The experiential understanding group-and-leader managerial course: long-term follow-up

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on the results of an experiential leader development course titled understanding group-and-leader (UGL). Design/methodology/approach The study sample consisted of 61 course participants (the managers) and 318 subordinate raters. The development leadership questionnaire (DLQ) was used to measure the results of the course. The measurements were made on three occasions: shortly before the course, one month after the course and six months after the course. Findings The managers’ self-evaluations did not change significantly after the course. However, the subordinate raters’ evaluations of their managers indicated a positive trend in the scales of developmental leadership and conventional-positive leadership one month and six months after the course. Research limitations/implications The study was based on a comparatively small sample with a number of drop-outs. The study lacked a control condition. Practical implications From an organizational point of view, it could be argued that it is justifiable to send managers to such a course, as there is a good chance for an improvement in their leadership style as rated by subordinates. Social implications The integration of group processes and leadership behavior in the context of experiential learning seems to be a fruitful path to leader development. Originality/value Longitudinal studies on the results of experiential learning for managers are sparse. This is the first quantitative evaluation of a course that more than 80,000 individuals have taken.

Transfer and maintenance of knowledge from leadership development

“…Larsson et al (2017) studying the effects of the DL course on leaders’ behaviour at one month and six months after the course, showed a significant decrease in non-leadership and negative conventional leadership styles as measured by the employee ratings, but not a significant increase in developmental leadership behaviour. On the other hand, studying UGL, Sandahl et al (2019) showed a significant positive trend in developmental and conventional positive leadership styles one month and six months after the course as evaluated by subordinate employees. Söderhjelm et al (2017) showed that a key factor was increased confidence in participants’ leadership role six months after a course, stimulating them to test what they had learned.…”

“…A combination of conceptual knowledge, conscious cognitive understanding and self-reflection seem essential for intrapersonal learning to happen. For behaviour change to occur, it is argued that an interpersonal approach is required, involving the leader’s development of network and group relationships, in terms of skills and abilities and responses to certain events (Dihn et al , 2014; Sandahl et al , 2019; Söderhjelm et al , 2017). There is evidence for positive outcomes in the short run of such interventions, but few longitudinal studies of leadership development are available (Riggio and Mumford, 2011; Lacerenza et al , 2017).…”