Is leadership training a waste of time? Discover why some programmes fail, what makes development effective, and how to maximise your training investment.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Fri 9th January 2026
Leadership training can indeed be a waste of time—when programmes rely on passive lectures, generic content, and theoretical frameworks divorced from workplace reality. However, the claim that all leadership development is futile ignores substantial evidence that well-designed programmes transform individuals and organisations. The question isn't whether leadership training works, but rather which approaches deliver results and which squander time and resources.
The scepticism deserves serious examination. Organisations spend billions annually on leadership development, yet many executives report disappointing returns. Studies suggest that up to 90% of new skills learned in training fade within months without proper reinforcement. These statistics fuel legitimate criticism. But dismissing all leadership training based on programme failures is like declaring medicine useless because some treatments prove ineffective.
This guide examines why leadership training sometimes fails, what makes it effective, and how to distinguish worthwhile investment from genuine waste.
Understanding common criticisms helps identify what to avoid.
Poor Transfer to Workplace The most damaging criticism: skills learned in training rooms rarely appear in actual leadership behaviour. Research consistently shows substantial gaps between classroom learning and on-the-job application.
Generic Content Off-the-shelf programmes addressing hypothetical scenarios fail to connect with participants' real challenges. Abstract concepts without practical application feel irrelevant.
Event-Based Thinking Treating development as one-time events rather than ongoing processes produces temporary enthusiasm that quickly fades.
Measurement Difficulties Organisations struggle to demonstrate concrete returns, making training vulnerable to budget cuts and cynical dismissal.
| Criticism | Validity |
|---|---|
| Most training doesn't transfer | High - research supports this |
| Generic programmes waste money | High - specificity matters |
| One-off events don't work | High - sustained effort required |
| Some trainers lack credibility | Moderate - quality varies widely |
| ROI often unclear | High - measurement remains challenging |
Dismissing All Development Rejecting leadership training entirely ignores evidence that effective programmes produce measurable improvements in leadership behaviour, team performance, and business outcomes.
Ignoring Context Training fails in some environments and succeeds in others. The programme itself represents only one variable; organisational support, application opportunities, and follow-up significantly influence outcomes.
Conflating Bad Training with All Training Quality varies enormously across providers and approaches. Condemning the entire field based on poor examples represents category error.
Understanding failure patterns helps avoid them.
Information Dump Programmes that prioritise content coverage over skill development produce knowledgeable participants who don't actually lead differently. Leadership requires behaviour change, not just knowledge acquisition.
Passive Learning Lecture-based approaches where participants absorb information without practising skills deliver minimal lasting impact. Adult learning research consistently demonstrates the superiority of active, experiential methods.
Theory Without Application Academic frameworks presented without clear connections to participants' real challenges feel theoretical and impractical. Abstract models require concrete translation.
One-Size-Fits-All Generic programmes ignoring participants' specific contexts, industries, and challenges lack relevance. Development must address actual needs, not assumed ones.
No Organisational Support Sending individuals to training without manager involvement, application opportunities, or reinforcement systems wastes investment. Learning requires supportive environments.
Wrong Participants Training leaders who aren't ready for development, lack motivation, or face no actual leadership challenges produces frustration rather than growth.
No Follow-Up Programmes ending without action planning, coaching support, or accountability mechanisms allow new learning to fade quickly.
Measurement Absence Without clear objectives and evaluation, organisations cannot identify what works, what doesn't, or how to improve.
| Failure Type | Symptom | Solution Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Design failure | Bored participants, no behaviour change | Active learning, application focus |
| Transfer failure | Training forgotten within weeks | Reinforcement, manager involvement |
| Relevance failure | "Not applicable to my situation" | Customisation, real challenges |
| Support failure | Learning isolated from work context | Organisational integration |
Research identifies conditions that make development effective.
Experiential Learning Programmes incorporating practice, simulation, feedback, and real-world application produce stronger skill development than passive approaches.
Specificity Development addressing participants' actual leadership challenges produces greater transfer than generic content. Customisation matters.
Spaced Learning Distributed practice over time—multiple sessions with application periods between—produces better retention than intensive but isolated events.
Feedback Integration 360-degree assessment, coaching, and peer feedback help participants understand their development needs and track progress.
Manager Involvement When supervisors participate in development planning, support application, and reinforce learning, transfer rates improve dramatically.
Application Opportunity Participants need actual leadership challenges to apply new learning. Development without real-world practice produces limited behaviour change.
Supportive Culture Organisations valuing development, tolerating learning mistakes, and recognising growth create environments where training investment pays off.
Accountability Systems Clear expectations, progress tracking, and consequences for application create motivation beyond the training event itself.
| Condition | Impact on Effectiveness |
|---|---|
| Active learning methods | High positive impact |
| Manager support | High positive impact |
| Application opportunities | High positive impact |
| Follow-up and reinforcement | High positive impact |
| Customisation | Moderate positive impact |
| Assessment integration | Moderate positive impact |
Warning signs help avoid poor investment decisions.
Heavy Lecture Content Programmes dominated by presentation rather than practice signal weak design.
No Pre-Assessment Development without understanding participants' current capabilities and needs cannot target effectively.
Generic Examples Case studies and scenarios unrelated to participants' industries or challenges indicate lack of customisation.
Single Event Structure Programmes promising transformation through one-time attendance ignore learning science.
No Follow-Up Plan Absence of post-programme support, action planning, or reinforcement predicts rapid skill fade.
Can't Explain Methodology Credible providers articulate clear learning philosophy and evidence base. Vague explanations signal weak foundations.
No Outcome Evidence Reputable programmes demonstrate impact through testimonials, case studies, and measurement data. Absence suggests unproven approaches.
Cookie-Cutter Solutions Providers offering identical programmes to all clients regardless of context prioritise efficiency over effectiveness.
Resistance to Customisation Unwillingness to adapt content to organisational needs indicates inflexibility.
| Warning Sign | What It Indicates |
|---|---|
| "We've always done it this way" | Tradition over effectiveness |
| No manager involvement | Lack of transfer support |
| Training as reward or punishment | Wrong motivation |
| No measurement plan | Unclear objectives |
| No application expectations | Disconnected from work |
Strategic approaches improve development returns.
| Phase | Key Actions | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-training | Needs assessment, participant prep | Ensures relevance |
| During training | Active engagement, application planning | Maximises learning |
| Post-training | Manager support, reinforcement | Enables transfer |
| Ongoing | Measurement, continuous development | Sustains improvement |
Evidence provides nuanced perspective on training effectiveness.
Leadership Development Works Meta-analyses indicate that well-designed leadership programmes produce moderate to large effects on leadership knowledge, skills, and behaviour.
Transfer Can Be Achieved Research shows that appropriate design features—goal setting, feedback, practice opportunities—significantly improve skill transfer to workplace settings.
ROI Is Demonstrable Studies calculating leadership development ROI report positive returns, though measurement methodology varies and challenges persist.
Default Transfer Is Low Without deliberate transfer support, skill retention drops substantially within months of training—the "forgetting curve" that fuels criticism.
Quality Variation Is Enormous Programme effectiveness varies dramatically based on design, delivery, and organisational support. Averages obscure wide performance ranges.
Context Matters Identical programmes produce different results in different organisations depending on culture, support systems, and application opportunities.
| Finding | Implication |
|---|---|
| Well-designed programmes work | Invest in quality, not just price |
| Transfer requires support | Build organisational systems |
| Follow-up essential | Plan beyond the training event |
| Measurement possible but challenging | Invest in evaluation |
| Context shapes outcomes | Assess organisational readiness |
Development approaches beyond classroom training merit consideration.
Job Assignments Challenging assignments develop leadership capability through real responsibility. Research suggests experience accounts for substantial leadership development.
Project Leadership Leading significant initiatives builds skills through actual practice with real stakes.
Cross-Functional Exposure Rotations and secondments broaden perspective and develop versatility.
Coaching One-on-one coaching provides personalised development addressing individual needs and challenges.
Mentoring Experienced leaders guiding emerging talent offers contextual wisdom that training cannot replicate.
Peer Learning Structured groups of leaders learning from each other's experiences and challenges.
Action Learning Teams addressing real business challenges whilst simultaneously developing capability.
Leadership Development Programmes Extended experiences combining classroom, experiential, and relational elements.
Embedded Development Learning integrated into daily work rather than separated into training events.
| Approach | Strengths | Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional training | Efficient, structured | Transfer challenges |
| Job assignments | Realistic, experiential | Harder to design deliberately |
| Coaching | Personalised, contextual | Expensive, dependent on coach quality |
| Action learning | Combines learning and results | Requires careful facilitation |
| Peer groups | Leverages collective wisdom | Needs structure and commitment |
Leadership training can be a waste of time when poorly designed—relying on passive lectures, generic content, and one-off events without follow-up. However, well-designed programmes incorporating active learning, workplace application, and ongoing support produce measurable improvements in leadership behaviour and business results. The quality of approach determines whether training wastes or creates value.
Most programmes fail due to design and implementation issues: passive learning methods that don't build skills, generic content unconnected to participants' challenges, one-time events without reinforcement, lack of manager support, and absence of application opportunities. Training isolated from work context and lacking follow-up cannot produce lasting behaviour change regardless of content quality.
Studies suggest that only 10-20% of training typically transfers to workplace behaviour without deliberate transfer support. This concerning statistic reflects default conditions. With appropriate design features—goal setting, application planning, manager involvement, coaching, and accountability—transfer rates improve substantially. The transfer problem is solvable but requires intentional effort.
Look for programmes that incorporate active learning, address your specific challenges, include follow-up support, and have evidence of impact. Avoid heavy lecture content, generic approaches, single-event structures, and providers who can't demonstrate results. Also assess your organisation's readiness to support application through manager involvement, real challenges to tackle, and accountability systems.
Alternatives like coaching, mentoring, challenging job assignments, and action learning can be highly effective—sometimes more effective than traditional training. The best approach often combines elements: training for knowledge and skill building, experience for application, and relationships for support and guidance. What works depends on development needs, organisational context, and available resources.
Measure at multiple levels: participant reactions (did they value it?), learning (did they acquire skills?), behaviour (are they leading differently?), and results (what business impact?). Use 360-degree assessments, performance data, team metrics, and participant self-report. Measurement challenges exist, but organisations that define objectives clearly and track systematically can demonstrate returns on development investment.
Leadership training is a waste of time when organisations invest in ineffective programmes, ignore transfer challenges, and provide no follow-up support. However, dismissing all leadership development ignores substantial evidence that well-designed approaches produce meaningful improvements. The opportunity lies not in abandoning development but in demanding effectiveness—choosing quality programmes, supporting application, and measuring outcomes. Organisations that approach leadership training strategically build competitive advantage; those that approach it carelessly confirm the sceptics' worst expectations.