Hoping for changes in CCL's approach in the future
DeVries shares his predictions for CCL's future. He sees continued growth for CCL, but thinks also that it might change its approach to leadership training by using new technologies to reach a wider audience and address a broader range of issues.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with David DeVries, November 23 and December 2, 1998. Interview S-0010. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
You've named some very interesting characters. Where do
you see the Center in ten years?
- DAVID DE VRIES:
-
Ten years from now? Either two of very different places. I
couldn't give you probability as to which one it would end
up. One is it could be basically where it's at now except it
would be bigger. It's impact would be greater on the field.
But basically doing what it's doing right now. It really
could feel very much like the same place. I guess actually what I would
say at this point is I would assign a 70% probability to that quite
frankly. I think it's more likely that it's going
to end up there. Now it may be it will do what it's doing
with more people around the globe in perhaps more places with some
slight varied adaptations to specific leadership constituencies but
basically doing what it's doing and being successful at that.
Another option would be that it in ten years has redefined itself to be
a organization that generates new ideas, develops prototypes, and then
spins them off into a variety of other organizations for the full scale
kind of dissemination of it. Those organizations might in ten years from
now be software organizations so they create let us say the medium that
is used to disseminate this is anything but stand-up trainers. Rather
it's a variety of interactive software programs. The
Center would be a collection of ad hoc
multi-disciplinary teams focused on specific challenging issues within
the field of leadership such as, "How can you create leadership
in a leaderless group? What's the best kind of leadership in
a leaderless group in which no one person is given the formal role of
leader? How can you, as leaders, regularly reinvent...?"
[END OF TAPE 2, SIDE A]
[TAPE 2, SIDE B]
[START OF TAPE 2, SIDE B]
- ELIZABETH MILLWOOD:
-
This is an interview with David DeVries on December 2 and we were
talking about where the Center may be in ten years.
- DAVID DE VRIES:
-
Right. I was on the second of two examples or issues that these ad hoc
new idea kind of development, whatever you call them, teams would be
working on. Just how do individual executives, leaders reinvent
themselves in a way that keeps them fresh, keeps them growing, keeps
them being up to the interesting new challenges, basically, versus a
more static model of leadership? Those are two. You could create a long
list. But these would be very specific kinds of efforts which might go
on three to five to ten years with real accountability in terms of what
gets generated and how it's used. And then working all along
to be sure that whatever products come out of those efforts and they do
get disseminated widely, that the Center does not get—is not
the principle agency for that dissemination.
- ELIZABETH MILLWOOD:
-
So sort of creating them and then setting them free.
- DAVID DE VRIES:
-
Exactly. Anyway, that obviously returns income to them and adds to their
own visibility but doesn't drag them into the day to day kind
of carrying out of that dissemination. That's the last thing
that the Center really should be doing and unfortunately,
it's really gotten caught up in that over the years. And now
does that role get in the way of really new idea generation? It remains
a fact that the Center is not nearly as good as doing that dissemination
as its for-profit competitors for a variety of reasons. The Center never
has been as good at and never will be as good at. That, by the way, that
second model is more of a virtual organization model. These ad hoc teams
could be drawn from the best and the brightest around the world. These
do not have to be full-time permanent staff. In fact, God forbid that it
would be. A portion of them could be but I could even see the majority
of them not being. These are people to whom the
Center can say, "We'll pay you to be part of this
team because you've done some interesting work in this field.
And we want your time and energy but you don't have to move
to Greensboro, North Carolina. You may be living in London or San Diego
or wherever but we're going to find ways for you to be part
of the team."
- ELIZABETH MILLWOOD:
-
Fascinating concept, it truly is.
- DAVID DE VRIES:
-
I think the Center should have been playing with that a long time ago.
It's really disappointing. I work with a variety of
corporations around the country and they already are at that point. And
one of the sad things about the Center is that it has not modeled
innovative approaches to the whole field of new idea generation, new
products creation. It's sad because the Center knows about
these models. It convenes organizations around the world that are using
these models but it doesn't apply these models themselves.
That has always baffled me in the last ten years.