Thread by @mipsytipsy

It's a reasonable question, and I will attempt to answer it, but only if you promise to remember that "leadership training" itself is a sloshy pile of almost complete and total garbage. It does not "train" you to be a better "leader". It barely even pretends to try.

https://twitter.com/mikechx/status/1303584802864414720

If I could take the same money and order everyone to therapy to talk about their childhoods instead, I would in a hot second.

(unfortunately this is "frowned on" by the nanny state and other such maskwearing meddlers 🙃)

When such leadership training is effective, it is usually to the extent that it resembles a weak-tea version of therapy, and forces you to regularly reflect on the emotional states of yourself and your teams, and talk thru your shit with a neutral party.

Which is not nothing!

So. The issue isn't that you aren't being given magical training beans to sprout forth your inner leader.

The issue is that your org has defined leadership in a way that excludes most of the actual leaders. Their actions say that "managers == leaders == managers". That sucks.

I would use this as a wedge to try and pry apart that tight coupling a smidge. Start, of course, by simply asking for it with your best curious innocent face firmly on:

"Hey! I just happened to notice this RAD leadership resource -- but it says managers only -- how odd 🤔 --

"-- is that a typo? Is there a reason for that? It is EXACTLY the kind of training I could really use in the context of xyz senior leadership challenges in my current role."

Maybe an appeal to authority: "everybody knows that effective engineering leadership relies on tech--

"--leads as much as people managers. I think it's wonderful that the people managers have beta tested this resource for the rest of us, but if it's effective shouldn't we really be rolling it out to all the senior leadership?"

Few other arguments come to mind.

"It's incredibly critical for people managers and tech leaders to share language, concepts, and training for tight alignment"

It could be an effective and less costly way of creating a trial period or vetting period for folks trying out management for a spell.

Or, if you have too many people clamoring to fill a few scarce manager slots, you can pitch it to them as a consolation prize for people who aren't getting tapped but they do want to retain and keep happy.

Anyway. You have to choose how much to fight this war over symbolism and perks.

If you ACTUALLY want to become a better leader, pay attention to practicing the composite skills of management/leadership instead. For example,

* leading meetings
* translating tech to $ and back

* breaking down large projects into work that challenges without overwhelming a lot of people at once
* having hard conversations, giving hard feedback. Being heard.
* making people enjoy working with you and eager to do more of it

You don't need any title to do this shit. Look for the scut work, the stuff your manager hates or is weak at, and find ways to be helpful. Become indispensable (as in they don't WANT to be without you, not can't function without you).

Rest will come. 💜🖤