Abstract
The Problem
The notion that a high proportion of leadership development should be the result of learning from experience has become popular, increasing the need for human resource development (HRD) professionals to understand experience-driven leadership development in order to design systems and processes that facilitate it. Relevant research on the topic has been increasing. Although this has improved the opportunity to build evidence-based practice, it also has created the challenge of identifying and digesting key concepts and findings. In addition, there are important misunderstandings regarding experience-driven development and core areas where additional information is needed.
The Solution
This article synthesizes recent research related to the emerging practice of experience-driven leadership development, using a question and answer format. As a result, key concepts and relevant research results about experience-driven leadership development are summarized in an action-oriented framework. Gaps in knowledge are highlighted and recommendations for future research are offered.
The Stakeholders
This article will be of particular relevance to scientists pursuing research on experience-driven development and HRD practitioners responsible for improving leadership development, particularly those interested in driving learning through experience.
Learning from experience, also known as experience-driven development, has been gaining status as an approach to developing leaders. This approach, which involves individuals taking on challenging tasks, projects, assignments, or roles that enable them to enhance their leadership capabilities, is featured in the increasingly popular catchphrase “70-20-10.” The phrase describes a touted distribution of emphasis to place on on-the-job development, relationships, and formal education and training, respectively (McCauley, DeRue, Yost, & Taylor, 2014). Several practitioner-oriented books providing guidance on using experience to help leaders develop have been published (e.g., McCauley et al., 2014; McCauley & McCall, 2014; Yost & Plunkett, 2009), and more research on learning from experience has been appearing in peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Carette, Anseel, & Lievens, 2013; DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh, 2009). This growing interest has increased the need for human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners to understand experience-driven leadership development.
The purpose of this article is to analyze relevant literature to inform HRD professionals’ enablement and enhancement of experience-driven leadership development, as well as increase awareness of resources and gaps within the literature. Through this review, this article contributes to one of the two critical focuses of this special issue: offering insights into and stimulating research on emerging leadership development practices.
Key research findings and relevant theory are organized around seven questions of interest to practitioners considering the use of experience-driven development. The questions focus on helping practitioners plan, design, and support experience-driven leadership. Their selection was informed by models of Instructional Systems Design (ISD), such as the Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate (ADDIE) model, as well as prior practitioner-focused literature reviews on related topics (Morgeson, Mumford, & Campion, 2005; Nowack & Mashihi, 2012). Figure 1 provides a summary of the seven questions addressed.
Key questions addressed.
Before turning to the analysis of the literature, the nature of experience-driven development is discussed and the literature review methods are described. The article concludes with a critical look at methodology used in prior research on experience-driven development and suggestions for future work.
What Is Experience-Driven Development?
Individual development involves “the expansion of an individual’s capacity to function effectively in his or her present or future job and work organization” (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001, p. 314). Leadership development, therefore, involves intrapersonal changes in knowledge, skills, abilities, or other attributes (KSAOs) relevant to performing leadership roles (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Hezlett & McCauley, in press; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). In addition, it may involve interpersonal changes, such as the development of social capital, that enhance collective leadership capabilities (Day & Dragoni, 2015).
The boundaries of experience-driven leadership development are challenging to delineate. Many developmental practices, such as job rotations, action learning, and expatriate assignments, clearly are exemplars of experiences from which leaders learn, but other experiences are more difficult to place within or outside the space of this approach to development. The terms on-the-job development, stretch assignments, job challenges, development activities, accumulated work experiences, and developmental experiences all have been used to refer to experiences leaders have utilized to develop. However, not all developmental experiences happen on the job (Maurer, Lippstreu, & Judge, 2008). For example, volunteer experiences, either outside of work or sponsored by employers, can provide valuable opportunities to build leadership skills (Flaherty & Osicki, 2014). And, not all experiences on-the-job will be developmental for all individuals. Tasks performed routinely over time by leaders are unlikely to enable learning.
At times, developmental experiences have been conceptualized quite broadly. For example, when asked about experiences that have helped them develop, executives have sometimes described business mistakes, as well as family and personal challenges (McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994; Yip & Wilson, 2010). While recognizing the growth value of these kinds of experiences for individual leaders, emphasis in this article is placed on typically positive experiences that leaders are motivated to approach. Specifically, experience-driven leadership development is used to refer to learning from doing assignments, projects, tasks, or jobs that require KSAOs needed in leadership roles.
An iterative process was used to find relevant literature to include in this review. Initial search terms were generated by reviewing a few recent reviews on leadership development, as well as empirical studies and practitioner books on experience-based learning. The resulting terms included keywords used to describe empirical work on experience-based leadership development (job challenges, accumulated work experiences, development activity), development practices featuring experiences (expatriate assignments, job rotation, action learning), and development tools and resources conceptually related to experience-driven development (reflection, after action review, development plans, supervisor support, mentoring). The terms leader or leader development were used in conjunction with these search terms to narrow the results returned from Google Scholar. Relevant literature published after 2000 was targeted. After initially identified literature was reviewed, citations within and citations of relevant articles were examined to identify additional relevant sources. Searches using the names of authors who have published articles on experience-driven leadership development also were performed.
When the search process was complete, several decisions were made about what literature to include in this review. Although a detailed review of structured, experientiallygrounded practices, such as action learning or expatriate assignments, is beyond the scope of this article, examples of them are mentioned. Similarly, studies operationalizing self-development, self-directed learning, or participation in development activities in terms of diverse developmental activities (e.g., relationships with others, reading books, and completing volunteer activities) are not featured, but they are highlighted when they speak to gaps in experience-driven leadership development research. In contrast, studies operationalizing development activity in terms of hours spent in training programs or classes are not included (e.g., Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006).
What Is Known About Experience-Driven Leadership Development?
In the following sections of this article, theory and research related to experience-driven development are reviewed. As discussed previously, seven questions are used to frame this review in terms of issues related to planning, designing, and supporting experience-driven leadership development in organizations.
What Are the Possible Outcomes of Experience-Driven Leadership Development?
Starting with a series of ground breaking, interview-based studies initiated by researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) in the 1980s, many key learning outcomes or “lessons” that leaders may learn from experiences have been identified. In the original study (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988), executives reported 33 important ways of thinking or kinds of skills they had learned from the challenges they experienced. Subsequent studies with more diverse groups identified similar, and in some instances additional, lessons (Yip & Wilson, 2010).
Comparing these lessons with learning taxonomies underscores the broad scope of learning outcomes that may be driven by experience. As illustrated by the examples in Table 1, looking across the critical lessons identified in qualitative studies, experiential learning seems particularly well-suited for achieving learning outcomes pertaining to complex skills, including interpersonal, strategic, and leading work competencies, along with outcomes related to personal awareness, perspective taking, motivation, and self-regulation.
Examples of Proximal Learning Outcomes from Experience-Driven Leadership Development.
More recent quantitative findings echo and extend these themes. Small to moderate relationships have been reported between job incumbent ratings of job challenge with self-reports of overall development and learning (McCauley et al., 1994), pleasant and unpleasant feelings (Dong, Seo, & Bartol, 2014), supervisor ratings of leadership skill development from the assignment (DeRue & Wellman, 2009), supervisor ratings of managerial competencies (Dragoni et al., 2009), supervisor evaluations of promotability (De Pater, Van Vianen, Bechtoldt, & Klehe, 2009), and peer-rated job performance (Carette et al., 2013). Accumulated work experience and global work experiences are also positively related to assessment center ratings of executives’ strategic thinking competency (Dragoni et al., 2014; Dragoni, Oh, VanKatwyk, & Tesluk, 2011). These results highlight that job challenges may lead to both proximal outcomes (skill development) and distal outcomes (improved performance, readiness to be promoted into more complex positions).
What Are the Constraints on Learning From Experiences?
Broadly speaking, one challenge is ensuring that leaders learn the desired lesson from potentially developmental assignments, experiences, or activities. Developmental experiences have the potential to teach multiple lessons (Ohlott, 2004), making it highly probable that “. . . people may learn different things from the same kind of experience . . .” (McCall, 2010, p. 27). Consequently, experience-driven leadership development may be an inappropriate approach when very specific business knowledge or leadership skills need to be acquired.
In addition, there is growing evidence that there is not always a positive, linear relationship between the degree of challenge in a developmental experience and the extent of learning. DeRue and Wellman (2009) identified interpersonal (e.g., social perceptiveness and persuasion) and business skills (e.g., operational analysis and resource allocation) as learning outcomes where curvilinear effects were significant, with development being highest at moderate to moderately high levels of challenge and lower at low and high levels of challenge. In contrast, curvilinear effects were not significant for cognitive (e.g., active listening and learning, critical thinking, information gathering) and strategic skills (e.g., visioning and systems perspective). Carette and his colleagues (2013) observed a similar, inverted U shaped, curvilinear pattern between job challenge and performance for employees who were mid-career, but a more typical, positively increasing function for those who were early in their careers. A key implication of these results is that more challenge is not always beneficial when it comes to experience-driven development. Too little or too much challenge may result in less development.
Stress at high levels of challenge has been one explanation offered for observed curvilinear relationships between job challenge and leadership development. Cognitive resources may be focused on processing and handling multiple demands, as well as performance anxieties and evaluation uncertainties, leaving fewer resources available for learning. Consistent with this idea, positive correlations have been observed with negative stress emotions and level of challenge for several types of developmental assignments (McCauley et al., 1994). In addition, developmental assignments have been linked with both pleasant and unpleasant feelings, which in turn have an impact on advancement and turnover intentions (Dong et al., 2014).
Other challenges in implementing experience-driven development include covering participants’ regular work during temporary assignments and changed expectations after returning to more routine work after a challenging special assignment (McCauley & McCall, 2014). For example, leaders who have expatriate assignments for the purpose of development have higher intent to turnover than those who complete expatriate assignments for other reasons (Stahl, Chua, Caligiuri, Cerdin, & Taniguchi, 2009). Thus, experience-driven development can, at times, have undesirable organizational costs.
What Models and Theories Offer Insight Into the Design of Experience-Driven Development?
Experiences are widely recognized as critical to learning in adulthood (Merriam, Cafferela, & Baumgartner, 2007) and are an essential element of multiple approaches to understanding individual and leader development in the workplace (Hezlett & McCauley, in press; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Andragogy, self-directed learning, transformational learning, experiential learning, behavioral change, and constructivist theories and models all offer insight into the roles played by experience in leadership development (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Merriam et al., 2007). Practitioners are likely to find different aspects of these models and theories helpful in addressing different experience-driven design challenges.
Self-directed learning frameworks may be particularly valuable in understanding key antecedents when leaders are encouraged to drive their own experience-based development. Broadly speaking, self-directed learning theories are those that conceptualize the learner as having primary responsibility for planning, executing, and evaluating their own learning (Ellinger, 2004). These include models of continuous learning, participation in development activities, and self-management of careers (Hezlett & McCauley, in press; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Focused on understanding the personal and situational antecedents of participation in development activities, self-directed learning approaches highlight key individual differences and contextual factors that affect motivation to develop (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Although research drawing on this framework (Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver, 2010; Maurer et al., 2008; Orvis & Leffler, 2011) has included a broader set of activities than experience (e.g., reading on one’s own, completing training outside work, building social relationships), it highlights likely traits and situational variables that practitioners may want to consider in creating tools and processes to help leaders build and sustain their motivation in self-directed, experientially based leadership development programs.
In contrast, experiential learning theories have focused on understanding the dynamics of the learning process. In the ideal, learning is a cyclic process driven by experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting in response to the learning situation and content being learned (Kolb & Kolb, 2009). Recent work on expertise (Ericsson, 2006) offers new insights into this process, focusing on the development of superior performance through deliberate practice (McHenry & McKenna, 2014). Deliberate practice involves regular, repetitive, individualized activities through which skills are refined, often through setting specific goals for improving on narrow tasks and monitoring performance to achieve them. This practice appears to help individuals avoid or overcome plateaus when acquiring complex skills (Ericsson, 2006). Although deliberate practice has primarily been applied to understand the development of expertise in sports, music, and chess, initial studies found deliberate, on-the-job practice of activities that support task performance (e.g., exploring new strategies, mental simulation, asking for feedback) with the goal of improving competence contributed incrementally to the performance of insurance agents (Sonnentag & Kleine, 2000) and business owners’ acquisition of entrepreneurial knowledge and business growth (Unger, Keith, Hilling, Gielnik, & Frese, 2009). “Everyday Learning Disciplines,” a framework composed of eight practices or disciplines, is an example of one way concepts from the expertise literature can be applied to help leaders routinely engage in deliberate practice during their regular work experiences (McHenry & McKenna, 2014).
What Experiences Are Most Likely to Be Developmental?
The nature of developmental experiences is one of the best researched areas on experience-based leadership development (Hezlett & McCauley, in press). Exploratory studies conducted in the United Kingdom in the 1980s identified developmental features of day-to-day experiences in managerial roles, including the novelty of the experience for the individual, high decision-making responsibility and latitude, lack of goal clarity, the need to innovate, a changing environment surrounding the job, and supervisory pressure (Burgoyne & Hodgson, 1983; Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984). At roughly the same time, the previously discussed series of interview-based studies of senior leaders’ development was initiated by CCL. Challenging assignments were identified as particularly developmental (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; McCall et al., 1988). Research to develop an assessment of these developmental components of managerial jobs yielded five major components: unfamiliar responsibilities, creating change, high levels of responsibility, managing across boundaries, and dealing with diversity (McCauley, Ruderman, & Ohlott, 1999). These broad categories encompass more specific challenges. For example, specific sources of challenge within the broad category of creating change include being responsible for new directions, handling problems inherited from prior job incumbents, and dealing with problem employees (Dragoni et al., 2009; McCauley et al., 1994). Examples of particular assignments that provide these more narrow challenges might include launching a new product, dealing with a business crisis, and resolving subordinate performance problems, respectively (Ohlott, 2004). At the present time, the best taxonomy for organizing challenging job experiences is unclear. Initial studies provide support for models with different numbers of factors depending on how broadly or narrowly job challenges have been defined (see DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Dong et al., 2014; Dragoni et al., 2009; Kizilos, 2014).
In addition, there is evidence that key developmental practices that incorporate experiential learning, such as action learning and job rotation, promote leadership development. In action learning, small groups come together to work on an important or urgent task or project. Typically, working with a learning coach, the group commits to learning while developing and implementing strategies to address the problem. Looking across 21 studies using a variety of research methodologies, Leonard and Marquardt (2010) concluded that action learning programs help participants develop multiple skills. Similarly, job rotation, which involves lateral transfers of employees between jobs in an organization, also is seen as enhancing diverse skills leaders need (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994).
At this time, sufficient precise and robust effect sizes are not available to compare the likely impact specific job challenges, action learning, and job rotation will have on leadership development. However, there are rich descriptions HRD practitioners may use to identify or design experiences that promote leadership development, as well as evidence-based insights into what specific developmental experiences will lead to particular learning outcomes. Action learning promotes the development of leadership skills, particularly collaborative and coaching skills, along with the capacity to develop win/win solutions in conflict situations (Leonard & Marquardt, 2010). Job rotation appears to foster gaining a broader perspective on the business, adaptability, and flexibility (Campion et al., 1994). For job challenges, linkages between lessons learned and developmental experiences described at the mid-range of specificity have been reported (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). These findings offer a starting point for practitioners trying to direct leaders who would benefit from learning particular lessons to the developmental experiences that are likely to foster them (Hezlett, 2010).
What Are the Delivery Options for Experience-Driven Leadership Development?
The delivery options for experience-driven development vary. To systematically allocate challenging job assignments, some organizations are highly systematic, structured, and proactive. They may fill job openings with both job performance and on-the-job development in mind, identify stretch assignments to match high potential leaders’ development needs, or systematically rotate leaders through specific jobs.
Matching talented leaders to the right development experiences requires several steps. These include assessing the capabilities of leaders, identifying potentially developmental experiences, and placing the right people into the right experiences at the right time (McCall & McCauley, 2014). One approach to implementing these steps is to take development into account when hiring for leadership positions. The best candidate for the job is one who has the best mix of KSAOs and experience for the job, including one or two big challenges in the new position that the leader has not faced before (McHenry & McKenna, 2014). Executing this hiring strategy requires assessment of leaders’ job-relevant KSAOs, along with their prior experience. For example, the Leadership Experience Inventory assesses the amount, depth, and breadth of leaders’ experience in 16 categories of experience (Dragoni et al., 2011; Van Katwyk, Hazucha, & Goff, 2014). Jobs that may potentially offer developmental experiences may be evaluated by asking job incumbents to complete an assessment of the challenge in their roles, such as the Job Challenge Profile (McCauley et al., 1999) or using a structured process (Bly & Kizilos, 2014; Yost & Plunkett, 2009) to create an organization-specific matrix of key experiences and lessons learned. Case studies suggest that creating an organizational culture supportive of learning from experience is valuable in implementing this strategy.
Other organizations encourage leaders to find their own developmental experiences by embedding support for experience-driven development in the organization’s culture and offering resources that enhance leaders’ ability to learn from developmental experiences. Organizations taking the middle ground may create new types of assignments, such as overseas volunteer opportunities, so that more people in the organization have the opportunity to take on and learn from new challenges (Hezlett & McCauley, in press).
What Can Be Done to Increase the Likelihood That Leaders Will Learn From Their Experiences?
Several approaches offer promise in enhancing learning from experience. These include the broad strategy of ensuring leaders are ready for experiential learning and more narrow learning strategies, including goal setting, having a learning goal orientation or mind-set, feedback seeking, and reflection (DeRue & Ashford, 2014). Although the impact of these strategies has not been studied in depth in the context of learning from experience, many have been deployed in the practice of experience-driven leadership development and have been supported by related research on training and development.
Readiness
One approach to maximizing learning from experiences would be to help ensure leaders are ready for them. Although little attention has been given to how to prepare leaders before they initiate or are placed in challenging experiences, Avolio and Hannah (2008) posited learning goal orientation, developmental efficacy, self-concept clarity, self-complexity, and meta-cognitive ability are critical to leader developmental readiness. They identified measures related to each of these, offering potential tools HRD professionals can use to assess, inform, and coach leaders on their preparation to learn from experiences.
Goal setting
Goal setting is a key component of some theories of self-directed learning (Ellinger, 2004) and is incorporated into models of several development practices including multi-rater feedback (Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005), mentoring (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003), and coaching (Gregory, Levy, & Jeffers, 2008). Within these frameworks, goal setting is conceptualized as playing a key causal role, driving and directing efforts to change and improve. In workplace training and educational contexts, goal level has one of the strongest self-regulatory effects on learning, along with persistence, effort, and self-efficacy (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011).
From a practical perspective, it is common for individuals working on their development to be instructed to create an individual, or personal, development plan (PDP) that specifies their developmental goals. Practitioners should be aware that focusing on achieving goals can impair learning during some stages of skill acquisition during training due to the demands it places on cognitive resources (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). One study highlighting the complexity of using PDPs found that when PDPs are used as part of the performance management cycle, individuals who used a PDP were more likely to have engaged in learning activities in the past. Non-users were less likely to have engaged in learning activities. However, PDP users were planning to target fewer competencies for development in the future (Beausaert, Segers, Fourage, & Gijselaers, 2013). Many interpretations of these results are possible, including that PDP users have more realistic development goals, they have fewer development needs after their greater prior attention to learning, or they are less motivated to develop. This underscores the need to use PDPs thoughtfully, taking into account the broader context and demands.
Learning goal orientation
Individuals who have a learning goal orientation are motivated to learn and develop themselves through mastering new situations, gaining skills, and increasing their competence (Vandewalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Dragoni and her colleagues (2009) observed that the trait of learning goal orientation moderated the positive relationship between the developmental quality of managerial assignments and supervisor ratings of competencies, such that the relationship was stronger for those with higher levels of learning goal orientation. This suggested fostering a state of learning orientation may be a means to catalyzing development from challenging experiences. However, DeRue and Wellman (2009) did not find support for a similar hypothesis proposing learning goal orientation moderated the relationship between developmental challenge and leadership skill development. Further research will be needed to definitively understand how and when learning goal orientation moderates the relationship between job challenge and learning-related outcomes. In the meantime, practitioners may want to consider selecting individuals with a strong learning goal orientation for developmental assignments or fostering a learning goal orientation state to enhance experience-driven leadership development. Related research on participation in development activity has positively linked higher learning goal orientation to greater motivation to develop and stronger developmental skills (Boyce et al., 2010; Maurer et al., 2008), as well as identified interactions between learning goal orientation and workplace support in predicting self-development. Some models of self-directing learning suggest higher learning goal orientation may help leaders sustain motivation when encountering challenges or setbacks early in developmental experiences (Maurer, 2002).
Feedback
Theory and research suggest feedback is generally likely to have a positive influence on learning from developmental experiences. Self-directed theories of development suggest feedback prior to engagement in developmental experiences should help make leaders aware of development needs. In addition, these theories highlight that ongoing feedback should help leaders as they apply or transfer knowledge, behaviors, and skills in challenging developmental experiences (Hezlett & McCauley, in press; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Models of development focused on specific interventions, such as coaching (Gregory et al., 2008), also highlight the value of feedback in helping leaders set goals and assess their progress. Consistent with these ideas, meta-analytic research has determined that, on average, feedback has a positive association with performance and development (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Smither et al., 2005). These effects, however, are variable and small, indicating that feedback does not always have a positive impact on development.
Initial research on feedback and experience-driven development has been promising. DeRue and Wellman (2009) observed that the availability of feedback moderated the relationship between the degree of developmental challenge and leadership skill development. For leaders who perceived that they received relatively little feedback, the relationship between degree of developmental challenge and leadership skill development was curvilinear, showing diminishing learning as developmental challenge became high. In contrast, for leaders reporting relatively high levels of feedback availability, the relationship between developmental challenge and leadership skill development was positive and linear. It did not show diminishing returns. Feedback availability may reduce cognitive overload and uncertainty that may accompany highly challenging developmental experiences.
If formal feedback is to be provided before, during, or following experience-driven development, research suggests feedback reports should be carefully formatted. Individuals have more favorable reactions to feedback when their reports include a high amount of procedural information about how the feedback was generated (Feys, Anseel, & Wille, 2011). Graphical displays foster more accurate recall of results relative to norm groups, and development suggestions have a positive impact on the direction of behavioral intentions to develop (Higdem, 2013). Finally, leaders tend to prefer multi-rater feedback reports that include numeric results with normative data over reports featuring text-based feedback (Atwater & Brett, 2006). Favorable feedback reactions are linked to greater subsequent effort in developing and greater improvement over time (Atwater & Brett, 2006; Feys et al., 2011).
Reflection
With roots in theories of experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2009) and the U.S. Army’s practice of after-event reviews, reflection is being deployed by many organizations seeking to improve leaders’ development (DeRue, Nahrgang, Hollenbeck, & Workman, 2012). Systematic reflection requires engagement in three activities: self-explanation, data verification, and feedback (Ellis, Carette, Anseel, & Lievens, 2014). During self-explanation, leaders analyze their behaviors and generate explanations for success or failure. Data verification, or counterfactual thinking, challenges leaders to think of alternate perceptions or explanations of the events. Feedback may include information on overall success or failure, as well as process feedback. Although much of what is known on the impact of reflection on experience comes from samples of soldiers and students (DeRue et al., 2012), the findings are encouraging. Reflecting on experiences has been linked to gains in self-efficacy, specific lessons for future performance, changes in interpersonal behavior, gains in ratings of leadership behavior, and improved task performance (DeRue et al., 2012; Ellis et al., 2014). The size of performance improvement depends on whether the experiences reflected on are failures or successes, as well as whether the reflection focus was on correct actions, erroneous actions, or both. After successful events, reflecting on erroneous actions is most effective; after failures, reflecting on any kind of action is effective (Ellis, Mendel & Nir, 2006). Feedback also affects performance improvement following reflection. In one web-based work simulation, reflection in the absence of feedback did not result in performance improvement (Anseel, Lievens, & Schollaert, 2009). Degree of prior job challenge and personality (openness to experience, conscientiousness, and emotional stability) also appear to interact with reflection in influencing improvement in leadership behaviors. Generally, each of these has a positive, amplifying effect on leadership development when reflection is structured and facilitated and either no or negative effect when post-experience discussion is unstructured. In contrast, cognitive ability does not moderate the relationship between reflection and development (DeRue et al., 2012). At present, HRD practitioners wishing to enhance leaders’ development through the strategy of reflection should build processes that include feedback and invest in facilitated, structured reflection protocols that thoughtfully target how failures and successes are analyzed.
The research on after-event reviews suggests working with a seasoned coach, savvy boss, or trained peer may be a valuable way to systematically extract meaning from experiences. Other approaches practitioners have encouraged leaders to use include making reflection a habit by making it part of the daily or weekly routine and journaling (McHenry & McKenna, 2014; Yost & Plunkett, 2009).
What Kind of Support Is Valuable to Leaders Throughout Experiential Learning?
Support from others, such as coaching or mentoring, is often delineated as a distinct approach to development (Yip & Wilson, 2010). It has been tied to a variety of positive learning variables, including training effectiveness, personal learning, and effective socialization (Eby et al., 2013; McCauley & Hezlett, in press; Lankau & Scandura, 2007). There is increasing recognition, however, that integrating developmental practices may maximize leadership development (Hezlett & McCauley, in press). Organizations are building support into their experience-based leadership development tools and practices with supervisors (McCall & McHenry, 2014; Preston-Dayne, 2014) and peers (Allen, 2014) among those providing support.
Action learning stands out as the most well-established integration of learning from experiences and others. In their review of 21 studies on action learning, Leonard and Marquardt (2010) summarized the key features of action learning that drive development as being: questioning, taking action, learning from each other, listening, diversity of team membership, feelings of confidence and well-being, the safe environment, and the coach. These factors highlight the multi-faceted way in which support from others may facilitate experiential learning.
Although research on job challenges has not thoroughly investigated the issue, related theory and research suggest multiple mechanisms through which support may facilitate leadership development. First, support providers may help motivate leaders to participate in the kinds of challenging job assignments that promote development and help leaders find such opportunities. By definition, this is one of the functions performed by mentors (Eby et al., 2013). Other members of leaders’ developmental network, such as peers and bosses, may similarly enhance leaders’ intentions to participate in developmental experiences by influencing leaders’ perceptions of the benefits of development and improving their attitudes toward development (Maurer et al., 2008). Second, support providers may enhance leaders’ learning by offering advice and serving as role models on how to handle challenging job experiences. These also have been identified as some of the key functions served by mentors (Eby et al., 2013; Wanberg et al., 2003) and could be provided by others, as well. Third, psychosocial support may also facilitate leaders’ learning. Psychosocial support from mentors has small, positive associations with mentee learning and socialization (Eby et al., 2013). In the context of experience-driven development, psychosocial support may help alleviate stress stemming from highly challenging job assignments, freeing additional resources for learning. This idea is consistent with the idea that coaching should increase individuals’ resilience (Gregory et al., 2008) and research suggesting that mentoring reduces role stress (Baugh, Lankau, & Scandura, 1996). Finally, support providers may help leaders reflect on their experiences. The effectiveness of after-event reviews highlights the impact of facilitated refection on leadership development (DeRue et al., 2012; Ellis et al., 2006, 2014). These potential mechanisms highlight diverse ways HRD practitioners could build support from others into experience-driven leadership development.
Looking Back and Forward
With roots more than 30 years old, research on experience-driven leadership development is hardly freshly sprouted. Yet, room remains for significant growth. In this section, key gaps in the literature are highlighted, and methodological recommendations for future studies are outlined.
Summary of Research Gaps
An important next step is the accumulation of more research on the learning outcomes associated with each kind of experience. This would enable estimation of specific effect sizes associated with each kind of job challenge and experiential development practice (e.g., job rotation, action learning, and expatriate assignments), providing valuable information to HRD professionals designing leadership development systems. Little quantitative research has focused on cognitive or affective learning, but further studies of skill-based learning also would be informative.
More research on how to help leaders maximize their learning from experience is needed. Studies of the elements contributing to leadership development readiness may help improve leader preparation for successfully navigating developmental experiences. In addition, research would be helpful in understanding how to best design tools for leaders to use during experiential learning. Specifically, research on PDPs (or other goal-setting techniques) and feedback would illuminate boundary conditions for their improvement of experience-driven leadership development. Research could also evaluate whether structured reflection can be achieved via self-directed analysis, or requires interaction with a trained facilitator or seasoned coach.
Little empirical research speaks to the overall impact of support on cognitive, skill-based, or affective learning during developmental experiences, let alone the processes through which support influences experiential learning. There are few data available to inform the best content, format, or timing of support from peers, supervisors, coaches, or mentors. Additional research is needed to evaluate the extent to which support moderates the relationship between job challenges and leadership development, as well as the extent to which support moderates, mediates, or has direct effects on other factors (e.g., reflection) affecting experience-driven leadership development.
Researchers have only begun to explore how individual differences affect experience-driven leadership development. As discussed earlier, initial studies suggesting extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness may play roles in leaders’ learning from experience. These merit replication and extension. In addition, further studies would help clarify prior mixed findings regarding learning goal orientation serving as a catalyst for experience-driven development. By definition, learning agility is thought to enable individuals to adapt to ambiguous, uncertain, and unfamiliar situations, but few studies have directly examined the notion that learning agility helps leaders learn from experience. Drawing on the expertise literature, learning agility may help leaders counteract automaticity, enabling them to retain control of their performance and achieve expertise (Hezlett & Kuncel, 2012).
Methodological Recommendations
The groundbreaking research that identified what job challenges were most developmental relied on retrospective reports made by successful executives (McCall et al., 1988; Yip & Wilson, 2010). This critical research has led to valuable insights, but continued advances in enhancing experience-driven development requires additional methods. The need is highlighted by the “70-20-10” rule. The original research from which this prescription was derived supports a somewhat, but critically, different message. In the CCL studies, about 70% of the incidents recalled by the participants as being most developmental involved experiential learning. This does not mean that any individual executive allocated 70% of his or her development efforts to learning from experiences, nor does it demonstrate that the experiences each leader had contributed to 70% of the development he or she achieved over the course of their careers. To best understand the potential impact of experiential learning, effect sizes from experience-driven development need to be observed in longitudinal research, ideally with quasi-experimental designs, and compared with those from other methods of achieving comparable learning outcomes. Recent quantitative research has begun to lay the groundwork for the accumulation of these estimates.
Attention also needs to be dedicated to the operationalization of outcome variables. Leadership-relevant cognitive, skill-based, and affective learning are the gold standards of leadership development, but they can be challenging to measure robustly. Using multiple assessments and related indicators of success to evaluate the validity of development measures (e.g., DeRue et al., 2012) is the best practice. Alternative indicators, such as participation in development activity or intentions to participate in development activity, can be valuable in understanding parts of the construct space but cannot provide definitive answers to key questions about experiential learning.
Future research on experience-driven development also needs to explicitly consider the role of time. The research by Carette and his colleagues (2013) highlights that the factors shaping experience-driven leadership development may change as leaders’ careers progress. More research is needed to understand how developmental assignments differ by organizational level and career phase and to examine the optimal combination and sequencing of experiences (Hezlett, 2010). What is the right length of different kinds of experiences, and how frequently should they be undertaken?
Conclusion
This article contributes to the special issue on leadership development by summarizing what is known and what we need to learn about experience-driven development, an emerging practice with deep roots. In addition to highlighting misunderstandings and research gaps, the article has identified a number of practical implications. To summarize, experience-driven leadership development can be delivered in a variety of ways that vary in terms of their degree of formal structure and reliance of leaders’ self-direction. Although there is not yet sufficient research to know what formats or types of experience-driven development yield the largest or most stable learning outcomes, features of experiences that are developmental have been identified. Many types of cognitive, skill-based, and affective-based learning outcomes may be achieved through experience-driven development, including building complex skills, perspective taking, and enhanced motivation. Although the search for the most appropriate taxonomy for summarizing the nature of job challenges continues, connections between types of developmental experiences and specific learning outcomes have begun to be made. Experience-driven development also has been linked to other outcomes of interest to HRD scholars and practitioners, such as improved performance and readiness for promotion. One possible limitation of experience-driven development is that leaders may learn different things from the same experience, making them a potentially unreliable way of achieving a specific, short-term learning objective. In addition, stress and turnover can be undesirable costs of experience-driven leadership development. The degree of challenge in learning experiences needs to be carefully considered. More challenging experiences are not always better. For some skills and at some career stages, very high levels of challenge may be overwhelming. A variety of theories offer insights into individual and situational factors that affect experience-driven development. Self-directed learning models highlight factors affecting motivation during experience-driven development, including learning goal orientation. Models of expertise highlight the potential impact of deliberate practice, goal setting, and ongoing monitoring on leadership development. Consistent with these conceptual models, research suggests that judicious promotion of learning goal orientation, goal setting, feedback, and structured reflection offer the promise of enhancing development from experiences. Research findings from related literatures suggest several mechanisms through which social support also will foster experience-driven development. Further research is needed to know whether 70/20/10 is the optimal ratio of experience, relationships, and formal education to maximize leadership development, but it is clear that experience-driven leadership development can be a valuable tool in HRD practitioners’ toolkit.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I thank the journal and special issue editors and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on drafts of this article. Their insights were invaluable in refining this work.
Author’s Note
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of the Korn Ferry Institute, Korn Ferry, or its affiliates.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.