Entwicklung von Führungsqualitäten

Leadership development consulting is advisory work on what a company needs its leaders to decide differently, and on whether the organization around them would let that happen. We are a strategy firm, not a training provider. We do not sell a leadership curriculum, we do not license assessment instruments, and we do not place coaches. What we do is establish which decisions the strategy actually depends on, who makes them today, what the current system rewards instead, and what has to change for the two to line up.

• Seit 1999Kunden-, Nachfrage- und Geschäftsstrategie
• Über 200veröffentlichte Fallstudien
• 10 Niederlassungenauf vier Kontinenten
• 5xWirtschaftsWoche: Das Beste aus den Bereichen Beratung, Strategie und Innovation
• Der Interaction Fieldverfasst von unserem Gründer

Wenn Unternehmen uns beauftragen

Leadership development is usually bought when a strategy has been agreed and the leadership population is still running the previous one. The trigger is almost never a shortage of capable people. It is a gap between the decisions the plan assumes and the decisions that actually get made.

• After a strategy change that nobody is deciding differently. The direction was signed off, the operating rhythm did not move, and the same trade-offs keep getting settled the way they were settled last year.
• When the leadership bench was built for the business you are leaving. The people who were promoted are good at what the company used to reward, which is usually operational reliability, and the strategy now asks for something else as well.
• When a leadership program already ran and nothing changed. Attendance was high, feedback was positive, and no one can name a decision that went differently afterwards.
• Before a reorganization or a transformation program. A new structure fails quickly if the people inside it still make calls the way the old structure taught them to, a pattern we have written about in our framework for organizational change management.
• When the people who challenge things keep leaving. The exit interviews describe the same experience, and the company reads it as a retention problem rather than as information about what it rewards.

Why most leadership programs do not change what leaders do

A typical leadership program is built from a competency framework, delivered as a curriculum and evaluated on how participants rated it. Each of those three choices quietly works against the outcome the sponsor wanted.

• The competency model describes the leaders you already have. Frameworks are usually derived by studying current high performers, so they encode the behavior that succeeds in the present system. If the strategy requires something different, the model is a specification for the wrong thing.
• The program sits next to the work. Judgment develops through consequential decisions. A program that runs alongside the job and never touches a live decision produces people who can discuss leadership accurately.
• The organization penalizes what the program teaches. Participants are taught to question assumptions and take considered risks, then return to a system where promotion rewards reliability and a visible failure is career defining. They are not confused. They are reading the incentives correctly.
• Success is measured on the session. Satisfaction at the end of a module tells you how the experience felt. It tells you nothing about whether a trade-off was settled differently three months later.

The common result is a population of capable operators fluent in language the company will not let them act on. That is worse than no program, because it also teaches them that the company is not serious.

What our leadership development consulting covers

Four bodies of work. Most clients need the first two before they know whether they need the rest, and some stop there because the answer turns out to be structural.

1. Establishing what leadership has to do here

Before anyone designs development, we name the specific decisions this organization needs leaders to make differently, drawn from its own strategy rather than from a generic model of good leadership.

• The handful of recurring decisions the plan actually depends on, with the people who own them identified by name
• Where the current leadership population is already strong, which is worth protecting rather than retraining
• Which of those decisions are made by one person and which are settled by a group, because the two need different work

2. Reading what the organization currently rewards

This is the step most providers skip, and it is the one that decides whether anything holds. We look at the system the leaders operate inside before we look at the leaders.

• What the last two promotion rounds actually selected for, as opposed to what the criteria say
• What happens to someone who challenges a senior position, established from recent examples rather than from policy
• Where accountability has been assigned without the decision rights to match, which looks like a leadership failure and is not one

3. Building both modes deliberately

Senior leadership in most of our clients requires two things at once: running the current business reliably and questioning the assumptions it rests on. These need different tolerances for being wrong, and companies almost always develop the first thoroughly while selecting against the second without meaning to.

• Running well, which most organizations already develop and should keep developing
• Questioning, which takes practice at working with incomplete information, making reversible bets and being wrong in public without it counting against you
• The judgment to know which mode a situation calls for, which is the part that separates senior leadership from senior management

4. Designing the development so it survives the job

Whatever is built has to work inside the organization as it is on the day people return to their desks. That is a design constraint, not an afterthought.

• Real decisions with real consequences as the vehicle, supported rather than simulated
• Peer groups that persist after the formal part ends, because leadership habits are maintained socially or not at all
• A named sponsor accountable for whether participants are actually allowed to use what they developed
• A measure based on decisions and retention at six and twelve months, agreed before anything starts

How a leadership development engagement works

1. Diagnose. Interviews with the leadership population and with the people one level below them, plus a review of how recent consequential decisions were actually settled. The output is a short list of decisions the strategy needs to go differently and a plain account of what the system currently rewards.
2. Specify. What leadership has to be able to do here, written as decisions rather than as competencies, and separated into what development can change and what only structure or incentives can.
3. Build. The development itself, designed around your live decisions and run with the people who own them. Where a standing curriculum or formal coaching is the right instrument, we specify it and help you select a provider rather than pretending we are one.
4. Hold. Sponsor accountability, a peer group that continues, and a six and twelve month review against the decisions named in step two rather than against satisfaction scores.

Why companies choose Vivaldi for leadership development

Three reasons come up, and one limit is worth stating before you shortlist us.

• We start from the strategy, not from a competency library. The specification for what leadership has to do here comes out of your own plan, which means it can be wrong in useful ways rather than generically right.
• We treat the incentive system as part of the brief. Development that contradicts what the company promotes for will lose, every time. Naming that early is usually the most valuable thing in the engagement.
• We will tell you when the answer is not development. A good share of what arrives as a leadership problem is a decision rights problem or a culture problem, and we would rather route you than sell you a program that cannot work.

The limit, stated plainly. We do not run a leadership academy, we do not license psychometric or behavioral assessment instruments, and we do not place executive coaches. None of those appear anywhere in our published case studies, and we are not going to imply otherwise. Our published training work is subject specific rather than leadership generic: customer-first training and enterprise AI training and workshops. If what you need is a standing leadership curriculum delivered at volume, or accredited coaching for a named population, a specialist will serve you better and we will say so in the first conversation.

How to evaluate a leadership development consultant

Das sollten Sie jeden auf Ihrer Auswahlliste fragen – auch uns.

• Ask where the competency model came from. If it was derived from your current high performers, it will reproduce them. Occasionally that is the goal. More often it is the opposite of what the strategy needs.
• Ask which real decisions participants will touch. Development that never reaches a consequential decision produces vocabulary rather than judgment, and the two are hard to tell apart in a readout.
• Ask what happens to a participant who challenges something senior. If the honest answer is that it would not go well, the program is teaching behavior the organization punishes, and the participants will work that out faster than the sponsor does.
• Ask how they handle the reliability trade-off. Running and reinventing need different tolerances for failure. A provider who has not thought about how one leader holds both is only teaching one of them.
• Ask what gets measured six months later. Not how the program was rated. Which decisions went differently, who made them, and whether those people are still with you.

Strategy firm, leadership training provider or executive coaching firm?

These are complements more often than alternatives. The sequence that tends to work is specification first, then the instrument: decide what leadership has to do here, then buy the curriculum or the coaching that fits it. Buying the instrument first is how companies end up with a well-run program aimed at the wrong thing.

Verwandte Dienstleistungen

Leadership development is rarely the whole answer, and the boundaries matter more than usual in this area.

• Capability development if the question is what the organization can do repeatedly, rather than who is leading it. Leadership development is about who decides; capability development is about what survives after the people who did it first have moved on.
• Organizational design if leaders have been given accountability without the decision rights to match. No amount of development fixes that one.
• Cultural transformation consulting if the leaders are capable and the surrounding culture prevents them from acting, a theme explored in our conversation with Ella F. Washington on building stronger workplace cultures.
• Change management if there is a specific change to land and the question is how leaders carry it.
• Workforce transformation and AI if what has moved is the work itself, which is increasingly where this conversation starts. We have written about reinventing leadership in the age of AI and the dilemma it puts leaders in.

Diese Arbeit fällt in den Zuständigkeitsbereich unserer „Organizational Enablement “-Gruppe, die Teil des Bereichs „People, Culture and Capabilities“ bei Vivaldi, dem Strategieberatungsunternehmen, das hinter dem „Demand Landscape“ und dem „ Interaction Field “ steht.

Leadership development consulting in the US and worldwide

We work from ten offices on four continents, with the US team in New York. What counts as good leadership behavior is read differently from one market to the next, and a specification written in one headquarters and applied unchanged across regions tends to produce compliance rather than judgment. Where a leadership population spans markets, we run the diagnostic in each of them, and we are explicit about which parts of the specification are the strategy talking and which parts are one market’s management culture talking.