What is the role of a leadership development department?

The role of a leadership development department is to close the gap between the leadership an organization says it needs and the leadership it actually has, using structured programs, coaching, and measurement systems that turn business strategy into observable behavior. The job goes well beyond running training events. It is to make sure the people running the company can execute the plan the company has made, and to prove that connection with data.

That distinction matters, because it is the source of most of the frustration people bring up when they ask about this function. A department that measures itself by hours of training delivered or number of workshops booked is measuring activity, not impact. A department that measures itself by whether a specific behavior, say giving direct feedback, or making a decision without escalating it three levels up, shows up more often six months later is measuring something real. That is the same distinction between a memorable day and a changed team we wrote about in what makes a leadership program actually stick.

Core responsibilities of a leadership development department

A leadership development function typically owns four things, and the way it structures itself for a large rollout follows from them: identifying the leadership capabilities the business needs now and in two to three years, designing or sourcing the programs that build those capabilities, running the assessment and coaching infrastructure that tracks individual growth, and reporting the business impact of all of it back to executive leadership.

The fourth responsibility is the one most departments underbuild. Research from McKinsey has found that only eleven percent of executives strongly believe their leadership development programs achieve and sustain the results they were designed for, even though companies in the United States alone spend close to fourteen billion dollars a year on the function. That gap between spend and confidence is a design and measurement problem rather than a training problem, and it shows up in every conversation about return on investment that people in this field have.

How should leadership development departments be structured?

Most large organizations structure leadership development in one of three ways: centralized under a Chief Learning Officer or Head of Talent, embedded inside HR business partner teams that sit closer to specific divisions, or a hybrid, meaning a small central team that sets strategy and standards with delivery pushed out to the business units that actually need it.

The hybrid model tends to hold up best at scale, because it solves the two failure modes on either side of it. A fully centralized function drifts away from what business units actually need day to day. A fully decentralized function produces twelve different definitions of what good leadership looks like across twelve divisions, which makes it impossible to build a common language or compare results.

What the structure needs to protect, regardless of the model, is a straight line from the chief executive's stated priorities to the leadership behaviors being built. If that line has to pass through four layers of approval before a program gets designed, it is already too slow to matter.

How do leadership development departments measure success?

The most widely used measurement framework in the field is the Kirkpatrick Model, built around four levels: reaction, meaning whether participants found it valuable; learning, meaning whether they acquired new knowledge or skill; behavior, meaning whether they are applying it differently at work; and results, meaning whether the business outcome moved. Most departments measure the first two levels well, because they are easy to survey. Far fewer measure the third or fourth, because that requires tracking behavior change weeks or months after the program ends, tied to a business metric someone in finance also cares about.

A common concern people raise is that the return on leadership development is unclear or unmeasurable. It is measurable. It is simply rarely measured past the reaction survey. Departments that get this right define the target behavior before the program is designed, name the business metric it is supposed to move, and build a check-in cadence at thirty, sixty, and ninety days to see whether the behavior actually stuck. Without that structure, the honest answer to whether the program worked is a guess dressed up as a satisfaction score. We set out how we approach this in our frequently asked questions.

What best-in-class leadership development looks like

The organizations that do this well share a specific pattern. They treat leadership development as a business function with a profit and loss conversation attached, rather than as a benefits perk. They tie program design directly to named business priorities for the next twelve to twenty-four months. And they favor learning that involves doing over learning that involves sitting.

That last point has research behind it. The 70-20-10 framework, developed by Morgan McCall, Michael Lombardo, and Robert Eichinger at the Center for Creative Leadership, holds that roughly seventy percent of leadership capability is built through challenging experiences and real work, twenty percent through relationships, feedback, and coaching, and only ten percent through formal instruction. Best-in-class programs are built around that ratio, and we set out what to look for in one separately. Weaker ones invert it, spending most of the budget on classroom time and hoping the rest happens on its own.

Why leadership development gets treated as separate from strategy

The most consistent complaint in this space is that leadership development sits off to the side of the business, run by a team that is not in the room when strategy gets set. That separation is structural, not accidental. If the leadership development team only finds out about a strategic priority after it is finalized, they are designing programs to catch up to a decision instead of building the capability to execute it.

The fix is simple to describe, even though it is hard to execute. The leadership development leader needs a seat in the strategy conversation, not just the rollout conversation. When that seat exists, the department stops asking what training is needed and starts asking what this team needs to become capable of doing that they cannot do today. That is a business question rather than a training question, and it changes what gets built.

This is also where the format of the learning starts to matter as much as its content. A program can be strategically aligned on paper and still fail if it does not change what people do under pressure, in front of each other, when something is actually at stake.

What experiential learning changes

Traditional leadership training often falls short for a simple reason. Adults build capability through action, reflection, and real application rather than through slides. Twenty-five years of running experiential programs for organizations, corporations, and sports teams has shown a consistent pattern. Something happens to a team once you get them out of a conference room and into a scenario where the outcome actually depends on how they work together, a case we make in the room is the problem. Hierarchy loosens. The person who never speaks up in a meeting starts talking. The thing everyone has been politely avoiding for a year finally gets said out loud.

Morrison Alley builds those scenarios on purpose. Instead of a workshop about collaboration, teams face a problem they genuinely cannot solve alone, in a setting chosen for its own story: a locker room that has held legends across sports and music, a beach used for military training, a room built around a spacecraft that flew thirty-three missions. The setting does real work in the program. It is tied directly to what the team is facing back at the office, and the fit has to be honest, or people feel the seams within the first hour.

The behavior change is designed into the experience from the start, rather than bolted onto it afterward.

What separates this from a one-day offsite is what happens after the activity ends. No binder gets packed in a suitcase. Before the team leaves the room, what happened gets lined up against the organization's own priorities, with named owners and next steps, followed by structured practice and spaced reinforcement to see whether the new behavior is actually showing up week by week. That is the same third and fourth level measurement problem leadership development departments struggle with everywhere else.

The outcomes this is built to produce are specific, and they line up with what the research says about building high-performing teams: clarity of purpose that every team member can state in the same words, alignment on a shared vision that people agreed to out loud, faster results because a team pointed in one direction covers more ground than a scattered one, and leadership capability that survives the first busy week back at work instead of fading with the conference badge.

What this means for building or evaluating the function

Whoever owns leadership development inside an organization is being asked to prove something harder than whether people liked the workshop. They are being asked to prove that a specific group of leaders behaves differently in a way that moves a business number. That requires designing for behavior change from day one, measuring past the satisfaction survey, and choosing learning formats that put people inside real consequences instead of hypothetical case studies.

Programs built for real consequences tend to produce real change. Programs built around comfortable case studies tend to produce comfortable applause and not much else.

The research on experiential learning and team performance referenced here is set out in full, with sources, on our Why It Works page.

← All field notes