"Leaders cannot be thought of apart from the historic context in which they arise, the setting in which they function (e.g., elective political office), and the system over which they preside (e.g., a particular city or state). They are an integral part of the system, subject to the forces that affect the system"

- John W. Gardner. On Leadership. New York: Free Press, 1990.

The environment (alternatively situation or context) refers to the prevailing conditions and factors under which we learn and develop. It consists of formal education (schools, academies, on-line courses, organized team sports, military training) as well as hard lessons earned in the "school of life," (family setting, influence of peers, bosses, lovers, etc). Quite simply, it is the entire context of one's life, and it significantly affects who we are and how we respond to similar and dissimilar situations in future.

The environment shapes who our leaders are through their past experiences (both successes and failures), and affects how leaders interact with the present and see the future. The contextual baggage each person brings to the table is unique to each person and inseparable from that person.

Environments Conducive to Leadership Development

The first requirement for a successful educational or developmental environment is that it teach what needs to be taught. That is, its curriculum must be appropriate to the stated objective of the learning in question. Other requirements of the environment include: that it be conducive to learning, in the sense of minimizing distractions; that it utilize the latest (and, as relevant, multi-disciplinary) scientific techniques and experiential settings to enhance learning; that it consistently reinforce values and constructive skills; that it stretch students without breaking; and that it allows them to fail without becoming completely discouraged.

A useful way to establish the difference between good and bad educational environments is through the use of a sports analogy.

Consider two sports teams in the same league. The actual sport is not relevant. Both teams have a similar mix of athletes, in terms of physical sizes and athletic capabilities. One team has a single coach, limited equipment, a dingy facility with poor lighting, and limited access to the facility to begin with. The other team has a highly motivated coaching team, consisting of an experienced head coach and several trained assistants. It has generous access to a state-of-the-art facility and enough equipment to support any and all training needs. Which team should be expected to develop and perform better? This is not a trick question. It should be clear that the latter team, with access to multiple coaches and better facilities has a tremendous advantage. Its athletes can spend more time in training, can get more "reps" (repetitions) with readily available equipment, and perhaps most importantly, receive immediate and specific feedback from a multitude of dedicated and trained coaches. This feedback may take the form of a verbal comment, a quick demonstration under realistic conditions, simulated play, as well as during reviews of practice video tapes and examination of competing team's videotapes. Under the coaches' scrutiny, almost every correct move can quickly be praised and positively reinforced, and almost every mistake can be identified and corrected quickly.

Similarly, if our objective is to develop better leaders, we should strive to provide students of leadership with a fitting learning environment and support. We need to ensure a supportive and nurturing environment, rich experiential learning opportunities, and trained experts to carry out the teaching and provide real-time (immediate) feedback and redirection before, during and after training.

It is also important to note that one group's ideal educational environment may differ than another's. An obvious example arises from studies on male/female performance and promotion patterns in the workplace. It turns out that while a respectable number of men find success in envronments combining traditional co-educational schools, and the presence of siblings, women's success is correlated with three factors:

1. Having no male siblings

2. Having a supportive father

3. Attending all-female educational institutions

Thus, while males may thrive in the presence of female peers (in the home and at school), women thrive in the absence of male peers. This is in itself an intriguing observation which deserves detailed attention and action, beyond the scope of this discussion. For our purposes we quote it as an example of the (uneven) effects of a given environment on different groups.

For the most part, prosperous societies have recognized the need for a nurturing environment, in particular for young children. Day-care centers and other institutions providing early-stage child care and education focus on important values, physical and social skills in preparing their young charges for the big world. Unfortunately, these early leadership lessons are forgotten without repeated reinforcement.

Any learning must build on the following steps:

1. Building the base - this introductory step is often passive, including exposure to books and visual or audio presentations
2. Practice - this refers to experiential learning through active participation

3. Teaching others - often the best way to truly "know" is to pratice teaching others, thereby raising our own standards and understanding

4. Exercising the decision making organ: the brain - brain development is a critical element of leadership development.

The scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the importance of context, often discovering that "innate" factors are less important than assumed in the past, and that it is a person's environment, especially peer pressure, that shapes and affects his behavior and decisions most.
Avolio (2007) states that "preliminary evidence from behavioral genetics leadership research suggests that 30% of the variance in leadership style and emergence can be accounted for by genetic predispositions, while the remaining variance can be attributed to nonshared environmental influences..."

Avolio (2007) also provides a list of contextual (external) contingencies or environmental factors such as strategy, technology, organizational structure, position, social and physical distance, and culture; as well as (internal) contingencies such as personal qualities of leaders, experience of followers, personality of followers, gender, motivation, capability, and personal cultural orientation.

Turning to research results from a different realm, Howard Gardner provides the following. "Numerous studies with rats and other species have confirmed that an enriched environment produces more elaborate behavior as well as palpable changes in brain size."

In summary, the context or environment in which leaders learn and operate cannot be separated from the analysis of leadership and decision making.

Return to Top