Why most leadership development programs fail and a research-backed framework for building programs that actually develop great leaders. Written by Chris Canciarosi.
Most organizations spend real money on leadership development with disappointing results.
It’s not because leadership development isn’t working. That’s because most leadership development programs aren’t actually designed to develop leaders.
This is what I mean.
Why leadership development programs fail
The research on the effectiveness of leadership development is astonishing. Research consistently shows that most training investments do not result in lasting behavioral changes. Leaders join the program, return to work energized, and old habits return within 90 days.
Three root causes recur.
They start without a real diagnosis.
Most organizations design their leadership programs around common best practices, such as communication skills, emotional intelligence, and strategic thinking. These are valuable topics. But those may or may not actually be what is limiting the leader.
Real development begins with understanding the specific gaps that are currently causing friction within your organization. That’s not what the industry typically needs from a leader. What leaders actually need.
Design doesn’t connect to actual work.
Leadership is learned by doing. Classroom training, even good classroom training, can build awareness and vocabulary, but it rarely changes behavior by itself. This learning must be applied to real work situations, with real feedback for real decisions.
Programs that create meaningful behavior change incorporate learning into the work itself, including action learning projects, executive coaching, peer advisory groups, and stretch assignments. The classroom components are small. The applicable ingredients are large.
There are no significant measurements.
Most organizations measure leadership development by completion rates. This is a measure of attendance, not growth.
What do you need to measure? Behavioral change. Six months after the program, are leaders doing things differently? Are their teams performing better? Are retention rates among their high-potential talent pool improving? These metrics are difficult to collect. It’s worth it.
Framework that works
Through 25 years of leadership development work, I’ve identified four things that differentiate programs that produce results from those that don’t.
1. First, diagnose.
Before you design anything, be clear about what actually limits your readers. This means conversations, 360-degree reviews, performance data, and honest discussions with executives about where problems are occurring. Diagnosis takes time. This is the most valuable part.
2. Designed for your application.
Incorporate learning into your work. Use real business challenges as curriculum. Appoint a coach as well as an instructor. Create peer learning cohorts that continue after the formal program ends. The goal is not to complete the workout, but to form a habit.
3. Build in accountability.
Development cannot happen without accountability. Who is supporting each leader’s growth? What specific commitments have they made? How are those commitments tracked? The best programs create accountability structures that outlast the program itself.
4. Measure what matters.
Define your results before you begin. What does success look like? How do we know if behavior has changed? Build measurement into your program design from the beginning. Don’t try to assess the impact after the fact.
Senior leader role
What is overlooked in most leadership development conversations is that the biggest variable in whether a program works is not the program.
It’s senior leadership modeling.
If executives are not visibly growing themselves by asking for feedback, recognizing development needs, and making time for coaching, the message of leadership development is undermined from the top. Leaders focus on what senior leaders are doing, not what the learning department is saying.
Organizations that develop great leaders have senior executives who model growth as an ongoing practice rather than a post-graduation career stage.
Good appearance
The best leadership development I’ve seen has several characteristics.
It’s not temporary, it’s continuous. Development is not a program where you send a leader once. This is a continuous investment in the capabilities needed to improve organizational performance.
It’s not generic, it’s personalized. Different leaders have different gaps. The most effective development is tailored to the individual’s actual situation, rather than a curriculum designed for the average leader.
It leads to business results. The most powerful programs are clearly tied to the organization’s priorities. Leaders are not developing abstract skills; they are developing the capabilities that companies need to execute their strategies.
And it’s not just provided, it’s supported. Development requires ongoing coaching, peer accountability, manager empowerment, and regular check-ins. Programs that provide training and then disappear create compliance. Programs that provide ongoing support create growth.
Start
If your organization is investing in leadership development but isn’t seeing results, start with an honest diagnosis.
What is really limiting your leadership right now? What behaviors are getting in the way of your performance? Where are the gaps between the leadership culture you have and the leadership culture you need?
The answers to these questions form the basis of a working program.
If you would like to learn more, we work with organizations on exactly this type of assessment. The conversation starts with understanding what you’re actually dealing with, not selling the program.
Learn about our approach to assessing organizational culture. Read our guide to change management and organizational change. Explore gothamCulture’s leadership development services.
Source: gothamCulture – gothamculture.com
