Explore the latest leadership training research, including meta-analyses, empirical studies, and evidence-based insights on what makes development programmes work.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Tue 2nd December 2025
Leadership training research encompasses the academic and empirical study of how leadership development interventions affect individual behaviours and organisational outcomes. This body of evidence provides crucial guidance for organisations investing in leadership programmes, separating evidence-based practices from well-intentioned assumptions.
Organisations invest an estimated $366 billion globally in leadership development annually—yet 75% rate their programmes as "not very effective." This disconnect between expenditure and impact makes research particularly valuable. Understanding what the evidence actually demonstrates enables smarter investments and better outcomes.
Leadership development has attracted substantial academic attention over the past several decades, producing a rich evidence base that, while imperfect, offers meaningful guidance for practitioners. The field has evolved from anecdotal case studies to rigorous meta-analyses synthesising findings across hundreds of individual studies.
However, challenges remain. Much research relies on self-report measures rather than objective outcomes. Studies often lack adequate control groups, making it difficult to attribute changes specifically to training interventions. Long-term follow-up remains rare, leaving questions about sustainability unanswered. These limitations warrant caution in interpreting findings while recognising the substantial progress made.
Research consistently demonstrates that leadership training produces positive effects across multiple outcomes, though the magnitude varies by what is measured and how training is designed. A comprehensive meta-analysis by Lacerenza and colleagues found that leadership training programmes can lead to a 25% increase in learning, a 28% increase in leadership behaviours performed on the job, a 20% increase in overall job performance, an 8% increase in subordinate outcomes, and a 25% increase in organisational outcomes. These findings suggest leadership training is "substantially more effective than previously thought."
Meta-analyses aggregate findings across multiple studies, providing the most robust evidence about overall effectiveness. Several landmark meta-analyses shape our understanding of leadership development:
This comprehensive analysis of leadership training design, delivery, and implementation examined 335 independent samples and remains the most cited recent work in the field. Key findings include:
Examining experimental and quasi-experimental leadership interventions, this analysis of 200 studies found:
This sobering analysis examined whether leadership training effectiveness had improved over time:
| Meta-Analysis | Sample Size | Key Finding | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lacerenza et al. (2017) | 335 samples | Training improves learning, behaviour, and results | d = .28-.63 |
| Avolio et al. (2009) | 200 studies | Leadership interventions produce meaningful effects | d = .65 |
| Burke & Day (1986) | 70 studies | Managerial training moderately effective | d = .34-.67 |
Research has identified several factors that distinguish high-impact programmes from ineffective ones:
Programmes grounded in systematic needs analysis produce substantially better outcomes than those designed without diagnostic groundwork. Needs analysis ensures training addresses actual capability gaps rather than assumed deficiencies, aligns content with organisational strategy, and targets the right participants.
Evidence favours blended approaches combining multiple modalities:
Single-method programmes show weaker effects than those incorporating varied approaches.
Research on learning consistently demonstrates that distributed practice outperforms massed practice. Leadership programmes spread over time—with opportunities for application between sessions—produce better retention and transfer than intensive boot camps delivering equivalent content in compressed timeframes.
Multi-source feedback (360-degree assessment) appears particularly effective in leadership development, providing leaders with perspective on how others experience their behaviour. Research suggests feedback is most valuable when:
Research strongly supports experiential approaches over purely didactic methods. In evidence-based education, systematic reviews and longitudinal studies indicate that courses including simulations of real-life situations and social interaction yield better outcomes than passive instruction alone. This finding aligns with adult learning theory, which emphasises the importance of active engagement and relevance to actual challenges.
Return on investment represents the metric executives most frequently request, yet it remains among the most difficult to calculate with precision.
Research and industry reports offer varying ROI estimates:
Several factors complicate precise ROI measurement:
Attribution problems: Business outcomes reflect numerous influences beyond leadership training. Isolating training's specific contribution requires sophisticated research designs rarely feasible in organisational contexts.
Lag effects: Leadership development may produce benefits that emerge gradually over years rather than immediately following training. Short-term measurement may miss long-term value.
Intangible benefits: Some outcomes—improved culture, stronger succession pipeline, enhanced employer brand—resist quantification despite genuine value.
Measurement costs: Rigorous evaluation itself requires investment, creating tension between measurement precision and resource constraints.
Different leadership development methods have attracted varying levels of research attention:
Research on executive coaching, while methodologically diverse, generally supports its effectiveness:
Action learning—in which leaders work on real business problems while receiving facilitated reflection—shows promising evidence:
While popular, evidence for outdoor programmes remains mixed:
Research on durability presents a more complex picture than studies of immediate impact. Meta-analyses indicate that interventions tend to yield favourable outcomes in the short term, but more research is needed on methods that promote lasting improvements. The findings are inconclusive partly because most leadership training research lacks long-term follow-up. Studies that do examine durability suggest effects diminish without reinforcement, but practices integrated into ongoing work may persist. Booster sessions and sustained application opportunities appear to extend impact.
Research increasingly recognises that context moderates training effectiveness:
Evidence suggests training effects may vary by hierarchical level:
Some research indicates stronger effects in public sector organisations, though reasons remain debated. Possible explanations include:
Intriguing research suggests leadership training may have slightly larger impact for female managers than male managers. Possible interpretations include differential access to informal development opportunities that training may compensate for, or different baseline developmental experiences.
Evidence indicates diminishing returns for leaders who already employ effective practices. Those with more developmental need show greater improvement, suggesting training resources may be most efficiently allocated to leaders with genuine capability gaps rather than distributed uniformly.
Research on high-performing organisations reveals common patterns in their approach to leadership development:
Effective organisations align leadership development with business strategy, ensuring programmes build capabilities that matter for organisational success rather than generic leadership competencies.
Rather than viewing training as isolated events, effective organisations create development ecosystems that include:
Organisations achieving the strongest results treat programmes as ongoing experiments, systematically measuring outcomes and refining approaches based on evidence rather than assumption.
When senior leaders actively participate in development—as teachers, mentors, and visible learners themselves—programmes achieve greater impact and cultural legitimacy.
Several research frontiers are currently advancing understanding of leadership development:
Neuroscience offers new insights into how leaders learn and change, with implications for training design:
The acceleration of virtual delivery has prompted research examining:
Growing attention focuses on leadership in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments:
Honest engagement with research limitations strengthens rather than undermines its value:
Common criticisms of the evidence base include:
Deeper questions about leadership development research include:
Despite limitations, the evidence base supports several robust conclusions:
Research findings translate into practical guidance for organisations:
A persistent gap exists between what research demonstrates and what organisations actually do. Researchers at Monash University found that effective leadership may stem from simpler factors than many complex frameworks suggest, yet organisations continue adopting trend-driven approaches without evidence base.
Bridging this gap requires:
Research does not identify a single "best" approach, but rather principles that characterise effective programmes regardless of specific methodology. The most robust evidence supports programmes that conduct systematic needs analysis, employ multiple delivery methods including experiential learning, space training over time rather than concentrating it intensively, incorporate feedback mechanisms, and provide opportunities for real-world application. Programmes combining these elements consistently outperform those lacking them.
Rigorous evaluation requires planning before training begins. Establish baseline measurements on targeted competencies and relevant business metrics. Where possible, create comparison groups of similar leaders not receiving training. Measure outcomes at multiple levels—reaction, learning, behaviour, and results—using both self-report and objective data. Track outcomes over time rather than only immediately post-training. Acknowledge limitations honestly rather than overclaiming findings.
Research suggests training effects vary by participant characteristics and context. Evidence indicates leaders with greater developmental need may benefit more than already-skilled leaders, effects may be stronger in public sector organisations, female leaders may show slightly larger gains in some studies, and lower-level leaders may respond more strongly to skill-based training. These findings suggest tailoring approaches to specific populations rather than applying uniform programmes.
Research-informed selection criteria include: whether the provider conducts needs analysis rather than applying generic solutions, whether they employ evidence-based methodologies, whether they measure outcomes beyond participant satisfaction, whether they can provide evidence of previous programme impact, and whether their approach aligns with the specific development needs identified. Providers should be able to articulate the research basis for their methods and demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement based on evaluation findings.
Research favours spaced practice over intensive delivery, suggesting programmes distributed over time produce better outcomes than equivalent content compressed into brief periods. However, optimal duration depends on learning objectives, participant characteristics, and organisational context. More important than total hours is the incorporation of application opportunities between sessions, feedback mechanisms, reinforcement through organisational systems, and follow-up to sustain impact.
Research on virtual delivery remains evolving, but emerging evidence suggests design quality matters more than delivery modality. Well-designed virtual programmes can produce outcomes comparable to in-person delivery, while poorly designed in-person programmes underperform well-designed virtual alternatives. Key factors include engagement mechanisms, interaction opportunities, and connection to real-world application regardless of format. Hybrid approaches combining virtual efficiency with in-person relationship-building may offer advantages of both.
Research consistently connects leadership quality to employee engagement, and studies examining training effects often use engagement as an outcome measure. Evidence suggests leaders who receive effective development create more engaging work environments for their teams. However, attributing engagement changes specifically to training—rather than other concurrent factors—requires careful evaluation design. The relationship appears bidirectional, with engaged employees also more likely to develop their own leadership capabilities.