ABSTRACT
We take the position in this chapter that most of the strategic e–orts to develop leadership probably start too late in the life cycle to optimize the impact on genuine leadership development. We might come to a similar conclusion when later in life someone tries to learn a new language. Why? Current evidence suggests that when an individual’s brain is fully wired it is much more di¬cult to develop a second language; thus, schools are taking the lead in introducing languages at much earlier ages (Stewart, 2005). Evidence from a meta-analysis of leadership development interventions shows that although the e–ect sizes of developmental interventions focused on younger (younger than 22 years old) versus older (over 45 years old) participants do not show signi›cant di–erences at ›rst glance (younger d = .536; older d = .539), when corrected for attenuation, there was a signi›cant di–erence with leadership interventions having a stronger impact on younger (corrected d = .683) rather than older leaders (corrected d = .56). Furthermore, it is important to note that few leadership development studies have been focused on younger participants and, thus, the sample size for these data is small yet still informative. Given these ›ndings, we argue that similar to early language development a parallel strategy should be adopted for leadership development, in terms of being not only ahead of brain wiring but also at the forefront of the development of what cognitive psychologists have called the individual’s actual self.
