Busting the Myths Behind Leadership Development in the Corporate World

Welcome to the Vantage Influencers Podcast. This podcast is sponsored by Vantage Circle, the simple and effective recognition platform for employee engagement.

Shabana Shahnaz: Hello and welcome to the Vantage HR Influencers Podcast, where we explore the evolving world of leadership, talent, and people's transformation with global experts shaping the future of work. This is your host today, Shabana, and we are diving deep into a topic that's often misunderstood, and yet it is massively impactful, which is busting the myths behind leadership development in the corporate world. To explore this, I am honored to be joined by someone who truly sits at the cutting edge of leadership and human capital strategy. Our guest today is a globally recognized human capital and talent strategist with over 26 years of experience across banking, aviation, logistics, and financial services, driving organization-wide transformation. Please welcome Srijith Nair, a doctoral researcher in AI and HR strategy, who is also an award-winning HR leader. Srijith, a very warm welcome to the show. Thank you so much for being here today. Would you like to share a bit about your journey so far? I'm sure our listeners would be eager to know that.

Srijith Nair: Okay. Thank you, Shabana. Thank you for the warm welcome and a good introduction. Just to correct one thing, I am not heading human capital, but I'm heading human capital strategy, talent management, leadership development, culture engagement, and those are the things that I manage. But just to give you a perspective, as you said, this year marks my 27th year of working experience, and I started off way back in 1998. I started out with the aviation industry, working with an organization called Jet Airways, one of the first, bigger private airlines in India. Then I moved to working with Sri Lankan Airlines, another big organization, the national carrier of Sri Lanka. Then I got an opportunity to move from the aviation industry to financial services, working with a global giant in life insurance, Max New York Life. From there, I worked with AXA, again in life insurance, managing their entire learning and development for the South Division, up to the Vice President programs. Then I moved to work with Aditya Birla Group, and I was associated with them for about 15 odd years. In that stint, I worked in almost all capacities of HR: sales training, leadership development, corporate training, talent management, organization development, and even the business HR function. That stint gave me a lot of breadth into my profession and the career I wanted to take. Then I got an opportunity to move out of India, to Dubai, and had a great opportunity to work with Landmark Group, managing their entire management and leadership development at the group level. From there, I moved to Dubai Islamic Bank, again in a similar role. Now I'm placed in Saudi. Unfortunately, I won't be able to name the organization, but I'm heading talent and engagement culture, leadership development, and AI strategy there. So that's a little about my career, but I'm also very passionate about academics. I'm currently pursuing my doctorate as a research scholar, and my research is around AI in HR. Apart from that, I have an MBA, and I'm a psychology student too, I've done my MSc in psychology, which really helps me in the HR side of things, so both business and psychology. Now with AI and psychology together, that's something I'm really excited about as the way forward. I also have numerous certifications, especially in psychometrics, and I'm a certified coach, not only in executive coaching, but also life coaching, performance coaching, and happiness coaching. So those are things I'm excited about and have started doing. That's pretty much my career journey thus far, and it's going well.

Shabana Shahnaz: That was a very interesting journey. I'm sure this will be a very insightful conversation today, I'm very excited. So let's dive straight in. For the very first question, Srijith, one of the most enduring leadership myths is that leaders are born, not made. From your wide area of research and experience in corporate HR and psychology, what's your take? Is leadership an innate trait, or a set of skills that can be developed?

Srijith Nair: It's a very interesting question, Shabana. Let me tell you one thing: out of the 27 years I just mentioned, 22 odd years have been only in the learning function and training, and I'm a facilitator, so I live in this space. Let me flip that and ask you this question first: what do you think? I know it's a bit like the chicken and the egg question, but what do you think?

Shabana Shahnaz: Well, I think it's a bit of a mix of both. I wouldn't agree on either, because I think some people are born with certain qualities, and leadership for sure is one of them. It might not be true that you cannot develop it, of course you can, with certain skills, but it might take you more time compared to people who are simply born with those qualities. That would be my view, but of course we're here to talk about your experience.

Srijith Nair: Thanks for sharing that. It's important to know that, because the house is divided on this. One set of people really believe it can be developed, another set believes people are born that way, and some people like you sit in the center and say, I'm not fully here or there. So, partially, you're right, in a sense, yes it can be developed, and there are people who are born with it. Let me take some examples from history. Again, I don't want this to be a monologue, so let me ask you: if we talk about leaders, one, two, or the top three who come to your mind, who are they? When someone talks about leadership, which characters come to mind?

Shabana Shahnaz: Well, it's divided across different areas of life. I don't know if I can name just one, two, and three like that.

Srijith Nair: Give me some names, whatever is top of mind, the personalities that come up when you think of leadership.

Shabana Shahnaz: Well, number one has to be APJ Abdul Kalam, if I'm talking politically. Then there are others across different genres, like in cricket I'd say Sachin Tendulkar. It can go on based on my interest areas. I'm very much into singing, so I'd mention Lata Mangeshkar, and my current favorite is Shreya Ghoshal. These are leaders who pass something on to the next generation.

Srijith Nair: Pretty interesting, Shabana. But all three you mentioned are, more than anything, the best in what they do, highly skilled, highly talented people in their own domain, right?

Shabana Shahnaz: Exactly, that's what I meant.

Srijith Nair: So it's a little different when we talk about leadership. Leaders are the people who transform the world, who bring about change, bring innovation, and inspire people. I can agree about Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, he's an inspiration for me too. I remember one of his widely circulated books, I haven't read the whole thing, but I've seen a few of the lessons he wrote. Amazing personality, a great academician, a great scholar, but an amazing leader too, because he headed ISRO at one point, and the people under him had to rise to the occasion. This debate is ancient, Shabana, very ancient, not something new. I'll come back to APJ, but if I give you references from Indian mythology, we morally revere figures like Arjuna or Krishna. Though it's mythology, these characters are widespread across India. Or take the kings, most of the ones we talk about, Akbar, the Mughal emperors, the Ashoka empire, do you think any of them ever went to a leadership academy and got themselves trained before becoming a top leader?

Shabana Shahnaz: Well, there's no history, or nothing written about that, so we'll assume they didn't.

Srijith Nair: So even for instance, do you think Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam went through some leadership development program, apart from going to IIT Madras and qualifying there?

Shabana Shahnaz: I don't think so. That's more technical, right?

Srijith Nair: But those qualities were already there in him. So if you actually look at it, one is mythology, and then there are real-life examples, I'm sure you'd recall Alexander the Great. We talk about him as the epitome of success. Do you know Alexander conquered almost 10 to 20 odd countries? At what age? Less than 25 years old, he conquered most of the known world, and he had a large army to lead. I don't think he ever got the time to go to any academy for someone to develop him. He probably had some mentors, and I don't disagree that he had lineage, he was a king's son, and there were other sons of the king too. So how did Alexander himself rise to that level? And mind you, he died at 32. He started as young as his late teens, conquered the world, and by 32 it was all over. You mentioned sporting activities, let's talk from there. Sachin Tendulkar or Dhoni, if I give you that choice, I know you're inclined toward Sachin, but between Sachin and Dhoni, who do you think is the better leader?

Shabana Shahnaz: Well, Dhoni for sure has been a renowned captain. His captaincy has stretched over ages. Everyone knows him, even young fans who weren't around when Dhoni was playing will still take his name, even though they'll mention Virat Kohli first.

Srijith Nair: Absolutely. Different eras, different ways, but we often get confused with skill, as I told you. A player plays, but leading requires a different skill altogether. Dhoni may not have the greatest cricketing skill compared to a Sachin or a Virat, but if you look at Sachin or Virat, they weren't great leaders, they weren't able to lead the Indian team successfully. If you actually ask who the greatest captains of the Indian team are, most people would undisputedly say Dhoni, or Kapil Dev, and then it goes on to Azharuddin and others. But when it comes to the greatest player of all time in terms of skill, it's Sachin, or maybe Virat, and there will be more names to come. But we're talking about leadership here. Here's an interesting fact: Dhoni originally wanted to be a footballer in his early career, not a cricketer. His coach identified his skills as a goalkeeper, he was a very good goalie, and that's how he ended up in cricket instead. The rest is history, he became one of the biggest names in the sport, and everybody talks about it. Any player in the contemporary Indian team has either been inspired by him, or played under and stuck with his captaincy style. Now, I spoke about mythology, modern characters, sporting examples, and Dr. APJ. What I'm trying to say is that even a meta-study found that only 18 percent of leaders emerge primarily through training. The rest are high nature, high instinct, people whose development accelerates because of their internal wiring, and that's what psychology says. You need to have it in you, it's almost genetic. For example, you'd say Lata Mangeshkar is a gifted singer, right? Who was the other singer you named?

Shabana Shahnaz: Shreya Ghoshal.

Srijith Nair: Shreya Ghoshal, gifted, right? We say gifted singer, gifted cricketer, gift of talent, and so on. It's the same with leadership, you need to have it in you. I say this after seeing many, many leaders that organizations try to develop. Even though organizations are doing it, they identify potential first, they don't randomly put everybody through a leadership development program and expect it to work. What they essentially do is identify the potential in people, and potential is nothing but leadership traits. They check whether someone has that innate leadership trait, and only then put them into a leadership academy to bring the best out of them. To me, it's very simple, you need to have it in raw form, and what an organization can then do is polish the diamond and bring out the best of it. You sharpen the skills, build frameworks, and expose people to the best experiences you can offer. So, after 27 years of looking at everything, I completely believe you need to have it, it cannot be developed from nothing. You need to have it first, then we can polish it. That's my stance, and that's where I stand.

Shabana Shahnaz: Okay, so maybe I wasn't so wrong when I stated my stance earlier.

Srijith Nair: Yes.

Shabana Shahnaz: Okay, great. I think we can move on to the next question, because that was a great start, it really lays the foundation for how we understand leadership itself. So another common assumption is that leadership development should focus only on senior executives or top-level management. Do you think this approach is flawed? And if yes, what risks do organizations run when they neglect mid-level or frontline leaders in their development plans?

Srijith Nair: Yes, it is flawed, and I completely agree with that. But if you ask me why it happens, well, those are the people with signing authority, the people who manage things outwardly, and so on. To me, yes, they need to be trained, but focusing entirely on executive leadership programs isn't the right approach. If an organization focuses only there, it's not just flawed, it's strategically dangerous. Why? Because most of these leaders are around 40, 45, or 50 years old, people who have already achieved a lot in their careers and reached a certain point. Here's a parallel to sports: you won't coach a Sachin Tendulkar after he's already made it into the Indian team, of course he needs skill, he's reached the national team and become captain, so why keep spending on his coaching? There's some consistency work, sure, but you don't need to build him from scratch, he's already there. He rose through gully cricket all the way up because there was something in him, some spark, and that's why he reached that level. So what do these 40 or 50 year olds actually need? Their runway is short, which means a 50 year old managing the big show should be focused on growing the organization, learning the latest developments and new skills, not on leadership development as such, so they can sustain growth and innovation. But if you don't focus on the people who make up your talent pipeline, and I manage talent management too, so we need succession planning, if you don't build that pipeline, when these leaders reach their sunset years, retire, or move on, who replaces them? You need people ready to step up. That's why, in my previous organizations, we've extensively worked on young talent management: identifying young talent, training them, developing them, so that whenever there's a need at the next level, these are the people who are ready. I'm not saying every organization does this, but predominantly, whatever budget is available, most organizations focus only on executive leadership, and the rest doesn't happen. Interestingly, if I draw a parallel with ancient warfare, I mentioned Alexander earlier, do you think he ever went through leadership training? No, but his commanders, ministers, advisors, warriors, and diplomats would have been trained or mentored by someone. They were the people helping these kings. They'd constantly be involved in warfare discussions and conversations, maybe not formal capability building, but something was identified in them, and they were prepared. This has been happening for many, many years, it's not new. Kings didn't only focus on themselves, they focused on the layer below them, and the one below that, all the way down to the foot soldier. So I'd conclude that a king, or a CEO, or the N-minus-one layer, is only part of the ecosystem, but the larger part of the ecosystem is everyone below. If you don't focus on those people, your execution breaks, because you might be a great strategist with a great vision, but if you don't have people capable of executing it, your strategy will never take off. So I personally believe organizations should focus on leadership development for executives, but even more so on young and mid-level talent who will be ready to step into the next level. That's what I'd want to conclude with there.

Shabana Shahnaz: Okay, that's interesting. That shift, it really shifts the spotlight from the C-suite down to everyday decision-makers, and I agree with that. So that brings me to the next question. Many organizations still equate management with leadership, as if good managers will automatically become good leaders. Based on your background in psychology and HR, why is that a misconception, and what distinguishes real leadership from mere management?

Srijith Nair: First thing first, management and leadership are not the same, but we often get confused because of how the modern education system works. If you've been to an IIM or an ISB, or any of the top B-schools, there's a widespread belief, not necessarily among the people running those programs, but in the broader ecosystem, that doing an MBA automatically means you have leadership traits. It's not that simple. Management studies are largely task based, about designing processes, building efficiencies, understanding business, reading a balance sheet, planning, market research, the whole ambit of how to run a business. Leadership sits on top of that, it's about how to lead. These are two different things people often confuse. Psychologically speaking, since you asked, managers rely on executive function, meaning whatever we do as managers is focused on execution: strategy is handed down for the year, then we plan, sequence how to get things done, and organize the operation. Leaders, on the other hand, run more on affective and social intelligence, they're focused on getting people to think differently, on change management. It's not easy, Shabana, definitely not easy. When a crisis hits, and there's something you genuinely can't see clearly, the ability to see through that fog is what matters, and that's what leadership does. Some people can see through the fog, through something completely smoky, and find a way forward. Management people, once that path is identified, are very good at organizing and running the machine. It's genuinely confusing, so much so that I remember a Harvard study from around 2023, referred to as the Leadership Genome research, which found that only 22 percent of high-performing managers naturally transition into high-performing leadership roles. Even in our epics in India, not every great warrior becomes a leader. Plenty of epic warriors were the best archers or fighters, but their names aren't remembered the way a single Arjuna, a single Krishna, or a single Akbar is. It's the same with someone like Genghis Khan, I love reading about how he conquered much of the world, but there were plenty of other fighters too, only a select few are remembered. As I said earlier, we had the best in Sachin Tendulkar, but unfortunately he was never known as a great captain. That's the difference we're drawing: a manager is a great executor, but a leader is granted that status by people, not by a job title. That's why I'd recommend a book called Leading Without a Title if you haven't read it already. We often think that only a CEO can lead. That's not true. Of course you need leadership skills, but people without the designation or the title who still manage to bring about change in an organization, those are the real leaders, and they get their due eventually. History has shown that the greatest people didn't start out great, it was the journey that made them. That's how you lead without a title. So to conclude, there's a huge difference between management and leadership. It's not necessarily true that people who go through top Ivy League or executive programs, IIMs, ISBs, and so on, become great leaders for their organizations. Yes, they'll have strong strategic thinking, domain expertise, and conceptual ability, but not necessarily that underlying predisposition I mentioned earlier. Plenty of people from IIMs and ISBs do become great leaders, because they already had it in them, but not everyone who passes through those management programs is automatically successful. I should mention, I'm also a professor, I teach AI and management programs at top schools, especially in Dubai and the Middle East. I honestly don't know if I can be a great leader or not, that's yet to be tested. If management knowledge alone were the deciding factor, most professors would already be the greatest leaders or running top organizations, because they have the conceptual knowledge. But these are different things, they may passionately want to teach, but not have whatever it takes to become a CEO. These are people who could be excellent advisors, excellent coaches, a good mentor figure, but it's a completely different model. So that's the distinction between management and leadership.

Shabana Shahnaz: That was a really critical distinction, and you brought a lot of clarity to it, thank you so much. Let's move on to the next question. In today's fast-changing corporate environment, with digital transformation, hybrid work, and diversity, do you believe one-size-fits-all leadership development programs actually work? Or do context, culture, and individual background demand a more tailored approach?

Srijith Nair: This could be a long answer, but I'll try to keep it short. Connecting back to what we said earlier, it absolutely cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. But that's exactly what's been happening for the last 75 odd years or so. Just to give you some perspective, the leadership development industry, as we know it, isn't very old, it started around the mid-1950s, initiated by the US Army, who wanted to train young officers and develop future generals. It was fairly technical in nature. By the 1960s, if I remember correctly, it shifted toward the behavioral side of leadership. From there, modern leadership development took shape, and today most top universities have entire divisions focused purely on executive development programs, separate from academics. It's become an industry. I know this might sound controversial, but I'm only sharing my own view, and I have some authority to say this because I'm inside this industry and I know exactly what happens. Otherwise, how would people like me earn a living? If we didn't rely on this industry, how would we survive? So it's important to understand that you cannot take one common program, send everyone through it, and expect that to solve leadership development. That's not going to happen. Let me give you an example that isn't directly related, but helps build perspective, it's a question I keep asking my own team and my fraternity: how much time does it take for a skill to become proficient? How long does it take to actually master a skill?

Shabana Shahnaz: Well, I know it takes about 21 days to form a habit, so I'm guessing it's relatively similar for skills.

Srijith Nair: You'll be surprised. Science tells us there are simple skills and complex skills. Even for a simple skill, take driving, you want to drive a car or a bike and get a license. How long does it take to become an expert at that, to the point where you can drive without full conscious effort, even talking on the phone, and if a cat suddenly crosses the road, you apply the brake instinctively without even thinking? How long does that level of mastery take?

Shabana Shahnaz: Quite some time.

Srijith Nair: Exactly, it's not the same as knowing how to use a steering wheel or a brake, where a cat is still a kilometer away and you're consciously applying the brake, that's just the starting stage, where you're fully conscious of everything you're doing. I'm talking about actual mastery, and trust me, driving isn't even a very complex skill. Leadership, or any complex skill, science says, takes somewhere between six to eighteen months to master just one skill. Now, today's leadership competencies in organizations involve a whole laundry list of skills. Even if a person only has to master three, that's three times eighteen months, imagine how long that actually takes. But what's happening today is people get sent into a two-day workshop, a three-day workshop, or a one-month program, and we expect them to come back having learned the skill. Is that even possible? No, I don't think so, it's simply not possible. Let me give you another example: imagine you have a flight to catch tomorrow, and you're told the pilots flying it just completed their licensing program yesterday. They know the systems, they've learned everything in the classroom, would you, as a passenger, want to get on that flight?

Shabana Shahnaz: I wouldn't, personally.

Srijith Nair: Exactly, and if you did, good luck. Here's why, coming from the aviation industry myself, I know exactly how the system works, and no one would take that risk. To become an experienced captain, you need a basic qualification, then basic flight training on smaller aircraft, then you graduate slowly, become a first officer, clock a minimum number of flying hours to become a captain, then junior captain, captain, and eventually senior captain. It's a career-long journey to become a senior commander. But what are they actually doing throughout that journey? The same core work of flying an aircraft, that fundamental hasn't changed even if the technology has, but you only earn the title of senior commander or expert after many, many years of doing the work. So essentially, what I'm building toward is this: you learn something in a classroom, then you come back, practice, fail, practice again, fail again, and only after a lot of time does it actually become a skill. Do you agree with that?

Shabana Shahnaz: Absolutely.

Srijith Nair: Right, but what's happening today is that after an executive program, or any generic program, everyone comes back and we assume they're now trained, that the skill has been developed. That's like expecting someone to become a captain or a senior commander right after finishing a training course. Is that realistic?

Shabana Shahnaz: No, that would be flawed.

Srijith Nair: Exactly. Which is why it has to be customized and spaced out. You need a coach, a mentor, on-the-job learning, and even before stepping into a role like CEO, CFO, or CHRO, or really any significant role, the person should be shadowing the current role holder for six months or so, doing serious shadowing work, and only then can they realistically acquire the skill, not purely through classroom learning. Unfortunately, Shabana, here's how the industry, and many organizations, actually operate: someone gets sent for training, comes back saying, wow, great training, amazing trainer, wonderful experience, and then falls right back into the same old routine. Let me give you one more example, were you a science student or a commerce student in school?

Shabana Shahnaz: No, I was an arts student.

Srijith Nair: An arts student, okay. Here's the thing, if I asked you to list out all the subject names from your graduation, forget the actual content, just the subject names, could you do it?

Shabana Shahnaz: No, not even that.

Srijith Nair: I might be slightly off, but that's exactly what happens generally. If I asked you what you had for dinner three days ago, would you remember instantly? It takes a moment to recall, right? The same applies here, you've probably gone through several training programs by now, and if I asked what exactly you learned in each one, could you recall it all? No, and that's simply not humanly possible, which is exactly what science tells us. There's a well-known concept called the forgetting curve, which shows that whatever we learn, our minds retain only around 40 percent of it within about a week, and within ten days or so, we're down to remembering maybe 10 percent of what we originally learned. We all go through this. Just like the earlier driving example, it's genuinely not possible for us to remember the specifics of every workshop we've attended. It's a bit like watching a movie, you know that one classic Bollywood film that everyone loved back in the day?

Shabana Shahnaz: Yes.

Srijith Nair: I'm sure you're too young for it, but I was in college when I watched it, and while I don't remember the individual scenes anymore, I'm still emotionally hooked to that movie. There are plenty of movies I've watched since that I don't even recall, but some stick with you emotionally even when the details fade. It's the same with training, we sometimes remember the trainer, or that it felt like a great session, but we don't actually remember what was taught. So the real question is, does any of that help you in your actual work? If I fondly remember my trainer, or that it was a wonderful program, does that move the needle on the work I'm actually doing? No, the answer is no. Why? Because whatever I learned needs to be applied and practiced. If I don't practice it, what was the point of three days of workshops and training? Do you see the point I'm making? That's why we need to rethink this entirely and move toward something more customized. If I identify a leadership skill that, say, you need to develop, I shouldn't just send you to a program at a top school, get you trained, and then never follow up, letting you figure out the rest. Instead, I should assign you a coach or a mentor, keep giving you projects, one after another, until I actually see that skill evolve in you. Trust me, that approach is far more powerful and transformational for the organization than generically sending people to training programs. The third point here is something called learner curiosity, or agility. You, as a learner, need the curiosity to actually want to learn. Without that innate drive, even the best trainer in the world isn't going to get through to you, because it's simply not in your orientation. Too often, we send people to training without ever checking whether they actually have the seriousness or curiosity to learn in the first place. So I often say, shift the accountability for learning onto the learner, make them responsible for their own development, and simply provide an ecosystem that's conducive to that learning. That's really all it takes. You don't need classroom-only, one-size-fits-all programs, that approach is just money down the drain. I'll leave that with you.

Shabana Shahnaz: That's quite some knowledge for me, I loved it, it's very relevant given how global workplaces operate today. Thank you, I feel genuinely enlightened, and I'm sure my listeners will too. That takes me to another question. There's also a belief that attending leadership courses, workshops, and training sessions is sufficient to build leaders, as you touched on earlier. From your research-backed standpoint, how effective are these programs really? I know you've mentioned preferring on-the-job training, but what else must organizations do to convert learning into actual leadership behavior?

Srijith Nair: This is really an extension of what we just discussed. Before I answer that directly, I want to share one more example related to the leaders are born question. You know Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricket captain?

Shabana Shahnaz: Yes.

Srijith Nair: He was the captain who won Pakistan's first World Cup, and quite a player himself. He also had a remarkable talent for spotting talent in others. You've heard of a bowler named Wasim Akram?

Shabana Shahnaz: Yes.

Srijith Nair: Wasim Akram, I know you're quite young, so you may not have seen him play, but he and Waqar Younis were among the deadliest bowlers Pakistan cricket has ever produced. Sticking with Wasim Akram, here's how he actually got his chance: he was playing street cricket, just bowling casually, and Imran Khan happened to be passing by, saw him bowling, and was immediately struck by his talent. After a short camp, Akram was in the national team, without ever having played any regional or smaller tournaments. That's how the story goes, at least as the legend has it, and I might be slightly off on some details, but here's the point I want to make. Organizations, instead of putting everyone through the same program, need the ability to spot hidden potential in people, the raw gem in someone. That's the real skill L&D professionals, leadership development professionals, HR professionals, and business leaders need: the ability to identify people who have the innate capacity to lead. That's what we call potential. Only then can you pick the right people and put them into leadership development programs where they can actually deliver an outcome. So, are leadership workshops useful? Yes, absolutely, I'm not saying they're not useful at all, but they're useful for the right people, not everyone. It depends heavily on who you're sending into these programs. But is that alone sufficient? No, definitely not, there's a lot more required. People focus heavily on the leadership development workshop itself, but what happens afterward is often completely hollow, never followed up. Someone goes through a program, comes out, and that's often the end of it. I say this half-jokingly, but I'm actually quite serious, until LinkedIn made it fashionable to post certificate photos and announce "I've completed this," which, to be fair, I do too, mostly for awareness among my own network, if it inspires someone to learn, that's a good thing. But a certification is proof of knowledge, not proof of skill. The same applies to any leadership development program someone completes, displaying it is fine, but it should be understood as proof that someone went through the program, not proof that they actually acquired the skill. There's a real difference. People perceive that these individuals now have the skill, but often they don't, they've simply been through the process and come back, that's it. There's an interesting statistic here too, research shows that only 10 to 15 percent of leadership capability actually comes from formal training. Just 10 to 15 percent of leadership capability has ever been developed through formal training. Interesting, isn't it? Organizations are burning enormous amounts of money on formal training programs, executive courses, classroom learning, e-learning, and so on, and I'm not saying that's not important, it is, but it shouldn't be the sole focus, assuming that alone will produce results. It won't. This isn't just my opinion either, the Center for Creative Leadership's 2024 report found that 70 percent of leadership development actually comes from real experience. This connects directly back to the leaders are born idea, most people who are natural leaders have their leadership shaped by the experiences they've faced and the crises they've had to manage. If organizations don't create those kinds of experiences for their people, that development simply never happens, and unfortunately, there aren't enough of those experiences being created, the focus remains too heavily on classroom learning. Another 20 percent comes from mentorship and feedback, which means having access to a mentor really matters, I'd learn far more from someone who has actually lived through my kind of corporate experience than from a purely formal setting, because they've genuinely been through it. Unfortunately, today's approach flips that pyramid, with far too much focus on formal learning and very little on mentorship. At best, organizations invest in coaching, which is valuable, but very different from mentorship. So, to conclude, I wouldn't say leadership development programs aren't useful, I'd say they're simply not sufficient on their own. I believe existing leadership development programs need a complete overhaul, redesigned to focus more on experiential learning, more on mentoring, and less on classroom instruction, while shifting accountability onto the learner and holding them responsible for their own growth. I'd even go as far as tying promotions to demonstrated skill rather than program completion, and honestly, organizations should consider having employees invest in their own development first, before the company pays for it, I know that sounds controversial, but the idea is: prove the skill, then take the promotion, rather than the reverse. Too often, we assume top performers will naturally become leaders, but performance and potential are entirely different things. There's a lot more nuance here, but overall, I'm genuinely encouraged to see the industry shifting that pyramid, moving toward more experiential learning and giving people real experiences, that would be a great direction for the leadership development space going forward.

Shabana Shahnaz: You've actually just answered my last question, because I wanted to ask how organizations can sustain continuous learning and truly embed leadership development into their culture. You've essentially already told me these are two distinct things.

Srijith Nair: They're interrelated, but let me connect this to something you mentioned earlier and ask you a question in return, what would you say is the actual proof of leadership development? If someone completes a leadership program, what should be the proof that this person has genuinely become a strong leader? What should the return on that investment actually look like?

Shabana Shahnaz: I think it would definitely be based on their previous experiences and the outcomes they've delivered, because of what that person has actually done.

Srijith Nair: Exactly, and that's the very distinction I wanted to draw between management output and leadership output, they're two very different things. Let me give you a real example: over the last week or two, India has been facing a major crisis in its aviation industry. A company earning a profit of around 7,500 crores, do you think an organization at that scale wouldn't have invested heavily in leadership development?

Shabana Shahnaz: No, that would be hard to believe.

Srijith Nair: Right, so they clearly would have invested. Which means the CEOs and top professionals at that level would have gone through leadership training somewhere along the way, maybe not recently, but certainly across their careers, at an organization holding more than 60 percent market share in Indian skies for over a decade. So what happened when the crisis actually hit? The real test of leadership is exactly this: managing a crisis, it's not about managing a few people or a few processes, you can hire administrative experts for that. You're supposedly developed to manage crises, so when the crisis actually hit, where was that leadership? There could be different perspectives here, but I believe leaders should have either avoided the crisis proactively, which is what real leadership means, or at least had contingency plans in place, a plan B, a plan C, anything to minimize the damage. But what actually happened? Honestly, if all that leadership investment had truly paid off, this was exactly the moment to demonstrate the return on it, and if it couldn't be demonstrated here, then what was all that spending actually for? If organizations want to send people for what's essentially a feel-good exercise, they shouldn't call it leadership development, they should call it engagement, sending people to a nice hotel for a few days to keep them happy, that's employee engagement, not leadership development. This crisis in India clearly exposed the real gaps in how organizations approach leadership development. And there's one more point worth making here, a genuinely born leader might well have handled that same crisis far more effectively than someone who's been through years of formal training and development. That's what I'd want to leave as a final thought here.

Shabana Shahnaz: My goodness, that was such a powerful set of insights today, I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. I honestly wish I'd prepared even more questions, because I really didn't want this to end, but all good things do come to an end eventually. I'm confident our listeners, aspiring leaders, and organization builders will walk away with a more realistic, practical, and yet genuinely hopeful understanding of leadership development. Srijith, thank you so much, you've been incredibly generous with your insights today. To everyone tuning in, whether you're in HR or aspiring to lead, remember that leadership isn't some exclusive club, it's an ongoing journey, and today we've only really scratched the surface. That wraps up today's episode of the Vantage HR Influencers Podcast. If you enjoyed this conversation, please share it with your peers. Srijith, would you like to leave us with any closing thoughts?

Srijith Nair: Thank you, Shabana, and thank you for having me on the show. I was genuinely as excited about this conversation as you were, I've been sharing my thoughts on LinkedIn for a while now, and this felt like a wonderful platform to expand on that. I know I may have ruffled a few feathers along the way, some in my own professional circle may not fully agree with my viewpoints, and that's completely fine, we all bring our own experiences and perspectives to this, and mine come from genuine intent, wanting to help transform organizations for the better, backed by real research and data. I'd also say, to anyone who believes leadership simply cannot be taught, you might actually be a born leader yourself, so try to uncover the traits that are already hidden within you. All of us carry some innate leadership capacity, we just need to identify it. And even if you're not sure you have it, talk to mentors, people who've genuinely lived that journey before, they can guide you toward a better path, especially if you're just starting out. That's the thought I really wanted to leave with younger professionals listening today. So, as a final thought, I'd say leadership isn't something that's taught in the traditional sense, to me it's almost spiritual, something that needs to be awakened if it already exists within you. It's a kind of inner awareness that needs triggering, and that moment can arrive at any point in your life. You might seem like an entirely ordinary person right now, but some experience or moment can trigger that awakening, and when it does, something far greater within you can rise to the surface. That's the thought I wanted to leave with your listeners, and with you as well. Thank you for having me, and God bless.

Shabana Shahnaz: Absolutely, it was truly a pleasure having you on the show. And yes, listeners, you heard him, go ahead and share this with your friends, and we'll see you next time. Thank you.

Thanks for listening to the Vantage Influencers Podcast. Be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and our Vantage Circle YouTube channel for the latest episodes.