Articles / Leadership Training Institute: Transform Your Organisation's Future
Development, Training & CoachingDiscover how leadership training institutes deliver proven ROI through evidence-based programmes. Expert guidance on selection, accreditation, and implementation.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Thu 27th November 2025
A leadership training institute represents far more than classroom instruction—it's a structured ecosystem designed to cultivate executive capabilities through evidence-based methodologies, experiential learning, and measurable outcomes. These specialised organisations combine theoretical frameworks with practical application to develop leaders who drive organisational performance, with research demonstrating returns of £7 for every £1 invested when programmes are properly designed and implemented.
Whether you're seeking to develop frontline managers or C-suite executives, understanding how leadership training institutes operate, what differentiates excellence from mediocrity, and how to select the right partner can transform your organisation's leadership pipeline. This comprehensive guide examines the landscape of leadership development, from global institutes to accreditation standards, helping you make informed decisions about your leadership investment.
Leadership training institutes serve as dedicated centres of excellence focused exclusively on developing leadership capabilities across all organisational levels. Unlike general training providers who offer leadership as one of many services, these specialised institutes build their entire value proposition around leadership development research, methodology, and proven outcomes.
The distinction between an ordinary training provider and a legitimate leadership institute lies in several fundamental characteristics:
Research-Based Methodologies: Premier institutes ground their programmes in empirical research rather than anecdotal wisdom. The Center for Creative Leadership, for instance, has conducted over 50 years of leadership research, serving two-thirds of Fortune 1000 companies and creating a feedback loop where practitioner insights inform ongoing research.
Experiential Learning Architecture: Effective institutes recognise that leadership cannot be taught through lectures alone. Programmes incorporate simulations, real-world challenges, peer coaching, and immediate application opportunities. This approach addresses the persistent gap where organisations invest £60 billion globally in leadership development yet see minimal workplace application of learning.
Multi-Modal Delivery Systems: Today's institutes offer blended learning experiences combining instructor-led sessions (preferred by 56% of business leaders), professional coaching (favoured by 54%), virtual programmes, and on-the-job application. This variety accommodates different learning styles whilst maintaining programme quality.
Measurement and Accountability: Legitimate institutes establish clear metrics demonstrating business impact. They don't simply measure participant satisfaction; they track behavioural change, team performance improvements, and tangible business outcomes.
The landscape has shifted dramatically from the "great man theory" approach of sending individual executives to week-long programmes. Modern institutes recognise that effective leadership development requires:
Well-designed leadership programmes deliver an average 7:1 return on investment, with 35% of the most successful organisations reporting measurable revenue increases directly attributable to their leadership initiatives.
The global leadership development market presents a diverse ecosystem of providers, from university-based programmes to corporate training organisations and boutique consultancies. Understanding these distinctions helps organisations select partners aligned with their specific needs and organisational culture.
| Institute Type | Strengths | Typical Engagement | Best Suited For |
|---|---|---|---|
| University-Based (Harvard, Oxford, MIT, INSEAD) | Academic rigour, research credibility, extensive networks | 1-8 week intensive programmes | Senior executives seeking strategic perspective |
| Corporate Training Organisations (CCL, Dale Carnegie, FranklinCovey) | Scalability, proven methodologies, global consistency | Multi-month blended programmes | Organisations developing leaders at multiple levels |
| Boutique Consultancies | Deep customisation, industry specialisation, flexibility | Tailored long-term partnerships | Companies with unique cultures or specific challenges |
| Technology-Enabled Platforms (BetterUp, CoachHub) | Accessibility, personalisation through AI, cost efficiency | Ongoing coaching and micro-learning | Distributed teams and continuous development models |
Center for Creative Leadership (CCL): With over a million leadership programme alumni globally, CCL exemplifies research-driven development. Their programmes serve leaders from community organisers to CEOs, with methodology grounded in decades of empirical studies. CCL holds accreditation as an approved provider for the HR Certification Institute, offering recertification units that add credential value for participants.
Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative: Targeting executives with at least 20 years of senior leadership experience, this programme focuses on transitioning accomplished leaders toward society-level impact. The rigorous selection criteria ensure cohorts comprise individuals with proven track records of superior accomplishment and innovation.
Oxford Executive Leadership Programme: Offered by Saïd Business School, this eight-week online programme integrates Oxford's academic rigour with actionable leadership frameworks, making elite education accessible to global senior professionals without requiring extended absence from responsibilities.
FranklinCovey: Building on "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," this institute operates across 160 countries with a large percentage of Fortune 500 firms as clients. Their structured methodology offers consistency across global operations—crucial for multinational organisations.
Dale Carnegie Training: With more than a century of experience, Dale Carnegie brings established methodology and recognisable brand credibility, training leaders across 100 countries with particular strength in communication and interpersonal effectiveness.
Geography influences both institute selection and programme approach. North America accounts for 41.29% of the executive coaching and leadership development market, whilst Asia-Pacific registers the fastest growth at 11.33% CAGR through 2030. European institutes often emphasise stakeholder capitalism and sustainability leadership, whilst Asian programmes increasingly focus on innovation and digital transformation.
British organisations benefit from access to both homegrown excellence—including programmes from London Business School, Cambridge Judge Business School, and Cranfield School of Management—and proximity to European providers. This positioning offers cultural familiarity whilst enabling exposure to diverse international perspectives.
Choosing a leadership training institute represents a significant investment requiring systematic evaluation beyond marketing materials and brand recognition. The wrong choice wastes resources and, worse, creates cynicism that undermines future development efforts. The right partner transforms organisational capability.
Begin not with institute capabilities but with organisational needs. What specific business challenges must your leaders address? Are you developing technical experts into people managers? Preparing mid-level leaders for strategic roles? Building change leadership capability during transformation?
Research shows that 87% of companies acknowledge a current or anticipated skills gap. Your institute selection must directly address your specific gaps rather than offering generic leadership development.
Create a rubric scoring potential institutes against your defined goals. Vague objectives like "improving leadership" doom programmes to failure; specific outcomes like "reducing high-potential attrition by 25% through improved manager coaching" provide measurable targets.
Request case studies demonstrating outcomes similar to your goals. Superior institutes readily provide client references and quantifiable results. Be wary of providers offering only participant satisfaction scores—these measure enjoyment, not effectiveness.
Key questions to ask:
Research demonstrates that first-time manager training delivers 29% ROI within three months and 415% annually. IBM achieved 300% ROI within two years through comprehensive leadership development. These benchmarks establish realistic expectations.
The leadership development industry faces minimal regulation, allowing organisations of varying quality to claim expertise. Accreditation provides third-party validation of programme standards.
Key Accreditations to Recognise:
IACET (International Association for Continuing Education and Training): As an ANSI-accredited standards development organisation, IACET sets rigorous standards for continuing education. Not all "CEUs" are equal—only IACET-accredited providers meet verified quality benchmarks.
The Institute of Leadership Programme Approval: This accreditation examines whether learning supports demonstrable improved leadership practice, includes self-awareness and reflection, employs multiple learning formats, and gathers learner feedback systematically.
Cognia Accreditation: The NIAAA Leadership Training Institute became the first athletic administration association to receive Cognia accreditation, demonstrating ability to meet international standards of excellence through ongoing review.
University Affiliations: Programmes offered by accredited universities undergo academic quality review processes, though this doesn't guarantee practical effectiveness.
Professional Body Recognition: Approval from organisations like PMI (Project Management Institute), SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management), or HRCI (HR Certification Institute) indicates the programme meets professional development standards.
The "how" of learning matters as much as the "what." Evaluate institutes based on their instructional design:
Experiential Learning Emphasis: Programmes overly focused on theory fail to create lasting impact. Look for institutes incorporating simulations, real-world challenges, action learning projects, and immediate skill application.
Cohort-Based Design: Learning alongside peers facing similar challenges creates psychological safety for experimentation, provides diverse perspectives, and builds networks that extend beyond formal programmes.
Extended Duration with Spaced Practice: Intensive week-long programmes create inspiration but rarely produce sustained behaviour change. Superior programmes extend over months, allowing leaders to practice new skills, receive feedback, and integrate learning.
Coaching Integration: One-on-one coaching provides personalised support, maintains momentum between sessions, and helps leaders navigate individual challenges. With 96% of companies reporting coaching as their most common on-the-job learning method, this component has become essential.
Whilst established methodologies provide proven frameworks, the most effective programmes balance structure with customisation. Can the institute tailor content to your:
Beware both extremes: completely standardised programmes that ignore organisational context, and fully bespoke programmes that reinvent the wheel at premium cost.
During the selection process, these questions reveal an institute's true capabilities:
Programme Design Questions:
Faculty and Facilitation Questions:
Measurement and ROI Questions:
Logistics and Support Questions:
In an industry where anyone can claim expertise, accreditation serves as essential quality validation. Yet not all accreditations carry equal weight, and some institutes leverage impressive-sounding credentials that provide minimal actual quality assurance.
IACET Standards: The Gold Standard for Continuing Education
The International Association for Continuing Education and Training created the Continuing Education Unit (CEU) in 1968, establishing a global benchmark for professional learning excellence. As an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards development organisation, IACET maintains rigorous criteria.
However, the term "CEU" exists in the public domain, allowing any organisation to offer "continuing education units." Only IACET-accredited CEUs demonstrate verified commitment to quality and continuous improvement. When evaluating institutes, ask specifically whether their CEUs carry IACET accreditation.
Institute of Leadership Programme Approval
The Institute of Leadership provides accreditation for training providers and organisations delivering leadership development programmes. Their approval criteria examine:
This comprehensive review ensures programmes meet professional standards for leadership development.
Professional Association Recognitions
Institutes may hold approvals from professional bodies relevant to specific industries or functions:
Whilst accreditation provides important validation, other indicators also signal institute quality:
University Partnerships: Collaboration with recognised universities (even if not offering formal university credit) demonstrates academic rigour. Harvard's Certificates of Leadership Excellence, for instance, require completing four designated programmes within four years, ensuring sustained engagement.
Research Contributions: Does the institute publish peer-reviewed research, white papers, or thought leadership advancing the field? This indicates intellectual investment beyond commercial training delivery.
Industry Recognition: Rankings from reputable organisations (Financial Times executive education rankings, Training Industry awards, Brandon Hall Group Excellence Awards) provide independent validation.
Client Retention: Long-term client relationships and repeat business signal consistent value delivery more powerfully than any accreditation.
Lack of accreditation doesn't automatically disqualify an institute—many boutique providers deliver exceptional results without formal credentials. However, absent accreditation, scrutinise:
The leadership development market is estimated at £103.56 billion, growing to £161.10 billion by 2030. This growth attracts both excellent providers and opportunistic entrants. Accreditation helps separate substance from marketing.
The business case for leadership development rests not on philosophical arguments about human potential but on hard financial returns. Organisations rightfully expect leadership investments to deliver measurable business impact—and the evidence supporting this expectation is compelling when programmes are properly designed.
Research demonstrates that every pound invested in leadership development yields £3-11 in returns, with an average of £7:1 ROI. This substantial return emerges through multiple value-creation mechanisms:
Revenue Growth: 42% of organisations observed increased revenue and sales directly resulting from leadership development programmes, with 47% attributing gains to better-performing managers and their direct reports.
Retention Impact: Employees are 3.5 times more likely to leave within a year if they perceive poor interpersonal skills in leadership. Those with ineffective managers are five times more likely to consider leaving than those with strong leadership. Given that replacing an employee costs 50-200% of annual salary (depending on role), leadership development preventing attrition creates immediate financial value.
Performance Acceleration: SAP leaders who participated in development programmes improved team performance by 30% within the first year. When leadership effectiveness directly translates to team productivity, the ROI calculations become straightforward.
Competitive Advantage: Research shows companies with robust leadership programmes are 2.5 times more likely to outperform competitors. In markets where competitive differentiation increasingly depends on execution rather than strategy, leadership quality becomes a decisive factor.
Given the substantial ROI range (£3-11:1), understanding factors influencing outcomes helps organisations maximise their leadership investment:
Programmes addressing specific business challenges deliver superior returns compared to generic development. When IBM achieved 300% ROI through leadership development focused on agility and continuous learning, this targeted approach addressed their specific transformation requirements.
Investing in high-potential individuals who will apply learning creates greater returns than mandatory programmes for all leaders regardless of readiness or motivation. Leaders are 15 times more likely to be rated high quality when they experience highly rated leadership development—but only if they're positioned to apply that learning.
Leadership development doesn't occur in isolation. Organisations achieving superior ROI create ecosystems supporting application:
Organisations that establish clear baseline metrics, track progress systematically, and connect leadership development to business outcomes naturally optimise their programmes based on evidence rather than assumption.
Whilst sophisticated ROI models exist, a straightforward framework includes:
Costs:
Benefits:
A mid-sized company investing £200,000 in a comprehensive leadership programme for 25 managers might realise:
Despite compelling evidence for leadership development ROI, many programmes underperform or fail entirely. Common failure modes include:
Poor Stakeholder Engagement: Neglecting to secure senior leader buy-in results in programmes lacking crucial support when implementation begins. Leaders who don't understand or endorse development initiatives send contradictory signals to participants.
No Measurable Goals: Failing to establish clear metrics demonstrating business impact makes proving value impossible, putting future funding at risk. Vague aspirations like "better leadership" provide no accountability framework.
Learning Overload Without Application Time: Programmes cramming excessive content without protecting time for reflection, practice, and implementation overwhelm participants. Knowledge without application creates frustration rather than capability.
One-and-Done Mentality: Treating leadership development as an event rather than a process dooms initiatives to failure. Behaviour change requires sustained engagement, practice, feedback, and reinforcement over months.
Despite billions spent on leadership development, leader quality ratings haven't improved over the past 15 years—with only 40% of leaders rated as high quality in recent assessments. This persistent gap exists not because leadership development doesn't work, but because many organisations implement it poorly.
The pedagogical approaches distinguishing exceptional institutes from mediocre providers reflect decades of research into how adults learn, how behaviour changes, and how leadership capability develops. Understanding these methodologies helps organisations evaluate potential partners and design complementary internal initiatives.
The cornerstone of effective leadership development recognises that leadership is learned through doing, not listening. Research from the Center for Creative Leadership demonstrates that experiential learning creates deeper impact than academic approaches.
Simulation-Based Learning: Sophisticated business simulations place leaders in complex, ambiguous scenarios requiring them to make decisions, observe consequences, and adjust approaches. These controlled environments allow experimentation without real-world consequences whilst generating emotional engagement that cements learning.
Action Learning Projects: Participants tackle genuine organisational challenges during the programme, applying concepts to real problems. This approach delivers dual value: leadership development and business problem-solving. The tension of actual stakes accelerates learning whilst demonstrating immediate programme value.
Immersive Experiences: Some institutes employ outdoor challenges, improvisation exercises, or cross-cultural experiences creating disequilibrium that surfaces leadership patterns and assumptions. Whilst such approaches can seem gimmicky, when thoughtfully designed they accelerate self-awareness and behavioural experimentation.
Leadership development without self-awareness resembles navigation without knowing your starting position. Elite institutes employ multiple assessment methodologies:
360-Degree Feedback: Systematically collecting perspectives from superiors, peers, and direct reports reveals gaps between self-perception and impact on others. The most valuable 360 processes focus not merely on identifying gaps but on structured development planning and follow-up assessment.
Psychometric Assessments: Tools like MBTI, DISC, Hogan, or StrengthsFinder provide frameworks for understanding personal tendencies, preferences, and potential derailers. Whilst no assessment perfectly captures human complexity, these tools create shared language for discussing leadership patterns.
Observational Assessments: Trained facilitators observe participants during exercises, providing specific behavioural feedback. This real-time coaching accelerates awareness of unconscious patterns affecting leadership effectiveness.
The shift from individual development to cohort-based programmes reflects research showing that peer learning and social support significantly enhance outcomes.
Psychological Safety: Cohorts developing together create environments where leaders experiment with new behaviours, admit vulnerabilities, and request feedback without career risk. This safety accelerates learning impossible in everyday work contexts.
Diverse Perspectives: Cross-functional and cross-organisational cohorts expose leaders to different approaches, challenging assumptions about "how things are done." This diversity particularly benefits organisations whose insularity limits innovation.
Extended Networks: Relationships formed during intensive programmes often become long-term professional networks, providing ongoing support, diverse perspectives, and career opportunities beyond the formal programme.
With 96% of companies reporting coaching as their most common on-the-job learning method, this personalised approach has become central to leadership development.
Executive Coaching: One-on-one engagements with professional coaches provide confidential space to explore challenges, test new approaches, and receive unfiltered feedback. The best coaching relationships combine support with challenge, helping leaders see blind spots whilst building confidence.
Manager-as-Coach Development: Rather than outsourcing all coaching, progressive institutes teach leaders to coach their direct reports, creating cascading development capability throughout organisations.
Peer Coaching: Structured peer coaching processes enable leaders to support one another's development, building skills whilst strengthening relationships and mutual accountability.
Modern institutes recognise that different learning objectives benefit from different delivery methods:
Instructor-Led Sessions: Ranked as the top choice by over 13,000 global leaders in DDI's research, live instruction creates opportunities for interactive experiences with peers, immediate question answering, and dynamic content adjustment based on cohort needs.
Virtual Learning Platforms: Technology enables global participation, reduces travel costs, and allows just-in-time learning. Well-designed virtual sessions can be as effective as face-to-face instruction whilst offering greater accessibility.
Micro-Learning Modules: Brief, focused learning opportunities between formal sessions maintain momentum and enable progressive skill building. These work particularly well for mid-level leaders managing competing demands.
Self-Directed Resources: Readings, videos, podcasts, and assessments allow personalised pacing and deeper exploration of topics relevant to individual needs.
The leadership development field continues evolving, with several emerging approaches gaining traction:
AI-Personalised Development: Artificial intelligence enables unprecedented personalisation, with platforms analysing individual patterns and recommending tailored development activities. Annual AI adoption in professional learning is climbing 40%, creating accelerating digital-first demand.
Neuroscience-Informed Design: Understanding how the brain processes information, forms habits, and responds to stress allows more effective programme design. Institutes incorporating neuroscience principles create learning architectures aligned with cognitive functioning.
Virtual Reality Simulations: VR technology creates immersive leadership scenarios impossible to replicate otherwise—crisis management, difficult conversations, or complex negotiations—allowing safe practice of high-stakes skills.
Team-Based Development: Rather than developing individuals who return to unchanged teams, some institutes now develop intact teams together, accelerating organisational impact whilst building collective capability.
Leadership training institutes focus exclusively on leadership capability development through applied, experiential learning, whilst business school executive programmes typically offer broader curricula including strategy, finance, and operations within an academic framework. Institutes emphasise behaviour change and skill application; business schools prioritise conceptual understanding and analytical frameworks. Duration differs as well: institute programmes often span several months with spaced learning, whereas executive programmes may concentrate learning into intensive weeks. Neither approach is inherently superior—your selection depends on whether you're primarily seeking practical leadership capability (institute) or strategic perspective and analytical tools (business school). Many organisations employ both, sending senior executives to business schools for strategic thinking whilst partnering with institutes for broader leadership development.
Initial behavioural changes often emerge within 30-60 days as leaders apply new skills, with measurable business impact typically appearing within 3-6 months. Research demonstrates that first-time manager training delivers 29% ROI within three months, indicating relatively rapid value creation for targeted programmes. However, sustained behaviour change and cultural transformation require longer timeframes—usually 12-18 months for significant organisational impact. The most effective programmes don't treat development as an event but rather as an ongoing process with multiple touchpoints over extended periods. Organisations should establish baseline metrics before programmes begin, conduct interim assessments at 90 and 180 days, and evaluate long-term impact at 12 months. Beware any provider promising overnight transformation; genuine leadership development follows the pattern of athletic training—initial awkwardness, progressive skill building, eventual automaticity requiring sustained practice and feedback.
Accreditation provides important third-party validation of programme standards and quality processes, whilst client outcomes demonstrate actual results delivered. Ideally, select institutes offering both: established accreditation from recognised bodies (IACET, Institute of Leadership, relevant professional associations) and documented case studies showing measurable impact for organisations similar to yours. If forced to choose, prioritise proven outcomes over accreditation—a credential without results provides little value. However, if an institute cannot provide both accreditation and outcome evidence, this should raise concerns about their legitimacy. Request specific ROI data, client references you can contact directly, and examples of sustained behaviour change beyond initial participant satisfaction. The most reputable institutes readily provide this information, understanding that evidence-based decisions benefit both parties by ensuring appropriate fit and realistic expectations.
Leadership institute costs vary dramatically based on programme scope, duration, customisation level, and participant numbers. Brief open-enrolment programmes might cost £2,000-8,000 per participant for several days of instruction. Comprehensive multi-month programmes for cohorts of 20-30 participants typically range from £100,000-500,000 including curriculum design, facilitation, materials, assessments, and coaching. Elite university-based executive programmes command premium pricing—£30,000-80,000 per participant for intensive multi-week experiences. Custom enterprise partnerships with ongoing development programmes can exceed £1 million annually. Rather than focusing solely on programme costs, calculate total investment including participant time (salary × hours invested), travel if applicable, and internal resources. Then project returns based on realistic retention improvements, productivity gains, and performance increases. With demonstrated average ROI of 7:1, even substantial investments generate significant value when programmes address genuine business needs and receive proper organisational support.
Modern institutes have extensively adapted methodologies for distributed workforces, with many delivering programmes equally effectively in virtual, hybrid, or face-to-face formats. Virtual delivery offers advantages including reduced travel costs, easier scheduling, broader accessibility, and ability to integrate brief learning sessions throughout work weeks rather than requiring extended absences. Research shows that 56% of business leaders favour instructor-led training, but this preference doesn't require physical presence—interactive virtual sessions with breakout discussions, collaborative tools, and engagement techniques can create equivalent learning experiences. However, virtual delivery requires more sophisticated design: shorter session durations, greater interactivity, more structured networking opportunities, and robust technology platforms. Hybrid approaches combining occasional face-to-face intensive sessions with ongoing virtual touchpoints often provide optimal balance—building relationships and trust in person whilst maintaining momentum virtually. When evaluating institutes for distributed teams, assess their virtual facilitation capabilities, technology infrastructure, and experience delivering to global cohorts across time zones.
Effective measurement employs multiple levels of evidence rather than relying on single metrics. The Kirkpatrick Model provides a useful framework: Level 1 (Reaction) measures participant satisfaction through surveys—necessary but insufficient evidence. Level 2 (Learning) assesses knowledge and skill acquisition through pre/post assessments, demonstrating capability development. Level 3 (Behaviour) evaluates sustained behaviour change in workplace contexts through 360-degree feedback, manager observations, and peer assessments—the critical indicator of genuine development. Level 4 (Results) connects leadership development to business outcomes: retention rates, engagement scores, team performance metrics, promotion readiness, and ultimately revenue and profitability impacts. Establish baseline measurements before programmes begin, then track changes at 90 days, 180 days, and 12 months. The most sophisticated organisations create control groups (similar leaders not participating in development) to isolate programme effects from general organisational trends. Partner with institutes offering measurement expertise and systems rather than simply delivering content without accountability for outcomes.
Senior leader involvement dramatically influences programme success, yet many organisations underutilise this powerful lever. Your senior leaders should participate in programme design to ensure strategic alignment, share their leadership journeys and challenges with participants to build connection and context, and actively support application of new skills by discussing concepts in team meetings and modelling behaviours themselves. When CEOs and executive teams visibly prioritise leadership development—attending sessions, mentoring participants, and referencing programme content in decision-making—this signals genuine organisational commitment. Conversely, when senior leaders remain disconnected from development initiatives, participants receive implicit messages that "leadership development isn't really important here," undermining programme effectiveness regardless of content quality. Some organisations include senior leaders as participants alongside mid-level managers, creating cross-hierarchy relationships whilst ensuring consistent language and approaches. At minimum, your senior team should launch programmes by articulating why leadership development matters strategically, participate in graduation ceremonies recognising completion, and maintain ongoing dialogue with participants about their development journeys.
The decision to partner with a leadership training institute represents far more than a procurement exercise—it's a strategic choice about your organisation's future capability. With organisations investing over £366 billion annually in leadership development and 88% of firms upgrading programmes to restore trust in senior management, the question isn't whether to invest but how to invest wisely.
The institutes achieving measurable impact share common characteristics: research-based methodologies, experiential learning architectures, rigorous measurement systems, and genuine partnerships with client organisations extending beyond transactional training delivery. They recognise that leadership development isn't about inspiration or motivation but about systematic behaviour change applied to genuine business challenges.
As leadership quality ratings remain stubbornly stagnant despite massive investment, the imperative becomes clear: select partners not based on marketing claims but on evidence of sustained outcomes, demand accreditation and quality standards that validate capabilities, and create organisational ecosystems supporting the application of learning rather than treating development as an isolated event.
The most effective leadership training institute for your organisation already exists—the question is whether you'll apply the rigour to this decision that you would to any other significant strategic investment. Your future leaders, and the teams they'll eventually guide, deserve nothing less than that systematic approach to their development.