Research shows which experiences really work to develop leaders
Good leaders can make or break a company, team or project. Most people appreciate the importance of good leaders. But understanding leadership is not the same as knowing how to develop strong leaders.
We’ve all experienced great, average and awful leaders. Companies spend considerable time and money on identifying high potential employees to become leaders. They also invest in developing current leaders.
Investment and options to develop leaders
Some estimates say that leadership development is a $366 Billion global industry (Chris Westfall, Forbes.com). If you Google “leadership development”, you get back ‘about 1,230,000,000’ hits. The search results encompass expensive university-based programs, online learning, mentoring guides, customized learning, development plans and more.
The variety of learning options is overwhelming. As discussed earlier, executive coaching has strong practical and research foundations for developing leaders. Coaching provides a great option, but it is often limited to a few people. Other approaches are needed as well.
This raises some questions.
How should companies develop leaders? What programs and approaches work best? Is there research proof of effectiveness? What components can make programs succeed or fail?
Overview of the research
In this article, we’ll look at research that explored how useful three types of leadership development experiences were in making the participants into better leaders. The research highlighted the importance of leadership self-efficacy in creating positive results.
In their 2017 article “Linking Developmental Experiences to Leader Effectiveness and Promotability: The Mediating Role of Leadership and Self-efficacy and Mentor Network”, Seibert, Sargent, Kraimer, and Kiazad examined the effectiveness of three development methods (formal programs, job challenges and supervision).
Their model predicted that the three methods would enhance leadership self-efficacy which would then develop participants into more effective and more promotable leaders.
In the full paper, the researchers also investigated the impact of the mentor network, but it is not covered here.
3 types of developmental experiences
The research defined three types of developmental experiences. These common approaches exist in most organizations.
- Formal development programs include structured activities like training courses that pull the leader off the job and into a learning environment.
- Developmental job challenges occur on the job as the leader faces new issues or responsibilities. They learn while working.
- Developmental supervision refers to informal coaching and role modeling provided by the direct supervisor as part of daily work.
Leadership self-efficacy plays a key role
Self-efficacy formed an important part of this research with the expectation that it relates to both the development experiences and the final results.
When people believe that they can successfully do something, they have self-efficacy for that activity. The concept of self-efficacy comes from Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). SCT espouses that people learn by watching other people in a social context.
Leadership self-efficacy measures the employee’s belief that he or she can be an effective leader. In this study, it refers to the belief about whether participants can take the information learned in the three types of developmental experiences and apply them to their leadership style.
Leadership self-efficacy reflects the person’s confidence in being able to perform as a leader – such as directing a team and motivating others.
Like a self-fulfilling-prophecy, this confidence can be motivational to the leader and enhance effort and persistence. Successes lead to higher motivation and a continued positive spiral.
Research questions
The research studied a mediated model expecting that developmental experiences would influence leadership self-efficacy which would then influence leadership effectiveness and promotability.
The questions examined included:
- Do the three types of developmental experiences make leaders more effective?
- Do the three types of developmental experiences make leaders more promotable?
- Does leadership self-efficacy explain (mediate) the relationship between the experiences and the outcomes?
The researchers collected survey data from leaders and their supervisors in 190 Australian stores with 235 leaders in the final sample.
Measuring leadership development experiences
To measure developmental experiences, the survey asked the leaders and their supervisors about participation and exposure.
For formal development programs, the research measured participation in management training, technology training, career strategy workshops and tuition reimbursement for degree programs.
Measuring developmental job challenges is harder than counting participation lists. The researchers used established survey questions and conducted factor analysis to verify the validity of the measurement. The questions asked about how frequently the leader had done assignments such as: working with a new product or technology, using new skills, taking responsibility for a significant change and handling managerial issues between employees.
Finally, developmental supervision evaluated interactions between the leader the leader’s supervisor. It focused on the supervisor’s coaching behaviors (such as identifying development areas) and role modeling (such as the supervisor setting a good standard for certain behaviors).
Findings about leadership development
The researchers hypothesized relationships between the three developmental experiences and leader effectiveness and promotability that were mediated by leader self-efficacy. They found evidence to support some, but not all, of the expected relationships.
Finding 1: Leadership effectiveness and promotability can be developed. Although not an explicit hypothesis of the research, this study does show that leadership can be taught and developed. The three types of developmental experiences impacted leadership self-efficacy and that increased the effectiveness of the leaders and they were seen as more promotable. Leaders can be developed.
Finding 2: Leadership self-efficacy is important. The star of this research is leadership self-efficacy. It mediated the relationships between the experiences and the outcomes.
Finding 3: Developmental job challenges play a critical role. Job challenges proved to make the biggest impact on leader effectiveness and promotability. On-the-job experiences offer the best leadership development opportunity.
Finding 4: Formal leadership programs fill a hole. The results did not support the expectation that formal leadership programs mediate through leadership self-efficacy to impact leader effectiveness and promotability.
However, the researchers did another level of analysis and found an important relationship. Specifically, formal programs affect effectiveness and promotability when developmental challenges and developmental supervision are low. This three-way interaction indicates that formal programs fill a gap when on-the-job development is weak.
Additional analysis also shows that formal programs cause a positive benefit when job challenges and supervision are strong.
Formal programs seem to benefit leaders when filling a gap or as part of an overall supportive and developmental environment.
Finding 5: Developmental supervision did not prove to influence leadership effectiveness or promotability. In these results, developmental supervision only had a significant effect as part of the complicated relationship described in Finding 4. Supervision had a stronger relationship with the mentoring side of this research that was not covered in this article.
Apply this research
Leadership can be developed
This is an exciting finding! Knowing that leadership can be developed disproves the idea that some people are born to be leaders and others are not. It opens the pool of potential leaders to include a wider variety of people. It is another call to increase the diversity of who we see as having leadership potential.
Not everyone can succeed as a leader, or even wants to be one. But for people who have an interest in leadership and are willing to grow and develop, they can enhance their core skills through developmental experiences and programs.
Use this information to develop your team, build programs for your company or to develop your own skills and career. The investment is worth it.
Leadership self-efficacy is key
The research found strong links between the experiences and leadership self-efficacy and from there to effectiveness and promotability. Leadership self-efficacy is the star of the show!
Proactively consider self-efficacy when designing experiences.
For on-the-job experiences, help developing leaders take on new tasks and practice new skills. Provide supportive feedback as they learn, so they can launch into a positive learning spiral and build their confidence.
For formal programs, build in role plays and real-world case studies that help participants practice the behaviors. They need to actively try new behaviors to gain confidence versus passively hearing about them.
Experiences trump formal learning to develop leaders
The results show that both informal on-the-job (OTJ) experiences and formal learning provide value, but experiences make the biggest impact. This is another exciting finding!
OTJ experiences happen within the normal course of work. As the leaders learn, they also complete mission-critical projects, manage teams, contribute to bottom-line activities and keep the company running. Learning occurs as work gets done.
Compared to formal programs, OTJ experiences also win by being less expensive (often no cost) and by being available at all times. Work challenges exist every day that could be turned into a development opportunity for a leader.
Supervisors must challenge themselves to identify the opportunities, match them to the right employees and structure them for success.
Employ all three types of development
OTJ experiences proved to be the most effective type of development, but formal programs fill in some key gaps. Formal programs provide an option for leaders who do not receive good OTJ experiences from their supervisors. Formal programs also help participants build networks and learn from other participants.
Role modeling, coaching and support from the supervisor provides additional development and should be part of any solid managerial relationship.
Research details
Seibert, S.E., Sargent L.D., Kraimer M., Kiazad, K. (2017) “Linking Developmental Experiences to Leader Effectiveness and Promotability: The Mediating Role of Leadership and Self-efficacy and Mentor Network”, Personnel Psychology, Vol 70, 357-397.
Scott Seibert, University of Iowa
Leisa Sargent, University of Melbourne
Maria Kraimer, University of Iowa
Kohyar Kiazad, Monash University
Research stuff: mediated relationships, factor analysis, social cognitive theory, self-efficacy
