan be developed, especially when thoughtof as a set of abilities.But it's likely to occur over a much longer time framethan I think perhaps, some of the programs that are companyavailable in the market.

New directions in leadership research, which I thinkare going to be very exciting over the next few years.I think this notion of contextualized leadership,I think, is becoming more important.We already know that there are cross cultural differences.But I think there's more work that'sbeginning to be developed, looking

at the notion of organizational cultures,and how that influences leadership.I think there's more work, in termsof the contextualized nature of leadership.So, for example, leadership, if you like,is public sector organizations compared to leadership,perhaps in private sector organizations.

What does leadership look like in different industries?And how is that connected to the effectivenessof the organization?So it's very much connected to perhaps,some of Dave Ulrich's work around leadership brand.But this notion of moving away fromsimple, universalistic ideas of what

is good or effective leadership.It's more work that's going to be coming out there.I think the area of relationship leadership,and the area of what's called followership.The followers have been ignored for so many yearswithin the leadership equation, and what

are the characteristics of followersthat make leadership effective.How do they interact together?Some of the areas that I'm involved in which I thinkare going to be exciting over recent years,I'm very much interested in areas,such as what does the quality of relationship between a leaderand a follower look like that makes

leadership really effective?Now, a lot of the times, we haven't reallyunpacked that sufficiently.For example, when we think respect is important--let's take the concept of respect.If you give surveys to followers, employees,when you ask them, what do you think makes good leadership,

respect figures really high on their list.If look in the leadership literature,actually, respect doesn't get much of a looking.Within the ethics literature, respectis talked about quite a lot in the context of leadership.But if you're looking generally, this organizational behavior,literature around leadership, [INAUDIBLE]respect isn't talked about a great deal at all.

And in fact, when it is talked about,it tends to be talked about in the context of what'scalled professional respect.Now, respect can take all sorts of forms.So I'll give you a quick two examples.If I respect you because of your capabilities,then that's often, what's called appraisal respect.It's respect due to the certain characteristics

that you possess that I think are valuable.But there's another form of respect, whichis called recognition respect.And recognition respect is very different.This says that you are deserving of respectbased upon your humanity.And as a result of that, you shouldbe treated with due regard and with fairness,

in terms of treatment.And you should be treated as an autonomous human beingwith rights.Now, what is interesting is that those two different formsof respect seem to be associated with different typesof outcomes.One seems to be associated far more with perhaps,performance, the other, far more with well being,

because it affects people's self esteem far more.I think this is quite exciting, in termsof unpacking these different concepts, such as respect,and trust, and what areas might be important,in terms of relationship quality that really makea difference for leadership.I think that's where leadership research will be going.

One of the more recent areas I've been involved inis looking at a leadership development programfor a health care organization within the National HealthService in England.And for many people, they will knowthe health care in most Western economiesis having to struggle.They're dealing with an aging population,

often with chronic conditions whichrequire new forms of health care, new ways of deliveringhealth care.The many health care systems in many countriesare having to deal with the strain of veryexpensive systems to run, and the organization I'vebeen working with, an organization

called Thames Valley Leadership Academy,they recognize that if health care was continued--if we're going to be able to really meetthe needs of the population, especially in England,for delivery of the health care they want to see,then we need to innovate.Now, one of the problems in large organizations,

and especially, large bureaucratic organizations,particularly, in health care, is innovationcan be quite difficult to bring about.And so what this organization has done in orderto try to improve innovation, to get new ideas,has been to run what's called an innovationcompetition for junior doctors right across this large region.

And they gave out some prize moneyfor six winners of a competition for junior doctorsto come through and bring forwardnew ideas about how to introduce innovationwithin the health care system.And so these winners have introduced things like new appsto deal with education for doctors

to use to find out perhaps specific areas of healthexpertise.Also, new areas of kit, which are important within the healthservice, but also, ideas about how the health caresystem might be restructured.And I think this is really exciting,

because they have a competition to support these ideas.These junior doctors are now beinggiven mentoring and coaching as part of their leadershipdevelopment to bring these new ideas online.They're going to have real impact.You're going to see the results of these ideas.But one of the things that I think is interesting

is that we're also learning about how does innovationcome about within these types of systems?Or course, you need creative individuals.But often, there are many creative individualsin the organizations such as health care systems whichdon't get very far.They often hit brick walls.And often, sometimes, in large organizations,you just think, no one's going to listen to me.

No one's interested in the ideas that I might have.And so we're looking and followingthese individuals to see how did theynavigate through the system?What new skills do they need?What new skills do they have to developfor these junior doctors, in order to really introducenew innovations?And if we can try to capture some of that

and then see if we can repeat that in other health careorganizations, I think we're reallygoing to be onto some major successes in that area.And It, shows you how powerful areas such as leadershipdevelopment really can be and canmake a huge difference to organizations and to peopleusing them.