Commentary on Sowcik and Allen: Getting Down to Business

Abstract

When I am asked to speak on leadership, and leaders hip development specifically, invariably someone in the audience will offer that “leadership really cannot be taught; you either are born with the ability to lead or you are not.” I then sp end a few minutes describing what we know about leadership development and the evidence showing that skills can be attained. I also suggest that while athletes may come to a game with raw tal ent, there is much that can be and is done through training to hone that talent. Historically, business schools have existed to educ ate management professionals, and although the concept of leadership has been a more recent ad dition, it is clear that individuals enrolled in courses in advanced management and technical skills are being prepared for upper level management positions or what we now call leadership roles (Khurana, 2007). Today, business educators design courses to reinforce and develop l eadership skills across the curriculum and within technical specialties. However, the success of these efforts varies. Employment surveys still suggest that business school graduates lack s ome skills associated with effective leadership, indicating that leadership education within busines s schools may benefit from dedicated, planned efforts. Sowcik and Allen’s paper, Getting Down to Business: A Look at Leadership Educ ation in Business Schools , identifies a number of compelling issues in impro ving leadership education in business schools and provides a thorough overview of how these efforts could benefit from the considerations present in the National Leadership E ducators Research Agenda. In a cursory analysis of the offerings in leadership within US b usiness schools in 2010, we found that the top schools focused on comprehensive ways of addressing leadership (Murphy & Johnson, 2011). These efforts range from graduate programs that inc luded a singular focus on developing leaders in business to those who offer support for student leader development while one transitions through an MBA program. A review of the top 10 undergraduate programs showed that many more are focusing on soft skills that support effec tive leadership (Murphy & Johnson, 2013). And as Sowcik and Allen note, at least one leadersh ip course is offered at 45 out 50 of the top US business schools. However, this does not mean that business schools embrace leadership education. Some schools consider leadership as a di scipline less important than other technical areas (Kurana, 2007) and deem the leadership piece as too “touchy-feely” or refer to it as “charm school.” My commentary will focus on what we know historically about leadership and leadership development that can help support an age nda of improving leadership education and research. I will also suggest a few areas of attent ion that complement Sowcik and Allen’s paper.