Everywhere we ask, leadership development is top of mind for everyone. In small companies and big companies, L&Ds all over the world have the support of their leaders as a priority. This is not new. It’s been the same for the past couple of years.

Since our mission is to support L&D professionals in their work, we thought this would be a good topic to research. And so we did! During summer, we put into the wild a large survey, asking L&Ds everything from how they are designing leadership development programs, to what budgets their investing, and how they feel their leaders are performing.

We complemented the 158 responses we got with 10 qualitative interviews, and now we’re ready to share the results, as well as recommendations for the future.

If you’re looking to read a more in depth report, our fellows have access to the full results. 

A quick overview 

We’re not going to sugarcoat this.

Overall, things are not looking great. It’s visible leaders are struggling, and we’re struggling to support them in a way that works. To be clear, the investment is there in most cases. Across industries and company sizes, resources are allocated to leadership development. 

Around 31,7% of our respondents mentioned they invest more than €50.000 yearly into leadership development. We believe that number is even greater, considering around the same ±30% mentioned they either don’t know or prefer not to say. Whether or not these large budgets yield the return on investment is another topic we’ll discuss in our recommendations.

Another proof that leadership development is on organizations’ radar is that almost half of our respondents (48.1%) mention their company has at least one full-time L&D working on this, while larger companies report having even up to 10 dedicated people focused fully on leadership development. 

The rest of the 51.9% respondents mentioned that it’s either a shared responsibility across the L&D team, they have part-time people working on this, or there’s no “official” dedicated resources (which at the end of the day, they all mean the same thing: we’re doing it, but it’s part of an endless to do list).

While it’s far from maybe what we’d wish, it’s definitely way better than the investment in other areas of organizational learning.

The results, though, are not looking that great.

There’s no surprise that managers are struggling. Headlines have been screaming this for years:

• More Than 50% of Managers Feel Burned Out
• 6 Shocking Stats That Prove Middle Managers Are in Crisis
• Nearly half of UK managers too overwhelmed to do their job, research finds

So we weren’t surprised to learn that L&Ds have a good understanding of their challenges. Through the nature of our job, we tend to be quite connected to managers at all levels, not just because we’re trying to support them, but also because we partner with them on projects we run for other audiences and the entire organization.

To understand how L&Ds see their leaders, we asked them two questions: 

• On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate the overall performance of leaders in your organization today?
• How would you describe the current state of leadership in your organization?

When we compiled the data we were a bit in shock. Of course, we all need to remember this is just the perception of a specific part of the organization － L&Ds － but a part that works with managers almost on a daily basis. So while we need to take the data with a grain of salt, it doesn’t mean it’s far from the truth.

Ok, I’m dragging on, because when we calculated the NPS of the first question, “On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate the overall performance of leaders in your organization today?”, the result was -57. If you’re not familiar with the NPS methodology, the score can be from -100 to 100. So yes, we can have negative scores, and L&Ds from all company sizes score their leaders at below 0.

The answers to the second question, paint a more qualitative picture of why L&Ds have this picture of their leaders.

• Inconsistency is high up top. This tells us that, of course, the low numbers represent a median, not the entire leadership population. L&Ds just believe the quality of leadership varies widely.
• The poor leadership quality seems to come from the fact that leaders are overwhelmed, which is no surprise. Aren’t we all? But of course, the pandemic, the AI revolution, the economic crisis, put as much if not more pressure on leaders, than on everyone else.
• The third qualitative answer that scored best gave a more optimistic view of things, because L&Ds feel that leaders are just in the process of growing and improving. 

To close the overview, I also want to address why I mentioned at the beginning the fact that L&Ds are also struggling. When asked how impactful L&Ds believe their own efforts are, only 17,7% mentioned they think they are very impactful. The majority (50%) believe that they are somewhat impactful, while 17,7% are unsure about their results or believe they’re limited. 

This is the score that worries us the most, because it’s the one that affects us the most both professionally and personally.

In our extended report, we talk more about how L&Ds evaluate the impact of their leadership development programs, how leaders are evaluated in general, as well as what L&Ds believe would help them have more clear and better results.

On leadership development

Leadership development efforts are spread across levels, but two groups dominate: first-time leaders and mid-level managers. Roughly eight in ten L&Ds say they focus on these populations, showing a clear emphasis on the transition into leadership and the stretch of managing managers.

The way L&Ds choose to design their programs is the interesting part. 

In our interviews the tread that was the most clear was the fact that leadership development is ever-evolving. Every year, L&Ds go back to the drawing board to reevaluate their programs and improve them.

Leadership Development Programs Structure

Leadership development comes in many forms, but some patterns stand out. 

• About half of organizations run multi-session programs, giving leaders a chance to build skills over time rather than in a single event. 
• Slightly more than half also run time-bound cohorts, which create shared experiences and a sense of progression. 
• One-off workshops remain common, used by around four in ten organizations, often as a lighter touch or introduction.

Self-paced journeys and integrated learning are less widespread but still visible. About a third of companies offer e-learning or curated paths, while just under a quarter connect leadership development directly to daily work through projects, job shadowing, or stretch assignments. A smaller share admit their leadership development is ad-hoc, with no clear structure.

Leadership Development Programs Formats

Leadership development still leans heavily on live, synchronous formats. 

• In-person workshops remain the most common, used by about seven in ten organizations, closely followed by virtual live sessions. 
• Coaching also plays a strong role, with nearly half of companies offering one-on-one support.
• Peer learning circles and mentoring are used by around a third. 

Asynchronous formats are less common: only about four in ten organizations use e-learning modules, and curated playlists, microlearning, or self-reflection tools appear in just a quarter or fewer.

Yet, what stands out is how much leaders still value real-time, human interaction. Several interviewees highlighted that nothing beats being in the room together.

Leadership Development Programs Topics

Feedback sits at the center of leadership development. Most organizations teach giving and receiving feedback, and many pair it with communication and active listening. Coaching has moved from a “nice to have” to a core theme, now present in a clear majority of programs.

As companies look beyond the day-to-day, change and strategy enter the frame. More than half cover leading through change, and a meaningful share includes decision-making and strategic thinking. Managing performance is also prominent, reflecting the need to translate conversations into outcomes.

Emotional intelligence and psychological safety show up in many portfolios, though not as universally as feedback. 

Topics like managing remote teams, innovation, and DEI are present, yet they remain secondary compared to the fundamentals. Self-awareness appears surprisingly often, signaling a shift toward reflective leadership rather than pure skills training.

Interviewees confirmed these patterns, but also revealed how topics are actually chosen. Many described balancing business priorities with data and feedback from employees.

Other interesting patterns for leadership development programs

The structures, formats, and topics covered, weren’t the only ones revealed in our research. 

We also learned that in most cases, L&Ds themselves facilitate these programs, with support from either external vendors or leaders themselves.

External vendors are often used for design, delivery, or sometimes for leadership assessments. 

The range of vendors mentioned for design and delivery is wide, spanning global providers, regional players, business schools, and individual consultants.

• Well-known providers appear frequently, with names like Korn Ferry, FranklinCovey, DDI, the Center for Creative Leadership, Ascendis, and Stand for Development standing out. Hyper Island, MindGym, Lepaya, BTS, and The School of Life also surface as trusted partners.
• Universities and business schools remain part of the mix, with Ivey Business School and others mentioned as credible options for leadership education.
• Independent consultants and smaller firms play an important role, especially when organizations want something tailored or local. Names like Ben Morton, Razvan Goga, and Iulian Olariu appear alongside niche consultancies such as Neon Leadership or Positive Work LLC.

When it comes to leadership assessments, just under half of organizations say they run them, and most rely on tools designed internally rather than third-party instruments. If they do rely on external instruments, the most popular ones are DISC, Hogan Assessments, StrengthsFinder, and Insights Discovery. 

Popularity, though, does not always translate into satisfaction. DISC, despite being the most widely used, carries a strongly negative net promoter score of −44. Hogan and Insights Discovery fare somewhat better, though still in the red at −21 and −22 respectively. The exception is StrengthsFinder, which stands out with a positive score of 44. This suggests that while many organizations fall back on familiar assessments, only a few are seen as adding real value to leadership development.

Our recommendations

Informal conversations were already making us lean towards the conclusion that leadership development as we know it doesn’t seem to be enough. But running this research convinced us of the fact that proper leadership support means broadening our scope beyond developmental activities into enablement solutions.

The question, then, changes from “What do our leaders need to learn?” into “What are the challenges our leaders are facing?”. If this is our first recommendation, our second one would be to spend time creating a proper strategy for leadership enablement.

A leadership enablement strategy helps organizations move from isolated development programs to a cohesive system that supports leaders in every aspect of their role. Our proposed framework for 2026 includes five key dimensions: Strategy, Architecture, Design, Delivery, and Measurement.

Strategy is where it all begins. 

• It’s about starting with the business, understanding what truly drives organizational success and aligning leadership efforts with those priorities.
•  It also means recognizing that not all leaders have the same needs. First-time managers, experienced leaders, and those stepping into new contexts all require tailored support. 
• And because leadership itself is evolving, we need to prepare leaders for the AI age, helping them understand how technology changes what great leadership looks like and what new mindsets, capabilities, and ways of thinking are required.

Architecture is about building the systems that make leadership work easier, not harder. It’s where we look beyond programs and focus on the environment leaders operate in. That means creating spaces for collaboration and networking among leaders, reviewing existing people processes to make them simpler and more impactful, and clearly defining what leadership means across roles and contexts. The goal is to create coherence and connection so leadership feels supported by the organization, not isolated within it.

Design focuses on how we create the actual development experiences. 

• The key is co-creation: designing with leaders, not for them, so that what we build feels relevant, practical, and truly owned. 
• It’s also about balancing skill development with emotional support, helping leaders navigate uncertainty and change, not just perform tasks better. 
• Finally, it’s about combining multiple formats, digital, live, peer, and experiential, to make learning flexible and impactful, focusing energy in the formats with the most impact.

Delivery brings everything to life. Leadership support shouldn’t live in one-off workshops or annual events. It’s an ongoing practice that balances individual and team development, keeps communication consistent and transparent, and provides just-in-time support for leaders when they need it most. Delivery is about meeting leaders where they are, helping them apply what they learn in the flow of their daily work.

Measurement helps us make sense of it all. It’s not just about tracking participation but truly understanding how leadership impacts results. That means measuring leadership performance through diverse data sources, democratizing that data so everyone can learn from it, and using insights to adjust priorities and strengthen programs. Measurement ensures we don’t just do things because they sound good, we do them because they work.

Together, these five dimensions reshape how we think about leadership. The focus moves from developing leaders in isolation to enabling them through systems, relationships, and continuous feedback loops that help them perform, connect, and grow, every day.

If you’d like to dive deeper into the research and see how other organizations are designing their own development programs and leadership enablement strategies, you’ll find plenty of inspiration inside the Offbeat Fellowship. It’s where we share full case studies, real examples, and ongoing conversations with L&D professionals who are rethinking what leadership support looks like in practice.