1047 - Optimizing Leadership Development Strategies for Enhanced Leader and Team Impact

R. Linhardt¹, A. Woods², K. Cavanaugh², J. Alanis Barker², and C. Holladay²; ¹Rice University, Houston, TX, ²The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Purpose/Objective(s): Leadership development interventions emphasize continuous learning as the foundation for effective leadership (Kraft et al., 2017). As in our intervention, supplementing training with coaching also offers benefits (Sonnino, 2013), such as providing guidance and support tailored to individuals needs and fostering a deeper understanding of training content. We hypothesize that leaders and direct reports will benefit from a leadership development intervention in which leaders continuously learn, practice, and apply trained skills. Materials/

Methods: 166 leaders (197 in control group) at an academic oncology center participated in a cohort leadership development program that spans 9 months and includes workshop sessions and individual coaching. Multiple training evaluation levels (reactions, learning, behavior, results) were measured. We elicited multiple sources (direct reports, managers, participants) to triangulate feedback. Participants and 54 immediate supervisors completed pre and post program surveys on training objectives and program engagement. Participants’ direct reports (n = 2,859) completed the engagement survey; composites capture team-level perceptions of Development and Manager Effectiveness.
Results: A paired samples t-test determined the trainees’ differences in learn, practice, and apply. The composite of learn and practice items showed that trained leaders engaged in more leadership behaviors after the training (M = 4.57, SD = .41) versus pre-training (M = 4.11, SD = .50, p < .001). After the training (M = 4.21, SD = 2.86), leaders applied more coaching and mentoring behavior than before the training (M = 4.01, SD = .61, p < .001). An independent samples t-test comparing direct reports of the leaders who completed the intervention with those who had not participated indicated direct reports of trained leaders (M = 4.51, SD = .47) rated Teamwork more favorably than direct reports of untrained leaders (M = 4.40, SD = .50, p = .027). Direct reports of trained leaders (M = 4.30, SD = .39) rated Development more favorably versus direct reports of untrained leaders (M = 4.20, SD = .52, p = .031). Linear regression tested the impact of program engagement, rated by the supervisor, on Development and Manager Effectiveness direct report ratings. Supervisor-rated leader engagement predicted direct report-level Development (ß = .12, p = .052) and direct report ratings of Manager Effectiveness (ß = .15, p = .020) after controlling for participants learn, practice, and apply responses.
Conclusion: Leaders of teams should be provided with development opportunities that have significant follower impact. Findings show more intensive development efforts (cohort-based programs centered around tenets of leading teams) positively impact direct reports on multiple fronts; however, leaders must be engaged in the training program for benefits to be fully realized in their followers.