Cliffside Holding Company Briefly, the issue at hand is with respect to the arguments for and against the proposal to send promising young managers to leadership training. There are costs and benefits to the training, but the discussion surrounding the issue veers away from such rational analysis. The purpose of this report will be to critically analyze the issue and the different arguments, in order to help make a decision with respect to the leadership training. Browne and Keeley (2010) have proposed a series of questions that will help to perform this critical analysis in a structured manner.

What are the issues and the conclusions?

At issue here is a yes/no decision about whether to send junior executives to leadership training. The cost is a concern for some, as it will cost about $100,000 outright, and it is estimated that a further $100,000 in lost productivity will also accrue. The nature of leadership is a major subject of the pro/con debate, as well as the issue of financial priorities. Those engaged in the discussion at present are viewing the question of the leadership training as a yes/no issue. There are other potential options, however. The current proposal is just one of many leadership training options. It can be rejected and the company can still pursue leadership training. A compromise version (e.g. fewer junior executives or a shorter course) can be adopted instead of the current proposal. In that sense, the argument for or against this particular training has become a sideshow, where people are debating the nature of leadership as opposed to the different leadership development options that the company is faced with. Many people, it seems, are not even sure of what the issue is here. The issue is how to develop the next generation of leaders. The current discussion is just one element of that, but the proposal may have simply put the cart before the horse, and we need to have a rational discussion about the nature of leadership before even examining the different leadership development options. So the conclusions on the table, the antagonist's "yes" and the author's "no," represent a false dichotomy, which is a common logical fallacy. There is no dichotomy at all, but a multitude of different options. A precursor to deciding about any of those options is to come to some agreement on the nature of leadership and how best to pursue leadership development.

What are the reasons?

The author has concluded that this leadership training is not needed. There are several bases for this claim. The first basis is that the primary proponent of the plan, Ms. Forsythe, "has a personal agenda to discredit me." This has been stated by the author, but the author has not offered any case. The basic elements of a case, including motivation, are lacking in this claim. This claim actually appears to have some other unstated, underlying basis, some conflict between these individuals or insecurity on the part of the author.

The second basis is that the author claims leaders are born, not made. The author offers up several points of evidence for this. The author notes that there is a narrative about leaders being tall. The author notes that there is a trait theory of leadership, and mentions two academic journals that have published articles about it. The author also touches on the fact that the current leaders did not undergo leadership training. This is in support of the idea that leaders are born, which is a restatement of trait theory -- basically that you are either a leader or you are not. Both of these supports are offered for the conclusion that leadership training is a waste of time and money.

Which words or phrases are ambiguous?

There are points of ambiguity in the letter that are worth discussing. One is the phrase " There exists an entire school of leadership theory which holds that leaders have certain traits in common." This is true, but the phrasing tells the reader that there are probably other schools of thought about leadership as well. The author is committing a sin of omission here, only discussing the one school of thought that supports his argument. But most of the words use are, at the very least, poorly defined. The author claims that leadership has been "successful and effective," but without any context those terms of meaningless at worse, and ambiguous at best.

More conceptual ambiguity comes later. "traits as ambition, self-confidence and intelligence"...

The problem is that, again, there is some omission here. These traits are common of people who are not leaders, too, and are probably in common with all of the young executives who are targeted for the leadership training. The other not only tries to project these attributes as unique to leaders, but as the only things that matter in leadership. There is no evidence that says "the course teaches X, and our executives already know that." The author is trying to find that phrasing perhaps, but fails. Even the attribute "tall" is ambiguous -- and comical when the author notes the only one who is not tall is a woman. It's true, most women are not over six feet. That does not mean she isn't tall. The author basically is sloppy conceptually, and seeks to build his case around omitting things that might contradict his argument.
What are the value and descriptive assumptions?

With two underlying reasons for rejecting the proposal, the author has two mains sets of assumptions. First, the author is concerned that the proponent has a "personal agenda." This assumption might well be driving the entire letter. Even if it is not, the author cannot use this assumption to reject the proposal. The proposal should be evaluated on its merits, not the merits of the person or people who support it. The decision needs to be separated from the people -- a dumb person can have a smart idea and a smart person can have a dumb idea. Judging an idea based on its proponents is logical fallacy, in this case both attacking the motive and attacking the person (ad hominem).

The second underlying assumption is that leaders are born. You do not need leadership training, because leaders are born and have specific traits, and therefore training is of no value. This assumption is a little bit tougher to challenge. First, there is a school of leadership thought that reflects trait theory. That school of thought, however, is archaic, dating to the 1950s, and is not subscribed to by very many modern leadership scholars. But one can believe in trait theory or born leader theory is one wishes to (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Those assumptions would naturally lead to the conclusion that the training was a waste of money. In this case, therefore, there is a direct link between the assumption and the conclusion. If trait theory or born leader theory is true, then leadership training is pointless, because people cannot learn anything about leadership.

There is, however, a softer version of this assumption. Even if you believe in trait theory, that does not explicitly preclude the value of leadership training. The Venn diagram of people with leadership traits and leaders is not a perfect match -- at some point the people with leadership traits become separated into those who become leaders and those who do not. Training may well play a role in how that separation comes about. Leaders might be born, but even a king spends his whole life as a prince training to be a king. And training may help traits become more valuable. Thus, the assumption of trait theory as fact still does not preclude leadership training, even if it precludes this specific training program on the basis of its content. How much the author knows about this content is not known.

Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?

There are many fallacies in the reasoning, several of which have already been noted. Logical fallacies are commonly studied in the behavior of decision-making, because they play such an important role (Fantino, Fantino & Navarro, 2003). There's a lot of kettle logic, as the author is using two or three arguments to build his case in the hopes that one will stick. The biggest one is from the outset, that this is a binary choice. Thus, this is a false dichotomy or false dilemma. That is the first fallacy. The author is also engaging in red herring. The author is talking about one thing (the nature of leadership) rather than evaluating the proposal on its merits. While the debate about the nature of leadership has merit, as noted above no matter what conclusion is reached about the nature of leadership, there is no conclusion about whether leadership training has value or not. The specific point -- the proposal in question -- is not addressed with any degree of specificity by the author. Really, there should not even be discussion of the points the author is making, as they are all part…