The first rationale is that expectations from great (or good ) leaders aren't defined in operative terms and in ways where the results can be confirmed. Leaders are expected to 'achieve' several things. They are expected to flip laggards into high performers, turn around companies, charm customers, and dazzle media.
They're expected to perform wonders. These expectations remain only wishful thinking. These desired outcomes can't be utilized to supply any clues regarding gaps in leadership skills and development needs.
Not having a thorough and generic (legitimate in varied industries and conditions) frame for defining leadership signifies leadership development efforts are inconsistent and scattered in character. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go…) and immunity to each new initiative. This is the second reason why the objectives of leadership development are often not met.
If you are looking for a motivational speaker then you can consult Gene Hammett via https://www.genehammett.com.
The third rationale is in the methods used for leadership growth. Leadership development applications rely upon a combination of cooperation (e.g. on topics such as team building, communications), case studies, and class exercises (problem-solving), and some inspirational talks by leading business leaders or management professionals.
Sometimes the programs include outdoor or adventure activities for helping people bond better with each other and build better teams. These programs generate 'feel good' effect and in some cases participants 'yield' using their own action plans. However, in nearly all cases, they fail to capitalize on the efforts that have gone.