Articles / Can Leadership Be Taught? Perspectives From Management Educators
Development, Training & CoachingExplore management educators' perspectives on teaching leadership. Consensus shows yes, with 70-20-10 model proven most effective.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Fri 7th November 2025
Can leadership be taught according to those who dedicate careers to leadership education? Management educators overwhelmingly answer yes, whilst emphasising critical distinctions about what can be taught and how. Leading scholars from Harvard Business School, INSEAD, London Business School, and Stanford collectively argue that leadership capabilities develop primarily through experience (70%), developmental relationships (20%), and formal education (10%), with teaching effectiveness depending on pedagogy rather than inherent limitations.
This consensus reflects decades of research, programme evaluation, and practical experience. However, educators disagree significantly about optimal methods, the role of academic institutions, and limitations of formal instruction. Understanding these expert perspectives reveals both possibilities and constraints of teaching leadership.
Warren Bennis, widely considered the father of leadership studies, articulated a nuanced position. He argued forcefully against the "Great Man" theory suggesting leaders are born, instead proposing that leadership competencies develop through experience and reflection. His research identified four essential capabilities all learnable through deliberate effort:
Bennis emphasised that whilst universities can teach frameworks and case analysis, leadership develops primarily through "crucible experiences"—challenging situations requiring individuals to test and develop capabilities. His perspective prioritises experiential learning over classroom instruction, viewing formal education as catalyst rather than primary driver.
McGill professor Henry Mintzberg offers perhaps the most critical perspective on conventional leadership education. In "Managers Not MBAs," he argues that traditional business schools fail at teaching leadership because they prioritize analysis over action, cases over practice, and individual performance over collaborative capability.
Mintzberg contends that effective leadership requires managerial experience before formal education. His International Masters Program in Practicing Management accepts only experienced managers and emphasises action learning—addressing real organisational challenges whilst learning—rather than classroom theory.
His critique highlights critical limitations: short programmes cannot develop capabilities requiring years, simulations inadequately replicate organisational complexity, and faculty without recent practice teach outdated approaches. However, Mintzberg doesn't argue leadership is unteachable—rather that teaching methods must change fundamentally.
Harvard's Barbara Kellerman questions whether leadership can be taught at all in conventional senses. Her research tracking leadership development programme outcomes reveals disappointing impact, with most initiatives showing minimal behaviour change or organisational improvement.
Kellerman argues that leadership involves too many context-specific variables, requires too much tacit knowledge, and depends too heavily on situation-specific judgment for standardised teaching to prove effective. She emphasises that leadership emerges through sustained practice in specific contexts rather than through general principles taught in classrooms.
Her perspective suggests that whilst universities can teach leadership theories and frameworks, developing actual leadership capability requires organisational context impossible to replicate academically. This position prioritises on-the-job development over formal education.
Management pioneer Peter Drucker distinguished between leadership and management, arguing that whilst management can be systematically taught, leadership involves character and judgement developed primarily through experience.
Drucker emphasized that effective teaching focuses on learnable capabilities—decision frameworks, communication techniques, performance management—rather than attempting to teach wisdom or judgment. He advocated for extensive case study analysis building pattern recognition, but insisted that actual leadership develops through progressive responsibility and accountability.
His perspective suggests realistic expectations: formal education provides tools enhancing experiential learning but cannot substitute for experience itself. Universities contribute most by providing frameworks that help individuals learn more effectively from challenges they'll encounter.
Harvard professor Linda Hill represents contemporary thinking about leadership teachability. Her research demonstrates that leadership can be effectively taught when programmes integrate multiple development methods.
Hill's work emphasises that effective programmes:
Her research shows that properly designed programmes generate measurable improvements in leadership effectiveness, whilst poorly designed initiatives waste resources. The key is integration across experiential, relational, and educational development rather than classroom instruction alone.
Harvard Kennedy School's Ronald Heifetz argues that leadership can be taught, but requires fundamentally different pedagogy than traditional education. His "adaptive leadership" approach emphasises:
Heifetz contends that effective teaching creates uncomfortable learning experiences forcing participants to examine assumptions, experiment with new behaviours, and develop capabilities through guided struggle rather than comfortable instruction.
Despite varying emphases, management educators increasingly agree on several principles:
Leadership Can Be Developed: Whilst disagreeing about methods, virtually all scholars conclude that leadership capabilities improve through deliberate development rather than emerging purely from innate characteristics.
Experience Matters Most: Consensus places challenging work assignments as primary development driver, typically estimating 60-70% of capability building occurs through on-the-job experiences.
Teaching Methods Determine Outcomes: Traditional lectures prove insufficient. Effective pedagogy combines frameworks, experiential exercises, coaching, peer learning, and reflection.
Duration Matters: Brief programmes raise awareness but rarely change behaviour. Sustained engagement spanning 6-12 months enables actual capability development.
Integration Is Essential: The most effective development integrates classroom learning, challenging assignments, and coaching relationships rather than treating these as separate activities.
Context Influences Effectiveness: What works in entrepreneurial settings differs from established corporations. Effective teaching acknowledges contextual factors rather than prescribing universal approaches.
These expert perspectives suggest several practical conclusions:
For Individuals: Don't rely solely on formal education. Seek challenging assignments providing stretch experiences. Build relationships with mentors and coaches who will challenge rather than simply support you. Use frameworks from formal learning to make sense of experiences. Reflect systematically on what works and why.
For Organisations: Provide developmental assignments as primary capability-building mechanism. Support formal learning with coaching and application opportunities. Create feedback-rich environments enabling rapid learning. Allow time for development rather than expecting immediate expertise.
For Educational Institutions: Emphasise experiential learning over lectures. Integrate action learning addressing real challenges. Span sufficient duration for behaviour change. Staff programmes with practitioner-scholars who bridge theory and practice. Engage employers ensuring application opportunities.
Yes, management educators overwhelmingly agree that leadership capabilities can be developed through deliberate effort, though they disagree significantly about methods. Warren Bennis, Linda Hill, and Henry Mintzberg all conclude leadership improves through development whilst emphasising that traditional classroom approaches prove insufficient. The consensus emphasises experiential learning (70%), developmental relationships (20%), and formal education (10%) rather than classroom instruction alone. Even sceptics like Barbara Kellerman question teaching methods rather than fundamental teachability.
Harvard leadership scholars including Linda Hill, Ronald Heifetz, and historically Warren Bennis agree that leadership can be developed but requires integration of experience, coaching, and reflection. Their research emphasises that effective teaching combines challenging work assignments, case-based learning, action learning projects, executive coaching, and sustained engagement over 6-12 months. Harvard's approach prioritises experiential methods over lectures, with case discussions and action learning central to programmes. Faculty consensus highlights that development happens through guided experience rather than passive learning.
Sceptical educators like Barbara Kellerman and Henry Mintzberg question conventional teaching methods rather than fundamental teachability. Their concerns include: brief programmes cannot develop capabilities requiring years, classroom simulations inadequately replicate organisational complexity, faculty without recent practice teach outdated approaches, and excessive emphasis on analysis versus action. These critics advocate experiential learning, extended duration, and organisational integration rather than traditional semester courses. Their perspective challenges delivery methods whilst acknowledging that leadership develops through proper approaches.
Management educators recommend action learning addressing real business challenges (most effective), executive coaching providing personalised feedback, experiential exercises creating practice opportunities, case-based discussions developing analytical capabilities, peer learning cohorts building networks, and systematic reflection transforming experience into insight. Research shows integrated approaches combining multiple methods outperform single-method programmes by 400%. The consensus emphasises practice with feedback over passive instruction, sustained engagement over brief intensives, and organisational integration over isolated education.
Management scholars typically cite 5-7 years for developing deep leadership expertise through varied experiences, though measurable improvements appear within 6-12 months of focused development. Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis emphasised that leadership requires progressive responsibility over extended periods. Contemporary researchers like Linda Hill demonstrate that structured programmes spanning 6-12 months generate behaviour change when integrated with challenging assignments. The consensus rejects short workshops whilst acknowledging that sustained development accelerates with proper support.
Management educators express mixed views. Henry Mintzberg argues conventional business schools fail because they prioritise theory over practice and accept inexperienced students. However, Linda Hill's research demonstrates that properly designed programmes generate measurable improvements when they integrate action learning, coaching, real work challenges, and sustained engagement. The consensus suggests business schools contribute most through frameworks enhancing experiential learning, peer networks, reflection opportunities, and credentialing rather than attempting to provide complete development through classroom instruction alone.
Management educators consensus places challenging work experience as primary development driver, typically estimating 60-70% of leadership capability builds through on-the-job assignments. Warren Bennis identified "crucible experiences"—challenging situations testing capabilities—as essential. Henry Mintzberg requires managerial experience before accepting students. Linda Hill's research emphasises integrating challenging assignments with formal learning. The agreement across educators suggests that formal education should enhance rather than substitute for experiential learning, providing frameworks that help individuals learn more effectively from practice.