Building Better Leaders: The Science of Effective Leadership Training

Claire Monroe

So Edwin, I’ve gotta admit—every time I scan the headlines, there’s a new mega-report about how critical good managers are for team engagement. I think it was Gallup—you know, that stat showing managers account for 70% of engagement variance? It’s nuts. But I still see so many companies using off-the-shelf leadership programs, like just slapping a two-day seminar on folks and hoping for magic. Why do you think the structured outline is so overlooked, when it’s clearly such a game-changer according to the data?

Edwin Carrington

Well, you’re spot on, Claire. Too often, leadership development is treated as an event—something you check off the list. At OAD, we see it all the time. A promising manager gets tossed into the deep end with minimal guidance, and then everyone’s surprised when things go sideways. That Gallup stat—70%—it’s not just a number. It’s the difference between a team that’s thriving and one that’s checked out. When leadership development is structured—with a clear outline that connects to business priorities—it signals to employees that you’re making an actual investment in them, not just ticking a box. I’ve seen firsthand how powerful that signal can be.

Claire Monroe

And it’s not just about avoiding disengagement, right? Like, a clear outline helps teams actually know what’s being prioritized at the leadership level. I was reading OAD’s research, and it sounds like the highest engagement scores come from managers who fit the company’s style and make quick, effective decisions—especially under pressure.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly. And let me give you a real-world example from my old school district days—I’ll try not to bore everyone. We had a bright young vice principal, full of ideas and energy, but there wasn’t a roadmap for her to develop as a leader. After six months, she left for another district that had a much clearer path. We lost someone who could’ve transformed the school. That happened not for lack of talent, but for lack of structure. Even your highest-potential people need more than opportunity—they need clarity on how to grow. A good outline serves that purpose for the whole organization, not just the individual leader.

Claire Monroe

It’s wild, because in our episode on high-performing teams, we talked about how systems beat heroics, right? And here’s another example—structure in leadership training isn’t just safety rails, it’s the foundation for everything that comes after, including retention of your best people. Otherwise… it’s just hope and vibes. And that’s how top talent slips away.

Edwin Carrington

Couldn’t agree more. Hope and vibes don’t drive engagement, or results. A strong outline sets expectations and accountability, and that’s how you keep your best people. Honestly, sometimes the difference between losing a great leader and developing one is a clear plan laid out from day one.

Claire Monroe

All right, so what actually makes a training outline effective? I keep hearing about “decision-making under pressure” as one of those make-or-break abilities. And wasn’t it Jeff Bezos who said that waiting for 90% of the data is too late… leaders have to make choices at 70% sometimes? I kind of love that idea, but it sounds terrifying.

Edwin Carrington

It can be terrifying if you’re not prepared. Good leadership training acknowledges that reality. The goal is to help leaders stay calm and decisive even when the stakes are high and the information’s incomplete. Those are the moments that shape organizations. Science-backed training outlines—like what we advocate for at OAD—don’t just teach you the theory. They show you how to weigh risks and act with conviction. The best leaders aren’t perfect, but they have clarity when others freeze.

Claire Monroe

And yet, so many training outlines just focus on hard skills, like strategy frameworks and—no offense, Edwin—PowerPoint decks about vision. What about all the soft stuff? I’ll admit, when I became a manager for the first time, I thought if I nailed the plan, the rest would work itself out. Nope. I had a team blow-up over a project deadline. It wasn’t the plan that pulled us together, it was me finally listening and… actually showing empathy. That’s when things shifted. Emotional intelligence was like a secret tool I never knew I needed.

Edwin Carrington

And that’s the mistake so many organizations make—they treat emotional intelligence as a “nice to have.” But data shows the best leaders excel at self-awareness, communication, and reading people. That’s why modern outlines include self-reflection exercises, feedback loops, and practical role-play. It’s about learning to mediate, to truly listen—just as you did, Claire. You were forced to adapt, and that adaptation is the mark of emotional intelligence at work.

Claire Monroe

It makes sense. And then there’s the “fit” piece—we talked in our very first episode about how not everyone is meant to be a leader, and that’s fine. Can you talk about how science, like OAD’s assessments, factors into building leadership paths that actually work for different personalities and strengths?

Edwin Carrington

Right. Not everyone thrives in leadership, and it’s no failure—it’s reality. When we use personality and behavioral assessments, we identify which traits actually match the demands of the role. Maybe someone is a brilliant thinker but prefers solo work; pushing them into management does them—and the company—no favors. A training outline that considers personality and natural style means you invest in the right people and design growth paths that amplify their strengths, not just hope they’ll transform. That’s where the real leverage is.

Claire Monroe

So, it’s like, picking your lanes wisely and making sure the coach is on the right track, not just picking whoever crosses the finish line fastest on their own. Got it. And it all comes back to aligning with the organization’s goals… otherwise you just have a roomful of managers tugging in different directions. Clear structure, emotional intelligence, and the right personality fit—that’s the trifecta?

Edwin Carrington

That’s the heart of it, yes. Training only works when it’s targeted, practical, and matched to the people actually in the room. Otherwise, it’s just more noise.

Claire Monroe

Let’s get practical—what goes into a strong training outline, and how do we know if it’s working? I know feedback is a huge element, and I’m seeing more talk about blending technical and soft skills, 360 reviews, coaching, and matching content to people’s actual experience. But so many programs are still overloaded and generic… Why is that still so common?

Edwin Carrington

Habit, mostly. And a little bit of wishful thinking. Many organizations recycle the same outline without updating it for evolving business needs or for the actual individuals attending. The reality is, effective outlines balance technical skills—like strategic planning—with human skills like conflict resolution and coaching. 360-degree feedback uncovers blind spots. Mentoring and coaching bridge theory and practice. And matching curriculum to the manager’s experience level ensures first-time leaders and seasoned executives each get what they need. If you give everyone the same playbook, it quickly becomes irrelevant for half your team—or worse, completely disengages them.

Claire Monroe

Yeah, and I mean, even in our previous HR and hiring episodes, we found over and over again that measurement is everything—otherwise, you’re just hoping, not learning. Do you have an example of how real measurement changed leadership training in the wild?

Edwin Carrington

Absolutely. There was a mid-sized company we worked with that measured training outcomes by tracking manager engagement, retention, and even something simple—meeting length. After rolling out science-backed training with customized milestones and ongoing coaching, they found leadership meetings were 40% shorter and way more productive. It wasn’t about clock-watching; it was about equipping leaders with tools to make better, quicker decisions. Engagement rose, turnover dropped by half—because people saw real investment and progress.

Claire Monroe

That’s such a concrete win. But the opposite is true too, right? If training is just another box to check—with too much theory, not enough practical work, or no way to adapt to participant feedback or needs—you’re basically teaching leaders… how to sit through another meeting. And you’ll have the same turnover and low morale as before.

Edwin Carrington

Right. The common pitfalls? Overloading the schedule, using canned content, skipping follow-through on feedback, and not aligning with the unique demands or strengths of your leaders. The best outlines are living documents—they’re adjusted as you gather real results, not static PDFs. If you’re measuring progress against business outcomes—like engagement, retention, performance—it’s not just theory, it’s ROI.

Claire Monroe

So, bottom line: successful leadership training isn’t about how much content you squeeze in, but how closely you align what’s taught to what’s needed, and how you measure the real impact over time. I feel like that should be the tagline.

Edwin Carrington

That’s it. And if leaders and HR teams focus on building outlines that adapt, include regular feedback, blend hard and soft skills, and tie results to real business impact, you see retention, engagement, and capability all climb.

Claire Monroe

All right—this was another episode packed with real talk, not just checklists. If you want to see what this looks like in action, or you’re curious about customizing leadership training for your own team, check out OAD.ai for a demo. Edwin—thanks for sharing your stories and those decades of perspective.

Edwin Carrington

My pleasure, Claire, as always. It’s all about building better leaders, one clear outline at a time.

Claire Monroe

We’ll be back soon with more on leadership, hiring, and smarter workplaces. Thanks for joining us on The Science of Leading—see you next time, Edwin!

Edwin Carrington

See you next time, Claire. Goodbye everyone.