How to Develop Emerging Leaders: A Guide for HR and L&D
Most organisations promote people into leadership, then leave them to figure it out. The result: 60% of new managers fail within 24 months. This guide covers what the research says about developing emerging leaders, why most approaches fail, and what actually works.
Most organisations promote people into leadership, then leave them to figure it out. The result: 60% of new managers fail within 24 months, engagement suffers, and high-potential talent walks out the door. This guide covers what the research says about developing emerging leaders, why most approaches fail, and what actually works.
The Business Case
The quality of your managers determines the quality of your organisation. This is not hyperbole.
Source: Gallup, State of the American Manager
When managers are effective, teams perform, people stay, and the organisation thrives. When managers struggle, engagement drops, turnover spikes, and productivity suffers.
The problem is that most managers are set up to fail.
Source: CCL citing Gartner research
Source: Center for Creative Leadership
These two statistics belong together. The failure rate is a direct consequence of the training gap. Organisations promote people for technical excellence, assume they'll figure out leadership on their own, and then wonder why things go wrong.
The cost of getting it wrong
When a new manager fails, the costs cascade:
- Direct costs. Recruitment, severance, replacement hiring
- Team impact. Disengagement, turnover, lost productivity among direct reports
- Pipeline damage. Other high potentials see what happened and reconsider their own ambitions
- Opportunity cost. The problems that didn't get solved, the initiatives that stalled
Gallup estimates the cost of poor management in the U.S. alone at $960 billion to $1.2 trillion per year. Globally, the figure approaches $7 trillion, or roughly 9-10% of world GDP.
The return on getting it right
The business case for development is equally clear.
Source: BetterManager research
Organisations that invest in emerging leader development see measurable returns: higher engagement, lower turnover, stronger bench strength, better business results.
The question is not whether to invest. The question is how to invest effectively.
Why Traditional Development Fails
Most leadership development doesn't work. The evidence is clear, and the reasons are predictable.
I have witnessed a remarkable improvement in our overall team dynamics and collaboration.
— National Learning and Development Manager, Supagas
The program gave me practical tools I could use Monday morning, not just theory to think about.
— Emerging leader, MYOB cohort
Having the GROW framework as a planning tool helped me structure conversations I used to avoid.
— Leader in our program
The workshop problem
The dominant model for leadership development is the workshop: bring people together for a day or two, cover the content, send them back to work.
The forgetting curve kills this approach. Research shows that learners lose 50-70% of new material within 24 hours. After a week, retention drops to 10-20%. A single workshop, however well-designed, cannot build lasting capability.
Source: Research on the forgetting curve
Workshops also suffer from transfer problems. The classroom environment is nothing like the real pressures of leadership. People learn concepts but don't build the capability to apply them when the conversation gets difficult, the deadline looms, or the former peer pushes back.
The digital-only problem
Many organisations have responded to the limitations of workshops by moving to digital learning: self-paced modules, video content, online courses.
This solves the scalability problem but creates new ones. Completion rates for self-paced digital learning typically run 3-15%. Without accountability, cohort support, or live facilitation, most people don't finish. And those who do finish often struggle to apply what they've learned.
Source: Industry benchmarks
The one-and-done problem
Whether workshop or digital, most development is episodic. People attend a program, check the box, and return to work with no follow-up, no reinforcement, no accountability.
Leadership capability doesn't work this way. You don't learn to have difficult conversations by attending a session on difficult conversations. You learn by having difficult conversations, reflecting on what happened, getting feedback, and trying again.
What the research says works
DDI's Global Leadership Forecast found that leaders who experience five or more development approaches show 4.9X greater improvement than those who receive only one or two.
Source: DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2025
Identifying the Right People
Before you can develop emerging leaders, you need to identify them. This is where many organisations make their first mistake.
High performer ≠ high potential
Source: SHL research
Performance measures how well someone does their current job. Potential measures their ability to succeed in a bigger, more complex role. These are different things.
Your best salesperson may have none of the capabilities required to lead a sales team. Your most skilled engineer may struggle to manage other engineers. Promoting on performance alone is how organisations end up with failing managers and gaps in their technical talent.
What to look for
Research from DDI, CCL, and SHL points to several indicators of leadership potential:
| Indicator | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| Learning agility | Seeks feedback, adapts quickly, treats failure as data |
| Self-awareness | Knows strengths and blind spots, manages reactions |
| Aspiration | Wants leadership responsibility, not just the title |
| Relationship building | Connects across levels and functions |
| Resilience | Recovers from setbacks, maintains perspective under pressure |
| Strategic thinking | Sees beyond immediate tasks, understands the bigger picture |
What to watch out for
Not every high performer should become a leader. Warning signs include:
- Technical excellence masking significant people gaps
- Ambition without self-awareness
- Results achieved through toxic behaviour
- Inability or unwillingness to delegate
- Poor emotional regulation under stress
Assessment approaches
Relying on manager nomination alone introduces bias. SHL research found that 73% of high potentials are identified primarily on a single subjective nomination.
More robust identification combines:
- Performance data. Necessary but not sufficient
- Behavioural assessment. Structured evaluation of leadership indicators
- 360 feedback. Perspectives from peers, direct reports, and managers
- Stretch assignments. How do they respond to increased scope and ambiguity?
Read: How to Identify Emerging Leaders →
What Emerging Leaders Actually Need
Once you've identified the right people, what do they need to succeed?
The capability gap
Most new managers are promoted for technical skill. The capabilities that made them successful as individual contributors are not the capabilities they need as leaders.
The Center for Creative Leadership identifies four fundamental capabilities for first-time leaders:
- Self-awareness. Understanding your impact, triggers, and blind spots
- Communication. Listening, influencing, and having difficult conversations
- Influence. Building relationships and leading without formal authority
- Learning agility. Adapting to new challenges and learning from failure
The identity shift
Beyond skills, emerging leaders face an identity challenge. They need to shift from "I do the work" to "I enable others to do the work."
This shift is harder than it sounds. Their entire career has been built on technical competence. Their sense of professional identity is tied to being the person who can solve the hard problems. Now they need to let go of that and find value in making others successful.
Research from CCL identifies six identity shifts emerging leaders must make:
| From | To |
|---|---|
| Specialist | Generalist |
| Doer | Manager of doers |
| Tactician | Strategist |
| Problem solver | Agenda setter |
| Solo performer | Network builder |
| Warrior | Diplomat |
Development programs that focus only on skills miss this deeper challenge.
The 12 challenges
Based on CCL research and 8,000+ leader reflections from Leda's platform, these are the challenges emerging leaders face most consistently:
- The identity crisis (moving from doer to enabler)
- Leading former peers
- Letting go of the work (delegation)
- Having difficult conversations
- Giving feedback that lands
- Managing up
- Time management as a leader
- Imposter syndrome
- Building trust
- Emotional regulation under pressure
- Dealing with underperformers
- Loneliness and isolation
Effective development addresses these challenges directly, not through abstract theory but through practice and application.
Read: The 12 Challenges Every Emerging Leader Faces →
Building a Development Program
What does effective emerging leader development look like in practice?
Elements that work
Based on the research and our experience with thousands of emerging leaders, these elements consistently drive results:
Cohort-based learning. Small groups moving through the program together. Peer support, shared accountability, and the recognition that others face the same challenges.
Spaced practice. Regular touchpoints over months, not intensive bursts followed by nothing. The forgetting curve requires repetition and reinforcement.
Real application. Activities connected to actual work, not hypothetical scenarios. Practice difficult conversations with real direct reports, not role plays with strangers.
Live facilitation. Experienced facilitators who can adapt to the group, answer questions, and provide coaching. Digital content alone is not enough.
Manager involvement. The participant's manager plays a role in the development process: setting context, providing opportunities to practice, and reinforcing learning.
Measurement and feedback. Regular assessment of progress, feedback loops, and accountability for application.
Red flags in program design
When evaluating development programs, watch for:
- One-off events. A single workshop or conference, however good, won't create lasting change
- Content-only digital. Self-paced modules without accountability, cohort support, or live facilitation
- Generic content. Material designed for "leaders" in general rather than the specific challenges of emerging leaders
- No measurement. If the program can't demonstrate impact, it probably doesn't have any
- No manager involvement. Development that happens in isolation from the participant's actual work
Questions to ask vendors
When evaluating external programs:
- What is your completion rate? (If they don't know or won't say, be concerned)
- How do participants apply learning to real work?
- What role does the participant's manager play?
- How do you measure impact?
- What does the research say about your approach?
- Can you share case studies with specific outcomes?
Retaining High Potentials
Developing emerging leaders is only valuable if they stay. Retention is increasingly a concern.
Source: DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2025
High potentials are 3.7X more likely to leave if their manager doesn't regularly provide opportunities for growth and development.
Why high potentials leave
The reasons are consistent:
- Lack of development. They don't see a path to grow
- Lack of challenge. They're bored, underutilised, or stuck
- Poor management. Their own manager is ineffective
- Limited visibility. Leadership doesn't know who they are
- Better opportunities elsewhere. Competitors are actively recruiting them
How development drives retention
Development is a retention strategy. When high potentials see that the organisation is investing in their growth, they're more likely to stay.
But the development has to be real. Token programs, checkbox training, and generic content signal that the organisation isn't serious. High potentials can tell the difference.
The career conversation
Beyond formal programs, regular career conversations matter. High potentials need to know:
- What opportunities exist for them
- What they need to develop to get there
- How the organisation will support their growth
- That leadership is paying attention to their trajectory
Managers who have these conversations regularly retain their best people. Managers who don't lose them.
Measuring Success
How do you know if your emerging leader development is working?
Leading indicators
These measures signal progress during and immediately after development:
- Completion rate. Are participants finishing the program?
- Engagement. Are they actively participating, or going through the motions?
- Self-reported confidence. Do they feel more capable?
- Skill assessment. Can they demonstrate new capabilities?
- Manager feedback. Is the participant's manager seeing change?
- 360 improvement. Are peers and direct reports noticing a difference?
Lagging indicators
These measures show business impact over time:
- Promotion rate. Are program participants advancing?
- Performance ratings. Are they performing at higher levels?
- Team engagement. Are their direct reports more engaged?
- Team retention. Are their direct reports staying?
- Business results. Are their teams delivering better outcomes?
Benchmark data
For context, here are benchmarks from Leda's programs:
| Metric | Leda | Industry Typical |
|---|---|---|
| Completion rate | 88-98% | 3-15% (self-paced) |
| Promotion rate (MYOB 2020 cohort) | 50% | Varies |
| Engagement improvement (Camp Quality) | 84% → 89% | Varies |
What to avoid
- Measuring only satisfaction. Happy sheets don't predict impact
- Measuring only completion. Finishing a program doesn't mean learning happened
- Not measuring at all. If you can't demonstrate value, budget will disappear
- Expecting instant results. Capability development takes time; measure over months, not days
How Leda Approaches This
Leda's Emerging Leaders Program was designed around the research on what works and what doesn't.
Our methodology
Daily practice, not workshops. Around 10 minutes per day over 6-9 months. Spaced learning that builds capability through repetition and application.
Cohort-based. Small groups of 8-12 move through the program together, building peer relationships and shared accountability.
Live mentoring. Monthly 90-minute sessions with experienced facilitators who can adapt, coach, and support.
13 Journeys. Each Journey addresses a specific challenge emerging leaders face: Team Building Basics, Develop Team Members, Build Team Culture, Master Collaboration, Manage Conflict, Develop a Growth Mindset, Managing Focus, Know Yourself Better, Deliver Better Feedback, Achieve Emotional Self-Control, Raise Resilience (two Journeys), and Build Strong Relationships.
Real reflection. 8,000+ leader reflections have shaped our curriculum. We know what emerging leaders struggle with because they tell us.
Australian context. Designed for cultures where tall poppy syndrome, egalitarianism, and authenticity shape how leadership is practiced.
Results
| Organisation | Participants | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| MYOB | 264 leaders over 5 years | 50% of 2020 cohort promoted; 98% completion (2023) |
| Supagas | 150+ participants over 4 years | 70% increase in program applications; 10% of organisation trained |
| Camp Quality | 21 team leaders | 30% promoted; engagement 84% → 89% |
Line managers report participants showing "fantastic willingness to help take responsibilities away from me," a direct indicator of the identity shift from doer to enabler.
About the author
Ashley Leach is Founder of Leda. Leda's leadership development methodology was co-developed with Professor Anne Lytle (Monash Business School, Kellogg PhD) and has been recognised by AACSB's Innovations That Inspire. The platform has supported thousands of emerging leaders across Australia and New Zealand, with completion rates of 88-98% — compared to 3-15% for typical digital learning.
Frequently Asked Questions
Research suggests 6-12 months for meaningful capability development. Shorter programs can build awareness but rarely change behaviour. Leda's programs run 6 or 9 months, with daily practice and monthly live sessions.
Training is typically event-based: a workshop, a course, a certification. Development is ongoing: sustained practice, feedback, coaching, and application over time. Training builds knowledge; development builds capability.
Before they're promoted, if possible. The transition to leadership is easier when people have already begun developing the capabilities they'll need. At minimum, development should begin immediately upon promotion, not months later.
Involve managers from the start. Give them a role in the process: setting context, providing opportunities to practice, observing change, and reinforcing learning. When managers see the impact on their team, buy-in follows.
Research suggests $7 return per $1 invested, though this varies by organisation and program quality. More tangible measures include promotion rates, retention, team engagement, and business results. Leda's case studies show specific outcomes like 50% promotion rates and measurable engagement improvement.
Both, but differently. All new managers need foundational development to avoid the 60% failure rate. High potentials may need additional investment: stretch assignments, executive exposure, accelerated development paths.