Literature review to consider recent evidence on leadership development (summary)

Background

In January 2025, Academi Wales commissioned the Internal Research Programme (IRP, Knowledge and Analytical Services (KAS), Welsh Government) to conduct a literature review on recent trends in leadership development. The aim of this work is to review evidence published in the period 2020 to 2025 to inform the delivery of Academi Wales’ leadership practices.

The literature review builds on previous research which the IRP undertook for Academi Wales. Since this research was completed in 2019, the world has experienced disruption linked to global political and economic instability, the COVID-19 pandemic, and rapid technological change. Therefore, Academi Wales require an updated literature review of recent evidence to assess how these issues have affected the theory and practice of leadership development.

Research aims

The research aims are:

• to identify the main research and evidence concerns of Academi Wales in the short and medium term as pertains to leadership development
• to undertake an evidence review of relevant academic and grey literature published since 2020 on leadership development
• to recommend topics or areas that Academi Wales should consider focusing on to ensure their offer is current, relevant and draws on best practice

Research methodology

The methodology for this literature review is an iterative version of the method set out in the Government Social Research Rapid Evidence Assessment toolkit (Government Social Research Service, No Date).

Welsh Government Library Services were instructed to conduct a literature search. Library Services were provided with a set of search criteria, which included which included important terms (for example, ‘leadership development’ and ‘COVID-19’) for academic and policy- and practice-based literature published in the period 2020 to 2025.

In addition to the library search, a second author-led search was conducted to identify additional scholarly works. This involved a database search (Google Scholar), manual keyword searches of renowned journals in the field, such as Leadership Quarterly, and mining citations and bibliographies to identify further relevant works.

Recent trends in leadership studies

Historically, leadership scholars were concerned with individual-centric theories of leadership. These theories were often premised on the assumption that leadership was based on a set of universal attributes that individual leaders had to possess if they were to be successful (Schweiger and others, 2020: 412-413). In recent decades, however, leadership scholars have moved away from individual-centric and universal theories in favour of relational approaches that acknowledge the situated and contingent nature of leadership (Sutherland and others, 2022: 4-5; Ospina and others, 2020).

One prominent approach has been collective theories of leadership. Advocates of collective leadership argue that leadership does not reside in individuals, but is instead a product of social relations and organisational structures and processes (Sutherland and others, 2022: 3; McCauley and Palus, 2021: 2). Leadership, therefore, can be shared or distributed, or it can be a product of group dynamics involving ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ (Ospina and others 2020: 443-444; McCauley and Palus, 2021: 2).

Collective theories of leadership have their critics, but such approaches have gained greater prominence since 2020 (Grint, 2022: 1526-1527). Recent global instability has prompted advocates of collective leadership to argue that such models can enhance organisational adaptability and resilience in responding to today’s ‘wicked problems’ (McKinsey and Company, 2024). 

A related trend within the field of leadership studies is the growing prominence of models that place greater emphasis on a leader’s values and virtues. Proponents of values-based leadership models make two inter-related related arguments in favour of such approaches. Firstly, values-based leadership models are increasingly essential in an era where corporations and businesses are expected to act responsibly, address the diverse needs of stakeholders, and contribute meaningfully to solving the world’s ‘wicked problems’ (Fujimoto et al., 2024). Secondly, when values-based leadership is grounded in a shared set of ethical beliefs and practices, it can improve organisational cohesion and enhance performance. This is because members are more likely to work together toward common goals within a culture defined by a shared moral ethos and purpose (McKinsey and Company, 2023; McKinsey and Company, 2024). 

These developments have not been confined to studies concerned only with the private sector. Public administration scholars have become increasingly interested in the applicability of collective leadership models, such as systems leadership, to the public sector (Bolden and others 2020). Public administration scholars have also turned their attention to the values and ethos of public sector leadership. What has emerged from these studies is a better understanding of how public sector leaders must work across organisational boundaries to define and create ‘public value’ by working with different stakeholders from the public, private, and third sectors (Hartley, 2025; OECD, 2020: 27).

Leadership development

Leadership development scholars have long questioned the efficacy of leadership training and development programmes, but more recently they have criticised interventions for their adherence to adult learning methods and competency frameworks designed for individual-centric theories of leadership (Cohen, 2019: 8). Proponents of collective leadership theories argue that leadership programmes should prioritise developing organisational collective leadership - whether among groups of individual leaders or across multiple teams - to enhance collaborative and effective leadership practices (Eva and others, 2021: 1-2 and 12; McCauley and Palus, 2021: 2-3). When it comes to developing values-based leaders, scholars argue that programmes should prioritise inter-personal skills, such as emotional intelligence and communication, and inculcating a moral ethos and worldview that is aligned with the principles of the organisation and its stakeholders (Dickinson, 2020: 1; Ford, 2020: 1).

In terms of leadership development for public sector leaders, scholars have argued that interventions should account for the specificity – or “publicness” - of the public sector (Hartley, 2025). Scholars argue that to assist public sector leaders to recognise and manage the interests of different stakeholders, development programmes should aim to enhance participants’ “political astuteness” (Hartley and Manzie, 2020: 8). Scholars also argue that development programmes should help participants to recognise and create “public value” and develop their capacity to act as organisational “stewards” who can set standards when it comes to the ethos of public service (Hartley, 2025; OCED, 2020: 20).

An issue affecting both the private and public sectors is the unrepresentative nature of leadership. To address this issue, scholars argue that leadership cultures and practices need to become more inclusive. Inclusive leadership – which recognises, values, and accounts for the different experiences and viewpoints of team members – can be developed through leadership programmes that encourage participants to reflect on the barriers and biases that contribute to social inequities (Ashikali and others, 2021: 502; Day, Riggio, and others 2021: 6). Scholars also argue that leadership needs become more diverse, and, therefore, more representative of the general population (Lau Chin, 2010; Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2020). One way to resolve this issue is to address problems with the ‘leadership pipeline’. For example, redesigning the eligibility criteria for leadership development programmes to recognise skills and forms of experience not typically acknowledged by traditional leadership competency frameworks could broaden the pool of potential candidates (Day, Riggio and others 2021: 6).

An emerging area of research in leadership studies concerns the consequences of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Scholars are uncertain about the extent of AI’s potential effects, but they are clear that it will have implications for both the practice of leadership and the design and delivery of leadership development programmes. Scholars argue that the potentially disruptive effects of AI on the workplace mean that leaders should be trained to be effective communicators who can assuage concerns, build trust, and explain how AI can augment existing capabilities and competencies (Sposato, 2024: 4).

In terms of leadership development programmes, scholars have noted several potential benefits. Advocates of AI claim that it can deliver scalable and personal coaching, simulate leadership scenarios and provide immediate feedback, and assist organisations to identify and assess candidates for leadership programmes (Jenkins and Khanna, 2025, 84; Odilov, 2024). In contrast, other scholars warn that the use of AI for leadership selection and development is not without risk. AI algorithms and training data may perpetuate existing biases along the axes of class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and disability. The risks are acknowledged by those scholars in favour of utilising AI, but they argue that it has the potential to remove biases from selection processes that currently depend upon human judgement (Ore and Sposato, 2021: 172-174). Either way, it is imperative that leadership programmes produce leaders capable of ethically evaluating and utilising AI technologies (Quaquebeke and Gerpott, 2023: 774).

Another emerging area of research in leadership studies concerns the evaluation of leadership development programmes. It is widely acknowledged that there are many challenges when it comes to demonstrating causality with regards to leadership development interventions (Wallace and others, 2021). To better understand the outcome of leadership development programmes, scholars argue that evaluations should account for the fact that leaders and leadership, in both its individual and collective forms, develop across time and space (Wallace and others, 2021). In other words, measuring post-programme knowledge and skills acquisition through self-assessment remains an important and proportionate form of evaluation, but this could be supplemented with other forms of evaluation. For example, self-assessment and 360-degree feedback conducted at intervals, with the aim of capturing how programme participants’ leadership identity and practice has developed over time and in relation to different post-intervention contexts and experiences, may be one alternative method (Ryan and others, 2024: 605 and 614-615).

Recommendation 1

Academi Wales should consider reviewing its evidence base to ensure that its programmes are informed by the latest research and practice in the fields of leadership studies, leadership development and talent management. This could include:

• purchasing the most recent edition of an academic handbook on leadership
• subscribing to alert updates for leading academic journals in the field of leadership studies and public administration
• subscribing to free blogs and newsletters published by leading professional service and management consultancy companies

Recommendation 2

Academi Wales could consider reviewing its approach to evaluating its leadership development programmes. It is difficult to demonstrate causality because participants’ post-intervention performance can be affected by a range of situational factors that are unconnected to their participation in leadership development. Moreover, any evaluation should be feasible and proportionate, and account for the resources and methods required for different types of evaluation. Academi Wales may wish to consider evaluating the design of its courses to assess the extent to which they are based on current theory and practice in the fields of adult learning and leadership development. If greater resource is available, Academi Wales may also wish to consider assessing participants’ knowledge and skills acquisition, as well as their identity, cognitive and emotional development. Since leadership development is both ongoing and context-dependent, Academi Wales may wish to explore the value and feasibility of evaluations that involve short- and long-term assessments of participants’ development.

Recommendation 3

To bridge the academic-practitioner divide, Academi Wales could consider presenting its work at events organised by universities, research institutes and policy think tanks. This would provide Academi Wales with opportunities to build networks and gain insights and feedback on its current practices and approaches from leadership scholars and practitioners.

Recommendation 4

In view of the specific challenges confronting public sector leaders and to better understand how to address their leadership development requirements, Academi Wales could consider liaising with the Leadership College for Government regarding the design and content of the College’s programmes.

Ashikali, Tanachia, Groeneveld, Sandra, and Kuipers, Ben. (2020). ‘The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(3), 497-519.

Cohen, Harlow B. (2019). ‘An inconvenient truth about leadership development’, Organizational Dynamics, 48(1), 8-15.

Bolden, Richard, Gulati, Anita, Edwards, Gareth. (2020). ‘Mobilizing change in public services: insights from a systems leadership development intervention’, International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 26-36.

Day, David, Riggio, Ronald, Tan, Sherylle, Conger, Jay. (2021). ‘Advancing the science of 21st-century leadership development: Theory, research, and practice,’ The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 1-9.

Dickinson, Helen. (2020). ‘Engaging and developing public sector leaders’, National Leadership College, 15 October [online], available at: National Leadership Centre research publications - GOV.UK [date accessed 19 June 2025].

Eva, Nathan, Cox, Julie, Wolfram, Tse, Herman, H.M., Lowe, Kevin B. (2021). ‘From competency to conversation: A multi-perspective approach to collective leadership development’, The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 1-14. 

Ford, Jackie. (2020). ‘Relational leadership: public sector leaders into the next decade’, National Leadership College [online], available at: National Leadership Centre research publications - GOV.UK [date accessed 19 June 2025].

Grint, Keith. (2022). ‘Critical essay: Wicked problems in the age of uncertainty’, Human Relations, 75(8), 1518-1532.

Hartley, Jean and Manzie, Stella. (2020). ‘“It’s every breath we take here”: Political astuteness and ethics in civil service leadership development’, Public Money and Management, 40(8), [online], available at: It’s every breath we take here.pdf [date accessed: 29 July 2025], 1-32.

Hartley, Jean. (2025). ‘Public aspects of public manager training, education and development’, Public Money & Management, 45(2), 111-118.

Jenkins, Daniel, and Khanna, Gaurav. (2025). ‘Training, education, and development: exploration and insights into generative AI’s role in leadership learning’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 18(4), 81-97. 

McCauley, Cynthia, D., Palus, Charles J. (2021). ‘Developing the theory and practice of leadership development: A relational view’, The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 1-15.

McKinsey and Company. (2023). ‘New leadership for a new era of thriving organizations’, 4 May, McKinsey and Company, [online], available at: New leadership in an era of thriving organizations | McKinsey [date accessed 23 June 2025].

McKinsey and Company. (2024). ‘The art of 21st-century leadership: From succession planning to building a leadership factory’, 22 October, McKinsey and Company, [online], available at: The new rules of leadership for the 21st century | McKinsey [date accessed 23 June 2025].

Odilov, Sherzod. (2024). ‘AI leadership: Why AI is every leader’s responsibility’, Forbes, 14 July [online], available at: AI Leadership: Why AI Is Every Leader’s Responsibility [date accessed 19 June 2025].

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2020). Leadership for a high performing civil service: Towards senior civil service systems in OECD countries (OCED Publishing, Paris), [online], available at: Leadership for a high performing civil service | OECD [date accessed 23 June 2025].

Ore, Olajide, and Martin Sposato. (2022). ‘Opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence in recruitment and selection’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(6), 1771-1782.

Ospina, Sonia, Foldy, Erica, Fairhurst, Gail, and Jackson, Brad. (2020). ‘Collective dimensions of leadership: Connecting theory and method’, Human Relations, 73(4), 441-463. 

Quaquebeke, N. V., and Gerpott, F. H. (2023). ‘The now, new, and next of digital leadership: How artificial intelligence (AI) will take over and change leadership as we know it’, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 30(3), 265-275.

Ryan, Nuala F., Hammond, Michelle, and MacCurtain, Sarah. (2024). ‘A qualitative study unpacking the leader identity development process taking a multi-domain approach’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 45(4), 602-618.

Schweiger, Sylvia, Müller, Barbara, and Güttel, Wolfgang H. (2020). ‘Barriers to leadership development: Why is it so difficult to abandon the hero?’, Leadership, 16(4), 411- 433.

Sposato, Martin. (2024). ‘Leadership training and development in the age of artificial intelligence’, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 38(4), 4-7.

Sutherland, N., Bolden, R., Edwards, G., and Schedlitzki, D. (2022). ‘Putting leadership in its place: Introduction to the special issue’, Leadership, 18(1), 3-12. 

Wallace, David M., Torres, Elisa M., Zaccaro, Stephen J. (2021). ‘Just what do we think we are doing? Learning outcomes of leader and leadership development’, The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 1-9.

Report author: Curless, G

Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

For further information please contact:
Internal Research Programme
Knowledge and Analytical Services
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Email: rhyf.irp@gov.wales

Social research number: 120/2025
Digital ISBN: 978-1-80633-739-2