Leadership development exists to help leaders perform at higher levels so they can drive better business outcomes. Yet its effectiveness is often questioned. For instance, in a global survey conducted by McKinsey, only 11% of executives strongly agreed that their leadership development interventions achieve and sustain the results they want.

In my work as a leadership development researcher and consultant, I’ve seen a consistent reason why programs underdeliver: Organizations often misdiagnose what’s limiting leaders — and then deploy solutions that don’t match the real constraint.

To sharpen diagnosis, it helps to view leadership through two lenses:

• The “Doing Side”: knowledge, skills  and abilities (KSAs) — the competencies leadership training programs often target
• The “Being Side”: a leader’s internal operating system or inner capacity — emotional regulation under pressure, default mindsets and fears/identity dynamics that drive behavior

Consider delegation, for example. Many leaders can describe how to delegate effectively, yet still micromanage not because they lack knowledge, but because Being Side constraints take over: control, fear of being blamed, low trust or an identity tied to being “the one who gets it right.” High-impact leadership training strategies start by diagnosing the real root cause of these behaviors.

A Diagnostic Framework for High-Impact Leadership Development

Don’t start with a catalog of workshops. Instead, consider the following questions:

1. What is the need? What observable behaviors and measurable outcomes do we want our leaders to demonstrate?
2. What is the root cause of the challenge? Is it a leader’s Doing Side or Being Side that is holding back impact?
3. What form of development is most needed? What developmental approach will best address the root cause: Doing Side development or Being Side development?

Most strategies break down at question two; organizations assume a skills gap is the problem and default to training. But when the root cause is the Being Side, training alone rarely creates sustained behavior change.

Let’s dive into each of these questions further.

1. Clarify the need: Define it in observable terms.

Avoid vague goals like “improve communication” or “increase accountability.” Define the need as:

• Observable Behavior: What changes in behavior do we need to see in leaders? Clearly name those behavioral changes.
• Business Impact: What outcomes do we want our leaders to deliver (e.g., execution speed, retention, quality, customer experience)?

Example: We observe that leaders commonly redo others’ work, create approval bottlenecks and prevent decisions from being made at the lowest responsible level, which slows execution and drives burnout. As such, we need leaders to engage in more empowering delegation to speed up execution, improve engagement and enhance retention.

2. Diagnose the root cause: Doing Side versus Being Side.

Doing Side root causes are about limitations in competence: Leaders either don’t know what to do, don’t know how to do it effectively or haven’t practiced it enough. Being Side root causes are about limitations in capacity: Leaders may know what to do, but their inner capacity collapses under pressure or emotional stakes.

Use the following diagnostic questions to help determine whether the root cause sits on the Doing Side or the Being Side:

• “Would a clear model, tools and/or practice fix this quickly?” If the answer is yes, the root cause is the Doing Side. If not, it’s the Being Side.

• “Does it work sometimes, but disappear under pressure?” If the answer is yes, the root cause is the Being Side. If not, it’s the Doing Side.
• “What are they protecting?” If their behaviors or absence are because they are self-protecting (e.g., fear of losing control, comfort, reputation, belonging, self-worth) —protective patterns typically point to Being Side drivers.

3.Match development to the root cause.

If the root cause sits on the Doing Side, emphasize learning and practice — provide clear models and tools, role-play opportunities, real-work application, feedback loops and reinforcement routines.

If the root cause sits on the Being Side, focus on building inner capacity through coaching that addresses mindsets, fears and identity, along with emotional regulation, trigger awareness and opportunities to practice “in the heat” (i.e., under safe pressure), followed by reflection and reinforcement.

As a rule of thumb, if leaders can explain the skill and perform the skill but don’t apply it consistently, prioritize Being Side development and support it with Doing Side tools.

A Practical Table for Common Leadership Issues

Turning the Framework Into an Actionable Leadership Strategy

Write your strategy using the same three steps:

1. Need: Identify 2-3 leadership needs with clearly observable behaviors and business impact.
2. Root Cause: Determine whether each need stems from the Doing Side, Being Side, or a mix — and specify the underlying driver.
3. Development: Define the minimal set of development actions that directly address the root cause.

Example:

• Need: Leaders bottleneck decisions through micromanagement.
• Root Cause: Primarily Being Side (i.e., control, fear of blame, low trust) plus a Doing Side gap (i.e., lack of a structured delegation process).
• Development: For the Being Side — provide coaching and structured “letting go” experiments. For the Doing Side — teach a delegation model and offer practical tools and on-the-job practice opportunities.

Conclusion: Get to the Root, Then Address It

The most impactful leadership training strategy is the one that consistently gets to the root cause of leadership issues — and then matches development to that root cause.

Because while Doing Side capability matters, many leadership limitations are primarily Being Side limitations. When you dial up Being Side development, supported by the right Doing Side tools, leaders don’t just learn what to do — they build the inner capacity to do it when the pressure is on.