Leaders challenge others to develop, hoping that development sustains and drives organizational prosperity. The admirable aim of development diminishes when performance evaluation is absent or insufficient. Leadership evaluation can be both summative and formative. Too often, would-be developers focus on results (summative evaluation) when we ought to focus on how others are changing. The real shortcoming in evaluation occurs when an evaluation philosophy is absent in human potential development. An easy approach to creating change in evaluation is to place assessment in the context of goals and objectives.

Leaders don't approach development as a science experiment. The successful leaders we observe engage in experimental approaches to development, changing mixes and methods with each individual. Well-skilled developers negotiate with developing leaders for outcomes that create personal and organizational change. Along with adjustments to reward systems, talent developers focus on increasing interests!

The focus in evaluation is success. It begins and ends with a present-oriented focus, abandoning notions developed from experiences with individuals and relinquishing hopes of what might be. A present focus requires the emphasis of planning to create change and growth. We recommend incorporating technology into development planning. Environments will necessitate shifts in adjustments in development plans.

In all evaluation, commit to deriving benefits from the process. Benefits take us beyond checklists and measures and into the world of action and change. Developers seek rich results that allow joy to flourish. Participants engaged in the processes of evaluation comprehend that development is a lifelong research process of uncovering and unleashing interests in people and in life. Ultimately, sound evaluation contributes to career and personal satisfaction.

Have you ever been in a situation at work where the major problem is the boss? At times, we're asked to intervene in situations that are nearly impossible to reconcile because of a failure to deal with a management performance issue. Fear creates immobilization when the boss is the problem. We risk changing because we feel that solutions are temporary and mere window-dressing. These circumstances challenge us to create conditions for success.

For a moment, let's focus on what occurs when the boss is an inhibitor to healthy team development. We might find or discover that trust diminishes. Environments become punitive and people become isolated because of fear. Incompetence increases because no one wants to consider new action items or items. People begin to manipulate environments to create escape routes or workarounds. If you see these conditions, it's time to focus on creating solutions frameworks.

To create solutions frameworks, begin with an approach to gain insight. It takes a brave soul to be willing to raise issues with the boss. This bravery has to be accompanied not by bravado but with an approach that minimizes and reduces threat. Follow-up helps to ensure success. Depending on your influence ability in the organization, you might also suggest the use of third-party consultants.

Another approach that is making a comeback in these situations is the assessment center. We can help to select in talented people who fit through assessment.

Regardless of approach, organizational leaders can diminish "bad" bosses by creating climates where individuals can ask questions. Asking-questions organizations help to foster trust and to build openness. Rather than focus on a solution to the difficult boss, you can gain acceleration by making suggestions. In all cases, we can use some measures that help us to ensure that teams are satisfied and are moving in positive directions.

Leadership complacency serves none well. The great challenge in leadership complacency is that it is an accelerating problem. If complacency is not addressed, the leader — and his or her organization — risks greater complacency. Approaches to ending complacency begin with rut busting. If we can break up our unhelpful routines, we stimulate new ways and approaches for solving problems. This opens the door to creating new experiences.

Complacency, when not addressed in leaders, creates ill effects in teams. Often, members of teams with complacent leaders complain of dissatisfaction. Too often, the complacent leader says, "Just give me some time." While we don't want our experiences to happen in sound bits and bytes, time demands speedy solutions. To bust complacency, some organizations create job rotations and stretch assignments. In all case, organization committed to diminishing complacency foster open-information environments.

To plan for the expression of creation — a key aid in diminishing and ending complacency — organizations can experiment with several approaches. First, organizations can concentrate on creating short-term assignments or groupings. Organizations can also foster think-tank environments or assist the complacent executive to grow by presenting him or her with comparative data. There is never an excuse for not leveling or being honest with the complacent leader.

You can influence these circumstances by fostering outside-in perspectives. Allow for some ad-hoc approaches to creating change. On the issue of complacency reduction, guidance will always win when compared to controlling others by steering them in a certain direction. Additionally, fun can be a major asset in helping others to move towards new levels of action.

Change happens all around us; for many, the pace of change is accelerating. One concern with change is who benefits? Often, many feel that organizations benefit over individuals. For leaders, we have to situate changing work environments in a developmental context. The ability to create work in a developmental context develops workforce commitment. This can be particularly applicable and meaningful in organizations and environments where boundaries are blurring.

Part of the transition to change competition means that organizational leaders focus on performance management and organization design. It may mean, in certain organizations or in specific divisional forms, that leaders and workers alike go through a process of relearning. We aren't so in love with the past that we can't let go, or so afraid of the future that we can't embrace it; it's the transition times that cause us to struggle.

The new roles for leaders in the changed competitive environment are showing up everywhere. We can see it in terms of increasing board member responsibility. We can hear it in the growing discussions of social benefits related to work and profit. We can experience it in the changing forms and shapes of organizational governance. Amidst all the chaos, confusion, and distraction, we need to develop intense commitment.

We can create a better deal for ourselves and for others in this changing environment. It will require that we have agreements for change with multiple stakeholders. Training for strategic skills drives development in the changing environments. A focus on evaluation criteria for alliance and other partners will enable transformation. The results will come in the form of more breakthroughs and less incremental change.