Corporate leadership training has existed for over 100 years. Yet the issue remains: how to organize it for maximum impact and ensure the business sees changes in its target indicators after the training programs are implemented.
In my experience, I’d like to emphasize that I strongly disagree with the approach of blindly copying programs from one organization to another without analysis (even if the expected outcome had been achieved in the first case). Also, organizations develop annual management training programs based on competency models, available courses, and employees’ development requests. However, training affects business performance only if it meets a group of important conditions. It is always crucial to align the training content with the organization’s context, the changing business environment, the participants’ readiness, management expectations, and available resources, while also assessing the subsequent application of the acquired skills.
Leaders are not born; they become leaders gradually. While some people may encounter strong leadership models early in life, most leaders develop through systematic development of management skills.
Based on experience working with more than 1,200 leaders and 15 companies—large and medium‑sized businesses—I have identified a combination where training has a positive impact on business outcomes. This approach is always systemic; no single component will yield results without the other conditions being met.
In this article, we will examine each of them in detail, explore why this is the case and what will happen if we don’t do it.
- The systemic foundation of the leadership development program.
Designing the annual program begins with defining business objectives, management actions that must ensure their implementation, target groups of leaders, practice work situations, and indicators by which the company can track results.
In practice, the following periodically occurs: Program designers assemble a collection of topics that are generally relevant to leaders, and it is useful to understand them; there is the disparate experience of the program’s creators, who have seen the implementation of individual blocks in various companies, both at the corporate level and in an open format. As a result, we end up mixing together an eclectic range of topics that lack a logical connection and fail to address the specific needs of the business whose leaders the program is designed for.
All blocks of the program must be consistently interconnected; they should progress from simple to complex; the initial topics should form the foundation for the subsequent ones; the selected topics must clearly address the current challenges faced by this particular company. Each block should provide an answer to the question: how the leader’s behavior should change after completing the program and what specific benefit this brings to the business.
If there are borrowings from other business sectors or from other companies in the same industry, adaptation of the content and internal logic of the preparation is necessary in any case. For each borrowing, it is necessary to understand: How will this work in our company? What aspects should be taken into consideration, and what needs to be changed? What will this approach lead to in our case? Which business processes will require changes, and are such changes economically justified?
2. Performance measurement metrics are thought out at the stage of program creation, before its launch.
It is important to build the selected metrics according to the Kirkpatrick assessment model:
- Level 1: We measure the participants’ reaction to the “liked – disliked” training, whether they consider the information useful and whether they plan to apply the acquired skills.
- Level 2: How participants’ knowledge of the topic has shifted, what they knew “before” and what they know “after.” Here, you can measure, if necessary, what remains in short-term memory (immediately after training) and long‑term memory (two to three months later). The questions should not be formulaic but should provoke thought, preferably in the format of short cases.
- Level 3: How participants’ behavior has changed, whether the expected skills have been developed and whether they are applying them in their daily practice. Essentially, these are observation checklists from a senior manager or business coach, or possibly the results of a 360‑degree assessment.
- Level 4: How the training affected business performance and which KPIs were achieved. For example, turnover rate, the percentage of employees who completed the adaptation period, the share and level of the department’s metrics, the department’s/division’s eNPS and customer service ratings.
3. Use internal business coaches to deliver training for line and middle managers.
Corporate business coaches know the company’s culture inside and out, are familiar with typical management cases and have access to already proven practices and the best case studies. All of this makes it possible to create training cases based on real work tasks, to take into account the nuances and specifics that training recipients often fail to see. Likewise, the problem of “transferring” the theory discussed during the training—using examples from another industry—to one’s own company will disappear on its own. Practice shows that not all participants do this correctly; a mechanism or internal resistance also comes into play: “we are unique and have our own specifics,” “everything is different for us, you just don’t know.”
4. Require senior managers to participate in the training program that their direct subordinates are undergoing, at least once or twice.
Senior managers should participate for three reasons. First, to understand the mindset of their team members and what postulates they follow in their daily practice. Second, it is necessary to understand that from the moment they become familiar with management theories, team members will view management reality through the lens of new information from “both sides”: both their team and their manager, for example: “How did they act with me just now? Why did they give me developmental feedback in public, in front of my team members?” Thirdly, with this approach, the entire management team will share common language and understand one another at a glance. This will also have a strategic effect—new line managers will already be raised in a proper management environment and unconsciously adopt the correct management patterns.
5. Assign program methodologists to organize inter‑modular meetings and homework assignments after each training block.
This approach allows for the gradual transfer of newly acquired information from short‑term to long‑term memory. Thus (for the most conservative), skills are reproduced regularly—first in role‑playing games during training, then for completing homework assignments, after that for solving cases during inter‑modular meetings; subsequently, participants begin to “see” how what they have learned fits into their daily practice, gaining experience and, at the very least, a basic set of leadership skills. Naturally, all assignments and meetings are based on real, albeit anonymized, company cases that regularly arise in managers’ practice. And homework assignments must be completed based on the territory/team managed by the training participants.
An additional effect can be achieved by creating assignments that encourage participants to interact with one another; in this way, we will naturally form and strengthen horizontal professional connections. Accordingly, when new challenges inevitably arise, the participants will have the opportunity to turn to their network of professional contacts.
What is critically important is that all homework assignments and cases from the inter-modular sessions should be integrated into the participants’ work rhythm. Only in this way is it possible to fully immerse the managers in the learning process. The scheme looks like this: learn a new tool ➡ try it out in a safe environment within a group ➡ test it in a work setting ➡ if something didn’t work out or you didn’t fully understand, ask about it during an inter-modular meeting ➡ continue implementing the tool ➡ start getting results from the new approach ➡ experience a sense of excitement ➡ and look forward to the next module.
6. Require participants to complete selected assignments by hand.
I agree that it is laborious. However, the outcome is high; we are talking about training managers who steer teams expected to generate profits for the company. Why is it important to do a mind map or any other final task by hand? This is an extra way to consolidate new approaches and tools at the knowledge level in the mind. AI is becoming more accurate, and it takes very little time to complete tasks with its help; the temptation is high. However, in the end, we need a thinking leader who can make competent management decisions.
Examples of tasks:
• Create a “smart map” summarizing the content of the studied block.
• Reflect on three management mistakes that the participant identified in themselves in the context of what they have studied.
• Record commitments to oneself for the next one to two weeks in the context of the module material.
• Create a map of the task that needs to be solved based on what has been studied.
7. Ask training participants to explain the material they have learned to their immediate team.
Tasking participants with training their teams will significantly enhance the leadership training program’s impact. When, at the outset, a participant knows that the content they are studying will need to be passed on to others, they immerse themselves even more deeply in mastering the topic. In addition, preparing for training and thinking through cases at another worker’s level would be an extra opportunity to engage with a new layer of information, and another opportunity during the team training itself and when answering questions. This approach not only brings the learned material into focus but also enhances the leader’s authority in the team’s eyes and creates a sense of gratitude for their development. Moreover, this step strengthens the unified management context within the company. All the tasks listed implicitly shape the skills that are embedded in the leadership training program.
8. Secure top management support while designing the leadership development program.
Top management sets the tone, atmosphere and environment in which the learned skills will be implemented. This way guarantees ideological support, access to the necessary technologies, fewer bureaucratic steps for implementation, less pressure in the event of temporary setbacks, project funding and strong advocacy from the company’s executives.
Summarizing the components of creating a training program for line and middlelevel managers, I would note that each element is quite simple to implement, while their combination creates significant synergy. Participants will perceive such training as easy, practical, and unobtrusive. With this approach, it will seem that everything happens on its own. At the same time, the importance of the business issues that were present at the outset of the program’s design will gradually decrease. This happens because the training trajectory for leaders, following the proposed scheme, is specially structured in such a way that it’s not easy to deviate from it, and it is not even beneficial for the leaders. With the proposed approach, the results will become a natural outcome of its implementation.
A lasting impact
Management training isn’t a standalone initiative; it’s an integrated part of a business strategy.
Only with this perspective can training as an element that influences business results. Only then will the business systematically request the L&D function as a strategic partner.
Furthermore, this combination benefits everyone: The business achieves its goals more efficiently; managers develop management competencies by solving assigned problems and generate greater profits; and training team members receive recognition, gratitude and new meaningful projects.
