Leadership training should help managers improve the way they lead and make decisions. Yet many programs miss the mark by leaning heavy on theory and light on practice. As a result, participants often leave feeling motivated but struggle to apply what they’ve learned at the workplace.
In a recent study of 200 middle managers, I set out to identify which training methods correlated with stronger perceived effectiveness, and to separate what only feels valuable from what actually helps managers perform better. The survey analyzed their views on eight common methods and probed open-ended responses to understand what managers truly found helpful or unhelpful.
The rationale for the study was simple. Companies spend a lot of money on leadership training, but the debate on the value of such investments remains a long-standing point of contention. Instead of trying to forcefully quantify the returns of leadership training, it’s best to understand what works best for different leadership levels so that companies can be more strategic and focused on their spending.
Four methods stood out from the study. Executive coaching, online learning, group projects and leadership workshops were each significant positive predictors of perceived effectiveness. Programs that blend these elements are more likely to be rated as effective by the managers surveyed. In contrast, classroom training, case studies and simulations did not show a significant effect, while role-play trended positive but narrowly missed on significance. As a strong proponent for case studies, this came as a surprise.
Just as importantly, motivation to learn increased after training participation, whereas perception of training value stayed high. In other words, managers already believed leadership training was valuable. The bigger opportunity is to design the experience so that motivation turns into better day-to-day leadership.
The CORE Formula
Based on the analysis, I propose a simple framework that human resources or learning and development teams can adopt immediately: coaching, online learning, real-world projects, experiential workshops (CORE). These components should come as a blend, and not in isolation. Each element does a distinct job in the learning journey:
Coaching: Personalize the Experience
One-to-one or small group coaching makes development specific and timely. Managers bring live issues they are facing at the workplace, and coaches help them frame choices, simulate difficult conversations, and commit to action. As indicated in the study, managers find coaching to be very helpful.
Online Learning: Scale Smartly
While seemingly less engaging for training, the online experience isn’t necessarily second-best. When designed in short and focused sprints with practical tools, online modules were deemed to be more effective among the managers surveyed. For hybrid teams especially, this is the engine that keeps development going in a more cost-effective manner.
Real-World Projects: Enable Immediate Application
Cohorts should tackle actual business problems with visible outcomes. Examples include improving the customer journey, reducing process delays or piloting a new automation tool. Group projects significantly predicted higher effectiveness in the study and were repeatedly praised by managers for the impact felt.
Experiential Workshops: Create Shared Momentum
Highly interactive workshops are where managers acquire new skills, test ideas and build a sense of community with peers. From the study, participants attributed workshops as providing a psychologically safe space for them to exchange ideas and learn from real examples.
What to Stop Doing
While the CORE framework highlights the applicable actions evidenced by the study, the research also revealed leadership training methods that were less effective. Participants were particularly consistent about what doesn’t help in leadership training:
- Theoretical lectures that feel distant from workplace realities
- Generic content not tailored to their leadership context or level
- Time consuming sessions that are demanding of their constrained schedules
Simply put, if a lesson can’t be immediately applied, cut or rework it. Reserve classroom style materials for prereads before the actual sessions, and dedicate live time with managers for engaging practice, peer feedback and problem solving.
Reality Check
While the study shares what works and what doesn’t, it’s not without limitations. Here are three considerations to counter these suggestions, for a more balanced approach:
- “Perceived effectiveness isn’t the same as performance.” Perception is not the destination, but it’s a useful leading indicator when testing a learning design. In piloting the CORE framework, prioritize a small number of team outcomes that matter to the business and treat perceived effectiveness as a corroborating signal rather than the goal.
- “We work as hybrid teams… can we really do workshops?” Only if they’re short and hands-on. Data from the study favored experiential workshops over long lectures. Aim for a half-day kick-off (at a maximum) and then keep the momentum through online sprints and coaching.
- “Do we need external coaches?”
Not necessarily. External coaches can be expensive. As an alternative, internal leaders trained to coach can work well especially in peer-group formats. What matters is specificity (i.e., real situations) and consistency (i.e., regular touchpoints).
Moving Forward
The choice for organizations in this endeavour is not between more training or less. It’s between training that actually shifts behavior and programs that only look good on paper. The evidence is clear. Managers have limited time for training, so they need to make the best of every moment spent on it. Coaching makes it personal; online learning keeps momentum; real-world projects enable transfer and experiential workshops build a sense of community.
The idea is to start small and test the framework. Pick one team to participate in a pilot and at kick-off, agree on three outcomes that will be improved. Actively track motivation against time invested and at the end of the pilot, scale what moved the needle and remove what did not.
