Leadership is being trained, but remains unprepared

There is a phrase I have been hearing for years in conversations with CEOs and HR directors, and it still bothers me: 'we already did leadership training, it didn't work'. It almost always comes with the same implicit conclusion — that trained leadership is expensive, difficult to measure and the result is uncertain.

In this article:

• What it is: an analysis of the data explaining why the traditional model of leadership training — USD 366 billion invested globally per year — produces such low returns.

• Why it matters: only 11% of executives believe their leadership programmes have positive impact (McKinsey, 2024); 90% of content learned in the classroom does not become real behaviour; 60% of new managers fail in the first 24 months (Gartner).

• What to do: replace one-off events with continuous programmes with active support — which can raise manager thriving from 28% to 50% when combining training and consistent encouragement.

I agree with part of the diagnosis. Much of what is called 'leadership development' in the market really doesn't work. But not because developing leaders is impossible. It doesn't work because the most common, traditional model — large groups, standardised content, one-off events — was designed to tick a box, serve as a benefit and not to transform behaviour. These are different things, and the result of each is different.

What the data shows: a billion-dollar investment with low returns

Before moving ahead with the diagnosis, it's worth looking at the scale of the problem. Global investment in leadership development has already reached approximately USD 366 billion per year, with USD 166 billion in the United States alone. And yet, indicators of engagement, productivity and team health continue to worsen. The numbers, when placed side by side, form a diagnosis that is difficult to ignore.

The market itself rates its programmes poorly

According to McKinsey, only 11% of over 500 executives surveyed believe that their companies' leadership programmes have a positive impact on business. Deloitte shows the same fragility from another angle: 86% of companies rate leadership development as a priority, but only 13% believe they do it well. Fortune research completes the picture — only 7% of CEOs believe their companies are forming effective global leaders.

Learning transfer is virtually zero

This is perhaps the most revealing data about why the traditional model doesn't deliver results: McKinsey studies show that in off-site programmes, learning transfer does not exceed 10%. In other words, 90% of what is learned in the classroom does not become behaviour in everyday life. More than 90% of leadership development programmes fail to generate sustained behavioural change.

Most new managers assume their role with no preparation

CMI research points out that 82% of new managers receive no formal training before taking on the role. The Center for Creative Leadership confirms: 60% report never having received training when transitioning to their first leadership role. The consequence appears in Gartner's numbers: 60% of new managers fail within the first 24 months. And when development does come, it usually comes late — Jack Zenger showed that most managers only receive training after almost 10 years in the role, when dysfunctional patterns are already embedded.

The impact at the front line is direct and measurable

Managers account for 70% of the variation in team engagement (Gallup). When the leader is not prepared, it's the team's engagement that falls first. Global employee engagement fell from 23% in 2023 to 21% in 2024 — only the second decline in 12 years, driven mainly by the decline in managers' own engagement. The cost of this loss was estimated at USD 438 billion in productivity in the global economy in 2024. And when workers are asked why they resigned, 75% point to their direct boss as the main reason — not the job itself.

The model is making those who should lead unwell

Two-thirds (66%) of employees reported burnout in the past year. Among middle managers, the rate reaches 54%. And only 14% of managers are trained to manage stress. The most interesting data, however, lies at the intersection of training and support: when the manager receives isolated training, their thriving (sense of flourishing) rises from 28% to 34%. But when they have training combined with someone who actively encourages them to develop, thriving jumps to 50%. Isolated training advances little. What makes a difference is continuous training with support — precisely what the traditional model doesn't deliver.

This is the backdrop. Against it, it's worth understanding why the traditional format, despite such investment, continues to produce such low results.

The problem with traditional training is not the content. It's the format.

When a company hires traditional leadership training, it buys a package: syllabus, hours, list of participants, certificate. It's an efficient model for recording activity, but structurally inadequate for what is expected of a leader in everyday life.

The leader doesn't have a standardised problem. They have a specific team member who is becoming disengaged after a team change. They have a peer with whom they need to negotiate priorities. A feedback conversation they've been putting off because they're not sure exactly how to conduct it. They have an aggressive target that pressures them to demand more without knowing if they're generating overload. These problems are real, urgent and highly specific — and no slide to a room of 30 people will solve them.

That's why, when the leader returns from training, they usually say they 'enjoyed it', that they 'learned interesting things', and continue managing the same way. Not for lack of goodwill — for lack of applicability in their real context.

The Upskill model: 1:1 mentoring, personalised journey and compatible mentor

When we founded Upskill, we stopped to ask a basic question: if the leader's challenge is individual, why is their development collective? And if the context of their problem is immediate, why does the intervention come three months in advance (or late), in the form of a class?

The answer we built has three practical pillars that sustain what we do on the platform:

1. 1:1 mentoring as the core, not as a complement

Each active leader on the platform has a dedicated mentor. Sessions with human mentors are online and live (each leader chooses their own days and times) and they address exactly what the leader is experiencing that week. There is no fixed syllabus: there is an initial mapping of needs, and the journey builds from what the business and the leader, together, identify as priority.

This profoundly changes what happens in a session. Instead of theory about delegation, the leader brings the real case of team member X, talks about what they tested with them, receives an applicable framework, tests the new way of doing things the following week and returns with the result. It's a short cycle, with real feedback — much closer to how learning naturally works than a semester-long course.

Beyond the human mentor, the virtualised mentor [the mentorIA] supports the leader — 24/7 — so they can actually implement the framework and mission shared by the human mentor.

2. Mentor Match: the right compatibility changes what is possible to discuss

Perhaps the least obvious point in our model — and one that best explains the depth of results — is the matching process between mentor and leader. Mentors have different styles, repertoires and backgrounds. Leaders have different pains and preferences. When the match is done well, it opens a space of trust that makes it possible to discuss things that normally go unspoken: insomnia before difficult meetings, unresolved conflict with your own boss, genuine doubt about your own capability.

These are exactly the subjects where real development happens — and also exactly what no training room can access.

3. Continuous measurement of progress and engagement

Every journey on the platform is tracked by metrics: engagement in sessions, progress towards goals set at the start of the programme, perception of work performance. This doesn't exist to watch the leader — it exists so HR and senior leadership can see what is traditionally invisible: whether the investment in development is actually producing movement.

What we are observing in active leaders on the platform

This is the part that excites me most in this conversation. I'll share three layers of results, from the most quantitative to the most qualitative, to give you a complete picture.

The agribusiness case: 24 leaders, 1 year, numbers that speak for themselves

We worked with an agribusiness company with 35 years in the market, over 500 employees and operations distributed across more than 20 branches. The challenge was alignment and maturity of leadership in an increasingly complex business. We selected 24 leaders for a one-year 1:1 mentoring programme focused on succession, stress management, resilience and adaptability.

Consolidated results at the end of the programme:

• Increase in work performance: 15%
• Leader engagement in sessions: over 92%
• Progress towards goals set at programme start: 28%

These numbers matter for two reasons. The first is that 92% engagement in a one-year programme is well above the corporate development sector average — it's a sign that leaders perceive real value at each meeting, and that's why they return. The second is that 15% perceived performance increase over a twelve-month horizon in experienced leaders is not marginal movement: it's the kind of delta that makes a difference in the results of the unit they lead.

What changes in leadership behaviour — in the words of leaders themselves

Quantitative data tells half the story. The other half appears when you listen to what leaders themselves say about what changed in them. I bring here some representative excerpts from leaders who went through the programme in different companies and sectors:

"The mentoring sessions I'm having are changing the way I manage. Today I'm much more aligned with my team, and our results are advancing greatly." — Branch Manager, agribusiness company

"Mentoring improved my day-to-day dealings with employees, peers and superiors. I learned to know myself, discover my strengths and weaknesses, and where I need to improve." — Technical Manager and Services

"I noticed that throughout the mentoring, I became less anxious about results themselves, caring more about the journey to the end. The way the content is shared helps a lot with the coherence of what we're doing and why." — Felipe Yossida, Key Account Manager, Oppencad

What these testimonies have in common is not the company or the position — it's the type of change reported. It's not 'I learned a new technique'. It's 'I changed the way I run my work and my relationships'. That's the difference, in practice, between training and development.

What changes in the business when leadership changes

If the company invests in developing leaders, at some point it needs to see that in the business — or the investment won't sustain itself. That's where the account of the programme's own contractors matters.

"By the end of the cycle, I perceived a more integrated leadership in decision-making, with greater capacity for listening, empathy and collaboration. For very technical leaders, mentoring opened up space to develop the more human side and strengthen emotional intelligence — something that made an enormous difference in climate, in the maturity of discussions and in how we led our deliverables. We observed tangible results that directly impacted operations, and others immeasurable, related to culture and behaviour, equally valuable." — Viviam Posterlli, CEO of Grupo Skill

"We decided to continue and expand to more leaders because we perceived real evolution in behaviour and the way they lead teams. Leaders gained more clarity in their leadership role, better communication, greater responsibility in decisions and more maturity in team management. This brought more organisation, better climate, greater autonomy for leaders and positive reflexes in business results." — Vanessa Gouveia, HR Coordinator, EPH Incorporadora

Three things struck me in the accounts of those who hired us. First: evolution is perceived in day-to-day behaviour, not in abstract indicators — listening, empathy, clarity, autonomy. Second: leadership development spills over into climate, culture and the company's own market positioning. Third, and perhaps most important for any CEO or CFO evaluating the investment: companies that start the programme decide to expand it. In my experience, that's the best proxy for ROI that exists.

What all this means for those who decide to invest in leadership

When I talk with decision-makers evaluating the programme, there's always a question underneath: how do I know it will work with my leadership? That's a fair question, and I have no generic answer for it. What I can say with confidence is this:

When the leader has regular space to reflect on their own decisions with someone prepared to ask the right questions, they develop two things that no training delivers in bulk: self-knowledge and accountability for their own choices. These two factors together change what they do when faced with a struggling team member, with a decision under pressure, with a conflict with a peer. And these are exactly the moments in everyday life — not the big strategic events — that determine the quality of a leadership.

This is what's happening now with active leaders on the platform. We're not promising perfect managers. We're seeing managers who pause before reacting, who ask before ordering, who recognise before charging. At scale, in a team, in a company, that's cultural transformation — and it's measurable.

One last point

The discussion about whether or not it's worth investing in leadership in my opinion is already settled. The cost of non-development appears in mental health absences, in talent turnover, in disengaged teams, in projects that stall due to management failure. The question now is different: what kind of development delivers real results?

Our bet, sustained by what we observe every day on the platform, is that this path goes through 1:1 mentoring – with humans and AI, through compatibility between mentor and mentee, through personalised journey and through continuous measurement. Not because this formula is new — great leaders in the world have always had personal mentors —, but because today we can democratise this access to entire companies, not just the CEO.

And when this happens, leadership stops being the company's bottleneck and becomes a facilitator of continuous learning and a driver of performance.

Want to understand how Upskill Platform's 1:1 mentoring programme can accelerate your leadership development? Schedule a conversation