Anyone who can demonstrate a financial Return on Investment on leadership development is making it up.

Anyone who asks to see the ROI on leadership development is asking the wrong question.

The problem with demonstration is attribution. The indicators used to show ROI usually include components of productivity, recruitment costs avoided, maybe savings from quality improvements. None of these can be attributed solely to leadership development, so you have to get creative about calculating what proportion of the improvement can be allocated to a better leader. A guess dressed as science.

And ROI is a red herring. People who want to know the ROI on management training are missing the point. ROI on training goes back to that old "people are our greatest asset" concept: let's show our people how we care for them by treat them like every other asset that's involved in production: investment, valuation, maintenance, improvement, upgrade or disposal.

Do leaders looking for ROI take the same approach to their other relationships? Do they want an ROI calculation on the cost benefit of friendships, family, community?

A more human workplace does not treat employees like assets, greatest or otherwise. A more human workplace treats its employees like people. There is a human relationship between the people who are employees and the organization (which is also made up of people).

People today want more human workplaces, where they can make a contribution that matters and feel a sense of belonging.

By all means, get a well-crafted ROI on management training for your training business case. But if you really think that's a valid question, then you've got a lot of work to do on creating a culture of contribution where people feel valued for who they are. A more human workplace.