| Session Title: Learning Focused Evaluation: Three Perspectives on Leadership Development |
| Multipaper Session 685 to be held in Capitol Ballroom Section 6 on Friday, Nov 7, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM |
| Sponsored by the Business and Industry TIG |
| Chair(s): |
| Judith Steed, Center for Creative Leadership, steedj@ccl.org |
| Abstract: The field of leadership development is complex enough and one size fits all is not how to perform excellent evaluation. The complexity of processes, the multiplicity of outcome targets to be measured at different points in time with feedback loops in all directions including to the participants, their teams, their organizations and to the program itself all add up to huge challenges. The papers included in this multi-paper panel all address different facets of learning focused evaluation ranging from program learning, coachee learning and team learning in the context of various leadership development programs in the Center for Creative Leadership suite. |
| Program Learning: Double Loop Evaluation for Leadership Development Programs |
| Judith Steed, Center for Creative Leadership, steedj@ccl.org |
| Jessica Baltes, Center for Creative Leadership, baltesj@ccl.org |
| Gina Hernez Broome, Center for Creative Leadership, broomeg@ccl.org |
| Single Loop Evaluation is not enough for the field of Leadership Development. Often the evaluation of leadership development focuses upon the participant learning; however, this field calls for the double loop learning to best evaluate the program and to formatively influence the strength and agility of a responsive and sustaining program design. The presenters share their double loop evaluation process and inherent challenges faced when evaluating leadership development for executive training. They share their view of measuring change and programmatic impact on business executives as they relate to the program theory and design strength. This double loop evaluation pushes beyond the measurement of programmatic value to iteratively support strong program design as well as executive development. Technological, logistical and participant engagement challenges will also be shared for discussion and possible problem solving. |
| Coachee Learning: Constantly Changing Targets/ Constant Process, the Challenge of Evaluating Leadership Development Coaching |
| Gina Hernez Broome, Center for Creative Leadership, broomeg@ccl.org |
| Jessica Baltes, Center for Creative Leadership, baltesj@ccl.org |
| Judith Steed, Center for Creative Leadership, steedj@ccl.org |
| Evaluating consistent targets from learning processes are hard enough. But the challenge increases when the learning targets are unique for each participant. The authors will share their efforts to explore and define the best evaluative practices when evaluating short and long term impact of executive coaching as a follow on feature to leadership development training. The constant single and double learning processes that flow through multiple coaching sessions in the corporate environment lend important challenges to evaluators trying to measuring coaching success as the executives' learning targets emerge and evolve. |
| Team Learning: Teams Programs with Team Level Objectives |
| Jessica Baltes, Center for Creative Leadership, baltesj@ccl.org |
| Judith Steed, Center for Creative Leadership, steedj@ccl.org |
| Gina Hernez Broome, Center for Creative Leadership, broomeg@ccl.org |
| Leadership development is often targeted at individual learning goals and impact. However, now executives are increasingly charged with supporting teams as well as independently contributing managers. Our leadership development programs have to adjust to the need. What to do when the intention of the design is to impact the team rather than the 'just' the executives attending the program? The authors will share how they linked the program theory to team level impact after the training delivery. The authors will present their process and challenges faced with this shift in programmatic impact for the teams leadership development program populated by representatives from multiple teams. |