### These programs have a reason for being.
Sometimes, I think these programs have the reason to make good money for the university offering it.
Mr Ford and Mr Bosch , Mr. Edison and Mr. Siemens never took these classes, but in the end led huge companies.
There are a lot of bad leaders, true, not informing people, treating people like vending machines (insert money and expect to get things delivered) , playing games etc.
These people should neverhave become "leaders" (in fact, they dont lead)
I think good leading practices (there are not sooo many of them, only a few which people should stick to) can be learnt from books like "management for dummies", the book is cheap, is good reading, and you probably learn the same.
What cant be taught or learnt from a book are project specific things. A cost estimate for an Airbus A380 differs from the cost estimate of an iPod.
I would think that broadening an engineer's perspective in project management and learning how to deal with other departments as a leader is a good thing. I agree that there are people who are born to lead, but others have the potential to lead, given they apply the necessary tools to become leaders. Are engineering leaders born and not made? That depends on each individual and on every situation he/she is put in. And of course on a lot of good luck to move up in the pecking order. These programs have a reason for being.
Some skills can be learned (like project planning, cost estimating, etc.) but leadership is more than a skill set, it is a personality trait. I know a lot of technically skilled people that could never lead a group, they just don't have "it". They are great engineers and very technical but leadership is very different from technical ability. I hope the program works well for those involved. It reminds me of innovation and creative thinking training. Innovators and creative types don't need to be trained, they are already by nature innovative and/or creative.