Traditional leadership development programs leave leaders unprepared for today's real-world challenges, as these programs don’t reflect how adults truly learn and grow as leaders. Modern workplaces demand approaches that empower leaders daily, not just in workshops or seminars.
Leadership development is at a critical crossroads. Despite billions invested each year 77% of organisations report a significant leadership gap, lacking sufficient leadership depth across all levels, while trust in managers has sharply declined from 46% to 29% in just two years (2022-2024). This underscores how traditional approaches are failing to build the leaders businesses urgently need to succeed in today's fast-changing environment.
The Problem with Traditional Leadership
Traditional leadership programs often focus on assessing and developing leaders based on fixed models and isolated, one-off experiences. They place too much weight on classroom learning and annual evaluations, which don’t prepare leaders for the dynamic, day-to-day challenges they face at work. Studies show leadership development is most effective when it happens continuously, on the job, and through real experiences - but most programs do not deliver this.
The Case for Change
Modern businesses need adaptive, self-aware, and empathic leaders who can foster alignment and drive high-performing teams amidst constant change. Yet, current leadership pipelines are weak, and many leaders lack confidence in their ability to lead. There’s a growing consensus that leadership development must move beyond ad hoc solutions and embrace regular practice, real-world application, reflection, and ongoing feedback. We don’t lack good intentions - we lack systems that translate those intentions into daily leadership practice.
Why is this happening? - The Dilemmas
Leadership development often falters not because of intent, but because of trade‑offs. Boards and executives say “people first,” yet decisions reveal a different picture when culture isn’t strong enough to withstand pressure.
A dilemma is a situation where leaders must choose between paths that each carry different costs. On one side lies the comfort of the status quo - familiar programs, short‑term focus, and boardroom credibility. On the other side lies the harder alternative — time, new thinking, resources, and personal commitment. The tension lies in what leaders are willing to trade off.
📊Shareholders and strategy vs. Organisational culture
Focus on shareholder priority and strategy, preserving credibility in the boardroom, or investing in modelling culture and leadership behaviours. This is the tension between business process and people process.
Research shows confidence in executive teams has fallen sharply, with scores in trust and role modelling the right culture and behaviours trending down
📉 Leadership gaps vs. Accountability from the top down
With 77% of organisations reporting a leadership gap and leadership confidence at three‑year low executives face a choice: direct development into the organisation to address capability gaps or assess themselves first to address their gaps.
Research shows only 24% of senior leaders allow themselves to be vulnerable at work, and just 13% of their direct reports agree - highlighting how rare it is for executives to confront their own foundational people‑leadership skills.
📋Agenda pressure vs. Leadership development
Keep leadership development as ad hoc on the executive agenda to make more time for short‑term focus or elevate it as non‑negotiable and embed it into the organisation’s DNA. Leadership development is easily deprioritised on the executive agenda when seen as a transaction opposed to an investment in the future.
When Boards champion leadership development and culture - making it non‑negotiable - research shows it becomes embedded into the organisation’s DNA.
🔄 Status quo comfort vs. Critical rethink
Continue with familiar programs that feel safe and predictable, or step back to test whether development is truly fit for purpose. The comfort comes from repeating what’s been done before rather than asking the harder question and doing the critical thinking: for where are at now what so we truly need?
Billions are spent annually on leadership development, yet programs often underperform because time and effort are not invested in aligning goals, approach, and impact with regular review. Without this alignment, investment is wasted.
📅 One-off or periodic Events vs. Embedded cycles
Schedule one‑off training events that have always been used or embed new learning practices and approaches with ongoing reviews and iterations.
Research shows event‑based programs often fail to transfer learning into the workplace, while embedded, ongoing approaches yield stronger skill development and ROI.
Dilemma summary
Together, these dilemmas reveal the uncomfortable truth: leadership development fails not because leaders don’t care, but because default choices go unchallenged. What feels normal - the way meetings are run, strategies rolled out, or training delivered - becomes justified simply because it is familiar. By framing these situations as dilemmas, we surface hidden trade‑offs and force a different perspective.
Each dilemma carries a cost. Growth comes from choosing which cost you’re prepared to carry. The challenge is real, but so is the opportunity: no tension, no growth.
Insights from the Market - a different approach to learning
So how do organisations move beyond these trade‑offs? Market insights point to a different approach to learning - one that embeds leadership development into daily practice. Practical, tool-based training that integrates learning into daily work and leverages coaching, mentoring, and real-time feedback is increasingly recognized as a highly effective development approach. Research shows that this ongoing, embedded learning model leads to stronger skill development, higher employee engagement, and better performance outcomes than traditional training methods. Organisations using coaching and real-time feedback report improved retention, productivity, and faster leadership development, with studies confirming immediate feedback drives greater behavioural change compared to delayed reviews. Additionally, younger generations especially value continuous support over annual evaluations, making this approach both impactful and aligned with modern workforce expectations.
What Needs to Change
To resolve these trade‑offs and build systems that translate intent into capability, organisations must:
- Integrate learning into daily work by leveraging coaching, mentoring, and real-time feedback.
- Create alignment and a shared language, by using the same practical tool-based approach to address capability gaps across every leadership level of the organisation.
- Prioritise foundational people-leadership skills tailored to modern challenges, including self-awareness, team effectiveness, and alignment.
- Move away from one-size-fits-all, periodic training events in favour of ongoing, measurable development embedded in the workplace.
Conclusion
The evidence is clear: traditional leadership development is out of step with what leaders and organisations need today. By adopting practical, continuous learning models - like those offered by InSync Leadership - businesses can unlock the true potential of their people, cultivate dynamic leaders, and drive meaningful, sustained success.
Authored by Mark Tapsell - November 2025
Sources
-
DDI, Global Leadership Forecast (2023) – executive vulnerability and self‑assessment gaps
-
Harvard Business Review (2024) – alignment of LD goals, approach, and impact requires time and effort
-
IMD (2024) – comfort bias in leadership program design reinforces the status quo
-
Russell Reynolds Associates (2024) – leadership confidence at a three‑year low
-
SMG (2025) – board‑level sponsorship critical for embedding leadership development
-
Harvard Business Review / MDPI (2023–2024) – event‑based programs fail to transfer learning; embedded cycles drive ROI
-
Grey Journal / Leadership Sphere (2024–2025) – vision without execution leads to failure; execution discipline drives resilience
-
PMI / Savage Prioritisation studies (2023–2025) – ruthless prioritisation linked to higher project success and ROI
-
Wiater, D.M. (2024), Regent University Research Roundtables