Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

Recent estimates suggest that although a majority of funds in organizational training budgets tend to be allocated to leadership training (Ho, 2016; O'Leonard, 2014), only a small minority of organizations believe their leadership training programs are highly effective (Schwartz, Bersin, & Pelster, 2014), calling into question the effectiveness of current leadership development initiatives. To help address this issue, this meta-analysis estimates the extent to which leadership training is effective and identifies the conditions under which these programs are most effective. In doing so, we estimate the effectiveness of leadership training across four criteria (reactions, learning, transfer, and results; Kirkpatrick, 1959) using only employee data and we examine 15 moderators of training design and delivery to determine which elements are associated with the most effective leadership training interventions. Data from 335 independent samples suggest that leadership training is substantially more effective than previously thought, leading to improvements in reactions (δ = .63), learning (δ = .73), transfer (δ = .82), and results (δ = .72), the strength of these effects differs based on various design, delivery, and implementation characteristics. Moderator analyses support the use of needs analysis, feedback, multiple delivery methods (especially practice), spaced training sessions, a location that is on-site, and face-to-face delivery that is not self-administered. Results also suggest that the content of training, attendance policy, and duration influence the effectiveness of the training program. Practical implications for training development and theoretical implications for leadership and training literatures are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Maintaining relevance and rigor: How we bridge the practitioner–scholar divide within human resource development

“…The benefits of this decision are supported by research. In a recent meta‐analysis, Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph, and Salas (, p. 18) reported that:

… leadership training programs evaluated by a team of academics and practitioners exhibited significantly greater learning and transfer outcomes compared to those evaluated by academics or industry experts only. This finding supports the argument that the scientist–practitioner model is necessary for producing superior work.

…”

Coaching-Based Leadership Intervention Program: A Controlled Trial Study

“…Further research has suggested that leadership intervention programs should focus on knowledge and skills that can enhance leader effectiveness (Amagoh, 2009). These interventions have generally involved training in a workshop format, participation in executive coaching, or a combination of these two approaches (Kelloway and Barling, 2010;Lacerenza et al, 2017).…”

“…Although there are good initiatives and significant investments in leadership skill development programs, organizations still believe they have not effectively trained their leaders. In fact, they continue to report a lack of leadership skills among their employees (Lacerenza et al, 2017). Research has shown that leaders need at least 3 to 6 months to develop coaching skills and feel comfortable using them (Grant, 2010).…”

Evolving Leadership: New Clues and Cues Toward Environment and Context

“…Leaders focused on career outcomes (for themselves and others), facilitation and mentoring, and providing resources help organizations move toward future endeavors. It is necessary for leaders to continually augment their knowledge of people and tasks (Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph, & Salas, ). The leader's impact on human capital, especially, is key to organizational success and the ability to profoundly influence followers (Manderscheid & Ardichvili, ).…”