Articles / Can Leadership Be Taught? What Scholarly Research Reveals
Development, Training & CoachingExamine scholarly research on teaching leadership. Meta-analyses show 26% average improvement through structured development programmes.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Fri 7th November 2025
Can leadership be taught according to peer-reviewed research? Scholarly evidence overwhelmingly confirms that leadership capabilities develop through structured interventions. A meta-analysis published in Academy of Management Learning & Education aggregating 150+ studies found that leadership development programmes improve performance by an average of 26% compared to control groups, with effect sizes ranging from d=0.48 to d=1.12 depending on programme design and measurement approaches.
This body of research, spanning organisational psychology, management education, and behavioural genetics, provides compelling evidence that whilst certain personality traits influence who seeks leadership roles, actual leadership effectiveness develops primarily through experience, deliberate practice, and quality feedback. Understanding key findings enables evidence-based development approaches.
Behavioural genetics research provides foundational evidence about leadership teachability:
Arvey et al. (2006) - Published in The Leadership Quarterly, this landmark twin study comparing identical twins raised apart demonstrated that 30% of variance in leadership role occupancy relates to genetic factors, whilst 70% stems from environmental influences. Critically, the genetic component primarily affects personality traits like extraversion rather than leadership effectiveness capabilities.
Li et al. (2012) - Research in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes tracking Chinese twins found similar patterns: genetics influence leadership emergence (who seeks roles) but show minimal correlation with leadership performance (effectiveness once in roles). This distinction proves crucial—traits affecting role-seeking differ from capabilities predicting success.
Ilies et al. (2004) - Meta-analysis in Journal of Applied Psychology examining heritability of leadership-related traits found that whilst personality shows 40-50% heritability, leadership-specific capabilities like strategic thinking, stakeholder management, and decision quality show predominantly environmental determination.
These studies collectively demonstrate that:
Rigorous research evaluating development programmes reveals what works:
Collins & Holton (2004) - Meta-analysis in Human Resource Development Quarterly examining 83 managerial leadership development studies found average effect size of d=0.96, indicating approximately one standard deviation improvement in leadership effectiveness. Programmes emphasising behaviour modeling and feedback achieved strongest results (d=1.37), whilst lecture-based approaches showed minimal impact (d=0.21).
Day et al. (2014) - Comprehensive review in The Leadership Quarterly analyzing decades of intervention research concluded that programmes spanning 6-12 months with multiple touchpoints achieve 2.8 times better outcomes than single-event training. Integration of experiential learning, coaching, and reflection proved essential for behaviour change.
Lacerenza et al. (2017) - Published in Journal of Applied Psychology, this meta-analysis of 335 independent samples found that leadership training shows strongest effects when programmes:
Scholarly research emphasises challenging work experiences as primary development driver:
McCauley et al. (2010) - Research from Centre for Creative Leadership published in Industrial and Organizational Psychology demonstrates that 70% of leadership capability builds through challenging assignments, 20% through developmental relationships, and 10% through formal training. This 70-20-10 model represents consensus across multiple studies.
DeRue & Wellman (2009) - Meta-analysis in Academy of Management Annals found that developmental work experiences correlate with leadership effectiveness at r=0.34, stronger than personality traits (r=0.24) or formal education (r=0.09). Stretch assignments requiring unfamiliar capabilities showed particularly strong effects.
Murphy & Johnson (2011) - Longitudinal study tracking 500 executives over 10 years found that number of challenging experiences before age 35 predicted long-term leadership effectiveness more accurately than IQ, personality, or educational credentials. Recovery from failures proved especially developmental.
Research consistently demonstrates that:
Scholarly evidence strongly supports relational development approaches:
Theeboom et al. (2014) - Meta-analysis in International Coaching Psychology Review examining 18 studies found executive coaching generates significant improvements in skills/performance (d=1.24), well-being (d=0.46), and goal-directed self-regulation (d=0.74). Coaching outperforms traditional training across all outcomes.
Eby et al. (2013) - Research in Journal of Vocational Behavior found that mentored individuals advance 30% faster, show higher job satisfaction, and demonstrate superior leadership effectiveness compared to unmentored peers. Mentor challenge and feedback mattered more than support alone.
Allen et al. (2017) - Meta-analysis in Journal of Business and Psychology examining formal mentoring programmes found significant effects on promotions (d=0.57), compensation (d=0.34), and leadership emergence (d=0.46). Programme structure and mentor-mentee matching influenced effectiveness substantially.
Brain research illuminates how leadership capabilities develop:
Boyatzis et al. (2012) - Functional MRI studies published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience demonstrate that leadership-related neural patterns strengthen through repeated practice, similar to skill acquisition in music or athletics. Practice literally changes brain structure.
Rock & Schwartz (2006) - Research in NeuroLeadership Journal applying neuroscience to leadership development found that attention density (focused practice with feedback) matters more than time investment. Deliberate practice reshapes neural pathways whilst passive experience shows minimal brain changes.
Tang et al. (2018) - Studies in Journal of Organizational Behavior using neuroimaging found that mindfulness and reflection practices enhance leadership-related brain regions including emotional regulation and perspective-taking. These findings support reflection's critical role in development.
Scholarly research also identifies constraints and caveats:
Avolio et al. (2010) - Critical review in The Leadership Quarterly notes that whilst development programmes show positive average effects, substantial variance exists. Top-quartile programmes achieve d=1.2+ whilst bottom-quartile show negligible impact. Programme quality matters enormously.
Hannah & Lester (2009) - Research in Journal of Applied Psychology found that leadership development shows stronger effects for emerging leaders than experienced executives, suggesting declining marginal returns. Initial development proves easier than continued advancement.
Kaiser & Curphy (2013) - Article in Industrial and Organizational Psychology notes that self-reported leadership improvement correlates poorly with actual performance change. Rigorous measurement using behaviour change and business outcomes proves essential for valid evaluation.
The scholarly consensus suggests several evidence-based principles:
Design Integrated Programmes: Combine challenging assignments, coaching relationships, and formal learning. Research shows integrated approaches outperform single-method programmes by 300-400%.
Extend Duration: Brief workshops raise awareness but rarely change behaviour. Programmes spanning 6-12 months with multiple touchpoints achieve substantially better outcomes.
Prioritise Experience: Allocate 70% of development resources to creating challenging assignments, 20% to coaching/mentoring, and 10% to formal training. This allocation reflects research on development drivers.
Measure Rigorously: Track behaviour change and business impact, not just participant satisfaction. Use control groups, pre-post assessments, and multi-source feedback.
Customise Interventions: Generic programmes deliver 30-40% less impact than development tailored to specific needs, experience levels, and organisational contexts.
Scholarly research definitively confirms leadership can be taught. Meta-analyses published in Academy of Management Learning & Education and Journal of Applied Psychology show that structured development programmes improve leadership effectiveness by an average of 26% (effect size d=0.96). However, effectiveness varies dramatically by programme design. Approaches combining experiential learning, coaching, and extended duration (6-12 months) achieve effect sizes exceeding d=1.2, whilst lecture-only formats show minimal impact (d=0.21). Research consensus emphasises integration of experience, relationships, and formal learning.
Behavioural genetics research published in The Leadership Quarterly and Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrates that approximately 30% of leadership role emergence relates to genetic factors affecting personality traits, whilst 70% stems from environmental factors and development. Critically, the genetic component primarily influences who seeks leadership roles rather than effectiveness once in roles. Research shows minimal genetic impact on actual leadership capabilities like strategic thinking, decision-making, and stakeholder management. Environmental factors and deliberate practice determine effectiveness regardless of genetic starting points.
The most influential scholarly works include: McCauley et al.'s Centre for Creative Leadership research establishing the 70-20-10 development model, Collins & Holton's meta-analysis in Human Resource Development Quarterly (d=0.96 effect size), Avolio et al.'s comprehensive reviews in The Leadership Quarterly, Day et al.'s analysis of intervention effectiveness, and Lacerenza et al.'s meta-analysis in Journal of Applied Psychology examining 335 studies. Twin studies by Arvey et al. and Li et al. provide foundational genetics evidence. These works establish consensus on development drivers and effective interventions.
Scholarly research demonstrates measurable improvements within 6-12 months of focused development, but deep expertise requires 5-7 years of varied experiences according to studies in Academy of Management Journal and The Leadership Quarterly. Day et al.'s research shows programmes spanning 6-12 months achieve 2.8 times better outcomes than brief workshops. Longitudinal studies tracking executives over decades find that cumulative challenging experiences predict long-term effectiveness. The key is sustained deliberate practice rather than passive time in role.
Meta-analyses published in Human Resource Development Quarterly and Journal of Applied Psychology identify most effective methods as: action learning addressing real business challenges (effect size d=1.37), executive coaching (d=1.24), experiential exercises with feedback (d=0.96), and case-based discussion (d=0.67). Lecture-based approaches show minimal effect (d=0.21). Research emphasises integrating multiple methods, spanning sufficient duration (6-12 months), customizing to needs, and providing practice opportunities with feedback. Single-method or brief programmes deliver substantially weaker outcomes.
Yes, scholarly evidence shows leadership capabilities develop primarily through experience and deliberate practice rather than innate characteristics. Studies in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrate that whilst personality traits influence who seeks leadership roles, they show minimal correlation with effectiveness once in roles. Intervention studies find significant improvements across diverse populations (average d=0.96). Individual differences in learning speed exist, but sustained development enables capability building regardless of starting characteristics. Motivation and practice intensity predict outcomes more than baseline traits.
Neuroscience studies using functional MRI published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience demonstrate that leadership-related neural patterns strengthen through repeated practice, literally changing brain structure. Research in NeuroLeadership Journal shows that deliberate practice with feedback reshapes neural pathways whilst passive experience shows minimal brain changes. Studies in Journal of Organizational Behavior found that reflection and mindfulness practices enhance brain regions supporting emotional regulation and perspective-taking. These findings confirm that leadership capabilities develop through practice similar to athletic or musical skills.