Internally at the Refinery we’ve been talking quite a bit about executive support recently for leadership and management development initiatives. It prompted some of us to begin to think about this question in more depth. Rosie Steeves and I had a sustained internal dialogue about this question. I figured we’d make it public!

In my career I have designed and delivered development initiatives at a wide variety of organizations and with the full range of “support” stances coming from the executive: from complete antagonism to complete accountability. It’s a common training and development platitude that programmatic initiates ought to have executive support. But what does “support” really mean, what does it entail, and what are the varieties of support (and consequences)?

It seems to me there are a few kinds of executive support, each with their own consequences for how development, learning, and change initiatives are put into place. These may seem like “levels” and to some extent they are. However, an executive can take an Accountability stance (as below) but not be Involved or Support and be Involved but not take Accountability. Also, when thinking about the Executive, it is important to remember that there can be different executive team members with different stances or support levels. I feel that while senior HR executive support is crucial regardless of how other executives may feel about learning, it is important that non-HR executives take positive support stances toward learning. Indeed, our highest impact work at The Refinery flows from clients where operational executives take direct accountability of the outcomes of the learning.

Resistance — One or more senior executives can conclude that a learning initiative is not only unnecessary (either culturally or from an expense point of view) and actively sabotage it. I remember an occasion when I was interviewing an executive regarding large-scale developmental initiatives and he remarked that he’d do everything he could to ensure that organizational resources were not wasted on it. While it’s possible to use an executive’s passion against a specific learning initiative to “turn” them to the side of the light, it will be a tough battle. The key strategy here is probably focusing on getting buy-in for something the executive will support. I don’t think Resistance is the worst situation, however. At least there is passion and that can be redirected.

Disinterest — Perhaps the most troublesome kind of executive support — or lack thereof. And, probably the most common. Many senior executives delegate the entire accountability of people and organizational development to Human Resources or OD (or external consultants). The only positive aspect is that this usually frees those functions to do whatever they want, as long as it is in keeping with budget. The serious negative consequence is that, at best, the initiative is seen “only” as an HR program and conceptually shelved as irrelevant to strategy. A further negative consequence can be that participants — especially senior managers — will conclude that the executives don’t care about development given their absence. This typically makes it hard for anyone to take development seriously, in the right ways. It is certainly possible to do skill-building learning and maintenance/reward learning without any executive interest. But in my experience, it is foolhardy to believe that initiatives framed against a disinterested executive will have any major organizational consequences. Sometimes, very special learning that galvanizes participants can lead an executive to either Support/Interest, or, equally possible, Resistance as it gets their attention.

Support/Interest – Executives that see the possible positive benefits of well-designed learning and change are likely to want to support initiatives through one or more ways. Commonly, beyond budget, they enjoy being present for launch and closure (giving their blessing, of a kind). My question for such executives is always why not be involved? Typically, the answers are time, lack of perceived personal value, etc. A well-supported initiative has the advantage of lending credibility and importance to the learning. However, it still can fall short of creating meaningful change. Participants will “read” meaning into the lack of involvement from executive. Equally, a lack of accountability around the initiative can mean that it is not tied to specific organizational strategies. Support and Interest are, however, the bare minimum in my mind for launching a serious learning initiative designed to produce meaningful change.

Involvement — Involvement requires that executives step inside the initiative not only as a supporter but as a participant. It is not uncommon for executives to support an initiative or learning program as an executive. It is far less common, in my experience, for an executive to temporarily drop his or her role and stand side-by-side other organizational members as a participant in learning. Doing so has the powerful effect of demonstrating that learning is for everyone. It is not just a reward or gift; it is something worthwhile for everyone in the organization, regardless of rank. Obviously, managing executive participation in an initiative requires careful planning to keep traditional hierarchical patterns out of the environment. But the payoff can be magical.

Accountability – In my experience, the rarest kind of support but the only form that will lead to significant organizational impact. By taking accountability for learning strategies, one or more executives see the learning as tool for organizational change. This level of support can create amazing results; however, it can also be challenging as a provider (either internal or external) to meet the needs and create appropriate balance between setting strategy — the executive’s role — and controlling tactics. I personally find this kind of support the most helpful and refreshing for the work that we do. I don’t need or want to have our work be “our” programs or initiatives. Indeed, I am most happy when one or more executive sponsors see learning as part of “their” strategy. To create “accountable” executives for learning, it is important that OD/HR professionals not only involve executives in strategic organizational and people development, but ask them to be accountable and to make such initiatives part of strategic planning. Executives that are able to see the criticality of organizational development are quite likely to treat such initiatives as fundamental levers to pull for overall strategic importance.

One tactic that we are seeing often is a committee approach to supporting learning initiatives. An HR leader pulls together a cross-functional team to serve as a standing committee on learning and development. This may or may not include executives. These committees can play all the roles above with one possible exception – it is challenging for a committee to take Accountability for an initiative. Typically, Accountability is moved to the HR or OD leader from the committee … the committee’s role is to advise and approve. With the appropriate structure, however, a “learning” committee with appropriate senior representation can be held accountable for information OD/HR leadership on what learning must accomplish in the realm of strategic transformation. We’ve recently seen a wonderful example of this in practice with a client … it can work. As with all committees, the crucial question is the role and purpose of the committee combined with effective leadership of its process.

In summary, executive sponsorship is complex with multiple possible “stances” from one or more executives toward a developmental initiative. Each stance creates opportunity and each allows for different degrees of organizational impact. In my opinion, any developmental initiative that is designed to have organizational impact should seek Support (at least), but ideally Support/Interest plus Accountability and Involvement.