Leadership skills can be both taught through formal programmes and learned through experience. Discover how structured teaching and practice combine for development.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Fri 7th November 2025
Yes, leadership skills can be both taught and learned. Research from the Center for Creative Leadership demonstrates that 70% of leadership effectiveness stems from challenging experiences and self-directed learning, 20% from developmental relationships, and 10% from formal teaching. This 70-20-10 model reveals that whilst formal instruction provides frameworks and concepts, real leadership capability develops through experiential learning and deliberate practice.
The distinction between teaching and learning matters profoundly for organisations investing in leadership development. Teaching implies formal instruction—workshops, courses, and structured programmes. Learning encompasses the broader, messier process of acquiring capability through experience, reflection, and application. Both prove essential, yet most organisations overinvest in teaching whilst underinvesting in creating rich learning environments.
Sceptics have long argued that leadership represents an innate quality—you either possess it or you don't. Yet decades of research conclusively refute this notion.
University-based research tracking participants through leadership development programmes demonstrates measurable improvements. One study showed leadership competency scores increasing from 26.71 to 37.01—a 38% improvement following structured intervention. Executive MBA programmes similarly document significant gains in strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and decision-making capabilities.
These aren't marginal improvements. Participants develop tangible capabilities they lacked before formal instruction. However, the evidence also reveals an important nuance: teaching provides knowledge and frameworks, but doesn't directly create skilled leaders. Think of it as learning music theory versus becoming a skilled musician—both matter, but one doesn't substitute for the other.
Certain leadership dimensions respond particularly well to formal instruction:
Conceptual frameworks for understanding organisational dynamics, strategic thinking, and change management provide mental models that accelerate learning from experience. Without these frameworks, individuals may experience hundreds of leadership situations without extracting generalisable insights.
Communication techniques including active listening, delivering difficult feedback, and crafting compelling narratives can be systematically taught. Whilst natural communicators exist, research shows that even reserved individuals substantially improve their communication effectiveness through structured teaching and practice.
Decision-making methodologies such as scenario planning, stakeholder analysis, and risk assessment provide systematic approaches to complex judgements. These tools don't guarantee perfect decisions, but they improve decision quality and reduce costly errors.
Behavioural genetics research reveals that 30% of leadership variance relates to hereditary factors. This suggests ceiling effects for certain individuals—some will find particular leadership behaviours more natural than others. More importantly, classroom teaching rarely produces lasting behavioural change without reinforcement through real-world application.
Participants in leadership programmes frequently experience the "knowing-doing gap"—they intellectually understand what effective leadership requires yet struggle to execute these behaviours under pressure. Knowledge alone proves insufficient.
If formal teaching accounts for merely 10% of leadership development, where does the remaining 90% originate? The answer lies in experiential learning and developmental relationships.
Leadership skills develop most profoundly through stretch assignments that push individuals beyond their current capabilities. Research tracking leadership development across career stages identifies several high-impact experiences:
Early career: Leading projects with ambiguous objectives, managing peers without formal authority, navigating cross-functional dynamics
Mid career: Turning around underperforming teams, launching new products or services, managing through significant organisational change
Senior levels: Board service, corporate restructuring, crisis management, succession planning
These experiences share common characteristics—they're novel, important to the organisation, and operate beyond the individual's comfort zone. Failure represents a real possibility, creating productive anxiety that accelerates learning.
Experience alone doesn't guarantee learning. Research shows that individuals can repeat the same mistakes for decades without improvement. The differentiating factor? Systematic reflection on experience.
High-performing leaders regularly examine their experiences, asking questions such as:
Without this reflective practice, experience remains merely activity rather than learning.
Whilst formal teaching contributes 10% and experience 70%, the remaining 20% emerges from developmental relationships—mentoring, coaching, and peer learning networks.
Mentors provide wisdom derived from their accumulated experience, helping protégés interpret ambiguous situations, avoid predictable pitfalls, and develop political acumen that formal programmes rarely address.
Executive coaches create accountability for behavioural change whilst providing real-time feedback and strategic guidance. Research tracking coaching outcomes shows significant improvements in leadership effectiveness, particularly in emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills.
Peer learning circles offer safe environments to discuss challenges, test ideas, and receive honest feedback from individuals facing similar situations. These relationships often prove more valuable than hierarchical mentoring because peers understand current realities without the power dynamics that can inhibit candour.
Understanding that leadership can be both taught and learned suggests a more sophisticated development approach than relying on formal programmes alone.
The most effective leadership development programmes don't attempt to teach leadership comprehensively. Instead, they:
Harvard, INSEAD, and London Business School structure their executive education around this model—intensive periods of formal instruction bookended by pre-programme diagnostics and post-programme application projects.
Organisations serious about leadership development design systems that create rich learning experiences:
Rotation programmes expose high-potential individuals to diverse functions, geographies, and business challenges, accelerating pattern recognition and strategic breadth.
Stretch assignments systematically push talented individuals into roles slightly beyond their proven capabilities, with appropriate support to ensure productive struggle rather than overwhelming failure.
After-action reviews institutionalise reflection, requiring teams to systematically examine both successes and failures to extract learnings.
Mentoring programmes create structured developmental relationships rather than leaving these connections to chance.
Whilst organisations create enabling environments, individuals ultimately control their learning. High-growth leaders demonstrate specific practices:
They seek challenging assignments rather than remaining in comfortable roles where success comes easily. They recognise that leadership capability develops through productive struggle.
They solicit feedback aggressively, creating multiple channels to understand how others experience their leadership. They view feedback as intelligence rather than judgement.
They maintain learning journals, systematically reflecting on experiences to extract generalisable insights. This practice transforms individual experiences into accumulated wisdom.
They study leadership deliberately, reading biographies, analysing case studies, and observing skilled leaders to expand their mental models beyond their direct experience.
Not all leadership capabilities develop identically. Understanding these distinctions allows for more targeted development.
Strategic frameworks including competitive analysis, scenario planning, and business model innovation benefit from systematic teaching. These conceptual tools provide scaffolding for strategic thinking.
Financial literacy for leaders requires formal instruction in financial statements, capital allocation, and value creation metrics. Experiential learning alone rarely develops these capabilities.
Legal and regulatory knowledge relevant to leadership—employment law, governance requirements, fiduciary duties—demands formal teaching given the risks of learning through trial and error.
Political acumen—understanding informal power structures, building coalitions, navigating organisational politics—develops almost exclusively through experience. Formal programmes can introduce concepts, but mastery requires real-world practice.
Crisis leadership similarly demands experiential learning. Whilst simulations provide valuable practice, genuine crisis situations develop capabilities that classroom exercises cannot replicate.
Team dynamics including reading group energy, intervening in dysfunctional patterns, and building psychological safety improve most effectively through facilitated reflection on real team experiences.
Emotional intelligence benefits from both formal instruction and extensive practice. Teaching provides language for understanding emotions and frameworks for managing them. Learning occurs through thousands of interpersonal interactions, coupled with feedback and reflection.
Change leadership requires conceptual understanding of change dynamics (taught) combined with experience leading actual transformations (learned). Neither alone suffices.
Developing others similarly demands both formal coaching skills (taught) and extensive practice with diverse individuals in varied contexts (learned).
Understanding that leadership can be taught and learned doesn't guarantee successful development. Several predictable obstacles emerge.
Short-term performance pressure crowds out developmental activities. When leaders face relentless quarterly targets, they avoid stretch assignments and challenging developmental experiences in favour of leveraging proven strengths.
Risk-averse cultures that punish failure prevent the productive struggle essential for experiential learning. When mistakes trigger career consequences, individuals avoid challenging situations where learning occurs.
Insufficient investment in structured learning experiences, quality coaching, and robust feedback systems signals that leadership development ranks below other priorities despite organisational rhetoric.
Fixed mindsets—believing capabilities are innate rather than developable—create self-fulfilling prophecies. Individuals who view feedback as judgement rather than intelligence miss crucial learning opportunities.
Defensive routines that protect self-image prevent honest reflection on failures and limitations. Leaders who attribute setbacks to external factors whilst claiming credit for successes stagnate developmentally.
Busyness as identity leaves insufficient time for reflection, formal learning, or building developmental relationships. Many executives confuse frantic activity with importance, never creating space for genuine development.
The research carries clear implications for both organisations designing leadership development systems and individuals managing their growth.
Rebalance investment from formal programmes toward creating rich developmental experiences. Rather than spending disproportionately on classroom training, invest in stretch assignments, executive coaching, and structured reflection practices.
Make leadership development a strategic priority rather than an HR programme. Senior leaders must visibly prioritise development through their time allocation, promotion decisions, and resource commitments.
Create psychological safety for productive failure. If stretch assignments and challenging experiences drive learning, individuals need permission to struggle and occasionally fail without career-limiting consequences.
Build developmental relationships into organisational systems rather than leaving them to chance. Structured mentoring programmes, coaching for high-potentials, and peer learning circles dramatically accelerate leadership development.
Own your development rather than relying on your organisation. Even in supportive environments, individuals must drive their growth through deliberate skill-building and aggressive feedback-seeking.
Seek challenging experiences that stretch your capabilities. Volunteer for difficult assignments, request stretch roles, and avoid remaining in comfortable positions where growth stagnates.
Build reflective practice into your routine. Regular journaling, after-action reviews, and periodic sabbaticals create space to extract learning from accumulated experience.
Invest in formal learning strategically. Select programmes that provide frameworks relevant to your challenges, create valuable peer networks, and catalyse behavioural change rather than merely conveying information.
Leadership skills can unquestionably be both taught and learned, though the evidence reveals teaching contributes far less than most organisations assume. Formal instruction accounts for approximately 10% of leadership development, providing frameworks and concepts that scaffold learning. The remaining 90% emerges from challenging experiences (70%) and developmental relationships (20%).
This finding doesn't diminish the value of formal leadership programmes. Well-designed education provides conceptual tools, diagnostic insights, and peer networks that accelerate experiential learning. However, organisations that invest exclusively in classroom training whilst neglecting to create rich developmental experiences and robust feedback systems achieve limited results.
For individual leaders, the implications prove liberating. Your development doesn't depend on access to prestigious programmes or substantial organisational investment. You can systematically develop leadership capability through seeking challenging experiences, building developmental relationships, maintaining reflective practice, and supplementing experience with strategic formal learning.
The question isn't whether leadership skills can be taught and learned. They demonstrably can. The more penetrating question is whether you and your organisation will create the conditions—challenging experiences, developmental relationships, psychological safety, and reflection time—where that teaching and learning occur.
Leadership frameworks, concepts, and techniques can be taught in classroom settings, providing mental models that help leaders make sense of their experiences. However, classroom teaching alone rarely produces skilled leaders—research suggests formal instruction accounts for only 10% of leadership development. The most effective approach combines classroom learning with challenging work experiences, coaching relationships, and systematic reflection on real leadership situations.
Leadership emerges from both genetic predisposition and learned capabilities, with research indicating approximately 30% relates to heredity whilst 70% develops through environmental factors and experience. Whilst certain traits such as extraversion and emotional stability show genetic components, the most impactful leadership capabilities—strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and communication effectiveness—can be systematically developed regardless of genetic inheritance. Leadership is substantially more learned than inherited.
Basic leadership capabilities develop within 3-5 years of deliberate practice, whilst sophisticated skills such as strategic judgement and organisational influence require 10-15 years of diverse experiences. Specific competencies improve on shorter timescales—measurable gains in communication or feedback skills can occur within months of focused practice and coaching. Leadership development represents a career-long journey rather than a destination, with different capabilities emerging at distinct career stages.
The most effective leadership development combines challenging work experiences (70%), developmental relationships (20%), and formal training (10%) in what researchers term the 70-20-10 model. Specifically, seek stretch assignments that push beyond your current capabilities, build relationships with mentors and coaches who provide honest feedback, join peer learning groups, and supplement experience with formal programmes that provide conceptual frameworks. Systematic reflection on all these experiences accelerates learning substantially.
Introverts develop leadership skills equally effectively as extraverts, often excelling in areas such as strategic thinking, one-on-one relationship building, and thoughtful decision-making. Research shows introverted leaders frequently outperform extraverts when leading highly skilled teams. Development strategies may differ—introverts often benefit from written communication, small-group settings, and one-on-one coaching rather than large-group presentations or networking events. Leadership capability develops through approaches aligned with one's temperament rather than forcing unnatural behaviours.
Leadership skills require continuous learning because organisational contexts, technologies, and workforce expectations evolve constantly. Capabilities that proved sufficient a decade ago may become inadequate as business complexity increases and generational expectations shift. Additionally, career progression presents novel challenges—skills effective at junior levels differ markedly from those required for senior executive roles. The most effective leaders maintain curiosity, seek fresh perspectives, and adapt their approaches throughout their careers rather than assuming early-career capabilities suffice indefinitely.
Many exceptional leaders developed their capabilities without formal training, learning primarily through challenging experiences, mentorship, and systematic reflection on successes and failures. Historical leaders including Winston Churchill and Ernest Shackleton cultivated remarkable leadership skills through experience rather than formal programmes. However, contemporary research suggests combining experiential learning with strategic formal training accelerates development, helps avoid predictable pitfalls, and provides conceptual frameworks that enhance learning from experience. Formal training isn't necessary but proves valuable when integrated with experiential learning.