The study explores the evolving configuration and management of leadership development in the South African context by focussing on a single sector, that is, the banks, and the Banking Sector Education and Training Authority (BANKSETA) within the retail banking sector. Through this, it explores how the tasks and work of managing, designing and delivering leadership development are taken up and managed by these various stakeholders.

The discussion places the debates on methods, contextualisation and customisation within the context of the supply-side and demand-side dynamics, that is, the logic and ‘push’ from the providers of development programmes and methods as well as the client, demand-side dynamics and ‘pull’.

Over the more than four decades of investment in leadership development in modern firms, a range of methods have evolved, taking on generic, customised and proprietary forms (Dongrie et al., 2015; Henley Business School, 2015; Loew, 2015). This repertoire of methods includes formal curriculum or learning programmes; simulations; coaching, mentoring and 360° feedback; the emergence of corporate universities or in-house facilities; and the introduction of action learning, immersions and on-the-job learning (Day & Halpin, 2001; Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004; Yukl, 2010).

Although each method appears to command its own body of literature and set of best practices and practitioners, there is the ‘increasing use and recognition of the potency of a variety of developmental experiences’ (italics added, Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004, p. 25). The advantage of variegated experiences could be that the leader-as-learner is presented with different forms of learning and opportunities in a variety of settings and formats. However, variety in itself may not provide the learning, consolidation and application required for the leader. One may need to ask what informs the design of these experiences and the leadership development programmes these are embedded within; and how integrated are the learning process and developmental experiences (Billett, 2014; Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Merriam, 2001b; Mulcahy, Cleveland, & Aberton, 2015; Tynjälä, 2008). These are questions of pedagogy, design and the nature and forms of integration.¹ One could suggest that where these and contextualisation are not deliberately addressed then the variegated experiences could be at a disadvantage to the learner.

Although there is a rich repertoire of methods, in practice, it seems that there is the predominance of certain methods and learning delivery systems at certain times (Loew, 2015). For example, coaching and on-the-job learning and development has emerged as the preferred method as well as digitalised learning and its management, such as e-learning, webinars, mobile learning formats and other technology-based mechanisms (Henley Business School, 2015). However, these changing preferences for certain methods and forms of delivery do not address the failure of leadership. This follows from observations that a significant proportion of leaders in firms are either not ready to lead, not leading effectively or failing to lead (Loew, 2015; Gurdjian et al., 2014). This is attributed to the lack of effective contextualisation of leadership development. In contrast, those pointing to a crisis of leadership and organisations argue that leadership and its development are not adequately conceptualised, as it continues to promote acontextual, leader- or individual-centred conceptions of leadership (Mabey & Morrell, 2011).

The lack of contextualisation refers to ‘the assumption that one size fits all and that the same group of skills or style of leadership is appropriate regardless of strategy, organizational culture, or CEO mandate’ (italics added, Gurdjian et al., 2014, p. 121). The argument is that the same set of leadership methods, themes and programmes cannot be applied uniformly to a given organisation and its strategy, culture and different management layers. It requires customisation to fit the purposes and mandates of the firm. Nor is there a uniform set of leadership skills, styles or competencies that these leadership methods and programmes can address (Hollenbeck, McCall, & Silzer, 2006; Probert & James, 2011).

The focus though remains on customisation for the individual manager–leader’s competencies. This focus on leader competencies and styles can be noted in research undertaken with South African samples as well (Baicher, 2005; Botha & Classens, 2010; Pillay, Viviers, & Mayer, 2013). Although the authors variously point out the need to broaden perspective and critically explore the South African context, the focus remains on individual leader competencies and styles. Botha et al. (2010), for example, in their research on management and leadership development in a South African retail bank suggest the need for ‘unique and diverse competencies’ (p. 80) for globalisation, cultural diversity and post-apartheid transformation challenges the banks face. However, they also note that ‘key values of African management [such as ‘Ubuntu’] have several similarities to generic leadership competencies such as teamwork, supporting and cooperating and impact and influence’ (italics added, p. 80).

There appears to be a tension in Botha et al.’s (2010) framing of competencies as being both unique or context-bound and generic or universal. Here, one could heed the concluding caution of Baicher’s (2005) study to critically explore the different meanings and enactments of competencies by the various actors or stakeholders. A step further, one could critically interrogate the individualistic, decontextualised and universalistic assumptions of leadership and its development that the competency construct leads to; and also ask how the South African context evolves and is socially constructed (Caroll, Levy, & Richmond, 2008; Probert & James, 2011). This then opens the space to explore how the different stakeholders in the various banks attend to and give meaning to their sector and firm’s challenges and context in relation to leadership development. That is, how they make sense and give form to the challenges banks face such as post-apartheid transformation, financial inclusion, equity and socio-economic development as well as the changing basis of competitiveness, business model disruptions and regional and global positioning (BANKSETA, 2006, 2007, 2013; Botha et al., 2010; Coetzee, 2009; Kostov, Arun, & Annim, 2014).

The lack of contextualisation could also be understood as the disconnect between the learning and development within leadership development programmes and the contexts of the workplace. It repeats the historical criticism of business schools for their focus on academic rigour at the expense of business relevance (Khurana, 2010; Paton, Chia, & Burt, 2014). It poses the question of the relationship between business schools and firms as clients. Relatedly, it asks of the process of customisation within firms and between these firms and the business schools. Thus, it points to the need to explore the supply- and demand-side dynamics beyond the confines of the competency construct and methods-centred focus; and ask how leadership development is made manageable, designable and deliverable.

The contextualisation and customisation of programmes and methods as well as the focus on manager–leader competencies do not address the criticisms of the crisis of leadership and organisations. These continue to promote acontextual, individual- or leader-centred conceptions of leadership. Thus, there is a lack of deliberation on the contestations on the loci of leadership and, relatedly, how one delimits the conceptual domain of leadership (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Fairhurst et al., 2010; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014).

Yukl (2010) described the contrasting definitions and accounts of leadership as ‘reflect[ing] deep disagreements about the identification of leaders and leadership processes’ (p. 3), which are informed by different philosophical and theoretical assumptions and lenses. Day and Harrison (2007; Day et al., 2014) suggested that leadership as a concept is continually evolving and will continue to do so. This follows from its complexity as well as multidimensionality, and the theoretical and empirical observation that leadership constructs can present differently at different levels of analysis and firms. It opens up the question of how leadership development evolves, manifests, is given meaning and is made manageable within firms and in their relationship with business schools and other providers.

The generic qualitative methodology (Bergman, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Merriam, 2001a; Patton, 2002) and the case study design (Merriam, 2001a; Yin, 2003) are appropriate for the purpose of the study, as they help explore the varying meanings and perspectives of the sampled stakeholders. It draws out in detail the stakeholder’s perspectives to develop ‘thick descriptions’ of the phenomena being studied.

The research comprises a multi-site, qualitative case study within the South African retail banking sector, which includes five retail banks, the BANKSETA and the local business school that hosted the BANKSETA International Executive Development Programme (IEDP). The research followed Merriam’s (2001) and Yin’s (2003) argument that case study is a research design or strategy in its own right. Merriam (2001) defines case study as ‘intensive descriptions and analysis of a single unit or bounded system [the case]’ (p. 21). The purpose of a case study is to elucidate and understand the bounded system. The study utilised semi-structured, qualitative interviews for this purpose.

The research setting comprises the retail banks and the BANKSETA within the post-apartheid retail banking sector. The sector comprises a number of large and smaller banks. This is in terms of their relative weight of banking assets, retail banking market share and client base (Maredza & Ikhide, 2013). The large ‘big-four banks’ (p. 1362) are Standard Bank, Nedbank, First National Bank (which is part of the First Rand group) and the ABSA Bank. The smaller banks include African Bank, Capitec Bank, PostBank and UBANK Limited.

The above banks host their own leadership development programmes. Along with these banks’ programmes, the BANKSETA funds a sector-wide executive development programme, which aims to focus on historically disadvantaged individuals. The BANKSETA IEDP is hosted at a local business school. It presents a stable, long-standing programme iterated over several years.

The access to the BANKSETA programme hosted at a local business school and to the participating banks provided the researcher an opportunity to conduct an exploratory, sectoral case study. The business school programme managers provided the researcher an introduction by email to the BANKSETA staff and two cohorts of BANKSETA IEDP delegates. The researcher then followed up with the respective persons by email and scheduled interviews with persons agreeing to participate in the research. The researcher also approached and made contact with the heads of the respective banks’ leadership development function through email, and telephonically followed up and scheduled interviews with those agreeing to participate in the research.

The research is a multi-site, embedded case study design rather than a single or holistic design; that is, it comprises multiple embedded units of analysis (Yin, 2003). This means specific, embedded sites were selected within the retail banking sector. The case study utilised purposeful sampling within the sector. The sample consisted of the following 31 participants: three senior management from the BANKSETA management responsible for the BANKSETA IEDP; seven senior managers of leadership development at the retail banks participating in the BANKSETA IEDP (comprising the four large banks and one of the smaller banks); 12 delegates from the two cohorts from these respective banks attending the IEDP; two programme managers and six faculty and coaches at the local business school where the IEDP was hosted; and one senior programme manager at the South African subsidiary of an international business school that one of the banks utilised.

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were completed with all the participants from the various embedded units utilising interview schedules. The study initially aimed to utilise mixed-methods research at the different sites. However, the pilot study illustrated, for example, how the quantitative methods would narrow the exploration of the voices and perspectives of the research participants, especially given the time constraints of the participants and their limited availability to engage in surveys, journaling and/or interviews. More importantly, it highlighted the need to consider the banks’ concerns regarding the intellectual property of their customised leadership development and the sharing of proprietary and sensitive information on their leadership and its development to competitors through the research publication.

The researcher recorded the interviews utilising an audio recorder and took notes following a formal consent from the participant. Audio recording helps with the quality of the transcription process and construction of the transcripts (Evers, 2011) given the limitations of the researcher’s recollection and notes.

To attain trustworthiness for qualitative research, the study utilised the triangulation of sources of data, sampling of contrasting and multi-sites and an audit trail and chain of evidence. On transcription, many authors suggested that there is no single standard or convention for it (Evers, 2011; Lapadat, 2000). The transcription strategy utilised depends on the purpose of the research and analysis within the context of time, funding and resource constraints. The transcription of the interviews was done in three phases of quality checks over the period of 12 months to ensure its quality. The third phase also served as a reflective process as per the method of data analysis.

Merriam’s (2001) description of the constant comparative method informed the building of an ‘interview log’ during the third phase of transcription; the researcher’s immersion in the data; the surfacing of ‘potentially relevant’ (p. 181) segments; the development of an ‘outline or classification system’ (p. 181) of categories or themes; and noting of emergent patterns with and across themes. The subsequent thematic analysis of the individual transcripts within the embedded units and then across these units provided the within and between case analysis to develop the required thick descriptions.

The research participants were informed that their participation is both voluntary and anonymous, and they formally consented to their participation and recording. The names of the participants and the organisations are not included to maintain anonymity. For this reason, codes and pseudonyms are used. The limits of anonymity for the BANKSETA and business school were discussed with the relevant participants, who consented to their continuing participation within these limits.

The BANKSETA IEDP, launched in 2005, illustrates a similar pattern of external and internal differentiation as with the banks’ LDCs. However, in the case of the BANKSETA, they differentiated their IEDP from that of the leadership development programmes of the local banks. In addition, their internal programme capabilities developed as their framing of their purpose evolved together with their partnerships with international, local and then continental business schools and their international and later continental networks in Africa. These capabilities involved the selection of delegates to the IEDP, the logistics of onboarding the delegates to the programme from the respective banks and its design and delivery in collaboration with the various business schools.

Table 2 provides a chronological and thematic summary of the pattern of external and internal differentiation for the BANKSETA IEDP. It illustrates how the BANKSETA’s purposes, capabilities, networks, partnerships and programme evolved together over the years.

One of the thematic threads through the discussions on the design, delivery and management of leadership development is partnerships. This is clearly seen in the discussion on the banks’ LDCs and the BANKSETA IEDP, which illustrates how partnerships evolve with their external and internal differentiation. This includes how they frame and see their organisational boundaries. For example, with their evolving capabilities, in particular along the strategic and design lines of development, one finds the heads of the banks’ LDCs calling for a reconfiguration to ‘create a different model and a different level of thinking’. They now seek to ‘co-design’ and ‘co-create’ leadership development with the business schools and other providers. This reconfiguration and the call to ‘co-design’ and ‘co-create’ require the stakeholders to understand the different positions that they take up with regard to leadership development. Understanding these positions may help them clarify implicit assumptions, expectations, role conflicts, competing task demands and consequently identity issues that they bring into, and that emerge within, the partnerships. Table 3 provides a summary of the positions the HOLDCs (as managers of the LDCs) and business school programme managers and faculty take up and the related aspects of the leadership journey of the delegates. The themes are drawn from those that emerged from the interviews with the HOLDCs, business school programme managers and BANKSETA IEDP delegates.

The study illustrates that leadership development is shaped by competing and shifting purposes, and that its management as a programme, function and LDC, and the firms it is undertaken within, are not static. They are continuously evolving and entail dynamic internal and external relations (with push and pull dynamics) and attempts at the alignment of leadership, culture, performance and business strategy. These layered institutional and individual journeys, at different levels of analysis, include the formalisation and institutionalisation of leadership development. An aspect of this is the location and embedding of leadership development within the HR management and development function.

There are two possible avenues for exploring the journeys of leadership development and HR. The first concerns the question of how leadership development and the HR sub-functions evolve, separately and together, and the ways they may align or not. Here, we could draw on the debates on the best fit and coherence of HR practices and sub-functions (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997; Choi, 2014; Garavan, Watson, Carbery, & O’Brien, 2015; Huselid & Becker, 2011). Their argument is that fit and coherence is necessary both internally as a bundle of HR practices or HR system and externally with the firm and its business strategy. In this regard, the case study helps illustrate the dynamics, tensions and paradoxes in the attempts by the LDC management to achieve internal fit within their ‘hybrid’ HR structure as well as organisational and strategic fit.

This brings us to the second avenue. We can locate the above question and the discussion on the LDC journey within the debates on the strategic value, roles and organisation of the HR function. In particular, David Ulrich’s proposal for HR given the global prevalence of the ‘Ulrich model’ (Ulrich, 2015, p. 25) and the banks’ instantiation of it in its ‘hybrid’ HR structure (Hird, Marsh, & Sparrow, 2009; Pritchard, 2010; Keegan, Bitterling, Sylva, & Hoeksema, 2018; Ulrich, 2015; Ulrich, Younger, & Brockbank, 2008). It raises two issues. Firstly, following Hird et al. (2009), we need to weigh up the level of readiness and competence of the HR teams and function to implement Ulrich’s proposals. Secondly, we need to attend to how consulting companies interpreted and translated Ulrich’s research and proposals into structural plans for firms. That is, how they translated the ways HR can deliver strategic value into a fixed structural design that is commonly though erroneously referred to as the ‘Ulrich model’ (Ulrich, 2015, p. 25). This opens up the possibility of reimaging the dynamic configuration of the HR function and the LDC as their capabilities mature, including how the tensions and paradoxes within this configuration and between various HR practices are enacted and worked through across organisational spaces and time. Here, one could also consider how the continual tensions and paradoxes of centralisation and decentralisation are played out and negotiated.

As the programme, function, LDC and managers thereof evolve, they shape how formal, informal and non-formal learning takes shape and is facilitated and prioritised. In this way, they delimit the learning content, process and spaces as well as open up these as they develop and mature in their configuration and internal capabilities. The notion of learning spaces helps locate this understanding of leadership development within the broader debate on pedagogic space (see Jivan & Paile, 2019) and the inter-disciplinary debates on the ‘spatial turn’ (Soja quoted in Kostogriz, 2006, p. 176) in the various fields of the social sciences. It leads to an appreciation of space as socio-material realities, which are multi-faceted and comprise the material, structural, institutional, relational, discursive and experiential.

This allows for the critical examination of contexts as the effects of socio-material realities and practices, rather than assuming that it is ‘pre-existing’ (Edwards & Miller, 2007, p. 269). Together with the above understanding of leadership development as continuously evolving and dynamic, it suggests the need to interrogate how organisations frame, undertake and manage the ‘contextualisation’ of leadership develospment. It also opens up for exploration the locus of learning and learning spaces, as leadership and its development matures. For example, consider the shifting locus in the use of teacher and learner-centred modalities; the practices of pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy (and the attendant conceptions of individual autonomy and dependent, guided and self-directed learning); and the incorporation of the workplace in the formal learning within programmes (Merriam, 2001b; Sandlin, Wright, & Clark, 2013).

As one explores the locus of learning and spaces thereof, one could also explore the contestations on the locus of leadership as it and its development matures – from being leader-centred to being more decentred, distributed, shared and network-based. Day (2001) and Day and Halpin (2001) have argued for the differentiation of leader and leadership development; and Day and Harrison (2007; Day et al., 2011) later provided a model of ‘levels of complexity’ (2007, p. 361) of leadership and an attendant multilevel approach to leadership development. Petrie (2011) similarly suggested that there is global ‘transition occurring from the old paradigm in which leadership resided in a person or role’ (p. 6) to a ‘new [paradigm] in which leadership is a collective process that is spread throughout networks of people’ (p. 6) within organisations.

The call by the HOLDCs to ‘create a different model and a different level of thinking’, and ‘co-design’ and ‘co-create’ leadership development, suggests the need to reimagine partnerships, organisational boundaries and the capabilities these require. To help reimagine these, one could draw analogies to the current debates on technology platforms and platform strategies. The first analogy one could draw is to the present debates on proprietary, commercial platforms that serve the role of intermediation. For example, one can cite Facebook, Uber and Airbnb as examples of intermediaries (Van Alstyne, Parker, & Choudary, 2016). In this case, the platform serves as an intermediary within an ecosystem comprising a network of consultants, facilitators and other providers of leadership development serving as ‘intellectual free agents [as well as their] corporate clients’ (World We Work In, 2015, p. 2). It is argued that this helps ‘integrate divergent management disciplines, research areas, and learning methodologies’ (Anderson & Van Wijk, 2010, p. 550) to address client needs and ‘customize and innovate beyond the boundaries of a single institution’ (Anderson & Van Wijk, 2010, p. 550). Thus, the locus of integration here is the client needs and the expertise that needs to be brought together to answer these needs.

The second analogy one could draw, at the other end of the spectrum to intermediation, is disintermediation and decentralisation. Here, one could cite the emergence of distributed ledger and associated technologies (such as block chains) that obviate the need for intermediation. These are meant to enable unmediated peer-to-peer interaction and token-based value exchange and economies, as well as the possibility of decentralised forms of organisation and self-sovereign or decentralised digital identities (Rauchs et al., 2018). Those leading disintermediation and decentralisation point out the dangers of centralised platforms and services such as Facebook who capture and monopolise users and their data, and as intermediaries set out (overtly and covertly) the protocols or ‘rules’ for everyone and define and shape what is possible.

Centralised platforms and services will be an anathema to the decentred, distributed, shared and network-based conceptions of leadership; and for the emergent and process-based understanding and development of leadership. Disintermediation and decentralisation through distributed technologies, token-based economies, decentralised forms of organisation and self-managed, decentralised digital identities may be more amenable and enabling for these forms of leadership and their development. These could provide an alternate platform for the emerging and multifaceted partnerships between the banks and their academic and other leadership development partners; and the boundary spanning between the supply and demand sides.

However, the exact form and mechanisms this platform can take are not clear and these particular technologies and the concepts of disintermediation and decentralisation still need to mature. Presently, it appears that disintermediation and decentralisation are defined negatively as ‘not intermediation’, which means that the frame of reference is the present forms of intermediation rather than a complete reimagining of these as well as the firms and the value chains and ecosystems they are embedded within. For the moment, though, we could consider how the other established fields of technologies and innovations are presently aligning: from digitalised learning and its management (including e-learning platforms, massive open online courses and the modularisation of learning content, and learning management systems) to artificial intelligence (specifically machine learning) and the cyber-physical systems of the fourth industrial revolution.

The discussion on positions highlights the need to attend to the identity work of both the managers of leadership development and the delegates, and brings another dimension to the debates on it. It draws attention to the spatiotemporal and institutional setting of identity work. It has similarities with the findings of Pritchard (2010) on the ‘identity-work’ (p. 177) of HR practitioners, especially with HR positioning itself in a strategic partnership with line and executive management in accordance with Ulrich’s proposals. Pritchard observes that ‘HR practitioners identify with a variety of roles and claim to operate differently in relation to a range of HR issues’ (p. 176). This negotiation of roles entails an ‘active engagement’ (p. 176) with their ‘self-identity’ ‘constructions’, resulting in shifts in their view of their profession and their own professional identity. Caldwell’s (2004) research likewise found that the HR practitioners are ‘pragmatic realists’ (p. 202) rather than ‘purists’, when working with and through the ‘inner tensions of HRM’, and ‘reactive pragmatists’ (p. 203) in the ‘day-to-day’ (p. 203) operations. This distinction of practitioner pragmatism can help develop a more granular understanding of how they take up and negotiate the discussed positions.