Leadership Development Programs: Effectiveness and Outcomes
This literature review examines the effectiveness of organizational leadership development programs, with particular focus on the persistent gap between heavy investment in such programs and the lack of rigorous outcome measurement. Drawing on foundational research by Burke and Day (1986) and subsequent scholarship, the review traces how leadership program content has evolved alongside changing definitions of leadership itself. It evaluates competing assessment frameworks — including Kirkpatrick's widely used four-level model and Swanson and Holton's Results Assessment System — and identifies key reasons why organizations struggle to demonstrate measurable returns on their leadership training investments. The review concludes that systematic evaluation of program impact on performance remains largely absent from organizational practice.
- Introduction and Research Context: Scarcity of reliable leadership program research
- Organizational Investment and the Measurement Gap: Heavy investment despite absent outcome measurement
- Defining Outcomes and Leadership Development: Working definitions anchor the analytical framework
- Evolution of Leadership Program Content: New theories reshape leadership training content
- Evaluation Models and Their Limitations: Kirkpatrick model flaws and better alternatives
- Conclusion: Toward Systematic Assessment: Call for systematic evaluation of program impact
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Synthesizes a wide range of sources across nearly two decades of scholarship, building a coherent argument about a persistent gap in practice rather than simply summarizing individual studies.
- Anchors abstract claims in precise definitions — for both "outcome" and "leadership development" — giving the review a clear analytical foundation.
- Juxtaposes organizational behavior (heavy investment) with scholarly findings (lack of systematic evaluation) to generate a productive tension that drives the argument forward.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates gap identification as a literature review strategy. Rather than cataloguing what is known, it consistently foregrounds what is missing — evidence, evaluative models, performance links — and explains why those gaps exist. This technique positions a future study as both necessary and justified.
Structure breakdown
The review opens by establishing the scarcity of reliable research, then contextualizes organizational investment trends before introducing working definitions. It proceeds to trace how leadership program content has changed over time, examines available evaluation frameworks and their deficiencies, and closes by restating the core problem: systematic assessment of program impact on performance is largely absent. This arc moves from problem identification through conceptual grounding to a call for better evaluative practice.
Introduction and Research Context
Research and studies on the effectiveness of leadership development programs are sparse. The most widely cited foundational research, conducted by Burke and Day (1986), is considerably dated given the changes that have emerged both in the definition of leadership and its ever-widening scope. The results of studies available on a variety of leadership development programs do not offer a clear view of the effectiveness of these programs.
Organizations are increasingly investing in their managers and other key employees to develop leadership skills, suggesting genuine concern about a shortage of leadership qualities and capabilities. Gibler, Carter, and Goldsmith (2000) maintain that investment in leadership development will continue to increase as organizations "recognize the shortage of talented managers, the importance of developing bench strength, and the need to widen perspectives in order to compete globally" (p. xii). It has also been found that leadership programs are "no longer focused on the individual learner but increasingly on shaping the worldviews and behaviors of cohorts of managers and, … transforming even entire organizations" (Conger & Benjamin, 1999, p. xii).
References
Baker, D. E., Walsh, M. B., & Marjerison, L. (2000). Developing high performance leadership at the process level. In E. F. Holton & S. S. Naquin (Eds.), Developing high-performance leadership competency (Vol. 6, pp. 47–72). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial application. New York: Free Press.
Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 81–95.
Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 242–245.
Collins, D. B., Lowe, J. S., & Arnett, C. R. (2000). In E. F. Holton & S. S. Naquin (Eds.), Developing high-performance leadership competency (Vol. 6, pp. 18–46). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Conger, J. (1999). Leader's change handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, T. L. (2000). The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Anchor Books.
Gibler, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Best practices in leadership development handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holton, E. F. (1999). Performance domains and their boundaries. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Advances in developing human resources (Vol. 1, pp. 26–46). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Holton, E. F., & Naquin, S. S. (2000). Developing high performance leadership competency. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Lynham, S. A. (2000). Leadership development: A review of the theory and literature. In P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Meeting. Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Lynham, S. A., & Swanson, R. A. (1997). The development and evaluation of a model of responsible leadership for performance: Beginning the journey. In Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 22–23). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Marson, P. P., & Bruff, C. D. (1992). The impact of classroom leadership training on managerial/supervisory job performance. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 359–364). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1998). Management development through job experiences. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (1998). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sogunro, O. A. (1997). Impact of training on leadership development. Evaluation Review, 21(6), 731–737.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (1999). Results: How to assess performance, learning and perceptions in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Torraco, R. J. (1999). Performance improvement theory and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Shipper, F., & Neck, C. P. (1990). Subordinates' observations: Feedback for management development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(4), 371–385.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.