University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

(USC Thesis Other)

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Within Leadership Development: A Study of a Business Unit in a Prominent Technology Company by Donna Ghalambor Rossier School of Education University of Southern California A dissertation submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education May 2023 © Copyright by Donna Ghalambor 2023 All Rights Reserved The Committee for Your Full Name certifies the approval of this Dissertation Anthony Maddox Marc Pritchard Monique Datta, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2023 iv Abstract This study employed Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development in a business unit of a technology company. The literature review identified assumed influences examined through qualitative data collection and secondary quantitative data collection methods. Findings from the interviews and organizational documents verified and validated the assumed as well as emergent new influences, pointing to gaps in performance. The organization lacks a shared understanding and definition of leadership development and clear communication on the outcome and payoff present for employees that engage with LDP. This prominent technology company is sub-optimized as the overarching culture emerged by default rather than by design. The multitude of organizational heritages that shape the company define and perceive LD from the cultural frame of their prior firms and organizational decisions exist within an individual rather than a cultural context. Furthermore, secondary data pointed to the employees’ unfavorable perceptions around the presence of professional development and career growth opportunities within the organization. The study offered several recommendations to address the identified assumed and emergent gaps for the organization to better achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Founded on the findings and corresponding recommendations, the study developed a comprehensive, integrated implementation and evaluation plan utilizing Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's (2016) New World Model. Additionally, the study proposed a collaborative program comprised of several stakeholder groups and led by a task force with representation from each stakeholder group to implement and measure the effectiveness of the recommendations. Keywords: leadership development, learning, development, knowledge, motivation, organization v Dedication To the majestic land of nobility, poetry, kindness, and bravery! May you become free from the foe. May you become free from the shackles of tyranny. May you find your children back in your arms. May you continue to echo the words of Cyrus. May you soar with the uprising waves of freedom and love. May you shine with the dazzling light of truth and liberty. May you always be glorious and great. vi Acknowledgements To my precious Adrian, you make my spirit soar and my heart full. You rearranged your dreams to fit mine. You transformed my life the first time you looked at me on July 25 th , 2010, and you forever remain my beacon of joy and light. To my beloved parents, you endured insurmountable challenges to provide me with the life you did not have. Your unconditional love, unwavering support, unfailing dedication, and profound wisdom have empowered and propelled me. To my backbone, my ride or die, my brother, you are the epitome of honor, integrity, honesty, resilience, loyalty, and generosity. I adore you and look up to you. To Shiva, I cannot quantify the depth of my gratitude to you. This journey has been rewarding and fulfilling because you believed in me and gently pushed me to expand the horizon and access unchartered waters. I am grateful for the support, guidance, and catalytic effect of three professors who immensely enriched this labyrinth experience. My Dissertation Committee Chair, Dr. Monique Datta, for her tough mind, tender heart, and gentle soul, for showcasing how to go upward and onward even in a vortex of challenges, and for her patience with my ongoing attempts to challenge the process. Mahalo! Dr. Marc Pritchard, for his transcendent leadership, relentless dedication to learning and development, uncompromising commitment to excellence, modeling perfection in every encounter, and an exceptional disciplined dedication to APA standards. Dr. Anthony Maddox, for his erudite mind that takes critical thinking to the next level and for his invaluable insight and perspectives that elevated this experience. vii Additionally, I would like to recognize Dr. Anna Chiang, the Director of the OCL program, for her adaptive leadership and instrumental role in moving me up to Cohort 19. I extend my deepest gratitude and heartfelt appreciation to the members of Cohorts 19 and 20 for their support throughout this arduous scholastic endeavor. Many of you have left an indelible impression that I continue to treasure. I will forever miss your faces and our endless text messaging, memes, and laughter Saturday mornings. I want to thank InfraM and BU’s General Manager, HRBP, and leadership team for trusting me, graciously granting me access to their organization, their positive vibe, and their sheer transparency in sharing their perspectives, experiences, and insight. I hope this study leads to significant organizational improvements and adds value to the groundbreaking work you are already doing. May you maintain the high bar you have set in the industry and leave a legacy of a model organization in your field. Fight on! Author Note The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (Study ID: UP-22- 00988) registered the study. The author did not receive any funding and there was no conflict of interest to disclose. Address any correspondence concerning this study to the author at donnagha@ usc.edu. viii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi Author Note ...................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xiv Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1 Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2 Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................. 4 Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 5 Stakeholder Group for the Study ......................................................................................... 5 Stakeholder Performance Goals .......................................................................................... 6 Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 6 Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 8 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 9 Organization of the Study .................................................................................................... 9 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 11 Leadership Development ................................................................................................... 11 Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework ............................................................ 21 Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ............................... 22 ix Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 47 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 51 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 54 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 54 Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 55 Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 56 The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 57 Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 58 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 59 Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 60 Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 61 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 62 Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 63 Ethics ............................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 65 Quantitative Employee Surveys ........................................................................................ 66 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 68 Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 69 Survey Summary ............................................................................................................... 73 Qualitative Interviews ....................................................................................................... 74 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 75 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 76 Knowledge Findings .......................................................................................................... 76 x Knowledge Findings Summary ......................................................................................... 88 Motivation Findings .......................................................................................................... 90 Motivation Findings Summary .......................................................................................... 96 Organization Findings ....................................................................................................... 97 Organization Findings Summary ..................................................................................... 115 Results and Findings Summary ....................................................................................... 118 Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 120 Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influence Recommendations .................... 121 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................... 145 Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 146 Level 4: Results ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Level 3: Behaviors ........................................................................................................... 151 Level 2: Learning ............................................................................................................ 156 Level 1: Reactions ........................................................................................................... 161 Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 162 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 163 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 164 References ................................................................................................................................... 170 Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 199 Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 204 Appendix C: Employee Engagement Survey .............................................................................. 205 Appendix D: Combined Survey Results ...................................................................................... 206 Appendix F: Factor Distribution ................................................................................................. 221 xi Appendix G: Pearson's Correlation Coefficient Scatter Plot Matrix ........................................... 235 Appendix H: Communication Gaps ............................................................................................ 236 Appendix I: Existing Training Programs .................................................................................... 238 xii List of Tables Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal ..... 6 Table 2: Knowledge Influences ................................................................................................. 36 Table 3: Motivation Influences .................................................................................................. 40 Table 4: Organizational Influences ............................................................................................ 47 Table 5: Data Sources ................................................................................................................ 56 Table 6: Employee Engagement Survey Results ....................................................................... 67 Table 7: Constructed Survey Elements ...................................................................................... 68 Table 8: Descriptive Statistics – Employee Satisfaction Survey ............................................... 70 Table 9: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients .............................................................................. 71 Table 10: Management Survey .................................................................................................... 73 Table 11: Participants’ Definition of Leadership Development .................................................. 77 Table 12: Summary of KMO Influences and Identified Gaps ................................................... 123 Table 13: Summary of Recommendations to InfraM ................................................................ 150 Table 14: Level 4: Results Overview ........................................................................................ 152 Table 15: Level 3 Behaviors Overview ..................................................................................... 153 Table 16: Required Drivers to Support the Designated Stakeholder Group ............................. 155 Table 17: Level 2: Learning Overview ...................................................................................... 160 Table A1: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................... 200 xiii List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 49 Figure 2: Pearson’s Correlation – Employee Satisfaction .......................................................... 72 Figure 3: The New World Kirkpatrick Model ........................................................................... 147 xiv List of Abbreviations BU Business Unit CEO Chief Executive Officer EBDM Evidence Based Decision Making EBI Evidence Based Interventions EBM External Benchmark HR Human Resources IRB Institutional Review Board KPI Key Performance Indicators KSA Knowledge, Skills, Abilities L&D Learning and Development LD Leadership Development LDP Leadership Development Programs M&As Mergers and Acquisitions 1 Chapter One: Introduction to the Study Organizations face challenges implementing leadership development programs (LDP) that maximize individual work unit performance. Annual fiscal investments in learning and development exceed $92 billion in the United States, with nearly 25% of total investments allocated to LDP (Training Industry Report, 2021). Despite such investments, evidence suggests a disconnect between LDP and achieving business performance goals and optimization of organizational outcomes. While most businesses in the United States assign a notable part of their learning and development budget to LDP, aimed to identify and advance high-potential employees, research shows the outcome and impact does not satisfy many organizations (Ardichvili et al., 2016). Research suggests only 24% of participating executives considered LDP investments a success, and 13% have confidence in the company’s rising leaders (Fernández- Aráoz et al., 2017). In their survey, Feser et al. (2017) exhibited that only 7% of participating chief executive officers (CEO) believe their companies are developing effective leaders, and only 10% noticed a clear business impact from their companies’ LDP. Additionally, the authors noted 11% of the 500 global executives polled believed such programs and interventions achieved and sustained favorable results. An LDP benchmarking survey indicated 75% of participants did not find the programs very effective and listed leadership concerns as the second factor impacting the retention and performance of the company’s skilled workforce (Loew & Wentworth, 2013). Many participating executives of such studies believed LDP fail due to misalignment between leadership models and context-specific organizational strategies and lack of focus on critical leadership behaviors that drive business performance (Feser et al., 2017). This study addresses the root causes of the ineffective LDP vortex and explores the role of 2 leadership development programs in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Addressing this problem is imperative as competition and people challenges lead companies to deploy various strategies to develop leaders, and LDP investments continue to scale up (Meheshwari & Yadav, 2018). Without leadership agility, organizations do not develop adequately and properly and will not be capable of navigating turbulent, complex, and ever- changing business environments particularly in highly competitive sectors (Joiner, 2019). Lack of effective leadership leads to loss in productivity, low employee engagement, declined employee performance and well-being, high turnover, lower revenue, and a significant cost to U.S. economy (Erickson et al., 2015; Gallup, 2015; Kellerman, 2004; Wellins et al., 2013). Context and Background of the Problem InfraM (a pseudonym), a mid-sized technology company in the western United States, is positioned as an industry leader with an extensive global presence, a focus on innovation and sustainability, and various products and services across several sectors. 1 This study focuses on the most significant business unit within InfraM, referred to as BU, which possesses the appropriate scale and capacity while operating within the growth, development, and investment phase essential for the study. Furthermore, BU represents a notable segment of InfraM’s revenue. Due to InfraM’s several business Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As) in the past few years, change has been a constant in all business units, including BU. Annual employee engagement survey results have been instrumental in identifying opportunities for growth, development, and organizational improvement while promoting the implementation of appropriate subsequent action plans. After major organizational restructure in early 2022, BU’s new leadership team has 1 Information derived from organizational documents not cited to protect anonymity. 3 dedicated several resources to organizational improvement and growth during their first few months of appointment. Their participation in this study to examine current LDP, understand their overall effectiveness, and align such strategies with business performance goals and organizational outcomes is a testament to their clear corporate vision, growth-oriented strategies, and leadership agility. An organization is a social system, and “its purpose must therefore be to make the strengths of people effective and their weaknesses irrelevant” (Drucker, 1997, p.3). By deploying high-road strategies and practices such as focusing on working conditions, employee satisfaction, and business performance, organizations have a higher chance of attracting and sustaining talent and generating long-term payoffs for their stakeholders (Kochan, 2015). Leadership remains the most critical determinant of an organization’s success or failure and is the centerpiece of the organization’s vitality, profitability, productivity, employee satisfaction, and retention (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005; Zenger & Folkman, 2016). Hogan and Kaiser (2005) analyzed several empirical studies and concluded that leadership predicts employee attitudes and team functioning, both of which predict organizational performance. Efforts such as leadership development, management development, and executive development aim at improving the performance, capability, and contribution of those individuals with the end goal of enhanced organizational performance and capacity and better preparation for upcoming challenges (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). In a meta-analysis of LDP, Collins and Holton (2004) concluded that LDP contributes to substantial improvement in knowledge and skills when leaders receive the proper development identified through adequate front-end analysis. Furthermore, Day and Harrison (2007) emphasized the importance of integrating leader development with leadership development. The authors noted LDP operates more at a collective 4 level by addressing an organization’s social capital and it best positions organizations for success when integrated with individual-based human capital, utilizing rigorous methods to identify gaps in a leader’s knowledge, skillsets, and ability, followed by addressing the gap. A growing body of evidence suggests technology companies need to prioritize LDP. In many tech-based organizations, individuals advance to managerial and leadership positions based on their technical knowledge and performance with the assumption of excelling at such roles as well as technical roles (Hysong, 2006). In their study, Johnson and Sergeant (1998) asserted the gap between technical forte and business acumen would make career progress and upward mobility to higher management significantly less likely for individuals solely with a technical background. Transitioning to top management requires systematic and comprehensive processes, one of which is building leadership potential and learning new behaviors (Plakhotnik et al., 2011). Zhang et al. (2013) noted that 30-50% of high potential but underdeveloped leaders derail during their professional path. Derailment was a term coined by Van Velsor and Leslie (1995) and it refers to managers with little chance of career advancement due to lack of skills required for the job. In addition to technical knowledge, skills, business acumen, and ability to build relationships and connect with the environment, cognitive schemas such as self-regulation, self-awareness, reflexivity, and creativity are critical in developing effective leadership; however, many organizations do not offer a real starting point for potential candidates (O’Connell, 2014). Organizational Goal The organizational goal of BU is to bring the employee attrition rate below 10% by December 2024. The human resources (HR) and executive leadership team at InfraM established this goal for all business units in the first quarter of 2022. Mitigating the attrition rate was part of 5 InfraM’s HR and executive leadership’s efforts to decrease recruitment costs and improve performance, productivity, and morale. HR business partners are responsible for frequently monitoring the attrition rate of their respective business units. Description of Stakeholder Groups BU is the largest business unit at InfraM and represents a considerable part of the company’s revenue. The business unit is responsible for the design of a product that generates a significant revenue steam for the company. Therefore, several stakeholder groups rely upon BU’s continued success. The stakeholder groups who directly contribute to and benefit from lowering BU’s employee attrition rate are InfraM’s employees invested in the company’s performance, InfraM’s executive leadership team with a strong interest in the operational and financial success of the firm, BU’s leadership team whose decisions have a straight significant ripple effect on the firm and other stakeholders, human resources, talent management, and organizational development teams who perform as business partners to BU and their decisions directly impact workforce’s ability, productivity, and capacity. Stakeholder Group for the Study All stakeholder groups’ collective effort is certain to significantly support organizational goals’ attainment. However, for practical purposes, this study only focuses on the perspectives of BU’s leadership team. The primary role of an organizational leader is to develop other leaders at all levels of the organization (Day et al., 2004). The leadership team at BU is involved in making critical decisions, setting strategic direction for the organization, identifying key leadership roles, and selecting and appointing candidates to assume and sustain such positions. These eleven individuals have been with the firm for many years, have obtained graduate degrees in their respective fields, and have decades of experience in the technology sector. 6 Stakeholder Performance Goals Table 1 Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal Organizational Mission The organizational mission is to enable secure solutions with optimized data processing for market leaders. Organizational Performance Goal The organizational performance goal is to bring employee attrition rate below 10% by December 2024. Stakeholder Goal The leadership team’s goal is to formulate and align LDP with business performance goals and to fully utilize LDP by December 2024. Purpose of the Project and Research Questions The purpose of the study is to explore the influences within leadership development and examine the role of LDP in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Specifically, the focus is on the leadership team’s perspective at BU, an individual business unit within InfraM, a mid-sized technology company. The study uses the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytical framework to examine BU’s leadership team knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences preventing effective utilization and proper alignment of LDP (collectively referred to as KMO). As such, the following questions guide the study: 1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers preventing the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes? 2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations for improving the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and to optimize organizational outcomes? 7 Importance of the Study Adequate and effective leadership development is imperative in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Underdeveloped leaders cannot implement change initiatives, manage organizational complexities, and meet the ever-increasing demands of their roles (Hannah et al., 2008; Kellerman, 2004). In a study conducted among HR professionals, more than 60% of participants attributed high turnover, loss in productivity, and low engagement to poor and ineffective leadership (Wellins et al., 2013). Kellerman (2004) noted that incompetent leaders are ubiquitous and can impact productivity, subsequently, the organization’s revenue detrimentally. Miscast leaders adversely affect an organization’s financial performance, long-term sustainability, and employee engagement which costs the U.S. economy $319-$398 billion annually (Gallup, 2015). Such leaders increase employees’ psychological stress leading to a decline in performance and well-being (Erickson et al., 2015) and adversely affecting employee motivation and nonwork life (Erickson et al., 2007). As a prominent technology company that has grown rapidly through significant acquisitions in recent years and operates in a highly competitive market, InfraM must focus on business performance goals and organizational outcomes. BU’s myriad products demand exceptional talent; retaining and further developing existing human capital is paramount to an organization’s long-term success. However, the recent spike in attrition rate coupled with indications of a lack of opportunity to grow within the organization reflected in employee survey results and exit interview surveys have prompted the leadership team to develop a comprehensive action plan to mitigate the attrition rate. 8 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology The study utilizes the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytical framework to explore and understand the performance gaps. The model offers a systematic method to identify three key influences that affect organizational performance: knowledge, motivation, and organization. Clark and Estes assert organizations do not attain performance goals as a result of the combined effect of lack of knowledge (conceptual, factual, procedural, and metacognitive), lack of motivation (active choice, mental effort, persistence), and organizational barriers (work processes, resources, cultural models, and cultural settings). Therefore, organizations can address performance problems by closely examining current performance against desired performance goals, identifying KMO factors influencing the gap, developing strategic solutions, and evaluating their effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study examines KMO influences through the lens of research questions by collecting and analyzing data and utilizing a qualitative research approach. Research methods are tools that provide a set of strengths that researchers can use to accomplish a wide range of goals (Morgan, 2014). Qualitative research is subjective, contextual, and inductive (Morgan, 2014); it seeks meaning and understanding of the participants’ experiences, interpretations, and beliefs (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study aims to understand and explore the role of LDP in achieving organizational performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes from the perspective of BU’s leadership team. Conducting open-ended interviews where both researcher and participant are involved in understanding perspectives, meaning, and interpretations strengthens the inherent dual subjectivity of qualitative research (Morgan, 2014). The present qualitative approach includes conducting open-ended, semi-structured, in-depth interviews and secondary data analysis such as documents, artifacts, and organizational data 9 (previously collected surveys, reports, strategic plans, and memos). The aforementioned methodology supports a phenomenological approach to research by providing a detailed description of meaning and experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Definition of Terms The following definitions provide clarity for their use throughout this study. In some cases, the literature reflects multiple meanings of a particular term. The citations included in this section highlight such terms’ origination and the operational definition. Leader Development refers to an organizational effort that increases individual human capital through knowledge, self-motivation, self-awareness, and self-regulation (Day, 2000). Leadership Development refers to an organizational effort that expands the collective capacity of members to engage effectively in leadership roles and processes (McCauley et al., 1998) and increases social capital through improved interpersonal awareness and skills, including empathy, conflict resolution, and team building (Day, 2000). Learning and Development refers to the area of an organization focusing on developing workforce capabilities, skills, and competencies to ensure a successful and sustainable organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Stakeholder refers to an investor whose actions determine the outcome of an organization’s business decisions (Roeder, 2013). Organization of the Study The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One provides an overview of the study. Chapter Two highlights the relevant literature and the conceptual framework for the study. Chapter Three details the research methodology. Chapter Four reviews 10 the findings. Chapter Five offers recommendations for improving LDP and offers a comprehensive integrated implementation plan. 11 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature This literature review provides an overview of leadership development, an analytical model to address organizational performance gaps, and a conceptual framework to evaluate the integral components of that gap. The first section covers the definition of leadership development, misconceptions about leadership development, a brief history of its evolution in research and practice, its presence and role in organizations, processes, practices, programs, evaluation, challenges, and current trends. In the second section, the study utilizes the Clark and Estes (2008) analytical model to explore stakeholders’ performance gaps in developing current and future leaders. The last section discusses the developed conceptual framework pertinent to the performance gap and the stakeholder group and addresses its essential elements. Leadership Development There have been significant advances in theory and research in leadership development (LD) in the past 2 decades. The scholarly approaches to this phenomenon have built a scientific and evidence-based foundation for practice (Bass, 2008; Day, 2000; Day et al., 2014). LD has been the centerpiece of HR research and practice and remains one of the critical activities undertaken by HR professionals (Callahan et al., 2007; Madsen, 2012). Ardichvili et al. (2016) noted the emergence of many new trends in LD and rapid changes in the existing practices that have made it a significant area of research and academic development. A prolonged lasting misperception of LD has been that the right leadership style and theory would motivate development and foster its presence (Day et al., 2008). The authors argued that human development is complex and requires focusing on developmental science and enhancing developmental processes and leadership. Further, they asserted that the behavioral approach to leadership focuses on short-term training and the personality approach emphasizes 12 traits and dispositions where both have limitations in developmental effectiveness. Berard (2013) indicated another misperception: individuals with distinct skill sets and expertise can leap from a technical position to lead others. While this might be true in the world of sports for a former player to become a big-league coach or in entertainment for an actor to become a director and producer, Berard contended that organizational leadership requires adequate preparation and development, and organizations need to invest significantly in developing current and future leaders. Understanding these misperceptions and the distinction between leader and leadership development shine a brighter light on what precisely the phenomenon and its integral components are. The following section addresses how leader development expands human capital, whereas leadership development aims at augmenting social capital (Day et al., 2014; Korotov, 2016). Leader and Leadership Development Leaders’ self-development focuses on internal dimensions and personal leadership capacity. Bandura (1978) and Manz (1986) highlighted the bi-directional influence of an individual’s internal processes, behavior, and environmental factors and coined the term reciprocal determinism. Leader development is intrapersonal, focuses on the individual leader, and revolves around leader self-development (Reichard & Johnson, 2011). Furthermore, it addresses an individual’s internal processes, personality, identity, skills, and cognitive and metacognitive abilities (Day et al., 2008; DeVries, 2012; Lord & Hall, 2005; Marshall-Mies et al., 2000; Mumford et al., 2007). A leader’s self-development fosters the ability to take responsibility, control situations, and make decisions. Moreover, it involves intrinsic rewards and leads to self-efficacy, positive self-perception, competence, and achieving performance goals (Bandura, 1978; Deci, 1976). 13 Inspired by Bandura (1978), Neck and Manz (2010), and Deci et al. (1981), Ross (2014) developed a conceptual model capturing the interplay of the salient internal dimensions of a leader’s self-development and named it self-leadership. In the author’s basic model, these elements included self-esteem, self-concept, self-confidence, attitude, motivation, and behavior. Later, the author expanded the model to include experience as an essential framework component. These dimensions collectively impact a leader’s value system, self-perception, decision-making process, and the establishment and achievement of performance goals (Carmeli et al., 2006; Ross, 2014). Individual leaders carry their human capital in the context of their organization and deploy it within mutual commitments (Korotov, 2016). Most LDP focus on leader development and disregard collective development on the organizational level (Kellerman, 2012; Petrie, 2015). However, DeRue and Myers (2014) asserted that most effective organizations intertwine their efforts to advance individuals’ capacity with the collective’s development to achieve performance goals better and optimize organizational outcomes. Kellerman (2012) and Petrie (2015) emphasized a collective process and holistic approach to LD that is not just leader-centric but also includes context and dyadic relationships within the organization. Leadership development is interpersonal, focuses on a dynamic development process and a well-functioning relationship between leaders, and potentially enhances leadership capacity (Day et al., 2014; Korotov, 2016). It is multilevel and longitudinal as it involves change within and between individuals, teams, and originations and focuses on social mechanisms (Day & Sin, 2011; Galli & Muller-Stewens, 2012). Most of these interpersonal approaches focus on developing social capital and leader-member exchange quality (Day et al., 2014). 14 DeRue and Myers (2014) defined leadership development as the process of developing individuals and groups to engage effectively in leader-member interactions. Two factors that moderate the relationship quality between leaders and their team members, especially in diverse organizations, are social psychological processes and contextual influences (Boyd & Taylor, 1998; Day et al., 2014; Scandura & Lankau, 1996). The former includes concepts such as communication, cultural competence, and self-knowledge, and the latter pertains to climate, team composition, and the external environment. The authors highlighted the importance of creating a learning environment to foster an integrated self-concept with intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions. The development of these dimensions relies heavily on the organizational processes, practices, and programs (Day et al., 2014) and companies should integrate them into individuals’ daily activities (Couch & Citrin, 2018). Processes, Practices, and Programs Organizations employ a myriad of initiatives to develop current and future leaders. Leader and leadership development processes, practices, and programs influence the cadence of change and form of development over time (Day et al., 2014). In their extensive review of literature on LD’s best practices, Leskiw and Singh (2007) identified six critical areas of focus in all LD initiatives: a comprehensive needs assessment, an appropriate selection of participants, a supporting infrastructure design, a robust learning system development, an effective evaluation system, and an immediate action plan to highlight and celebrate success and identify and improve deficiencies. There are several established practices and emerging trends in LD; however, this study only captures a few that have been in the toolkit of many organizations regardless of their size or environment. 15 Feedback facilitates learning and development and includes measuring current performance and results against desired performance goals (Gurdjian et al., 2014). Multi-rated feedback processes, particularly the 360-degree, facilitate the identification of strengths and weaknesses, develop competency, enhance self-awareness and quality of decisions, and improve behavior (Ashford, 1989; Day et al., 2014). Several factors influence the effectiveness of 360- degree feedback: alignment of feedback with the strategic goals of the organization (Atwater & Waldman, 1998); organizational climate and support in goal setting (Facteau et al., 1998); frequency of feedback interventions (Seifert & Yukl, 2010); collaboration and persuasion (Eubanks et al., 2010). While researchers and practitioners do not consider feedback processes as programs, their practice in conjunction with the following LD programs would help achieve developmental goals more effectively (Berard, 2013). Coaching is an intervention that amplifies other related practices and influences the LD process (DeRue & Myers, 2014; Korotov, 2016). Coaching has two primary focuses within the context of leadership: coaching for leader development and coaching for leadership development (Korotov, 2016). The new trends in coaching take a systemic approach by helping leaders build muscle memory useful for decision-making and contextual issues rather than a mere attempt at fixing the broken leader (Ziskin, 2015). Research indicates several outcomes from individual and team coaching interventions: improve individual’s capabilities as a leader, enhance working relationships with others, align goals and expectations, shape support groups, and carry out organizational change (Bowles et al., 2007; Clutterbuck, 2020; Goldsmith, 2009; Kampa- Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; Kets de Vries, 2005; Korotov et al., 2012; Terblanche, 2014; Zenger & Stinnet, 2006). 16 Rosenbach (2018) asserted that a leader’s responsibility is to serve as a role model and to mentor future leaders, so they are adequately prepared and developed for the role. Leaders’ involvement, engagement, and modeling appropriate leadership behaviors have significant importance within organizations (Hanson, 2013; Snook et al., 2012). Rosenbach defined mentoring as a reciprocal partnership between the parties towards a mutual goal, with learning as its primary purpose and product. Mentorship relationships “turbo-charge” leadership growth and development while deepening and broadening learning and offering new perspectives (Rosenbach, 2018, p. 105). Furthermore, the authors noted that mentoring relationships have a dual effect as they reinforce mentors’ learning and development by shining light on their weaknesses in terms of communication, performance gaps, and leadership style. Action learning has been a significant component of LD programs and practices in organizations. This dimension of leadership development involves forming small teams to work on real problems (Berard, 2013). The focus is on learning by doing, reflecting on results, and pivoting when needed. The author also noted maximized learning transfer when action learning follows a formal training program. Action learning has roots in many domains, such as adult development, organizational psychology, and science, and helps develop decision-making and problem-solving skills (O’Neill & Marsick, 2009; Volz-Peacock et al., 2016). The action learning framework has recently lent itself to experiential learning and an experience-based approach to LD (Hezlett, 2016). Gurdjian et al. (2014) contended a significant increase in knowledge retention through experiential learning. Whether organizations choose one or a combination of a few of the aforementioned programs, processes, and practices, it is crucial to frequently evaluate their influence and impact and adjust accordingly. 17 Evaluation The growing expectations to quantify LD’s impact, outcome, and value have highlighted the evaluation practices that intersect with leadership development. Evaluation theory indicates three essential angles: evaluation for accountability, development, and knowledge (Chelimsky, 1997). The accountability perspective calls for LD’s value proposition (Kennedy et al., 2013). The authors noted that most leadership development approaches lean on and orient towards building skills, adopting behaviors, and evaluating the approach by assessing newly developed skills and behaviors. These evaluation practices are mainly concerned with the accountability angle as they focus on results (Ling, 2012; Saunders, 2006). Kennedy et al. (2013) mentioned Kirkpatrick’s (1998) model as a prominent example of this type of evaluation. Since the beginning of the new millennium, there has been a shift in LD toward leaders’ mindsets and their underlying assumptions and thought processes about the social and relational world (Kennedy et al., 2013; Petriglieri, 2011). This shift from skills acquisition and behavioral modification to mindset development demands different evaluative practices focused on development and knowledge and attuned to leaders’ mental models. Ling (2012) and Kennedy et al. (2013) referred to this developmental perspective as moving away from attribution to contribution and the evaluator as a partner rather than a value assessor. The authors further established that this type of evaluation revolves around exploration, happens in real time, and is formative, experiential, collaborative, and incremental. Evaluation for knowledge focuses on self- understanding, interpretations, reflection, production of new information, and building capacity for the desired performance (Chelimsky, 2008; Saunders, 2006). Kennedy et al. (2013) proposed an active dynamic for LD evaluation that incorporates all three angles and their diverse evaluative data. 18 Day et al. (2014) asserted that it is imperative to incorporate a rigorous methodology to evaluate the three dimensions of LD that would propose change: content, process, and outcome. The authors argued that fixation on performance is not the most appropriate way of measuring the effectiveness of LD interventions as performance is time bound and affected by several moderating factors. They suggested “markers and proxies of development” as the criterion for evaluation (p. 77). Furthermore, contextual factors such as organizational and position-related issues and the time between intervention and outcome measurement make evaluation a complicated undertaking (Day et al., 2014). Researchers posit context as one of the primary considerations in all LD initiatives (Ardichvili & Dirani, 2017; Beer et al., 2016). A few publications have captured the evaluation methods of the perceptions of outcomes (Militello & Benham, 2010), social network (Hoppe & Reinelt, 2010), leader self-development (Orvis & Ratwani, 2010), multilevel change (Gentry & Martineau, 2010), return on investment, and organizational effectiveness (Avolio et al., 2010). Assessing the financial, behavioral, and psychological impact of LD on organizations is yet to be a focus in scholarly endeavors and remains one of the challenges in the field. Challenges The emergence of virtual leadership in recent years has added a layer of complexity to organizational leadership. Virtual leadership refers to managing teams, directing organizations’ members, communicating, and coordinating work mainly through electronic media (Kerfoot, 2010). Companies operating within tech-mediated environments require leaders to possess many other abilities and skillsets than the traditional leadership demands (Gurr, 2004). The social process, team effectiveness, engagement, indirect impact of leadership on teams, inspiring to grow and develop from a distance, managing stress, information overload, and barriers to 19 creativity and innovation are among many challenges of virtual leadership (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Hansen & Haas, 2001; Schmidt, 2014). The authors asserted that developing future leaders in such environments requires new approaches to LD which the study will discuss in the following sections. Understanding the major challenges involved in designing and implementing leadership development programs would help organizations to evade the derailment of such efforts. Some of the challenges in advancing LD include the effective measurement of change (Day et al., 2014), holding senior leaders to account for developmental results, and maintaining their commitment to developing current and future leaders (Berard, 2013). Furthermore, incorporating the organizational context in LD design, avoiding one size fits all mentality, ensuring real work application of LD, closing the gap between theory and practice, distinguishing between leader and leadership development and equally addressing both, improving mental models, focusing on innovation, measuring results, and evaluating outcomes beyond Kirkpatrick’s first level of evaluation are among many LD challenges (Gurdjian et al., 2014; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013; Petrie, 2015). Regarding incorporating organizational context in LD design, companies that undergo significant change, such as a substantial number of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As), must tailor their LDP based on specific demands in their changing environments. The global rise in M&As as a business development option and a strategic choice to maintain competitive advantage prompt leaders to adopt new processes, employ new practices, and adapt to the internal and external demands of the new environment. As a large-scale organizational change trigger event, M&As significantly impact organizational stakeholders and require a myriad of organizational integration, including procedural, leadership, and sociocultural (Seo & Hill, 2005). While many employees prefer to maintain the status quo, 20 stability, predictability, and consistency (Marks, 2006), effectively developed incumbent leaders modify behaviors and incorporate practices to align with the objectives, strategies, and processes to better adapt to the changes in the environment (Yukl, 2013). These practices include developing people, setting directions, modifying existing processes, and building cultures (Kouzes & Posner, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2006). Considering such context-specific needs in the design and implementation of LDP would lead to the development of current and future leaders capable and competent to lead their organizations through turbulent times. More than 50% of senior leaders do not believe their current LD efforts develop the skills and capabilities necessary to meet existing and upcoming organizational challenges (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). In their research study, the authors identified three major gaps that lead to the failure of many LD trainings: lack of motivation, lack of training transfer, and lack of alignment between the organization’s needs and the employed cookie-cutter off-the- shelf programs offered by traditional providers. Today’s overly matrixed and flat organizations demand leaders’ highly developed interpersonal skills to collaborate and communicate effectively and many LD efforts fail to address that need (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). The authors noted that due to persisting challenges and the low rate of return from many existing LD initiatives, some organizations are moving away from traditional LD approaches and leaning towards emerging trends to develop current and future leaders. Trends Compelling trends are reshaping and fueling leadership development efforts. The emergence of corporate universities and the digitalization of learning environments (on-demand and virtual leadership education) offer both convenience and cost-effectiveness (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). These learning environments are also customizable based on participants’ 21 roles and organizations’ needs. Berard (2013) posits on-demand informal learning as an effective way to reinforce learning and development for current and future leaders. With no conventional structure, these efforts aim to provide individuals with guidance and acumen (Berard, 2013; Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). Another emerging trend in LD is forming communities of practice (CoP) that involves professionals with common goals to generate, share, and maintain knowledge (Berard, 2013). These contextualized, socialized, personalized, and adaptive approaches to learning and development offer tremendous value more efficiently and perfectly align with the new generation of organization leaders (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). The presence of a multi-generational workforce demands novel approaches to LD. Millennials’ approach to their profession is different from Gen X and baby boomers (Berard, 2013). Millennials are committed to values and idealistic organizational vision, work hard, demand instant rewards and recognition, highly value transparency, authenticity, and teamwork, and focus on relationships in their developmental process and shaping their leader identity (Alexander & Sysko, 2013; Berard, 2013; Yeager & Callahan, 2016). They desire flexible careers that foster creativity and autonomy (Berard, 2013). They lean towards shared leadership models that distribute leadership among individuals (Barnett & Weidenfeller, 2016). Understanding the concept of LD, the existing practices, processes, and programs, its outstanding challenges, and new trends coupled with a robust framework to identify the root causes in the underutilization of LD would help stakeholders address their performance gap and achieve their goal in a comprehensive and methodical way. Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework The study employs the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytical framework to explore and evaluate the stakeholder group’s performance gaps. The model utilizes a systematic method to 22 identify three key influences that affect organizational performance: knowledge, motivation, and organization. Companies fail to attain their performance goals due to the combined effect of lack of knowledge (procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive), lack of motivation (active choice, mental effort, persistence), and organizational barriers (practices, processes, resources, cultural models, and cultural settings). Therefore, organizations can address performance problems by closely examining current performance against desired performance goals, identifying KMO factors influencing the gap, developing strategic solutions, and evaluating their effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following sections cover the literature review of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences pertinent to LD and its role in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Clark and Estes (2008) posit organizational performance as a function of aligned knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences relevant to goals. The KMO model, proposed by the authors, is a problem-solving framework to conduct root cause analysis of organizational performance gaps and to examine whether the stakeholder group has the critical knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to reach performance goals. This section offers three segments. First, an overview of the three knowledge influences relevant to leadership development: procedural knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. The second segment covers motivation-related influences and their contribution to LD: self-efficacy and expectancy value. Finally, the last segment examines two organizational factors influencing leadership development: the commitment to LDP and organizational resources. 23 Knowledge Influences Social cognitive theory states that knowledge and skills are imperative in achieving organizational goals (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Krathwohl (2002) proposed a revision to Bloom’s Taxonomy and introduced four distinct dimensions of the cognitive process critical for optimal performance: factual (terminology, definitions, and details), procedural (process and how to do things), conceptual (principles, categories, theories, and models), and metacognitive (self-knowledge, belief-based, and strategic). Factual knowledge includes discrete pieces of information that are specific to a domain and field of practice, while conceptual knowledge consists of organizing and categorizing such pieces of information as they relate to one another to create meaning and gain a deeper understanding (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge contains instructions, methods, approaches, and directions on how to complete tasks using specific techniques and skills, while metacognitive knowledge consists of self-reflection and awareness of an individual’s way of cognition, their strengths and limitations, strategies to complete a task, and the task itself (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) asserted that increasing knowledge, skills, and capacity would lead to elevated performance within organizations. Knowledge-related influences pertinent to this study’s stakeholder group’s performance goal are procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive. The following section focuses on these three types of knowledge and examines how they influence BU’s leadership team’s competency in developing current and future leaders. Procedural Knowledge Procedural knowledge includes methods of inquiry and the ability to perform techniques, carry out a process step-by-step, and efficiently implement strategies and procedures to complete a task (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Pintrich, 2002). Many organizations have developed their 24 in-house LDP to develop the competencies and capabilities of current and future leaders (Berzin, 2013; Brotherton, 2011; Hura, 2013; Wuestewald, 2016). The authors noted such programs continue to expand in volume, shift in nature, and evolve in pedagogical trends. As such, leadership teams need to possess procedural knowledge surrounding the development, implementation, and evaluation of LDP’s effectiveness (Wuestewald, 2016). Two essential elements of internal LDP are designing performance feedback processes and creating goal- setting systems (Day et al., 2014). Performance Feedback Processes. A vital component of an effective internal LDP is designing performance feedback processes (Day et al., 2014). Providing feedback on current performance and measuring it against performance goals provides valuable information to individuals engaged in the development programs (Denisi & Kluger, 2000). One of the prominent performance feedback processes for facilitating development and fostering competency and self-awareness is 360-degree feedback (Alldredge et al., 2003; Day et al., 2014). This process includes gathering multisource (peers, uplines, direct reports, external sources, and self) information to help the individuals recognize the impact of their actions and behaviors on others (Day et al., 2014). The authors emphasized that a significant focus of this developmental process is to identify leadership competencies that others perceive as effective or ineffective and how such perceptions correspond with the individual’s self-perception. Shipper et al. (2007) noted five steps involved in an effective 360-feedback process: collection of data from multiple sources, reporting the aggregated data to the individual, follow-up support, recollection of data from the sources, and reporting of data to the individual. The authors highlighted feedback as the beginning of the developmental cycle intended to align behaviors and competencies with 25 organizational performance goals. Furthermore, they indicated that the process could foster learning and provide actionable knowledge. Several factors including the frequency of feedback, aggregation of data, complementary developmental processes, and organizational culture impact the effectiveness of 360-feedback process. Leskiw and Singh (2007) noted that 360-degree performance feedback is effective in leadership development when the organizational culture supports, reinforces, and values feedback. Thach (2002) pointed out the importance of complementing the feedback process with other developmental mechanisms and concluded that combining 360-degree feedback and coaching leads to a 60% increase in leadership effectiveness. Hoffman et al. (2010) asserted that a critical aspect of the 360-feedback process is understanding where perceptions across multiple sources converge and diverge. Their study’s findings supported the use of aggregated ratings in 360-degree feedback, and they highlighted the effects of idiosyncratic rater factors (the variance attributable to raters). In a longitudinal field study conducted by Seifert and Yukl (2010), the researchers concluded that frequent multisource feedback processes significantly impact the effectiveness of LD. Feedback processes may impact individuals negatively if certain elements are not present. Denisi and Kluger (2000) recognized adverse feedback effects and diminished performance following the feedback in 38% of the research cases in their meta-analysis of several empirical studies. The authors furthered their research on the topic and identified five factors that should be present in 360-degree feedback intervention: focus on the task; present in a non-threatening manner; offer performance improvement options; align feedback with a formal goal-setting plan; focus on the recipient’s performance improvement and minimize information related to others’ performance. Moreover, the leader’s positive reaction plays a significant role in the success of 26 360-degree feedback as it leads to setting individual performance and development goals and seeking additional feedback, both of which are critical in leadership development (Day et al., 2014). Coupling performance feedback processes with a goal-setting system would make LDP more effective (Day et al., 2014). The knowledge of how to create goal-setting systems would help leadership teams contribute to their employees’ development plans (Seijts & Latham, 2005). Goal Setting Systems. Aligning learning and development programs with organizational goals is imperative in maximizing the value and impact of such programs (Bird, 2008). Ronald (2014) asserted that a leader’s primary focus should be ensuring the alignment of employees’ goals with organizational goals. The author further explained the bottom-up approach in connecting the outcome of developmental programs and organizational goals in these steps: identifying the competencies gained through the developmental program, linking them to tasks and individual goals and their connection to key performance indicators (KPI), and their contribution to overarching organizational goals. At the strategic level, the top-down approach requires connecting the organizational goals to critical areas of activity and tasks and subsequently identifying the skills and competencies individuals need to complete such tasks (Bird, 2008). Therefore, organizational goals translate and cascade down to individuals’ performance objectives. By aligning learning and development programs with organizational performance goals, developing individuals would contribute to achieving business performance goals (Bird, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002). The literature mainly views goal setting as a motivational technique related to self-perception and efficacy; however, research highlights the cognitive and learning benefits of goal setting (Seijts & Latham, 2005), and this study focuses on goal setting as a knowledge influence. While both top-down and bottom-up approaches in goal setting would 27 contribute to the leadership’s performance, goal orientation and action learning models are precursors of those approaches (Day, 2000; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Research indicates that LDP is more effective when there is goal orientation, specifically commitment, intentionality, and specificity of development goals (Day, 2000; Day et al., 2014). Goal orientation refers to establishing specific goals in achievement contexts (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Action learning is a continuous learning and reflection process that assumes individuals learn most effectively when working on existing organizational problems (Day, 2000). The author asserted that such generative practice, when combined with a formal assessment, enhances the quality of the developmental approach, and leads to more remarkable leadership development. Aligning action learning goals with individual goals results in more effective and meaningful developmental experiences (Day, 2000). DeRue and Wellman (2009) posit on-the-job work experience as the most effective form of LD, confirming Wick’s assertion that more than 70% of leadership development occurs through informal on-the-job experience and less than 10% through formal programs (Robinson & Wick, 1992; Wick, 1989). Understanding the different categories of goals plays a compensatory role in goal orientation and action-learning models. Research reflects several goals classifications, and their imperative role in meeting performance objectives. Establishing a mastery goal stems from seeking to develop or enhance competence, whereas a performance goal means seeking to demonstrate competence to others (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). The authors also highlighted that one needs to consider the hierarchical structure of goals in effectively setting them. Higher-level goals focus on the activity’s purpose and “why,” while lower-level goals focus on the actions required to achieve higher-level goals and the “how.” For BU’s leadership team to understand how to implement a 28 goal hierarchy, they need to specify the content of goals at each level. Deshon and Gillespie (2005) represented four levels in the goal hierarchy and their content to be: self-goals (agency, esteem, and affiliation), principal goals (growth, social value, structure, and fairness), achievement goals (mastery and performance approach), and action plan goals (seek feedback, allocate resources, explore the problem, and manage impression). Seijts and Latham (2005) highlighted the importance and various effects of learning goals during the early stages of learning and development. They argued that in certain situations, such as changes in the competitive landscape, learning goals draw attention away from results and shift the focus on the acquisition of knowledge and skills, discovery of effective strategies, process development, and innovation. In their study, the authors shared examples such as Dell, Sears, and Lucent, where the lack of learning goals and strong focus on performance impeded learning and development at its early stages. On the contrary, at Goldman Sachs, establishing learning goals was the primary driver of LD; Intel’s CEO attributed the company’s success to learning goals; and GE’s CEO noted the ultimate competitive advantage of an organization is the ability to learn and translate that learning into action (Seijts & Latham, 2005). Among numerous initiatives companies have taken to focus on establishing learning goals, the authors mentioned GE’s knowledge and discover forum and PWC’s aptitude focus versus existing skills. Leadership’s knowledge on how to establish mastery goals, focus on learning as well as performance, and establish a hierarchy of goals connected and aligned to the overarching organizational goals would contribute to the effectiveness of LD initiatives and activities. Furthermore, coupling such procedural knowledge with the conceptual knowledge of why leadership development is important would facilitate goal achievement for this stakeholder group (Day, 2000; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). 29 Conceptual Knowledge Conceptual knowledge is understanding the interrelatedness of things and how they relate within a larger context, and it includes theories, models, and principles (Krathwohl, 2002). The emerging leadership trends, global competition, the ever-changing marketplace, and the increasing demand for teamwork in the business world have made leadership development a strategic imperative for organizations (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Madsen (2012) posited LD as the centerpiece of HR theory and practice, and Callahan et al. (2007) considered it one of the essential activities HR professionals undertake. Therefore, the conceptual knowledge of LDP and understanding its benefits, importance, and value would help leaders become committed to the presence and integration of such initiatives into the organization. Developing talent, especially leaders, results in several individual and organizational outcomes, such as improved employee motivation and attitude, increased engagement, and higher individual and team performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Berard, 2013). Impact on Individual and Team-level Performance. The increasing complexities and competition in the business world demand that organizational leaders keep business performance at high levels and fight for talent (Ardichvili et al., 2016). Acquiring new skills and developing leadership competencies enhances job performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Attracting, developing, and retaining high-potential employees and those with vital organizational roles helps organizations perform as desired and retain knowledge capital (Berard, 2013). A meta- analysis conducted by Arthur et al. (2003) indicated the positive effects of developing cognitive and interpersonal skills on job performance. Barber (2004) identified the causal effect of development on innovation and effective performance in their qualitative study. Collins and 30 Holton (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of the benefits of LDP and found knowledge and behavioral outcomes contributing to greater performance. Leadership development positively impacts variables that are antecedents to job performance. Swensen et al. (2016) asserted the impact of LDP on employees’ engagement and participation in organizational citizenship behavior, both predictors of improved job performance. A longitudinal experiment (Dvir et al., 2002) indicated enhanced followers’ motivation, morality, and empowerment as a result of developing leaders. Ellis et al. (2005) experimented with 65 teams and found that those who received training and development exhibited improved task orientation, collaboration, problem-solving, and communication. In addition to individual and team-level performance benefits of LD, such developmental initiatives have tangible organizational-level benefits (Arthur et al., 2003; Collins & Holton, 2004). Impact on Organizational-level Performance. Organizational performance and outcomes, such as effectiveness, reflect leaders’ behaviors and strategic choices (Anning-Dorson et al., 2017). Aragon-Sanchez et al. (2003) operationalized organizational performance as effectiveness and profitability and indicated a positive relationship between them and developmental programs in their survey study of 457 businesses. Garcia (2005) asserted that human capital developmental programs are directly related to stakeholder satisfaction and business financial performance in the study of 78 companies. In a survey study of 1,530 HR directors, Guerrero and Barraud-Didier (2004) stated a positive variance in financial performance due to developmental programs. Furthermore, Mabey and Ramirez (2005) demonstrated a substantive variance in financial performance due to leadership training. Developmental practices also affect organizational reputation, which has critical financial consequences (Clardy, 2005). 31 Westerman et al. (2020) contended that the recent trend and the expansion of the multi- stakeholder triple bottom line (TBL) approach in some organizations has led to leadership’s focus on creating environmental and social value as well as financial outcomes in many firms. To develop and implement such a fundamental systematic shift in an organization’s practices and processes, the authors asserted the need for organizations to establish effective TBL leadership capabilities through LDP. They referred to a recent study in which 76% of participating CEOs noted the dependency of their organizational growth on leadership’s ability to navigate this shift. Anning-Dorson et al. (2017) highlighted the need for strategic alignment between the organization and environment in order to create a competitive advantage. Developing influential leaders contributes significantly to such goals. The authors examined the innovation- performance relationship and identified the moderating role of effective organizational development and leadership. Their study further revealed that firms that effectively integrate human capital and developmental processes gain access to intangible organizational assets such as innovation, competence, and culture and tangible assets such as financial performance. In their study of 20 organizations, Santora et al. (2010) raised concern about the shortage of leaders and highlighted the role of LD in reaching desired performance. Developing the leadership capabilities of an organization builds social and organizational capital. Swensen et al. (2016) made a business case for the return on investment in LDP by emphasizing their impact on employee engagement and subsequently enhancing productivity, profitability, and adaptability. The authors noted that the value proposition for investing in LDP is the improved overall organizational performance, interpersonal relationships, social networks, organizational capital, and engendering trust and resiliency. 32 The conceptual knowledge of LDP and understanding its importance, value, and impact on various individual, team, and organizational outcomes would help leaders become committed to the presence and integration of such initiatives into the organization. Integrating that with the procedural knowledge of designing performance feedback processes and effective goal-setting systems would better equip leadership teams with the knowledge necessary to develop present and future leaders. Additionally, incorporating reflective practices coupled with an awareness of contextual factors and strategies that best fit the organization would significantly optimize performance and catalyze achieving goals and desired outcomes. Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive knowledge is the knowledge of strategic methods, contextual factors, and self-knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Pintrich, 2002). This type of knowledge involves self- reflection and awareness of one’s strengths, limitations, and ways of cognition, as well as tasks and approaches to complete them (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). To achieve performance goals, individuals need to strategize ways to carry out different tasks, and metacognition facilitates using many strategic methods (Krathwohl, 2002). Reflective practices and multi- dimensional awareness are two metacognitive knowledge influences pertinent to LD. Reflection. Inspired by the work of Dewey (1910), Rodgers (2002) defined reflection as a systematic, rigorous, and disciplined way of thinking and a process that helps make meaning and to understand and connect experiences. Pintrich (2002) defined reflection as a systematic process that leads to an in-depth understanding of experiences and activities. By referring to Bandura’s (1978) reciprocal determinism theory and the interplay between exhibited behaviors, the internal processes experienced, and the existing contextual and situational conditions, Ross (2014) suggested incorporating reflective practices in designing effective LDP. 33 Reflective practices have individual and organizational outcomes. Reflecting on abilities and the effectiveness of existing strategies contributes to the stakeholders’ achievement of organizational performance goals and helps them make necessary adjustments (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011). Reflections foster strategic insight that contributes to the organization’s advancement (Robertson, 2014). The discipline of reflection and internal dialogue facilitates the ability to synthesize new information, apply innovative solutions, and improve leadership practice (Ross et al., 2015). The authors asserted that leaders could establish new recipes to follow in their practice by reflecting on the contributions of accumulated tacit knowledge. In a leadership development program, Muff (2012) examined the executives’ reflective practices, such as conducting rigorous self-assessment, reflecting on past experiences, identifying barriers to goal attainment, developing strategies to break through them, and selecting tools to enhance capabilities and performance. The author concluded that the program’s focus on addressing the internal developmental gaps and not solely on external factors such as skills and behavior significantly impacted leaders’ effectiveness. Barley (2012) proposed three reflective practices, each with a distinct focus leading to the achievement of goals and desired outcomes: reflection for action (setting intention and purpose before activity); reflection in action (observation and critical reasoning while engaged in the activity); and reflection on action (recalling details and examining the experience from several angels after the activity). Therefore, setting intentions before engaging in LDP, actively reflecting on learning during events, examining experiences, evaluating existing LDP, and identifying strengths and areas of improvement would better position leadership teams to achieve the desired organizational outcomes. Influential leaders regularly engage in introspection and 34 proactive reflection, leading to a high level of awareness, and ultimately the ability to regulate actions and behaviors (Rosenbach, 2018). Awareness. Self-awareness is a critical psychological characteristic in servant, authentic, and transcendent leadership and is associated it with leadership success, effective decision- making, and influencing others (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Crossan et al., 2008; Leary & Buttermore, 2003). Rosenbach (2018) posits self-awareness as a component of emotional intelligence and defines it as the ability to understand the self’s moods, emotions, needs, strengths, weaknesses, drives, and their impact on others. Self-awareness requires knowing self and values and is an essential attribute of influential leaders (Avolio, 2005; Goleman et al., 2002). Self-awareness also includes awareness of one’s abilities, emotions, reactions, strengths, and limitations (Avolio & Luthans, 2008; Goleman, 2000; Goleman et al., 2002; Yulk, 2010). Taylor (2010) discussed the two pillars of self-awareness as how individuals see themselves and the ability to detect how others perceive them. The author noted that objective self-awareness only focuses on directing attention inward and does not consider an individual’s interactions with others prevalent in leadership. Leader self-awareness theory focuses on the social aspect of leadership and leaders’ awareness of their influence on others as a measure to maximize effectiveness in interactions (Taylor, 2010). Rosenbach (2018) linked self-awareness to practical goal setting and performance management. The author noted that self-aware individuals have clarity of where they are heading, the purpose behind it, and their limitations and strengths and often demand constructive criticism. On the contrary, individuals with low levels of self- awareness are less effective in decision-making, unclear about the how, what, and why of goal setting, and interpret feedback as a threat or sign of failure (Rosenbach, 2018). Literature 35 substantially covers self-reflection; however, effective leadership development efforts involve other dimensions of awareness. Relationship awareness requires attention to the role one plays in the relationship, understanding others’ perspectives (empathy), recognizing and fulfilling responsibility towards others (citizenship), directing others towards a shared goal and vision (inspiration), identifying and resolving problems with others (conflict management), working effectively with others (teamwork), creating connections, developing relationships, and capitalizing on differences with others (Bass, 2008; Lang, 2009; Northouse, 2021; Petrides et al., 2006). Environmental awareness refers to intentional thinking about the environment in which individuals lead (Heifetz et al., 2009; Yulk, 2010). Goleman et al. (2002) refer to organizational awareness as the ability to discern internal politics and meet the needs of stakeholders. When leaders isolate themselves from stakeholders and stay unaware of stakeholders’ needs, power seduces them, and they fail to balance confidence with context, intuition with data, and personal needs with the greater good (Rosenbach, 2018). The author attributes creating an awareness of the significance of an organization’s mission, vision, and strategies and providing a safe space for members to share values and beliefs to transformational leadership and highlights its role in effective LD. Another dimension of awareness is moral awareness. In a survey study, only 9% of participants showed faith in business leaders, and among all the elites, participants ranked them last in terms of trust and moral principles (Rosenbach, 2018). The author asserted that having a moral compass and understanding that business is not an ethics-free zone are fundamental aspects of effective leadership and developing leaders. Incorporating frequent reflective practices and developing a multi-dimensional awareness are crucial metacognitive knowledge influences contributing to the leaders’ goal achievement. 36 Table 2 presents the three assumed knowledge influences relevant to the role of leadership development in achieving business performance goals and organizational outcomes. Table 2 Knowledge Influences Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type Leadership team needs to know how to implement and utilize LDP to optimize organizational outcomes Procedural Leadership team needs to know why LDP is important for achieving organizational and employee goals Conceptual Leadership team needs to be reflective and self- aware to optimize LDP outcomes Metacognitive Motivational Influences Knowledge and motivation are bound together, and many organizational performance gaps are due to a combination of knowledge and motivation influences (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Integrating knowledge, skills, and abilities with the appropriate behavior required to achieve performance goals shaped the behavioral approach to motivation (McGee & Johnson, 2015). Clark and Estes (2008) recognized three fundamental motivational indices influencing individuals’ behavior: active choice, mental effort, and persistence. Active choice determines if one chooses to engage in the activity, while the other two address the amount of mental process and commitment one exerts and the level of avoidance towards distractions one applies to that activity. Pintrich (2003) highlighted the influence of motivational variables on goal attainment and performance improvement. The author noted these elements to be interest, value, goals, attributions, and self-efficacy. The following sections of the study discuss two motivational influences mediating leadership development: self-efficacy and expectancy value. 37 Self-Efficacy The motivational model built around self-efficacy theory focuses on an individual’s internal belief in their ability and competency to succeed in an undertaken task (Bandura, 2010). Bandura asserted that one’s belief in their competency is a stronger predictor of success than one’s knowledge of the task. Individuals with high levels of the construct are intrinsically motivated, believe they can succeed in future tasks, and apply more effort and persistence (Rueda, 2011). Bandura (2012) contended that people are not born with self-efficacy but develop it over time. Developing self-efficacious leaders would influence their level of engagement, effort, and persistence in LDP. Leader self-efficacy is the internal belief that the leader can influence others, involve them in setting performance goals, and steer them towards desired performance and outcomes (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011; Paglis & Green, 2002). The authors noted that leaders with high self-efficacy persist when facing challenges, exert commitment and mental effort to achieve goals, identify strengths and gaps in performance, navigate through unknown and unfamiliar circumstances, and help followers accomplish their individual tasks and contribute to desired organizational outcomes. In contrast, Bandura (2012) asserted that frequent failure would lead to negative self-perception and low self-efficacy. By identifying and prioritizing factors that impact the leadership team’s self-efficacy, organizations can reap the benefits of confident leaders who internally believe they can achieve performance goals. Significant drivers in self-efficacy are prior knowledge, social persuasion, and previous experience (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Furthermore, leaders with a positive mental model and a growth mindset are highly engaged, motivated, resourceful, resilient, and oriented toward learning and development (Dweck, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Ross, 2014). Establishing clear, 38 concrete, and challenging goals would also lead to experiences of success and achievement, which ultimately enhances self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). Focusing on the drivers of self-efficacy and applying them to the leadership team would contribute to business performance goal achievement. In addition to developing an internal belief that leaders can influence the process and practice of leadership development within the organization, they need to value LDP. Expectancy Value Expectancy value theory focuses on the interrelationship between values and beliefs as a motivational framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). It indicates that people choose to do tasks when there is a perceived value and the belief and expectancy of succeeding. Both pillars of the theory are prominent predictors of performance (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Wigfield et al., 2009). The authors noted four drivers of value. First, the intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment and other internal motivations one experiences when engaged in an activity. Second, the extrinsic value points to the output from the activity. Third, the utility value is the individual’s perception of goal achievement through the activity (the activity aligns with personal or professional goals and supports them). Lastly, the cost belief is the proportion of resources spent on the activity (e.g., effort, time, and money) and the obtained benefits and desired outcomes. Activities void of such perceived value leads to an individual’s disengagement, lack of motivation, and failure (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The authors further emphasized the influence of contextual, social, and cultural elements on value perceptions as well as effort, active choice, and persistence. Intrinsic value strongly predicts engagement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). By understanding the meaning and purpose of LDP, leaders may value the activities involved in LDP and engage in them. The authors asserted that when task performance aligns with feelings of social belonging and competence, people would value the task. Furthermore, when a task 39 contributes to goal achievement and external rewards, individuals perceive utility and value in engaging in it (Pintrich, 2003). The author highlighted value and expectancy as strong predictors of performance. Understanding the inherent value of LD would provide insight into the importance and value of these programs for the leadership team and impact their involvement and engagement. LDP drives individual, team, and organizational outcomes. On the individual and team level, the outcomes include improved employee attitude, increased engagement, enhanced individual and organizational performance, retained knowledge capital, innovation, participation in organizational citizenship behavior, empowerment, improved employee morale, collaboration, problem-solving, and communication (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Arthur et al., 2003; Barber, 2004; Berard, 2013; Collins & Holton, 2004; Dvir et al., 2002; Ellis et al., 2005; Swensen et al., 2016). On the organizational level, LDP influences effectiveness, strategic choices, profitability, stakeholder satisfaction, business financial performance, organizational growth and reputation, productivity, adaptability, and building organizational capital, competitive advantage, and trust (Anning-Dorson et al., 2017; Aragon-Sanchez et al., 2003; Clardy, 2005; Garcia, 2005; Guerrero & Barraud-Didier, 2004; Mabey & Ramirez, 2005; Swensen et al., 2016; Westerman et al., 2020). Understanding LDP’s utility value, benefits, and impact on various individual, team, and organizational outcomes would help leaders develop an intrinsic interest in LDP. Consequently, they would become committed to the presence and integration of such initiatives into the organization and motivated to actively engage in such endeavors toward achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Table 3 presents the two assumed motivation influences relevant to the role of leadership development in achieving business performance goals and organizational outcomes. 40 Table 3 Motivation Influences Assumed motivation influence Motivation type Leadership teams need to be confident in their ability to implement LDP to achieve performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes Self-Efficacy Leadership teams need to properly value the implementation of LDP to achieve performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes Expectancy Value Organizational Influences Organizations must possess, offer, and sustain resources, support systems and processes to facilitate performance goals achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017). Leaders can gain insight into the organization by considering symbols, rituals, and culture influencing organizational performance (Bolman & Deal, 2021). Furthermore, goal attainment is subject to the alignment of culture, behaviors, policies, procedures, and access to adequate resources (Schein, 2017). Culture consists of values, skills, paradigms, norms, habits, and philosophies prevalent in an organization and lends itself to how it behaves within the society (Schein, 2017). Culture is pivotal in motivating organizational members to achieve performance goals (Schein, 2011). The author asserted that a systematic and frequent assessment of developmental initiatives is a critical reinforcement mechanism leaders should utilize to embed and transmit culture in conjunction with visible artifacts. Researchers have indicated other cultural influences, such as data-driven decision-making and accountability mechanisms to frequently measure stakeholders’ performance progress and promote a culture of competency (Marsh, 2012; Shahin & Zairi, 2006). 41 Research highlights the influence of cultural models and settings in identifying the root causes of performance gaps and driving change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2017). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), and Rueda (2011) differentiated cultural models and settings and their influence on the members of organizations. They defined models as the shared understanding of the organization interpreted through values, shared experiences, and responses to change. Cultural models are tacit, evolve over time, and shape the unconscious background of organizations. Settings, however, are the observable actions and frequent daily interactions between members and the processes by which members accomplish goals within the organization’s social context. Cultural models and settings are not independent and static but dynamic and relational (Rueda, 2011). Culture can form positive or negative perceptions around organizational learning and development activities and programs (Grant, 2014; Kegan & Lahey, 2016). Underinvestment in LD programs that build current and future leaders’ capacity and bench strength results from many factors, including leadership’s lack of understanding of internal perceptions and exogenous factors impacting organizations (Conger, 2014). Organizational influences such as maintaining a learning culture, supporting the practice of effective LDP, and providing developmental resources to the workforce would foster capacity building and organizational growth and are essential to achieve stakeholder performance. In the following section, the study examines two organizational influences most relevant to LD that are predictors of stakeholder goal attainment: Culture of commitment to leadership development and developmental resources. Culture of Commitment to Leadership Development Leadership development programs would achieve desired learning and development goals through careful design that addresses gaps, timely implementation, and active commitment 42 and engagement of current leaders (Conger, 2014; Salas et al., 2012). In their study of 900 organizations, Bernthal and Wellins (2006) concluded a significant positive influence on performance in organizations with a well-designed LDP. The authors noted that underutilization of existing LDP, continuous use of ineffective ones, and lack of involvement and commitment of the leadership team would lead to the organization’s failure in preparing and developing future leaders. Cultivating a culture committed to learning and development would reinforce the utilization of LDP and foster sustainable growth and change (Beer et al., 2016). Learning organizations cultivate such a culture, focus on inquiry and growth, develop leaders, and expand capacity (Kegan & Lahey, 2016). In learning organizations, leaders facilitate system thinking, and members examine their mental models, engage in self-reflection, employ cooperative learning, and establish a shared vision (Senge, 2006). The author highlighted the role of leaders in learning organizations: social architects and designers of effective learning and development processes, stewards for the people and mission of the organization, and coaches and mentors who help reshape mental models and views of reality. The following section addresses coaching and mentoring as essential developmental resources in learning organizations. Developmental Resources Organizational resources are time, material, funding, knowledge, technology, and other tangibles, such as human capital required to establish procedures and processes and accomplish tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The authors noted that the proper allocation of resources is essential for goal achievement, and lack of it would impede goal attainment. Mentoring and coaching are two organizational resources pertinent to LD. While they are distinct 43 from each other, their role is complementary in expanding the collective capacity in an organization and developing leaders (Altman et al., 2010). Developing a robust mentorship program and involving current leaders and managers in building mentorship relationships with employees is a common practice in all organizations that build effective leadership pipelines (Berard, 2013). In their qualitative study of 15 best-practice companies, Groves (2007) highlighted mentorship as a common thread amongst those model organizations. Hart (2012) emphasized passing organizational knowledge to newcomers through mentorship relationships with organizations’ veterans. Berard (2013) also made a generational observation and noted that Millennials prefer a supportive leadership style that offers networked learning through mentorship. Coaching supports a culture of learning and development and fosters resilience for change (Grant, 2014). A coaching culture reinforces a growth mindset in members of an organization, informs the relationship between leaders and employees, and exhibits an organizational commitment to learning and development (Hawkins, 2021; Jones & Gorell, 2014). A coaching culture is the outcome of leaders’ efforts to expand and support employees’ capabilities through feedback and measuring progress (Gormley & van Nieuwerburgh, 2014). Understanding the theories and principles of these two approaches to LD and their effect on individuals and organizational performance would help the leadership team achieve performance goals. Mentoring and Modeling. Social learning theory indicates that learning is social, and individuals learn behaviors by observing, modeling, and emulating their role models (Bandura, 1986). The theory conveys that role models enable individuals to acquire many types of behavior (Bandura & Walters, 1977). Research suggests positive leader modeling and mentorship improves goal achievement and increases employee retention. Additionally, employees at all 44 levels of the organization are more apt to meet satisfaction, compensation, and promotion goals, while building competence and self-esteem (Allen et al., 2004; Brown & Trevino, 2014; Gibson, 2003; Ragins et al., 2000). Role models impact an individual’s developmental process at different stages. In their field study, Brown and Trevino (2014) examined the relationship between three types of role models (childhood role models, career mentors, and managers) and acquiring leadership behaviors, especially around ethics. The results indicated that all three role models positively correlate to ethical leadership. However, childhood and managerial role models did not reflect a significant positive correlation, whereas career role models indicated a strong positive correlation to developing ethical leaders. The authors posited that “attractive” models have the most influence on learners. Attractive models have several characteristics: status, competence, power, and nurturance (Brown & Trevino, 2014). Therefore, providing access to these role models would significantly and positively contribute to the success of LD and desired organizational outcomes. Mentorship leads to individual career outcomes and desired organizational outcomes. Employing a national sample of over 1,000 employees, Ragins et al. (2000) examined the relationship between satisfactory mentorship and several variables such as career attitude, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and retention. The results indicated a strong positive impact of mentorship on all variables in the study, both in formal and informal mentorship relationships. In a meta-analysis of the benefits of mentorship, Allen et al. (2004) concluded that mentored individuals would have more significant and better career outcomes and greater intentions to stay with the firm than unmentored ones. Gibson (2003) referred to a lack of mentorship in an organization as a developmental vacuum that might put firms at the risk of 45 losing or misdirecting their experienced human capital. The author emphasized the importance of establishing a portfolio of various developmental relationships, including exposure to exemplary peers and leaders during an individual’s developmental path. While mentors and career role models can have a significant positive impact on the development of leaders, Bandura (1986) asserted that individuals see inconsistencies in a role model’s behavior as hypocritical and such behavior may have negative effect on others. Leadership teams need to understand the importance of consistency in behavior and that they are modeling the way for their employees as they walk, talk, and behave. Furthermore, by implementing a robust mentorship program and integrating it with other components of LDP such as coaching, the team can bring about many desired organizational outcomes and achieve performance goals. Coaching. One of the organizational development strategies and performance management tools is coaching. Hagen (2012) asserted that coaching can potentially enhance learning processes, improve competitive advantage, and improve individual and organizational performance. Robertson (2014) posits coaching as providing adequate and timely feedback, identifying strengths, and leveraging them to elevate performance and confidence and achieve organizational goals and desired outcomes. Shifting some developmental responsibilities, such as coaching from the HR function to the managerial and leadership function, would have several advantages, including improved quality of development, improved performance of both sides of the dyadic relationship, and expanding the range of employees benefiting from such development (Hagen, 2012). Leadership teams need to make several considerations regarding coaching to make it an effective strategy in LD. 46 Evidence-based coaching is an effective management tool in LDP. The practice includes inspiring them to seek knowledge, encouraging them to self-reflect, empowering them through delegation and trust, providing guidance and timely feedback, broadening, and shifting perspective, challenging them to grow, and recognizing improvements (Beattie et al., 2014; Hamlin et al., 2006, 2008; Hawkins, 2021). Effective coaching requires a shift from a command- control paradigm in the relationship between the coach and coached to one based on knowledge and empowerment (Hagen, 2012). One of the most popular and validated coaching instruments, the Measurement Model of Coaching Skills, developed by Park et al. (2008), evaluates coaching based on five dimensions: open communication, team approach, valuing people, accepting ambiguity, and facilitating development. Ellinger et al. (2008) asserted that coaching becomes ineffective and impedes development when using autocratic leadership and ineffective communication styles. In a qualitative case study, Beattie (2006) concluded that effective coaching results from developing a learning organization where all members collectively promote learning and development practices, processes, and programs. Effective coaching has both individual and organizational outcomes. Individual outcomes include job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, commitment, improved performance, self-confidence, and learning (Ellinger et al., 2009; Park et al., 2008). Organizational outcomes of coaching are better team performance, organizational improvement, customer satisfaction, enhanced quality, and creative problem-solving (Ellinger et al., 2009; Hagen, 2010). In their research study, Ellinger et al. (2003) concluded that effective coaching behavior from managers significantly increased employees’ job satisfaction, commitment, and performance and eventually led to organizational improvement. Har (2008) reflected a 47 significantly positive relationship between coaching and organizational commitment and a significant negative relationship with turnover intentions. Liu and Batt (2010) posited coaching predictive of employees’ performance improvement while Park et al. (2008) identified a significant positive relationship between coaching and employees’ learning and development in a large-scale survey study. Coca-Cola’s HR managers indicated coaching is essential to building competitive advantage, while Sears & Roebuck’s HR suggested coaching impacted employee morale and customer satisfaction (Hagen, 2012). Matsuo (2018) obtained data from over 500 individuals in 98 engineering teams and demonstrated that coaching directly influenced individual, and team learning and asserted that facilitating coaching skills would enhance team reflexivity. Hagen and Aguilar (2012) further reported on the positive effects of coaching practice on teamwork and team effectiveness. Table 4 presents the two assumed organizational influences relevant to the role of leadership development programs in achieving business performance goals and organizational outcomes. Table 4 Organizational Influences Assumed organizational influence Organizational category Organizational cultures need to be committed to learning and development Cultural Model Organizations need to provide proper resources to leadership development programs Cultural Setting Conceptual Framework Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO framework offers a systematic method to explore and examine three key influences that affect organizational performance: knowledge, motivation, and 48 organization. Organizations do not achieve their performance goals due to the combined effect of knowledge and motivation gaps and organizational barriers. Close examination of performance gaps, identifying KMO factors influencing the gap, developing timely solutions, and evaluating their effectiveness would help stakeholders achieve performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study identified several core concepts relevant to the KMO framework and the stakeholder goal. Figure 1 captures the components of the conceptual framework of this study. The three knowledge influences identified in this study are procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive. The procedural knowledge of the process and techniques of LDP would foster the efficient implementation of strategies and procedures. More specifically, knowing how to design performance feedback processes and create goal-setting systems would equip leaders with essential tools to implement an effective internal LDP (Day et al., 2014; Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Pintrich, 2002). The conceptual knowledge of LDP, understanding its benefits and importance as a strategic imperative in organizations, its interplay with other contextual factors, and the subsequent individual, team, and organizational outcomes, such as increased engagement and improved performance, would impact leadership teams’ commitment to implement and utilize LDP (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Berard, 2013; Krathwohl, 2002; Leskiw & Singh, 2007). The metacognitive knowledge of systematic and rigorous reflective practices, coupled with developing a multi-dimensional awareness of strengths and limitations in developing leaders, would foster strategic insight, lead to an in-depth understanding of the experiences, and contribute to the goals achievement of designing effective LDP. Leadership teams that set intentions before engaging in LDP (reflection for action), actively reflect on ways to enhance LDP during events (Reflection in action), examine experiences and evaluate existing LDP afterward (reflection on action), actively identify strengths and areas of improvement, and have 49 developed awareness of self, others, organization, and environment are positioned to achieve the desired organizational outcomes (Barley, 2012; Heifetz et al., 2009; Krathwohl, 2002; Northouse, 2021; Robertson, 2014; Ross, 2014; Rosenbach, 2018; Rueda, 2011; Taylor, 2010; Yulk, 2010). Figure 1 Conceptual Framework Motivational variables are bound to knowledge influences, and most organizational performance gaps result from a combined effect of the two. While many motivational factors contribute to performance improvement, this study only examined self-efficacy and expectancy 50 value. Leaders’ interval belief in their competency and skills to influence their teams and facilitate their development are strong predictors of their success in their leadership practice. Self-efficacious leaders persist when facing challenges, exert commitment and mental effort to achieve business goals, identify strengths and gaps in performance, navigate through unknown and unfamiliar circumstances, and help followers accomplish their individual tasks and contribute to desired organizational outcomes (Bandura, 2012; Clark & Estes, 2008; Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011; Paglis & Green, 2002; Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011). When coupled with perceiving value in LDP, leaders’ internal belief in their ability to develop other leaders strongly predicts engagement and performance. This perceived value may originate from an internal space of joy and meaning or the anticipated output, utility, and benefits from such activities. By identifying and prioritizing factors that impact the leadership team’s self-efficacy and providing insight and communicating the inherent value of LD, organizations can reap the benefits of confident leaders who value LDP, internally believe they can develop future leaders and are actively engaged and involved in activities of LDP (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Wigfield et al., 2009). Knowledge and motivation influences remain critical in achieving performance goals. In addition, several organizational factors enhance or hinder performance. A culture of commitment to learning and development and organizational resources are two organizational influences explored in this study. Organizations must possess and offer resources and support to their members, promote a culture of competency and mastery, engage in a data-driven practice, frequently measure stakeholders’ performance against goals, and implement accountability mechanisms to ensure the effective development of current and future leaders. Cultural models (the unconscious background of organizations) and settings (observable actions in the organization’s social context) are dynamic and relational, impacting performance 51 (Grant, 2014; Kegan & Lahey, 2016; Marsh, 2012; Rueda, 201; Schein, 2011; Shahin & Zairi, 2006). Leadership development programs would achieve desired learning and development goals through current leaders’ active commitment and engagement. Cultivating a culture committed to learning and development would reinforce the utilization of LDP and foster sustainable growth and change. Leaders in learning organizations are stewards of people and organization mission, act as coaches, and are social architects of policies, procedures, and practices while keeping learning and development as the centerpiece of their daily activities. Two prominent resources that support a culture of learning and development in organizations that have built effective leadership pipelines are robust mentorship and coaching programs. Understanding the theories and principles of these two approaches to LD and their effect on individuals and organizational performance would help the leadership team achieve performance goals (Beer et al., 2016; Berard, 2013; Conger, 2014; Groves, 2007; Salas et al., 2012; Senge, 2006). Conclusion This literature review examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences pertinent to leadership development efforts at BU. The study aims to offer recommendations to the leadership team to effectively achieve their performance goal of developing current and future leaders. Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytical framework identified influencers that involve knowledge, including performance feedback, goal setting, reflection, and awareness; motivational influencers, such as self-efficacy and expectancy-value; and two organizational factors surrounding culture of commitment to LD and developmental resources. The study identified gaps in the leadership team’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers preventing the leadership team from effectively developing current and future leaders. The data collected from two streams of qualitative interviews and document analysis offer a lens to 52 determine the root causes of performance gaps and their alignment with the identified influencers. The significant advances in leadership development research and practice have led to an in-depth understanding of the concept and have clarified misperceptions surrounding it (Berard, 2013; Day et al., 2008; Day et al., 2014). Researchers have addressed the distinction between leader and leadership development: the former is intrapersonal and focuses on expanding human capital, whereas the latter is interpersonal and develops social capital within organizations (Day et al., 2014; Korotov, 2016; Reichard & Johnson, 2011). A collective process that takes a holistic approach to development would allow leaders to deploy their human capital within mutual commitments, relationships, and organizational context (Day et al., 2014; DeRue & Myers, 2014; Kellerman, 2012; Korotov, 2016; Petrie, 2015). Designing and implementing processes, practices, and programs that align with the performance goals and organizational context would influence the cadence of change within firms and foster higher returns and positive outcomes (Day et al., 2014; Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Organizations need to utilize a dynamic rigorous evaluation method that incorporates three dimensions of accountability, development, and knowledge to demonstrate the impact, value, and outcome of LD efforts (Chelimsky, 1997; Kennedy et al., 2013; Ling, 2012; Petriglieri, 2011; Saunders, 2006). The emergence of virtual leadership, high expectations to demonstrate results, and closing the gap between theory and practice have proposed several challenges in LD design, implementation, and evaluation (Ardichvili et al., 2016; Day et al., 2014; Gurdjian et al., 2014; Hansen & Haas, 2001; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013; Petrie, 2015; Schmidt, 2014). Moreover, they have shinned light to reshape and fuel LD efforts to address the demand for a more contextualized, socialized, adaptive, and 53 personalized experience that aligns with the needs of a multi-generational workforce (Berard, 2013; Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). The study employed the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to propose an implementation plan to InfraM’s leadership team. The integrated change program addressed the critical leadership team's behaviors necessary to reach the desired organizational outcomes and such efforts need to trickle down to all business units including BU. Furthermore, identifying the leadership team's knowledge, skills, and abilities required to demonstrate such behavior would foster the stakeholder group's involvement and engagement in developing the organization's current and next generation of leaders. 54 Chapter Three: Methodology This chapter provides an overview of the research methodology of the study. Research methodology involves the forms of data collection, analysis, and interpretation that a researcher poses in the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The authors asserted the importance of consistency between research methodology and the organization’s practice framed in the study. A qualitative methodology is appropriate for studies that aim to explore, examine, investigate, and interpret a particular social phenomenon in their natural setting (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Qualitative methodologies utilize an inductive logic of research sequenced in the manner of gathering information, analysis of data to form themes and categories, identification of broader patterns, drawing conclusions and generalizations, and generating interpretations and theories (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This chapter includes sections outlining the purpose of the study, research questions, methodological design, research site and stakeholder group, researcher’s positionality, instrumentation, participants, data collection and analysis procedures, ethics, credibility, and potential limitations and delimitations of the study. Research Questions The purpose of the study was to explore the influences within leadership development and investigate the role of LDP in attaining business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes in an individual business unit of a technology company. The study used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytical framework to examine the KMO factors preventing BU’s leadership team from the effective utilization and proper alignment of LDP. As such, the following questions guided the study: 55 1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers preventing the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes? 2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations for improving the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes? Overview of Design The present study aimed to understand and explore the role of LDP in achieving organizational performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes from the perspective of BU’s leadership team through a qualitative methodological design. Morgan (2014) stated that research methods are tools that provide a set of strengths that researchers can use to accomplish a wide range of goals. The author also noted that qualitative research is subjective, contextual, and inductive; it seeks meaning and understanding of the participants’ experiences, interpretations, and beliefs (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Conducting open-ended interviews strengthens the inherent dual subjectivity of qualitative research where both researcher and participant are involved in understanding perspectives, meaning, and interpretations (Morgan, 2014). The present qualitative approach included conducting open-ended, semi-structured, in-depth interviews and secondary data analysis such as documents, and organizational data (previously collected surveys, reports, strategic plans, and memos). Such methodology also supported a phenomenological approach to research by providing a detailed description of meaning and experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). 56 Research Setting InfraM is a prominent technology company positioned as an industry leader with an extensive global presence, a focus on innovation and sustainability, and various products and services across several sectors. This study focused on the most significant business unit within InfraM, referred to as BU, which possesses the appropriate scale and capacity while operating within the growth, development, and investment phase essential for the study. Furthermore, with over 1,000 employees, BU represents a large portion of the company’s revenue. Multiple business acquisitions in the past few years have made challenge and change two constants across all business units and have highlighted the demand to focus on business performance goals and organizational outcomes. Table 5 Data Sources Research questions Qualitative method RQ1: What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers preventing the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes? X RQ2: What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations for improving the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and to optimize organizational outcomes? X BU’s multitude of products demands retaining exceptional talent and further developing the existing workforce is key to the organization’s continuing success. However, the recent spike in employee attrition rate coupled with indications of a lack of opportunity to grow within the organization reflected in employee survey results and exit interview surveys prompted the 57 leadership team to develop a comprehensive action plan to mitigate the attrition rate and focus on talent development and growth. This study focused on the perspectives of BU’s leadership team as the primary role of an organizational leader is to develop other leaders at all levels of the organization (Day et al., 2004). BU’s eleven-member leadership team participates in making critical decisions, setting strategic direction for the organization, identifying key leadership roles, and selecting and appointing candidates to assume and sustain such positions. The Researcher Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed the philosophical position of different types of research and how such positioning entails what the researcher believes about the nature of reality and knowledge. Creswell and Poth (2016) also proposed researcher’s worldview will influence the research study; as such, my philosophical assumptions are an influential factor in the conceptual framework’s development. The most common type of qualitative research, constructivism (interpretive) research, assumes that reality is no single observable reality, that there are multiple realities and interpretations, and that reality is a social construct (Creswell & Poth, 2016). The work here reflects my constructivist views and beliefs; that there is no attempt to find knowledge but to gather information and construct it. The intention was to describe, understand, and interpret the role of leadership development programs in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes from the perspective of BU’s leadership team. As such, the study focused on understanding the realities, beliefs, interpretations, and experiences of the participants in the context of their organization. Qualitative data does not stand alone, and the researcher’s interpretation is subject to the context of the organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Robinson & Firth, 2019). I remained 58 mindful of my positionality as a leadership coach and consultant and the assumptions and biases I hold about the value of LDP. I strived to limit such inherent assumptions, biases, and predispositions. Maxwell (2013) strongly suggested identifying such experiential knowledge, and to eliminate its influence from the design rather than being a valuable component. Identifying and clarifying biases and assumptions would impact the credibility of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I deliberately designed the study to mitigate these threats to validity by incorporating several strategies suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Data Sources The data collection methodology aimed to optimize research data to answer research questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2019). Each data collection method offered a unique vantage point, provided insight into the context, and answered the research questions. The qualitative approach of this study utilized multiple sources of data including conducting open-ended, semi- structured, in-depth interviews and secondary data analysis such as documents, and organizational data (previously collected surveys, reports, strategic plans, and memos). The study examined every data stream individually, and once merged, they affirmed other findings. Qualitative Interview The primary data source employed in the study was a series of qualitative interviews. Johnson and Christensen (2019) defined a qualitative interview as a data-collection methodology in which the interviewer, the researcher or someone working for them, asks a series of questions from the interviewees, the study’s participants. The authors noted the strength of this method lies in the researcher’s freedom to use probes and prompts to collect in-depth information about interviewees’ feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and experiences of a phenomenon. Utilizing interviews contributes to a richer perspective and a collection of data that observations cannot capture 59 (Patton, 2002). A general interview guide maintaining structure and focus coupled with spontaneity of adapting to the flow of conversation enriched the data collection process. Qualitative interviews’ primary purpose is to explore participants’ perspectives; additionally, answering the research questions requires fewer participants (Creswell, 2014). Understandings and revelations gleaned from such interactions help researchers build toward theory (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Secondary Data The study complemented the data collected through interviews with relevant secondary data. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) contended that combining the findings gathered through interviews with information inductively derived from organizational documents would lead to identifying more prominent themes and help the researcher advance from the particular to the general. Creswell and Creswell (2018) noted that in many qualitative studies, the researcher spends a considerable amount of time at the research site gathering information such as public documents (e.g., official reports, meetings’ minutes) or private documents (e.g., e-mails and letters). In this study, the review and analysis of relevant and accessible secondary data, such as organizational data (annual employee engagement survey results) and documents (executive summaries of survey results) generated ideas and provided insight into BU’s organizational context and challenges. Participants The criterion in selecting participants in the study was for them to have leadership roles and responsibilities at BU. The rationale for this purposeful sampling was that the primary role of an organizational leader is to develop other leaders at all levels of the organization (Day et al., 2004). The leadership team at BU consists of 11 individuals who play a pivotal role in 60 developing leaders, have the experience and expertise aligned with the purpose of this study, and could offer the most insight into the problem I intend to explore and investigate. They are involved in making critical decisions, setting strategic direction for the organization, identifying key leadership roles, and selecting and appointing candidates to assume and sustain such positions. Johnson and Christensen (2019), and Patton (2002) proposed small purposeful sampling to elicit rich information and bring insight into meaning, processes, and context. The leadership team received an e-mail invitation which included an overview of the study, their purposeful selection based on their role and responsibilities, the length and format of the interviews, and inquired about their willingness and availability to participate. Instrumentation The data collection instruments for this study included an established interview protocol, and secondary data analysis, including documents and organizational data (previously collected surveys and reports). Interviews allowed the researcher to gain further perspective and provided information that observations do not offer (Patton, 2002). This study utilized interviews in a semi-structured format using an established interview protocol of 25 open-ended questions leaving space for potential follow-on questions and further probing questions. These questions were tied to the two research questions and included conceptual and procedural knowledge questions to explore BU’s leadership team’s knowledge and understanding of the role of LDP in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes and their ability to reflect on that knowledge; self-efficacy and value-expectancy questions to uncover their motivational influences and factors involved in motivating others to utilize LDP; and behavioral and operational questions to discover BU’s organizational commitment, support, and resources as an influencer. Appendix A includes the interview protocol. 61 Furthermore, the study analyzed organizational data (three years of annual employee engagement survey results) and additional supporting documents (executive summaries of survey results). These documents complemented the research efforts in this study. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) contended, there are several benefits to this type of data collection, including little or no cost, ease of access, richness of content, and stability. They provided insight into BU’s current and historical trends and cultural and contextual influences on utilizing LDP. Appendix B captures documents and organizational data protocol. Data Collection Procedures The designed data collection protocol included interviewing BU’s eleven-membered leadership team and reviewing secondary data such as documents and organizational data. Compliance with the protocols of the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) remained at the forefront of all data collection activities, and the institution approved all procedures before any data solicitation. A password-protected personal device stored the organizational information and collected data. Deletion of all data will occur 2 years after completion of the research study. Participants took part in hour-long individual interviews on Zoom. The interviewees received information about the purpose of the interview, voluntary participation, termination at the participant’s will, confidentiality of the data and their participation, and the option to decline to answer specific questions with participants. Gaining participant approval to record the interviews improves the fidelity of the transcripts (Weiss, 1994) while note-taking generates early insights into critical points during the interview and serves as a backup if recordings malfunction (Patton, 2002). The protocol includes 25 open-ended questions leaving space for potential follow-on questions and further probing questions. The question design allowed for 62 developing an understanding of the leadership team’s knowledge of LDP, their motivation and ways they motivate others to engage with LDP, organizational resources and support, and if BU’s culture was conducive to LDP. The study inquired about the participants’ perspectives regarding gaps in conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge as well as self-efficacy, expectancy-value, cultural settings, organizational commitment, and support. Data Analysis Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posit data analysis as a dynamic process intended to make meaning. Furthermore, the authors categorize qualitative data as mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and conceptually congruent. This study utilized a systematic qualitative data analysis process to identify themes and categories and to connect the research study’s findings to its purpose and goals. Coding The study incorporated a coding system to categorize and label the collected data. Sang and Sitko (2014) suggested the development of priori and posteriori codes before and after the process of data collection. Priori codes originate from literature and theoretical framework, whereas posteriori codes emerge from the collected data (Sang & Sitko, 2014). In phase one of the data analysis, the researcher conducted open coding followed by integrating the already established a priori codes before the qualitative interviews. After reviewing the interview transcripts twice, identification of posteriori codes led to axial coding and member checks completed the coding process. Reflections The researcher personally conducted the interviews and engaged in a reflective and diligent data analysis process before collecting any data. Rodgers (2002), inspired by the work of 63 Dewey (1910), defined reflection as a systematic, rigorous, and disciplined way of thinking and a process that helps make meaning and to understand and connect experiences. Barley (2012) offered several reflective practices, including reflection for action (setting intention and purpose before activity), reflection in action (observation and critical reasoning while engaged in the activity), and reflection on action (recalling details and examining the experience from several angels after the activity). Before any interview, the researcher shared the purpose and intention of engaging in the activity. During the interviews, the researcher ensured critical reasoning and reflected on the conversations after completing each session. Furthermore, note-taking focused on insights surrounding the conceptual framework. Zoom’s transcription function allowed for simplified and rapid analysis following the interview to identify patterns, trends, and open codes. Cross examination of interview transcripts with the recorded audio filled any missing parts of the transcript. Additionally, a comparison between the transcripts and notes validated their accuracy and helped identify patterns and trends. The same reflective qualitative approach and precision were also employed in reviewing organizational documents and reports. Credibility and Trustworthiness Credibility is essential in establishing trustworthiness (Robinson & Firth, 2019), and qualitative research is as trustworthy as the researcher’s rigor in conducting it (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study design mitigated threats to validity by adopting several strategies proposed by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Maintaining a self-reflection journal to capture thoughts and reactions helped to understand and minimize influence on participants and derive conclusions during the data collection and analysis phase. Study design incorporated multiple data sources to validate research findings, a method called triangulation proposed by the authors. Furthermore, the study included a reflexivity statement and a section on ontological (realities 64 encountered in the research) and axiological (the extent and ways the researcher’s values might have influenced the research) assumptions in the researcher’s disclosures and descriptions of the research study. The study remained accepting and unbiased in choosing documents for analysis. The study included frequent engagement in member checks, running interpretations with participants to mitigate misinterpretations, and clarifying meaning, as suggested by Maxwell (2013). Consistently engaging in peer review with colleagues was also part of the design as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted utilizing a peer network to validate preliminary data and findings. Ethics The federal government requires all higher education institutions to establish IRB to examine and approve all research to ensure meeting ethical standards (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The study adhered to the USC’s IRB protocols and the institution approved all procedures before soliciting any data. American Anthropological Association, in its comprehensive code of ethics, mandates an obligation for all researchers to provide informed consent to human participants (Glesne, 2015). The study provided all interview participants with a written and verbal form of informed consent sharing the purpose of the interview, voluntary participation, termination at the participant’s will, the confidentiality of the data and their participation, and the option to decline to answer specific questions with participants before the interviews. The researcher recorded the interviews with participants’ permission to increase fidelity to the transcripts of material (Weiss, 1994), while note-taking generated early insights into critical points during the interview and served as a backup in case of any recording malfunction (Patton, 2002). 65 Chapter Four: Results and Findings The purpose of the study is to explore influences within leadership development, investigate LDP efforts, and explore their role in attaining business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes in an individual business unit of a technology company. The study uses the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytical framework to examine the KMO factors preventing BU’s leadership team from the effective utilization and proper alignment of LDP. As such, the following questions guide the study: 1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers preventing the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes? 2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations for improving the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes? The data collection methodology aims to optimize research data to answer research questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2019). Each data collection method offers a unique vantage point, provides insight into the context, and answers the research questions. The study’s approach was to utilize multiple sources of data including open-ended, semi-structured, in-depth interviews and secondary data analysis such as organizational data (previously collected surveys and reports). The study examined every data stream individually, and once merged, they affirmed each other’s findings. The following section presents the study’s quantitative approach to the collected secondary data followed by the qualitative outlook through BU leadership staff’s interviews. 66 Quantitative Employee Surveys Two separate sets of data served to inform this study. First, the study incorporated 3 years of employee engagement survey results (2020, 2021, and 2022) provided by Human Resources. Second, the study analyzed the results from the 2022 management survey, which InfraM used for the first time that year. The study had access to the raw data; however, no employee personally identifiable information or specific information attributable to an individual within the organization appeared in the data. Analysis of the survey results focused on trends and elements explicitly relating to leadership development and leadership development programs. The omission of data reflecting other aspects of the organization, other departments and divisions, or aspects outside of the focus of this study was purposeful to protect organizational and individual anonymity. The organization conducts employee engagement surveys during the last quarter of each year. Typically, 20-25 items on the questionnaire address specific organizational variables. InfraM, followed by all business units, roll out survey results in the first quarter of the subsequent year (Appendix C provides the survey questions; Appendix D provides the summary data). Table 6 highlights the results of the surveys for three consecutive years and the level of detail presented to the organization with the numeric results representing the mean response (on a scale of 0-100) for the external benchmark (EBM), InfraM, and BU. Additionally, Appendix E provides a detailed comparison of means between years 2020 and 2021 (pre-reorganization) and 2022 (post-reorganization). As the annual employee engagement survey analysis resides within basic descriptive statistics, the data serves primarily as a comparison of other organizations forming the EBM. As such, the nominal differences noted between the EBM, InfraM, and the 67 BU (e.g., the largest delta between any EBM and an InfraM or BU factor is 4 points) create few calls to action among leadership. Table 6 Employee Engagement Survey Results Variable 2020 2021 2022 EBM InfraM BU EBM InfraM BU EBM InfraM BU Empowerment 78 79 78 78 80 80 78 80 79 Initiative 77 80 77 77 81 78 77 80 79 Manager Satisfaction 80 84 81 80 84 84 80 85 84 Openness to Speak Up – 80 78 – 80 80 – 81 80 Execution – 82 80 – 83 84 – 82 81 Innovate – 83 82 – 84 85 – 83 83 Well Informed – 79 76 – 79 79 – 77 77 Respectful Treatment – 84 82 – 84 85 – 84 85 Work Life Balance – – – – 75 75 72 71 74 Core Behaviors – 79 77 – 79 80 – 79 78 Integrity – 82 80 – 83 84 – 82 83 Collaboration – 80 79 – 80 81 – 80 80 Rewards 70 71 71 70 71 69 70 67 66 Recognition 73 73 71 73 74 73 73 72 70 Recommend 79 78 75 79 79 80 79 79 78 eSat 77 79 76 77 79 77 77 78 77 Prospects 80 85 84 80 88 89 80 81 82 Purpose 78 81 78 78 81 78 78 80 77 Retention 68 71 68 68 71 68 68 68 67 Growth 75 75 74 75 77 77 75 76 75 Career Guidance – – – – 75 71 – 76 74 68 Note: Cells lacking data are due to the question/benchmark not being asked/available that year. Data Analysis Deeper data analysis occurred using JMP Pro 16 to examine descriptive and inferential statistics. First, categorizing the data into similar factors provided insights into the organization that were difficult to discern by focusing on individual questions as stand-alone responses. The 21 questions examined holistically produced seven categories relating to the climate, culture, and employee perceptions. Table 7 highlights the categories, the associated elements of their formation, and Cronbach’s alphas for each construct. Table 7 Constructed Survey Elements Construct Variable Cronbach's alpha α Team Climate Empowerment .95 Initiative Manager Satisfaction Openness to Speak Up Team Performance Execution .78 Innovate Work Environment Well Informed .91 Respectful Treatment Work Life Balance* Corporate Culture Core Behaviors .89 Integrity Collaboration Recognition and Rewards Rewards .82 Recognition Employee Satisfaction Recommend .89 eSat Prospects Purpose Retention Professional Development Growth .74 Career Guidance 69 Note: The question concerning work life balance excluded to improve Cronbach's alpha. The analysis excludes questions that did not appear in each year’s survey. Measuring the internal reliability through calculating internal reliability provides validity for the chosen constructs of the survey data for this analysis (De Vaus, 2002). The numerical value of each construct’s Cronbach's alpha is significantly high, reflecting the internal reliability among the variables that formed the construct. The two lowest Cronbach’s alphas, although within an acceptable range, are perhaps due to the number of variables merged to create the constructs and assess the relevance of the items within them. Survey Results Descriptive and inferential statistics form the basis of the survey results. Descriptive statistics center on the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) from the survey data appear in Table 8. Additionally, detailed descriptive statistics and tests for normality for the combined data set appear in Appendix F. The presentation of data provides insights into the factors and specific years of the survey. Although the data points to employee satisfaction commensurate with the industry, there are areas for improvement. Specifically, within the areas of recognition and rewards as well as professional development, the employee ratings (in the high 60s and low 70s, respectively) suggest these factors are a consistent area producing diminished employee perspectives compared to other survey areas. While beyond the purview of this study, team performance, a construct that reflects employees’ perceptions around the company’s execution and innovation, consistently indicates a mean value above 81 in all 3 years. The numbers represent employees' general feeling that the company is performing well. However, constructs pointing to internal and individual factors such as satisfaction, professional development, and rewards and recognition scored suboptimal on the 70 lower end (in the 60s and 70s) in all 3 years. Despite the absence of any alarmingly low scores or wide dispersions in the data sets, the company can draw several calls to action to serve its employees better. Table 8 Descriptive Statistics – Employee Satisfaction Survey Construct Year N M SD Team Climate 2020 2021 2022 871 569 832 78.50 72.81 79.21 6.40 13.98 10.35 Team Performance 2020 2021 2022 871 569 832 82.60 81.25 81.58 6.30 4.80 4.87 Work Environment 2020 2021 2022 871 569 832 79.93 75.00 81.58 4.70 12.94 6.57 Corporate Culture 2020 2021 2022 871 569 832 78.51 79.17 79.83 4.29 4.92 4.79 Recognition and Rewards 2020 2021 2022 871 569 832 71.70 67.50 68.75 7.05 7.36 9.25 Employee Satisfaction 2020 2021 2022 871 569 832 76.63 77.20 78.83 4.86 4.85 6.56 Professional Development 2020 2021 2022 871 569 832 73.27 70.38 74.33 6.82 7.10 10.13 The relationships between the factors appear in Table 9 (Appendix G provides the scatterplot matrix). Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) provide insights into the strength and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships (Evans, 1996). Of particular interest for this study, the strong positive relationship between professional development and employee satisfaction (r = .84) is important to note. Developing talent, especially leaders, results in several individual and organizational outcomes, such as improved employee motivation and attitude, 71 increased engagement, higher individual and team performance, employee satisfaction, and a higher chance of attracting and sustaining talent and generating long-term payoffs for their stakeholders (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Berard, 2013; Kochan, 2015). Table 9 Pearson’ s Correlation Coefficients Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Team Climate – 2. Team Performance .65 – 3. Work Environment .92 .74 – 4. Corporate Culture .86 .68 .78 – 5. Recognition and Rewards .82 .73 .75 .78 – 6. Employee Satisfaction .69 .78 .70 .76 .69 – 7. Professional Development .87 .71 .76 .87 .80 .84 – Note. All values are statistically significant at the 99% confidence interval. Figure 2 graphically displays the correlational relationship between employee satisfaction and the other six constructs in this survey analysis. The strong positive correlation between employee satisfaction and professional development aligns with research suggesting organizations focusing on professional development witness an increase in employees’ engagement, motivation, participation, morality, and empowerment; all predict improved job performance and employee satisfaction (Dvir et al., 2002; Swenson et al., 2016). As such, the relationships between professional development, team performance, and employee satisfaction highlighted in Figure 2 align with previous research. 72 Figure 2 Pearson’ s Correlation – Employee Satisfaction The management survey, complementary to the employee satisfaction survey, emerged for the first time in 2022. The assessment has a more in-depth focus on different facets of the employee-manager relationship to identify strengths and areas of improvement. Table 10 provides an overview of the results for 2022 regarding InfraM and BU. Of note, the area receiving the lowest ratings was career development. The importance of the management survey rating combined with the relationship between professional development and employee satisfaction discerned from the three-year analysis of InfraM surveys suggests a misalignment of 73 perceived supervisory/managerial skills with the desires of employees to receive professional development as part of their overall employment experience. Table 10 Management Survey Construct InfraM BU Survey item Reasons 85 84 My direct manager explains the reasons behind decisions made. Inclusion 87 86 My direct manager creates an inclusive environment within our team. 1-on-1 Meetings 84 82 I am satisfied with the quality of 1-on-1 meetings I have with my direct manager. Fairness 86 86 My direct manager manages the team fairly. Career Development 77 76 My direct manager has discussions with me about my career and development at InfraM. Communication 88 87 I feel comfortable communicating issues or problems to my direct manager. Staff Meetings 88 87 My direct manager holds regular staff meetings with direct reports. Motivation 85 83 My direct manager motivates me to do my best. Coaching and Feedback 83 81 My direct manager provides effective feedback to help me be successful. Conflict Resolution 85 85 My direct manager works to resolve conflicts and barriers to team success. Direction and Priorities 83 81 My direct manager sets clear goals and priorities for our team. Perspectives 85 83 My direct manager asks for my input and perspective. Accountable 88 87 My direct manager holds me accountable for executing on my deliverables. Core Behaviors 88 87 My direct manager models InfraM's Core Behaviors. Survey Summary InfraM’s current approach to survey results neither informs leadership nor effectively moves the organization towards evidence-based decision-making. Limiting data analysis to descriptive statistics denies organizations from accessing in-depth analysis of the collected data 74 and making inferences based on employees’ perceptions and feelings reflected through surveys. Furthermore, using external benchmarks as the only rubric limits the organization’s potential and capacity for improvement. While the organization’s scores reflect nothing alarming compared to external benchmarks, they indicate the company is not excelling in several areas, and employees’ perceptions remain unaffected year after year. Although these areas may seem mutually exclusive, they are collectively exhaustive. The surveys’ results collectively and consistently highlight diminished employee perspectives on organizations’ professional and career development efforts. Such results, combined with the strong positive relationship between professional development and employee satisfaction (r = .84), support considerations and effective developmental planning at InfraM. Leskiw and Singh (2007) asserted that developmental efforts aim to improve those individuals' performance, capability, and contribution to enhance organizational performance, capacity, and better preparation for upcoming challenges. Organizations must hold their senior leaders to account for developmental results and maintain their commitment to developing current and future leaders (Berard, 2013). Human capital developmental programs are directly related to stakeholder satisfaction and business financial performance (Garcia, 2005), affect organizational reputation (Clardy, 2005), and lead to a favorable variance in financial performance (Guerrero & Barraud-Didier, 2004). Qualitative Interviews This study utilized interviews in a semi-structured format using an established interview protocol of 25 open-ended questions. The two research questions guided the protocol, which included factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge questions to explore BU’s leadership team’s knowledge and understanding of the role of LDP in achieving business 75 performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes; self-efficacy and value-expectancy questions to examine their motivational influences and factors involved in motivating others to utilize LDP; and behavioral and operational questions to assess BU’s organizational support, commitment, and resources as an influencer. Appendix A highlights the interview protocol. The designed qualitative data collection protocol included interviewing BU’s eleven- membered leadership team. Participants took part in hour-long individual interviews on Zoom. The interviewees received information about the purpose of the interview, voluntary participation, termination at the participant’s will, confidentiality of the data and their participation, and the option to decline to answer specific questions. Participants approved recording interviews on Zoom and a secondary device as a backup. The interviews aimed to explore the participants’ perspectives regarding conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge gaps as well as self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and organizational factors. Data Analysis The study utilized a systematic qualitative data analysis process to identify themes and categories and connect its findings to its purpose and goals. A coding system categorized and labeled the collected data. Sang and Sitko (2014) suggested the development of priori and posteriori codes before and after the data collection process. Priori codes originate from literature and theoretical framework, whereas posteriori codes emerge from the collected data (Sang & Sitko, 2014). Before the interviews, the study established priori codes by examining the literature and developing the theoretical framework. Subsequently, after reviewing the interview transcripts twice and cross-examining them with corresponding recorded audio files, a code book containing the posteriori codes, themes, and categories completed the coding process. 76 Participants The participants in the study have leadership roles and responsibilities at BU. The rationale for this purposeful sampling was that the primary role of an organizational leader is to develop other leaders at all levels of the organization (Day et al., 2004). The leadership team at BU consists of 11 individuals who play a pivotal role in developing leaders, have the experience and expertise aligned with the purpose of this study, and could offer the most insight into the problem of practice. The respondents make critical decisions, set strategic direction for the organization, identify key leadership roles, and select and appoint candidates to assume and sustain such positions. To protect the identity of the participants, their demographic information does not appear in the study. Furthermore, the gender imbalance among the participants prompted the researcher to utilize gender neutral pseudonyms for them throughout the study. Knowledge Findings The BU leadership team possesses the four dimensions of knowledge to develop, implement, and evaluate effective LDP. Utilizing the four dimensions of the cognitive process critical for optimal performance (Krathwohl, 2002), the study explored the presence and possession of factual (terminology, definitions, and details), procedural (process and how to do things), conceptual (principles, categories, theories, and models), and metacognitive (self- knowledge, belief-based, and strategic) knowledge necessary to develop, implement, and evaluate effective LDP. Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) asserted that increasing knowledge, skills, and capacity would lead to elevated performance within organizations. Although the study did not aim to address factual knowledge initially, its importance became apparent throughout the data collection process. Factual knowledge includes discrete information specific to a domain 77 and field of practice (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Table 11 demonstrates BU leaders’ wide range of perspectives on the definition of leadership development. Table 11 Participants’ Definition of Leadership Development Pseudonym Leadership development Cove There's leadership development and then administrative development, which are a little bit separate. Sometimes we put people in managerial positions that need at least the administrative part of being a manager even though they don’t necessarily have the leadership qualities to be a leader. Lux It really depends on what your scope and business impact is. ... There's not one size fits all and it’s never one point in time. It's always a progression based on critical needs of your business and that's not just one directional. Cypress One of the strongest ways to do leadership development is working for folks that are good leaders. So, by having role models, seeing what works and doesn't work, what motivates you and doesn't motivate you, learning how to get a group of people to absolutely operate at their peak because in the end they have to love their job and be motivated. Rory Enables leaders to be more effective and productive in their respective roles. It must be useful and practical. Sometimes leadership development tends to be too generic and obtuse. In order to be effective and work well, it needs to be tailored and catered to the different leaders in their different roles towards their specific goals and desired outcomes. Sol There are three aspects to leadership development: The servant leader mentality of enabling people to be accountable and take care of their own work rather than the leader having to tell them specifically what to do; the ability to collect and create “context” of what's going on in the industry, company, and in the world and translate that into what they can tell their team; [and] the ability to influence outside of their teams, especially cross-functionally and to impact customers, partners, sales, marketing. Zion The ability to communicate, provide clear guidance and direction, motivate people to do something beyond their ability, and provide them a platform to grow beyond their own capabilities in either technical or managerial ladder or just on the personal side. 78 Pseudonym Leadership development Arden The process of developing leaders’ skills and competencies, behaviors, and breadth in terms of business knowledge. It is developing all aspects of a person that is taking on larger leadership roles. The technical development can happen on the job, and by giving stretch assignments or in an academic setting. Then as far as the competencies, skills, and behaviors, aligning to a set of core competencies for leaders in an organization, evaluating them against those core competencies, and then giving them feedback and recommendations for how to grow in those areas, and that could be through coaching, practice, application, and online course work. It's a lot about creating awareness and then practicing the competencies and behaviors. Arlie Training for people to have the skill sets to lead a larger team, both direct and indirect. For the direct team, managing, giving people skill sets, setting vision, setting goals and objectives, inspiring the team, hiring a high-quality team, and demonstrating the behaviors that you want your team to be following. That's the classic definition of leadership and skills around leadership training. A big part of it that people miss a lot of times is, how to influence resources outside of your organization, how to influence groups and align groups that you don't directly manage. Not only other organizations within a broader organization, but the partners outside of it like customers. Skyler Leadership development is the combination of education and practice. A good leader knows practical applications along with technical knowledge. Leadership is about connecting to human beings, understanding their language, and the art to speak in their language. When people understand better and have clarity, they follow. Sage The job of a leader is to make new ones. Fundamentally, leadership development is geared towards making “better leaders.” Some people have natural talent, but it has to be honed with practice. There's lots to uncover about why people will follow somebody under challenging circumstances. There's an emotional aspect to being a leader aside from the competencies. The disparate definitions for leadership development presented by those within the BU suggest a universal understanding is absent. Rather, individual leaders created their own sense of meaning instead of relying on a definition stemming from their LDP and portends a diminished influence on the leadership team's overall knowledge of InfraM's LDP. The baseline variance in LDP definitions provides a point of departure to examine the assumed influences surrounding 79 procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge. In each section, the presentation of findings and themes offers critical insights into BU’s leadership team and their competency developing current and future leaders. Procedural Knowledge The BU leadership team possessed the procedural knowledge required to develop, implement, and evaluate effective LDP. Wuestewald (2016) emphasizes that leadership teams must possess procedural knowledge surrounding developing, implementing, and evaluating LDP’s effectiveness. Two essential elements of internal LDP are designing performance feedback processes and creating goal-setting systems (Day et al., 2014). Providing critical feedback and engaging in formal and informal goal setting with direct reports emerged as dominant themes during interviews. Critical Feedback BU leaders utilize and provide critical feedback. Feedback facilitates learning and development and includes measuring current performance and results against desired performance goals (Gurdjian et al., 2014). While researchers and practitioners do not consider feedback processes as programs, their practice in conjunction with LDP helps achieve developmental goals more effectively (Berard, 2013). All participants noted that they provide critical feedback to their direct reports. Cove stated, “I provide feedback about behaviors that I think could be improved, and at the same time, I reinforce behaviors that I think are really good." This comment aligned with previous research on how feedback facilitates the identification of strengths and weaknesses, enhances self-awareness, and improves behavior (Ashford, 1989; Day et al., 2014). In discussing the frequency of utilizing feedback mechanisms with their team, Cypress noted, “Whenever I see behavior that I think they could have handled differently, I call 80 them out. Not maybe in that forum, but I note and discuss it with them afterwards.” The timeliness of Cypress’s comments mirrors Seifert and Yulk (2010) who stressed the significance of frequent feedback. In addressing the importance of timing and the directness of feedback, Arlie highlighted, “I give people real-time and straightforward feedback on things they do well and things to improve on so they can act on it." Furthermore, Rory mentioned, “I recognized this person on my team struggled with having an executive presence, and I immediately had a conversation with them. … I have to have those conversations and help them become more effective … to take over my role eventually.” The responses aligned with Day et al. (2014) asserting the focus of feedback is to identify leadership competencies that others perceive as effective or ineffective and how such perceptions correspond with the individual’s self- perception. The findings suggest BU's leadership team understands how to provide feedback and its importance within an LDP setting. Additionally, they seek to couple their feedback with goal- setting systems to improve its overall effectiveness (Day et al., 2014). Formal and Informal Goal Setting BU leaders possess the procedural knowledge surrounding developmental goal setting. Knowledge of how to create goal-setting systems helps leadership teams contribute to their employees’ development plans (Seijts & Latham, 2005). Research indicates that LDP is more effective when there is goal orientation, specifically commitment, intentionality, and specificity of development goals (Day, 2000; Day et al., 2014). All participants noted that they engage in setting formal written development goals during the annual focal cycle and informally throughout the year. Sol stated on the specificity of development goals, “We do talent and promotion calibration. We address what to focus on for each of the high boxes. … I know specifically what it takes to get my team to the next level, and I have to cater to fill those gaps." 81 Furthermore, in discussing the importance of setting specific non-technical developmental goals for their employees, Zion mentioned: During the review cycle, I discuss development goals. For example, one needs to improve presentation skills, or communication needs to improve. Sometimes it is more specific, like one’s written communication is very detailed, and one needs to pay attention to the target audience when preparing a presentation or writing an email. Then, I monitor and check in with them periodically off cycle to understand their progress. In addressing commitment to goals and accountability mechanisms to ensure employees work towards the goals, Lux highlighted, “First step is to hold direct reports accountable and monitor their progress. At times, you have to recircle and reaffirm the goals.” Cypress also commented, “While I keep goal setting active and regular as I understand individual’s career aspirations, I hold them accountable for the extra work assigned to them if they want to get to the next level.” Leadership’s knowledge of establishing developmental goals, focusing on learning and performance, and providing frequent direct feedback contribute to the effectiveness of LD initiatives and activities. The collective understanding of how to operationalize the critical aspects of feedback and goal setting highlights a level of procedural knowledge commensurate with their roles as leaders within the BU. Furthermore, coupling such procedural knowledge with the conceptual knowledge of why leadership development is essential facilitates individual and organizational goal achievements (Day, 2000; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Conceptual Knowledge The BU leadership team possessed the conceptual knowledge to develop, implement, and evaluate effective LDP. The emerging leadership trends, global competition, the ever-changing marketplace, and the increasing demand for teamwork in the business world have made 82 leadership development a strategic imperative for organizations (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). The conceptual knowledge of LDP and its benefits, importance, and value help leaders become committed to the presence and integration of such initiatives into the organization. Developing talent, especially leaders, results in several individual and organizational outcomes, such as improved employee motivation and attitude, increased engagement, and higher individual and team performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Berard, 2013). The impact of LDP on individuals, teams, and organizations emerged as dominant themes during interviews. Impact on Individuals and Teams BU leaders have a conceptual understanding of LDP’s importance in individual growth, productivity, team development, and performance. Collins and Holton (2004) conducted a meta- analysis of the benefits of LDP and suggested knowledge and behavioral outcomes contributing to greater performance. In their qualitative study, Barber (2004) identified the causal effect of development on effective performance and innovation. All participants indicated their understanding of LDP’s impact on individuals and teams. On individuals’ growth and development through LD processes, Zion stated, “leadership is the ability to influence the outcome and create an impact. … That is the mindset leaders need to have and an important aspect of LD processes.” Cypress noted, “without leadership development, you are not going to be the best leader you can be.” The comments aligned with the conceptual framework capturing the interplay of the salient internal dimensions of a leader’s self-development and its impact on achieving performance goals (Carmeli et al., 2006; Ross, 2014). In addressing LDP’s impact on productivity and performance, Lux stated, “When people grow and develop effectively, they take on more responsibility and have more success and productivity.” Rory noted, “An effective LDP would be very beneficial as leaders become more 83 productive.” Furthermore, Cove added, “LDP provides tools and techniques to leaders to perform their job better.” The responses correspond with previous research on the role of acquiring new skills and developing leadership competencies on job performance enhancement (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009) and the positive effects of developing cognitive and interpersonal skills on job performance (Arthur et al., 2003). Effective LDP impacts team performance. Cypress emphasized, “You will have a highly functioning cohesive team the more you develop leaders.” Lux further stated, “It helps you set vision and strategy, communicate effectively and confidently, and build camaraderie in your team.” Sol mentioned, “In engineering, you often see spokesmodel management and not much team development. You need your team to work well together at a certain leadership level.” These comments aligned with the experiment Ellis et al. (2005) conducted with 65 teams and posited that those who received training and development exhibited improved task orientation, collaboration, problem-solving, and communication. In addition to individual and team-level performance benefits of LD, such developmental initiatives have tangible organizational-level benefits (Arthur et al., 2003; Collins & Holton, 2004). Impact on Organizations BU leaders have a conceptual understanding of LDP’s impact on organizational performance and myriad other outcomes. In their study of 457 businesses, Aragon-Sanchez et al. (2003) operationalized organizational performance as effectiveness and profitability and indicated a positive relationship between them and developmental programs. Organizational performance and outcomes, such as effectiveness, reflect leaders’ behaviors and strategic choices (Anning-Dorson et al., 2017). All participants demonstrated their understanding of the critical 84 role of developed leaders in organizational success. Cypress stated, “The more leaders you develop, the better your products, solutions, and working environment.” Arlie indicated: Strong and well-developed leaders set vision, purpose, and clear goals and as a result the organization becomes more efficient ... there is recognition for establishing goals and rewards for hitting them ... people have more satisfaction, organization is more inspired and motivated, and you get more creativity, effort, and buy in to generate more positive results for the company. Arlie’s comment highlighted the impact of LDP on variables that are antecedents to job performance. Swensen et al. (2016) asserted the impact of LDP on employees’ engagement and participation in organizational citizenship behavior, both predictors of improved job performance. Furthermore, a longitudinal experiment (Dvir et al., 2002) indicated enhanced followers’ motivation, morality, and empowerment as a result of developing leaders. Rory commented, “Helping leadership staff get better and become more effective and productive and enabling new people to come into that and learn can define the success or failure of a company.” Rory’s response aligned with the study on the significant contribution of developing influential leaders in creating a competitive advantage in organizations (Anning-Dorson et al., 2017). The study revealed that firms that effectively integrate human capital and developmental processes gain access to intangible organizational assets such as innovation, competence, and culture and tangible assets such as financial performance. In discussing the importance of an organization’s ability to have an internal talent pipeline for leadership roles, Arden stated, “Organizational vacancies in key leadership roles are very disruptive and lead to a loss in productivity.” Arden’s comment corresponds with research on how attracting, developing, and retaining high-potential employees and those with vital organizational roles helps organizations perform as desired 85 (Berard, 2013). Moreover, in their study of several organizations, Santora et al. (2010) raised concern about the shortage of leaders and highlighted the role of LD in reaching desired organizational performance. Leadership’s understanding of the importance and impact of LDP on individual, team, and organizational performance and outcomes contribute significantly to the presence and integration of such initiatives and activities. The collective understanding of why leadership development is essential accentuates a level of conceptual knowledge commensurate with their roles as leaders within the BU. Furthermore, coupling such conceptual knowledge with the metacognitive knowledge surrounding reflective practices and an awareness of contextual factors that best fit the organization would significantly optimize individual performance and catalyze achieving goals and desired outcomes. Metacognitive Knowledge The BU leadership team possessed the metacognitive knowledge to develop current and future leaders. This knowledge involves self-reflection and awareness of one’s strengths, limitations, ways of cognition, contextual factors, strategic methods, and approaches to completing tasks (Krathwohl, 2002; Pintrich, 2002; Rueda, 2011). To achieve performance goals, individuals must strategize ways to conduct different tasks, and metacognition facilitates using many strategic methods (Krathwohl, 2002). Reflective practices and multi-dimensional awareness emerged as dominant themes during interviews. Reflective Practices BU leaders have the metacognitive knowledge surrounding reflective practices. Highlighting the interplay between the internal processes, the existing contextual and situational conditions, and exhibited behaviors, Ross (2014) suggested incorporating reflective practices in 86 effective LDP. Such practices have individual and organizational outcomes. Reflecting on abilities and the effectiveness of existing strategies contributes to the stakeholders’ achievement of organizational performance goals and helps them make necessary adjustments (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011). All participants mentioned that they engage in reflective practices. Zion stated, “When I look back, I can say I gave up certain things, but at least I did certain things right which gave many benefits and much return on investment.” The comment corresponded with reflection as a systematic process that leads to an in-depth understanding of experiences and activities (Pintrich, 2002) and fosters strategic insight that contributes to the organization’s advancement (Robertson, 2014). Cypress noted, “I have a lot to learn from so many different points of view. Sometimes people do not agree with my approach, and I instantly realize I never looked at it their way.” That response aligned with the importance of reflection in action (observation and critical reasoning while engaged in the activity), while Rory’s comment mirrored reflection on action (recalling details and examining the experience from several angels after the activity), both practices leading to the achievement of goals and desired outcomes (Barley, 2012). Rory recalled: After conversations around feedback or goal setting, I find some time and just walk back through it ... trying to understand how they reacted and how I reacted to their reaction and play it out back in my mind and think about ways that could have done that better, or could do things differently ... continuing that process is really helpful. Ross et al. (2015) contended the discipline of reflection and internal dialogue facilitates the ability to synthesize new information, apply innovative solutions, and improve leadership practice. The findings suggest BU's leadership team understands the importance of reflection and engages in different reflective practices and processes. Influential leaders regularly engage in 87 introspection and proactive reflection, leading to a high level of awareness, and ultimately the ability to regulate actions and behaviors (Rosenbach, 2018). Awareness BU leaders understand the importance of possessing and promoting awareness of self, relationships, organizational context, and environment. Self-awareness is an essential attribute of influential leaders (Avolio, 2005; Goleman et al., 2002). All participants demonstrated multidimensional awareness surrounding the aforementioned factors. Rory’s comment, “The ability to have humility, willingness, and openness to receive feedback and to solicit that for my own development and personal growth is critical,” matches the two pillars of self-awareness: how individuals see themselves and the ability to detect how others perceive them (Taylor, 2010). BU leaders understand the importance of fostering productive relationships. Zion noted, “I try to understand each individual’s style and match their frequency, intensity, and capabilities.” Furthermore, Cove stated, “I look at people’s uniqueness as there is a wide range of skills and talents. … I utilize people’s different positive qualities to ensure we complement each other as a team.” Rory highlighted, “The primary two things I must do as a leader is to position individuals where they can be the most successful and enable them to be effective in that role.” These comments aligned with the extensive body of research on the importance of leaders’ attention to the role they play in relationships, understanding others’ perspectives (empathy), recognizing and fulfilling responsibility towards others (citizenship), directing others towards a shared goal and vision (inspiration), identifying and resolving problems with others (conflict management), working effectively with others (teamwork), creating connections, developing 88 relationships, and capitalizing on differences with others (Bass, 2008; Lang, 2009; Northouse, 2021; Petrides et al., 2006). BU leadership maintains self-awareness of their impact on a dynamic work environment. Sol stated, “your success as a leader has very little to do with you personally and everything to do with the impact you create around you.” Followed by, “I do spend much time on the context of what we are doing and help my team understand what is going on with the business and the industry.” The former comment corresponded with the leader self-awareness theory that focuses on the social aspect of leadership and leaders’ awareness of their influence on others as a measure to maximize effectiveness in interactions (Taylor, 2010). Whereas the latter comment aligned with previous research on environmental awareness and intentional thinking about the environment in which individuals lead (Heifetz et al., 2009; Yulk, 2010). On that same note, Sage commented: In LDP, we're trying to get people tools that are specific enough to be effective but general enough to deal with the fact that the world is constantly changing. The agility to understand how to apply which tools to which context to be effective in an ever-changing context can be very challenging. Incorporating frequent reflective practices along with possessing and promoting a multi- dimensional awareness are crucial metacognitive knowledge influences contributing to the leaders’ goal achievement at BU. Knowledge Findings Summary The study examined BU leaders’ four distinct dimensions of the cognitive process critical for optimal and effective leadership development. The knowledge influences relevant to leadership development are factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge. The 89 interviews revealed that BU leaders lack a universal understanding and definition of leadership development. Leaders’ factual knowledge of LD stemmed from their perceptions shaped through their experience in other companies or sources, void of a shared understanding rooted in InfraM’s LD processes and programs. In their definition of LD, BU leaders touched on two prolonged lasting misperceptions of LD that have been scholarly addressed in research. First, the right leadership style would foster LD’s presence. Second, leadership development is synonymous with leader development. Despite their divergent perceptions around LD, BU leaders have a collective understanding of its operationalization. BU leaders possess the conceptual knowledge to implement LD. Specifically, they effectively identify leadership competencies perceived as effective or ineffective, actively engage in providing feedback on current performance and measuring it against performance goals, and use feedback to align behaviors and competencies with organization performance goals correspond with previous research highlighting those as vital components of an effective LDP (Day et al., 2014; Denisi & Kluger, 2000; Shipper et al., 2007). To increase the effectiveness of such efforts, BU leaders complemented them with other developmental mechanisms, such as goal-setting systems and coaching aligning with research findings and recommendations (Day et al., 2014; Seijts & Latham, 2005; Thach, 2002). During InfraM’s annual focal process, BU leaders help their teams set individual developmental goals aligned with the organization’s strategic and performance goals. Additionally, BU leadership’s knowledge on how to establish mastery goals, focus on learning and performance, and establish a hierarchy of goals connected and aligned to the overarching organizational goals contributes to the effectiveness of LD initiatives and activities. 90 BU leaders conceptually understand the importance of LDP in their organization’s context of merging companies, global competition, changing markets, and increasing demand for teamwork. As such, the demonstrated ability to reinforce LD within the BU supports InfraM’s need to sustain a high degree of innovation and leadership resiliency. A critical element of these requisite skills emerged in the leadership team's reflective practices. BU leaders reflect on their individual approaches to LD. Operating in an environment with competing priorities, BU leaders must strategize how to best motivate teams and develop leaders. Their reflective practices foster organizational structures conducive to effective LD. Most importantly, BU leaders demonstrated a three-dimensional awareness of self, relationships, and environment. They maintain awareness about the environmental dynamics and demands pertinent to their teams’ needs to develop their leadership skills and competencies. In addition to technical knowledge, skills, business acumen, and ability to build relationships and connect with the environment, cognitive schemas such as self-regulation, self-awareness, reflexivity, and creativity are critical in developing effective leadership and are at the forefront of BU’s activities. The study’s findings highlight a level of knowledge commensurate with BU leaders’ roles within the organization. Such collective knowledge contributes to designing, implementing, and evaluating more effective LDP initiatives and activities. Ultimately, such concerted efforts support the study’s stakeholders achieve their performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Motivation Findings The BU leadership team maintains a high level of motivation to develop, implement, and evaluate effective LDP. The linkage between knowledge and motivation drives organizational 91 performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Integrating knowledge, skills, and abilities with the appropriate behavior required to achieve performance goals has shaped the behavioral approach to motivation (McGee & Johnson, 2015). Pintrich (2003) highlighted the influence of motivational variables such as self-efficacy, expectancy value, interest, and attribution on goal attainment and performance improvement. Utilizing Pintrich’s model, the study explored the presence of self-efficacy and expectancy value as two motivational influences mediating leadership development. In each section, the presentation of findings and themes offers critical insights into BU’s leadership team and their motivation in developing current and future leaders. Self-Efficacy Each BU leadership team member possessed an internal belief in their own competency and ability to develop, implement, and evaluate effective LDP. Bandura (2012) asserted that one’s belief in one’s competency is a stronger predictor of success than one’s knowledge of the task. Self-efficacy influences behavior’s three fundamental motivational indices: active choice, mental effort, and persistence (Bandura, 2012; Clark & Estes, 2008). The presence of self- efficacy and various drivers emerged as dominant themes during interviews. Presence of Self-Efficacy BU leaders’ self-assessment of their ability and competency to develop current and future leaders ranged from 8 to 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are intrinsically motivated, believe they can succeed in future tasks, and apply more effort and persistence (Rueda, 2011). Cove noted, “Been in the industry a long time ... have good relationship with my peer group ... so, I feel confident in this role.” Lux stated, “I have been though several leadership development trainings outside InfraM ... I feel comfortable around people and confident in connecting with them.” Cypress mentioned, “I get direct feedback that I 92 am one of the best leaders they ever worked for ... I get than more than once ... that contributes to my confidence.” These comments align with the concept of leader self-efficacy. Leader self-efficacy is the internal belief that leaders can influence others, set performance goals, and steer them towards desired performance and outcomes (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011; Paglis & Green, 2002). The authors asserted that leaders with high self- efficacy persist when facing challenges, exert commitment and mental effort to achieve goals, identify strengths and gaps in performance, navigate through unknown and unfamiliar circumstances, and help followers accomplish their tasks and contribute to desired organizational outcomes. While all BU leaders unanimously noted high levels of self-efficacy in their role, they highlighted various sources of their efficacy. Drivers in Self-Efficacy Experience serves as the primary driver for BU leader self-efficacy. Significant drivers in self-efficacy are prior knowledge, social persuasion, and previous experience (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Identifying the drivers of self-efficacy, utilizing them in LD, and cascading them further down into the organization contribute to the leadership talent pipeline and business performance goal achievement. In identifying the drivers, Cypress stated, “intensive training, coaching, access to high-level leaders, host of opportunities to lead in different roles ... experience teaches you about good and bad leadership, and that is learning in itself.” Cove noted, “peer network, exposure to different personalities and teams, survey results reinforcing my intuition, stretching into opportunities outside of my regular work ... not much magic to it ... mostly, steady experience, staying on a growth path and exposure to senior leaders does it.” Lux emphasized, “immersive training experiences with external consultants.” Arlie mentioned, “just experience and being in leadership roles for a long time ... none of it is from formal education.” 93 Sol identified, “two things have helped me built confidence, and neither one is formal education ... mentors outside my lane giving me more context and perspective and keeping myself up to date about the market.” By identifying and prioritizing factors that impact the leadership team’s self-efficacy, organizations can reap the benefits of confident leaders who internally believe they can achieve performance goals. The collective responses highlight a variety of sources responsible for the team’s self-efficacy in administering BU’s LDP. However, the notable absence in their comments is any support provided by the LDP itself. Their self- efficacy originates outside of any familiarity with the specific BU LDP. Nevertheless, in addition to possessing an internal belief that leaders can influence the process and practice of leadership development within the organization, perceiving the value of LDP and actively and deliberately engaging with it is essential. When task performance aligns with feelings of competence, people would value the task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Expectancy Value The BU leaders see the value of providing LD to individuals within the organization. The expectancy-value theory indicates that people choose to do tasks when there is a perceived value and the expectancy of succeeding. Both pillars of the theory are prominent predictors of performance (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Wigfield et al., 2009). Value in business performance and specifically to the context of a technology company emerged as dominant themes during interviews. Business Performance BU leaders believe effective LD adds value in business performance. The increasing complexities and competition in the business world demand that organizational leaders keep business performance at high levels and fight for talent (Ardichvili et al., 2016). Mabey and 94 Ramirez (2005) demonstrated a substantive variance in financial performance due to leadership training. All participants commented that effective and developed leaders make a difference in business performance. Skyler highlighted, “We have created and communicated a KPI that addresses continuing education in the organization.” Lux noted, “I put a fairly high price tag on leadership development ... when people grow and develop effectively, it helps the business productivity and has a cascading effect in other areas of the organization.” These comments correspond with the value proposition of LDP (Swensen et al., 2016) improving overall organizational performance, interpersonal relationships, social networks, organizational capital, and engendering trust and resiliency. The authors made a business case for the return on investment in LDP by emphasizing their impact on employee engagement and subsequently enhancing productivity, profitability, and adaptability. Furthermore, Pintrich (2003) highlighted value and expectancy as strong predictors of performance. Zion stated: The value is mostly to the organization itself when a pool of people whom they can depend on is created. They will have a more satisfactory workforce who contribute more and see the organization as both their professional and personal growth path. Also, there are indirect benefit to the organization that would lead to better visible parameters. People would talk about the organization more and reflect it on external surveys like best company to work for. That response aligned with previous research (Clardy, 2005) indicating that developmental practices affect organizational reputation, which has critical financial consequences. Technology Context BU leaders perceive leadership development as necessary in a technology company. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) emphasized the influence of contextual, social, and cultural elements 95 on value perceptions. Eight of 11 respondents (73%) indicated a high expectancy value in LD for engineers. Rory stated: In tech companies, leaders tend to come from engineers who are generally not good leaders. They think in binary terms and are very process driven … it is challenging to get them out of the box at times. … In this context, leadership development is not just important; it is absolutely necessary. Reflecting upon the benefits of LDP in a technology company, Sol noted, “In tech, early success is typically based on technical accomplishments ... once you start moving up, you need leadership development which you do not normally get in the early career development stage.” Zion also added, “Not every engineer is geared towards leadership. … Tech companies must create appropriate distinct processes, training programs, and roadmap for both technical and people leadership roles.” Lux commented: “Technical leaders may not have people, but they set directions and lead teams with broad impact … projects that ultimately have hundreds of people working on them ... sometimes they are overconfident and downplay structured leadership learning.” These comments align with the growing body of evidence suggesting technology companies need to prioritize LDP. In many tech-based organizations, individuals advance to managerial and leadership positions based on their technical knowledge and performance with the assumption of excelling at such roles as well as technical roles (Hysong, 2006). Johnson and Sergeant (1998) asserted that the gap between technical forte and business acumen would make career progress and upward mobility to higher management significantly less likely for individuals solely with a technical background. Transitioning to top management requires systematic and comprehensive processes, one of which is building leadership potential and learning new behaviors (Plakhotnik et al., 2011). 96 Motivation Findings Summary The BU leadership team possesses an internal belief in their ability and competency to develop, implement, and evaluate effective LDP. The ever-changing landscape of the technology sector, coupled with the myriad M&As InfraM has been through, demands leaders with high efficacy in developing their workforce, setting strategies, and effectively driving change. Leaders with high self-efficacy persist when facing challenges, exert commitment and mental effort to achieve goals, identify strengths and gaps in performance, navigate through unknown and unfamiliar circumstances, and help followers accomplish their tasks and contribute to desired organizational outcomes (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011; Paglis & Green, 2002). BU leaders identified various sources responsible for their self-efficacy in engaging in LDP. The responses aligned with previous research on the significant drivers of self-efficacy: prior knowledge, social persuasion, and previous experience (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). However, the absence of InfraM’s role in shaping BU leaders’ self-efficacy was notable. Their self-efficacy originated outside of familiarity with the specific BU LDP and centered around structured LDP before joining InfraM, their peer network, and leadership roles throughout their career. Utilizing their self-efficacy and cascading the identified drivers into the organization, BU leaders would contribute to building the leadership talent pipeline within their teams. The leadership team perceives an added value in business performance and individual, team, and organizational goals through the execution of an effective LDP. The increasing complexities and competition in the business world demand that organizational leaders keep business performance at high levels (Ardichvili et al., 2016). Such exogenous factors and internal complexities imposed by every M&A have contributed to leadership’s development of intrinsic perceived value in LDP. Understanding LDP’s general and specific purpose, its inherent utility 97 value, benefits for tech companies undergoing several change initiatives, and impact on various individual, team, and organizational outcomes helps leaders further develop an intrinsic interest in LDP. Consequently, they become committed to the presence and integration of such initiatives into the organization and motivated to actively engage in such endeavors toward achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Organization Findings InfraM’s imposed organizational and cultural barriers make BU suboptimal for leadership development. Organizations must possess, offer, and sustain resources, support systems, and processes to facilitate performance goals achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017). Leaders can gain insight into the organization by considering how symbols, rituals, and culture influence organizational performance (Bolman & Deal, 2021). Furthermore, goal attainment is subject to aligning culture, behaviors, policies, procedures, and access to adequate resources (Schein, 2017). Leadership development programs would achieve desired learning and development goals through careful design that addresses gaps, timely implementation, and active commitment and engagement of current leaders (Conger, 2014; Salas et al., 2012). Organizational influences impact the BU’s overall commitment to LDP which includes the themes surrounding dedication to being a learning organization, the manner in which they provide communication, incorporating a culture of inquiry, practicing evidence-based decision- making, integrating cultures, supporting the practice of effective LDP, and providing context- specific developmental resources to the workforce emerged as themes. The collective impact of such improvements fosters capacity building and organizational growth and is essential to achieve stakeholder performance goals and optimizing outcomes. 98 Culture of Commitment to LD InfraM’s overarching organizational barriers and cultural influences impede the effective and efficient achievement of LD goals. Culture is pivotal in motivating organizational members to achieve performance goals (Schein, 2011). Culture can form positive or negative perceptions around organizational learning and development activities and programs (Grant, 2014; Kegan & Lahey, 2016). Cultivating a culture committed to learning and development would reinforce the utilization of LDP and foster sustainable growth and change (Beer et al., 2016). Learning organizations cultivate such a culture, focus on inquiry and growth, develop leaders, and expand capacity (Kegan & Lahey, 2016). In learning organizations, leaders facilitate system thinking, and members examine their mental models, engage in self-reflection, employ cooperative learning, and establish a shared vision (Senge, 2006). Convergent themes such as developing the learning organization, incorporating effective communication, cultivating a culture of inquiry focused on growth, development, and evidence-based decision-making, and committing to adequate, timely, and proper cultural integration repeatedly appeared in the interviews. Learning Organization InfraM needs to prioritize learning and development and improve as a learning organization. In their study of 900 organizations, Bernthal and Wellins (2006) concluded that underutilization of existing LDP, continuous use of ineffective ones, and lack of involvement and commitment of the leadership team would lead to the organization’s failure in preparing and developing future leaders. All BU leaders indicated a lack of prioritization and cultural barriers present within InfraM that impede such prioritization of learning and development. Lux stated: We have people at the director level that never had any training other than sexual harassment and guidelines that will schedule things. Never had a training like leadership 99 development, leadership competencies, or communication. … I am mentoring a guy that wants to grow to the next level and got a lot of potential. The first thing he said to me is, "I've never had any management training. I've done this all on my own." Cove noted, “The company has an education organization. … I have a contact … trying to remember her name. … I think it is available but I'm not exactly sure what it consists of.” Zion added, “We do announcements about learning centers, courses, and processes ... need to improve further … still requires more effort from top down.” Rory mentioned, “It gets progressively worse the further we go down the organization. … We have been more successful in recruiting talent than we have in growing talent. … We don't have good leadership development within InfraM.” Sol added, “It is a priority in BU and InfraM’s executive team … but I'm not sure it's instilled in the culture of day-to-day individual contributors and operational teams. I hear a lot of: Oh, my God! Another required training.” Arden further indicated, “The executive team prioritizes learning and development. Cascading that message down to the manager level does get weaker as you go lower in the organization. It is an ongoing struggle.” These comments create a sense of urgency to attend to this organizational barrier and serve as a point of departure for InfraM leaders to understand their role in developing a learning organization and cultivating a culture of growth, competency, and mastery. Senge (2006) highlighted the role of leaders in learning organizations to be: social architects and designers of effective learning and development processes, stewards for the people and mission of the organization, and coaches and mentors who help reshape mental models and views of reality. On the importance of leaders utilizing critical reinforcement mechanisms to embed and transmit culture, Schein (2011) suggested using a systematic and frequent assessment of developmental initiatives. Moreover, researchers have indicated other cultural influences, such as effective 100 communication to frequently measure stakeholders’ performance progress and promote a culture of competency (Marsh, 2012; Shahin & Zairi, 2006). Aligned with the mentioned research, InfraM’s communication often lacks the clarity, effectiveness, and frequency essential to drive desired outcomes. Effective Communication All BU leaders addressed many communication challenges across InfraM while unanimously highlighting effective communication as a critical leadership competency required to advance to higher levels of leadership. In addressing the most sought leadership competency in the organization, Cove noted, “The ability to communicate clearly, precisely, and adequately.” Rory added, “communication is critical … ability to digest complex things and convey them in a more simplistic form depending on your audience so they can understand and act on it.” Sol stated, “To create context for people, you need to make it real for them, bring it to life, be in conversations that are not about technology, so when you sit in strategic review with the CEO, you belong on that table.” Arlie mentioned, “If you are the world’s smartest engineer with the greatest idea but cannot communicate anything, you can't influence people to follow you and your technical acumen is wasted.” Sage added, “In a team dynamic, you cannot lead people without effective communication.” Zion indicated, “There are people who are very detailed communicators in technical sense … but when they have to provide a concise communication of what is the gist of it and actually boil it down within two or three sentences, they struggle.” Even though the aforementioned comments were emphatic on the importance of effective communication, ironically, most participants also noted that the organization does not effectively communicate at times. 101 InfraM needs to promote and improve effective communication. Cove stated, “If all of our leaders were doing more of that [effective communication], I think it would solve a lot of the problems we have.” Lux commented, “Leadership competencies are not well explained here [InfraM].” Zion mentioned, “I would be surprised if engineers below director level know that there is an importance given to that [nontechnical competencies] for their growth into director and beyond. … There is no structured information about that.” In discussing the overall communication effectiveness, Cypress further added, “CEO and his staff do a tremendous job … at the top it is extremely impressive … it stops there though … it still is a siloed run business … it does not cascade all the way down.” Additionally, participants’ comments on communication gaps pertinent to strategy, goals, core behaviors, and competencies appear in Appendix H. Evidence-Based Decision Making and Culture of Inquiry InfraM’s conducted surveys and data collection processes do not adequately inform leadership’s practice. Utilizing the conceptual framework offered by Erwin et al. (2019), the study explored BU leaders’ perceptions regarding organizational commitment and support for evidence-based decision-making (EBDM). Fostering EBDM is essential to utilize data in practice and translate the collected data into decisions that improve organizational performance and capacity (Erwin et al., 2019). The authors identified six factors related to evidence-based decision-making: awareness of EBDM, capacity for EBDM, resources available, evaluation capacity, EBDM climate cultivation, and partnerships to support EBDM. All BU leaders review employee survey results and set action plans accordingly. Cove said, “I share results with my team ... we identify three items to improve and create plans to work on … things we can create positive change not areas out of our control or we cannot have impact like compensation.” Lux added, “We look for consistencies and address severe outliers, then we 102 pick the most impactful from the collective team and agree on a plan ... the hard part is on global issues like compensation … we can't control everything.” Sol stated, “going down in management chain, teams come up with effective actions applicable to them … we uniformly report back to company but not a uniform way of what actions to take … geographic trends and reviewing comments are helpful.” Rory noted, “we review the data at staff level … very transparent and no conversations about differences [in teams’ scores].” Cypress commented, “I take it very seriously … read every comment, get the main themes, ask my team to come back with theirs, and address alarming comments. … I hope they [employees] see we walk our talk and moved the needle.” In addressing the use of data for particular areas, Zion shared, “there was a technical manager who became people manager too … a dual role in leadership … I wanted to see how they are doing … whether they are struggling … if they need coaching or we have to choose an alternate path.” Arlie stated: Surveys are good at identifying high level themes … hard to interpret them … commit to fixing common-focus big problems but then spend time to understand why people feel that way … you need to explore organizations things like “I don't feel empowered”… if you don't have an empowered organization, you are not building a scalable organization … you have to commit to double clicking on that theme. These comments align with some of the components of EBDM characterized by Brownson et al. (2013) who suggested EBDM requires decision makers to actively engage with their stakeholders to ensure proper understanding of data and to ensure they disseminate those findings back to the key stakeholders. Several BU leaders shared their negative perceptions about the existing data collection processes and approach. Sol commented, “Current approach to surveys is not effective … there 103 is higher level things to do also to take actions based on what is inside data on a granular level. I don't like only approaching the actions for bottom three.” Rory mentioned, “last year employee recognition was a big focus, and we did quite a few things to improve that, but scores did not improve … in fact, it went down … how do you actually internalize that input and make actions?” Coby noted, “People are over surveyed, and results are positive each year … so surveys lose impact … employees have vested interest in making their managers look good … not ding them in public forums … when they talk, they say something different though.” Sage shared, “I can't connect the dots … data doesn't speak to me. … I'm not saying it belies my experience, but it doesn't inform it, either … I just wonder how much of it is just the narrative we create.” Cypress stated: Management doesn't do anything with it [results] … biggest complaints always are recognition … they [management] are not getting them back what they [employees] need … that is on the managers, and it really isn't about the dollars. … There is so many other things you can do for recognition. Also, I do not think there is consistent practices across InfraM. These comments serve as a point of departure for InfraM to commit to enhancing organizational practices, programs, policies, and processes to support EBDM more effectively and cultivate a culture of inquiry to achieve performance goals and desired outcomes ultimately. Furthermore, the absence of comments on tapping into research and scientific evidence, utilizing highly aggregated data in decision making, lack of proper data analysis including inferential statistics of the collected data and the cross-examination of different scales of measurement corresponds with the secondary quantitative data, the study collected through document analysis and addressed at the beginning of this chapter. Cultivating a culture that values learning and developing, effective 104 communication, and evidence-based decision-making, followed by a concerted effort and diligence to embed that culture in all business units and functions, and the agility to integrate new cultures adopted through M&As would make the organization conducive to the growth and development of current and future leaders. Cultural Integration The presence of subcultures and lack of proper cultural integration puts InfraM in suboptimal conditions for leadership development. InfraM’s multiple M&As in recent years have triggered a significant change within the organization and have impacted stakeholders and business units. M&As as a business development option and a strategic choice to maintain competitive advantage prompt leaders to adopt new processes, employ new practices, and adapt to the internal and external demands of the new environment. As a large-scale organizational change trigger event, M&As significantly impact organizational stakeholders and require myriad organizational integration, including procedural, leadership, and sociocultural (Seo & Hill, 2005). All BU leaders indicated a lack of adequate and proper integration, specifically from the cultural standpoint. Cypress highlighted: Startup mentality … minimal process … culture of smart people sitting together … they were tough to get into … we attempted to get them to participate in cross business unit work and they did somewhat, but more lip service than actually changing their processes ... we let them go too long ... then a whole lot of issues with their designs that could have been avoided if they followed InfraM processes. Cypress’s comment aligned with previous research that many employees prefer maintaining the status quo, stability, predictability, and consistency (Marks, 2006). In addressing the importance of leaders’ adaptive response to the resistance to change, Lux added, “There's a gap to bridge … 105 important to blend that culture and mentality into a larger corporate culture. ... I spent a lot of time breaking that wall ... eventually we need to come together.” Zion further noted, “I try not to have silos. … In many cases, I have proactively created people to people connections … sometimes in my team … sometimes across organization and other business units.” Those responses correspond with how effectively developed incumbent leaders should modify behaviors and incorporate practices to align with the objectives, strategies, and processes to better adapt to the changes in the environment (Yukl, 2013). Failing to do that would result in a real and measurable impact on organizational performance and outcomes (Schraeder & Self, 2003). In discussing the importance of modifying existing processes and the effectiveness of utilizing uniform processes, Sol mentioned: InfraM and BU let people hold on to that attitude [we did things better where we were] much longer than they should. InfraM could do better and not tolerate that as much. There is a fear of not retaining people if you bring change too quickly. People doing different things metastasize in the organization then it's harder to change … letting things get caught in that rut and then 2 years later, saying we want one InfraM culture. There are InfraM executives who still call BU people with previous name … we need to bring them into the fold earlier. That comment touched on leadership’s agility and effective practices throughout the integration process. Research indicates some critical practices: developing people, setting directions, modifying existing processes, and building cultures (Kouzes & Posner, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2006). Skyler indicated, “we have acquired many companies, and each has their culture and silo. We have made huge progress in merging them compared to other companies but there are still silos. … Make it one culture; one company; one goal.” Arden commented,” Acquisitions are an 106 ongoing challenge ... acquisition A likes their engineering processes better than InfraM’s ... acquisition B likes theirs the best ... that's a lot of process ... they become culture clashes.” Schraeder and Self (2003) posited culture as a make-or-break factor in the success of M&As in their reference to prior research. They further noted, “cultures serve as forces that draw organizational members together, creating a sense of cohesion.” (p. 2). The literature highlights the impact of the lack of cultural integration and the presence of cultural clash, a post-M&A phenomenon, on the diminished performance and success of M&As (Appelbaum et al., 2007; Bligh, 2006; McKinnon et al., 2003; Stahl & Mendenhall, 2005). Coby commented: Execution and scale are the challenges we are confronting ... partly because processes are not consistent across the company ... many cultures each with their own process ... teams and cultures are not necessarily integrated and aligned ... some apply a more rigid philosophy to processes and some don't ... some more conscious about quality and some are not. The lack of alignment between cultures indicated in Coby’s comment prompts an emphasis on cultural integration as a critical process that should span all stages of M&As: planning, negotiation, and implementation. Organizational leaders and HR professionals must map out plans for cultural amalgamation as early as the M&As planning phase (Tetenbaum, 1999). InfraM’s lack of a shared culture impedes growth and development at all levels of the organization. In promoting cross-cultural management in all stages of integration, Weber et al. (2012) emphasized clarifying, measuring, and evaluating cultural differences, followed by defining a desired shared culture. The authors listed several advantages of their proposed strategy: coping with human factor challenges, cooperation, preventing key personnel and managers from leaving, commitment preservation, and motivation. Moreover, the authors 107 asserted the implementation of HR practices such as training, recruiting, and communication, identifying and capturing the synergetic potential, enabling feedback, and further organizational improvements, among other benefits companies gain from properly handling cultural differences in all stages of the M&As process. InfraM’s leaders and HR professionals must strategically plan adequate and proper integration by grounding their practice in scholarship. In their research study, Schraeder and Self (2003) accumulated prominent strategies to ensure successful cultural integration: performing due diligence pre-event, including assessing cultural compatibility and deploying a comprehensive cultural audit followed by post-event factors such as developing a flexible and comprehensive integration plan, sharing information and encouraging communication, involving stakeholders in the process, enhancing commitment by establishing relationships and building trust, managing acculturation through training and org support, respecting individuals and temporal aspects of the integration process. Researchers emphasized post-event integration strategies to create synergy (Schraeder & Self, 2003) and extract the potential (Almor et al., 2009; Ellis et al., 2009) between the acquiring and acquired companies. Considering such context-specific areas of focus in designing and implementing LDP and acquiring resources that fit the demands of the environment would lead to the development of current and future leaders capable and competent to lead their organizations through turbulent times of change and uncertainty. Developmental Resources The BU leadership team utilizes developmental resources to help develop current and future leaders. To establish procedures and processes and accomplish tasks, organizations require resources such as time, material, funding, knowledge, technology, and other tangibles, such as 108 human capital (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The authors noted that the proper allocation of resources is essential for goal achievement, and lack of it would impede goal attainment. Developmental resources such as mentoring, coaching, and training programs emerged as dominant themes during interviews. Mentoring BU leaders engage in an informal mentoring relationship with employees. Rosenbach (2018) asserted that a leader’s responsibility is to serve as a role model and to mentor future leaders, so they are adequately prepared and developed for the role. Leaders’ involvement, engagement, and modeling of appropriate leadership behaviors have significant importance within organizations (Hanson, 2013; Snook et al., 2012). Mentorship leads to individual career outcomes and desired organizational outcomes. Allen et al. (2004) emphasized that mentored individuals would have more significant and better career outcomes and greater intentions to stay with the firm than unmentored ones. All participants informally mentor individuals. Sage indicated, “I have been mentoring different individuals one-on-one. Every month, we meet and discuss things they need to work on.” Sol said, “I am currently mentoring three people outside my team. … I provide them with different contexts and perspectives. … It is tough for most people to find the time, energy, and urgency to step outside what they are doing and engage in that.” Cypress stated, “I mentor people informally. I check in with them once a month on their career needs.” Lux mentioned, “driving that relationship when someone has gone through that path with similar responsibilities and help them navigate the path whether it is career or project … more of a long-term progression.” Zion noted: 109 Leadership here implies you can create an impact by motivating, providing knowledge transfer, and mentoring others in technical and people sense. That would be very fulfilling for individuals to understand possibilities and for leaders to see the importance of their role. These comments align with research that mentorship relationships “turbo-charge” leadership growth and development while deepening and broadening learning and offering new perspectives (Rosenbach, 2018, p. 105). Rosenbach further noted that mentoring relationships have a dual effect as they reinforce mentors’ learning and development by highlighting their weaknesses in terms of communication, performance gaps, and leadership style. Ragins et al. (2000) examined the relationship between satisfactory mentorship and several variables such as career attitude, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and retention and noted a strong positive impact of mentorship on such variables both in formal and informal mentorship relationships. Arden stated, “Informal mentoring happens all the time, but there has been a huge demand for a more formal and broader program. We are dipping our toes into formalizing a cloud-based program, enabling speed mentoring, technical and women’s mentoring.” That comment corresponds with developing a robust mentorship program and involving current leaders and managers in building mentorship relationships with employees is a common practice in all organizations that build effective leadership pipelines (Berard, 2013). In studying best- practice companies, Groves (2007) highlighted mentorship as a common thread amongst those model organizations. In addition to the existing informal mentorship relationships, InfraM needs to roll out a robust and formal mentorship program to adequately prepare individuals for leadership roles. While mentoring and coaching are distinct, their role is complementary in 110 expanding the collective capacity of an organization and developing leaders (Altman et al., 2010). Coaching BU leaders support employees’ growth and development through frequent one-on-one and team coaching. Coaching, as an intervention, amplifies other related practices and influences the LD process (DeRue & Myers, 2014; Korotov, 2016). Coaching supports a culture of learning and development and fosters resilience for change (Grant, 2014). Furthermore, Hagen (2012) asserted that coaching could enhance learning processes, improve competitive advantage, and improve individual and organizational performance. Most participants noted that they personally engage in a coaching relationship with individuals and teams. Cypress mentioned, “I pride myself in developing strong leaders not only for bench strength for me, but to have a healthy organization. I spend much time coaching my direct reports one on one and as a team.” In discussing effective coaching, Rory stated: Managing someone to your objective, what you think they should be doing, and what you want them to do is very different from working to understand an individual's objectives, how they view their weaknesses and strengths, and then providing constructive feedback and coaching them on what they can do to improve. The former happens too often in organizations, but effective coaching requires having the best interest of the person being coached in mind. This comment aligned with previous research that indicates effective coaching requires shifting from a command-control paradigm in the relationship between the coach and coached to one based on knowledge and empowerment (Hagen, 2012). Ellinger et al. (2008) asserted that coaching becomes ineffective and impedes development when using autocratic leadership and 111 ineffective communication styles. In addressing the timeliness of coaching, Lux noted, “I do real-time situational coaching with the more technical oriented managers for management, assessing performance, and communicating strategies.” That comment corresponded with Robertson’s (2014) postulating coaching as adequate and timely feedback aimed to elevate performance and achieve organizational goals and desired outcomes. While most BU leaders indicated their personal involvement in frequent coaching with their teams, a few noted delegating that to HR. Zion stated, “I recommended people from my team to HR for various multi-dimensional coaching opportunities.” Research indicates that shifting some developmental responsibilities, such as coaching from the HR function to the managerial and leadership function, would have several advantages, including improved quality of development, improved performance of both sides of the dyadic relationship, and expanding the range of employees benefiting from such development (Hagen, 2012). The responses surrounding coaching practice in developing current and future leaders, whether done personally by the leader or a joint effort with HR business partners, point to BU’s coaching culture. Gormley and van Nieuwerburgh (2014) contended that such culture is the outcome of leaders’ efforts to expand and support employees’ capabilities through feedback and measuring progress. A coaching culture reinforces a growth mindset in members of an organization, informs the relationship between leaders and employees, and exhibits an organizational commitment to learning and development (Hawkins, 2021; Jones & Gorell, 2014). This culture coupled with a structured and uniform coaching practice prepares current and future leaders for the ever-increasing demands of their roles. BU leaders are all engaged in ad hoc coaching with their teams on their own terms and based on their individual experience and perception around coaching. The interviews’ findings 112 reflected a lack of internal and uniform coaching practice in director and senior director levels and accessibility to external coaches for VP level leaders. Coaching is an integral component of an effective LDP. Leader and leadership development processes, practices, and programs influence the cadence of change and form of development over time (Day et al., 2014). The growing body of research identifies coaching as an essential component of such practices and programs aimed to build leadership capacity and competency. Combining mentorship and coaching with other components of an effective LDP maximizes the return and optimizes the outcome of programs. Gibson (2003) emphasized the importance of establishing a portfolio of various developmental relationships and processes during an individual’s developmental path. Training Programs BU leaders reported a wide range of responses regarding their awareness, motivation, expectation, and satisfaction with the training programs available to BU through InfraM. Leader and leadership development processes, practices, and programs influence the cadence of change and form of development over time (Day et al., 2014). Understanding the significant challenges in designing and implementing leadership development programs would help organizations evade the derailment of such efforts and maintain senior leaders’ commitment to developing current and future leaders (Berard, 2013). Addressing the ineffectiveness of some programs, Rory noted, “LDP here has been hit and miss. Some of it is effective, and some wastes my time. I do not need to sit through several hours of training to achieve something that I can read a book and learn. Sol stated: The group leadership training is not as effective as the one on one, dealing directly and specifically with a person's questions, strengths, and weaknesses. The content tends to be a one-way transmission of information. Someone will start a presentation on a topic, and 113 we spend 2 hours on that somewhere. Typically, during the presentation, there is much structure about how to think about the problem and then many questions. Cypress added, “A good leadership course is not the one that is just pitched ... it requires everyone talking and engaging, whether they want to or not ... it requires people getting a little out of their comfort zone ... it has to work the audience.” These comments aligned with a recent study (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019) that indicated more than 50% of senior leaders do not believe their current LD efforts develop the skills and capabilities necessary to meet existing and upcoming organizational challenges. Conducting a comprehensive need assessment prior to training better prepares participants and influences engagement and outcome. Rory stated, “Personal training would be much more effective, where there is pre-work done to understand leadership capability, specific strengths, and weaknesses, and build on those.” Lux noted, “My most important leadership development classes were partly retrospective, trying to understand yourself, what is important to you, how you communicate, and process. Also, important to be dynamic in the meeting and address multiple people.” These comments corresponded with Leskiw and Singh (2007) identifying comprehensive needs assessment as a critical area of focus in all LD initiatives in their extensive literature review on LD’s best practices. The communication and description of training programs influences participants’ motivation. Arden noted, “leadership courses are available on the internal web portal and communication is pushed out to leaders via email drawing them to those pages ... as a leader, you are required to go through this program, your date is this, go register.” Rory stated, “Some are mandatory, and we get signed up for them.” Coby further added, “messaging about these programs has a very compliance-driven tone to it ... you will attend this program ... there is 114 nothing fun about mandatory ... it does not generate any excitement and motivation.” Cypress said, “leadership training has to be fun, and people have to see purpose in it.” These comments aligned with a research study (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019) that identified three major gaps that lead to the failure of many LD trainings: lack of motivation, lack of training transfer, and lack of alignment between the organization’s needs and the employed cookie-cutter, off-the-shelf programs offered by traditional providers. On the importance of such alignment and the customization of trainings to fit the organization’s context, Lux stated: “It is good to understand the context of the business to some degree ... not necessarily the P and L of the company but why decisions are being made versus not just how you should do your job, and how you should act.” Skyler noted, “A leadership training program customized to InfraM addresses the company’s operating system, engineering methodologies, design, forecasting, and sales process ... but it is only available to VPs ... we are planning to go to multiple levels in the organization.” Coby added: Define the business challenge you are confronting, then describe the expected results from leaders and the skills to help them execute those results. That way, there is a lot more clarity across the business regarding what is required of leaders. Then, align that to a curriculum and training to ensure leaders get the training they need to execute those business challenges. Research indicates that incorporating the organizational context in LD design, avoiding one size fits all mentality, ensuring real work application of LD, and closing the gap between theory and practice are some of LD challenges (Gurdjian et al., 2014; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013; Petrie, 2015). In addressing InfraM’s leadership training programs, Rory stated, “People are unaware they exist or how to tap into it. … If I could understand what InfraM offers and who can access 115 it, it would be helpful. None of that is clear to me and I have been here long.” Lux noted, “Learning and development opportunities seems to be sparse. ... I haven't seen a lot of things come my way … nothing curated … not a recipe for becoming first time manager. … I don't know how to find leadership development courses.” Contrary to Rory’s and Lux’s comments, Cypress mentioned, “There are several leadership trainings available and being leveraged by my team … very formally rolled out and have a schedule communicated strictly via email.” The polarity in responses begs for further examination of the matter. Additionally, Appendix I provides participants’ comments and perceptions about the existing training programs. InfraM’s existing training programs’ visibility, frequency, content, modality, level of engagement, manner of communication, and connection to individual and organizational purpose significantly impacts the effectiveness of such a major component of InfraM’s LDP. Organization Findings Summary InfraM’s overarching organizational barriers and cultural influences impede the effective and efficient achievement of LD goals. All BU leaders indicated a lack of prioritization and cultural barriers present within InfraM that impede learning and development. The comments stem from an internal perception that InfraM’s lack of commitment to LD, highlighted by a limited sense of urgency to attend to the organizational barriers, prevented InfraM leaders from understanding their role in developing a learning organization and cultivating a culture of growth, competency, and mastery. BU leaders addressed many communication challenges across InfraM while unanimously noting effective communication as a critical leadership competency required to advance to higher levels of leadership. InfraM needs to promote and improve effective communication, specifically about the expectations and requirements to advance to higher levels of the organization. The lack 116 of consistent communication additionally manifested in their approach to using data to craft more effective LDP. BU leaders review employee survey results and set action plans accordingly. However, the conducted surveys and data collection processes do not adequately inform leadership practice. The negative perceptions around the existing data collection processes and approach serve as a point of departure for InfraM to commit to enhancing organizational practices, programs, policies, and processes to support EBDM more effectively and cultivate a culture of inquiry to achieve performance goals and desired outcomes. Furthermore, the absence of comments on tapping into research and scientific evidence, utilizing highly aggregated data in decision making, lack of proper data analysis including inferential statistics of the collected data, lack of cross-examination of different scales of measurement, and utilizing generic off-the-shelf survey instruments with no customization in question selection to better fit organizational context and pain points correspond with the data analysis of previous employee surveys. Collectively, the challenges with communication and EBDM manifest in lack of a singular organizational culture. InfraM is in suboptimal conditions for leadership development due to a lack of proper cultural integration and the presence of subcultures. InfraM’s multiple M&As in recent years prior to this study triggered a significant change within the organization and impacted stakeholders and business units. BU leaders indicated a lack of adequate and proper integration, specifically from the cultural standpoint. The BU leadership team utilizes developmental resources to help develop current and future leaders. As such, mentoring, coaching, and training programs are three components of InfraM’s LDP. BU leaders engage in an informal mentoring relationship with employees aligned 117 with Rosenbach (2018) who asserted a leader’s responsibility is to serve as a role model and to mentor future leaders, so they are adequately prepared and developed for the role. Additionally, most BU leaders support employees’ growth and development through frequent one-on-one and team coaching. The growing body of research identifies coaching as an essential component of such practices and programs aimed to build leadership capacity and competency (Day et al., 2014; DeRue & Myers, 2014; Korotov, 2016). However, not all BU leaders assumed this to be part of their responsibility. Some BU leaders noted delegating coaching to HR, while most indicated their personal involvement in frequent coaching with their teams. Research indicates that shifting some developmental responsibilities, such as coaching from the HR function to the managerial and leadership function, would have several advantages, including improved quality of development, improved performance of both sides of the dyadic relationship, and expanding the range of employees benefiting from such development (Hagen, 2012). The responses surrounding coaching practice in developing current and future leaders, whether done personally by the leader or a joint effort with HR business partners, point to BU’s coaching culture. BU leaders are engaged in ad hoc coaching with their teams on their own terms and based on their individual experience and perception of coaching. The interviews’ findings reflected a lack of internal and uniform coaching practice at the director and senior director levels and accessibility to external coaches for VP-level leaders. BU leaders reported a wide range of responses regarding their awareness, motivation, expectation, effectiveness, and satisfaction with the training programs available to BU through InfraM. A few interviewees suggested conducting a comprehensive need assessment prior to training better prepares participants and influences engagement and outcome, which 118 corresponded with Leskiw and Singh (2007) identifying comprehensive needs assessment as a critical area of focus in all LD initiatives in their extensive literature review on LD's best practices. Several BU leaders mentioned how training programs are communicated and its influence on participants' motivation which corresponds with Moldoveanu and Narayandas's (2019) study that identified three significant gaps that lead to the failure of many LD training: lack of motivation, lack of training transfer, and lack of alignment between the organization's needs and the employed cookie-cutter, off-the-shelf programs offered by traditional providers. Several interviews discussed the customization of training and its alignment with the organization's context which aligns with research suggesting the incorporation of organizational context in LD design, avoiding a one size fits all mentality, ensuring real work application of LD, and closing the gap between theory and practice are critical for effective LD (Gurdjian et al., 2014; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013; Petrie, 2015). The collective differences in responses regarding the visibility, frequency, content, modality, level of engagement, manner of communication, and connection to individual and purpose of InfraM's LDP point to significant but defined organizational barriers. Results and Findings Summary InfraM lacks a shared understanding and definition of leadership development, what determines success, and what LD means in InfraM. Success in one organization does not necessarily translate to success in others, as context, relationships, challenges, culture, and levels of trust are different. From the motivation lens, the organization lacks clear communication on: What outcome and payoff are present for people that go through and engage with LDP? Are they promoted, recognized, rewarded, or sidelined? What is the senior leaders’ level of participation and support for LDP? 119 InfraM is sub-optimized as the overarching culture emerged by default rather than by design. The multitude of organizational heritages that shape InfraM define and perceive LD from the cultural frame of their prior organizations. People are not operating from a common picture and organizational decisions exist within an individual rather than a cultural context. The culture of acquiring talent rather than growing and developing leads to a lack of development and preservation of institutional memory over time. Survey results point to the employees’ unfavorable perceptions around the presence of professional development and career growth opportunities within the organization. Furthermore, the statistical analysis of the survey data reflects a strong relationship between those two variables and employee satisfaction. Yet, organizational leaders do not apply the data as a driver for change. As such, some factors have remained poorly scored in subsequent years’ survey results. The collective findings suggest gaps exist in each KMO area within InfraM and the BU. The primary challenges exist within the organizational context of how InfraM implements LDP on an enterprise level to establish tailored and standardized practices used within each unit. Due to their ongoing M&As activities, the need for such practices is essential to craft a branded approach to LD that meets current and foreseeable capabilities. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest the collection of data and researching performance-based issues is only a first step; developing action plans addressing KMO gaps provides a means to meeting the organization's overall goal. As such, the following chapter outlines effective recommendations and implementation strategies to create an InfraM-centric LDP. 120 Chapter Five: Recommendations This study explored and analyzed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impacted the development of current and future leaders at a business unit within InfraM, a technology company. Chapter One presented the problem of practice prevalent in many organizations, including BU, whereby the notable fiscal investments in LDP, aimed to identify and advance high-potential employees, do not bring about the expected impact and outcome. Chapter Two addressed the relevant literature and assumed KMO influences in developing current and future leaders. Chapter Three covered the research methodology and approach. Chapter Four included the collection and analysis of qualitative data from semi- structured interviews as well as secondary quantitative data from four sets of surveys collected in 3 consecutive years. The findings confirmed and validated the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences identified in Chapter Two. These influences included KMO assets that support and serve the utilization of LDP and barriers that prevent them. Furthermore, additional organizational influences emerged during data analysis. The findings in Chapter Four collectively developed the response to RQ1 which examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers preventing the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Chapter Five offers several recommendations to close the validated KMO gaps in BU and develops the response to RQ2 centered on knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations for improving the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Applying the recommendations in this chapter, coupled with the KMO assets identified in Chapter Four, will 121 help BU and InfraM, the parent organization, optimize the development and retention of human capital and talent within their organization. Gleaned from the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a comprehensive integrated implantation and evaluation plan follows the recommendation in this chapter. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) complements Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework as the latter helps identify the root cause of performance gaps followed by recommendations to close them, while the former addresses the development of implementation strategies, the design of a program delineating outcomes, behaviors, learnings goals, and engagement criteria and the evaluation of the results. Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influence Recommendations The findings in Chapter Four revealed several knowledge and motivation assets within the BU leadership team. Participants demonstrated adequate conceptual knowledge of the impact of an effective LDP on individuals, teams, and organizations. BU leaders’ metacognitive knowledge was evident through the reflective practices and multidimensional awareness they shared through interviews. Furthermore, BU leaders engage in frequent formal and informal performance feedback processes and assist their teams in setting performance and developmental goals. The study’s stakeholders also expressed their perceptions of LDP’s high expectancy value in driving business performance, especially within the context of a technology company. Participants’ sharing reflected high levels of self-efficacy in developing the organization’s future leaders. InfraM’s structured and standard processes and procedures, many signature products that generate revenue, and a pattern of success to replicate put the organization on the growth curve in Phase 2. The definition of leadership and LD varies in this phase as opposed to the entrepreneurial or reinvention phases of a growth cycle. This phase is about scaling, developing 122 talent and teams, increasing efficiency, and developing creative ideas and leadership staff needs to sustain the growth pattern. The collective influence of the aforementioned knowledge and motivation assets in BU’s leadership team has contributed significantly to achieving business performance goals and organizational outcomes. However, InfraM’s organizational barriers identified in this study have kept BU in a suboptimal condition. Several organizational influences at InfraM impede BU’s optimal growth, development, effectiveness, and efficiency. The lack of a unified, branded, context-driven LDP led to BU leaders’ broad array of definitions of the phenomenal and lack of a uniform branded approach to develop leaders. The study’s data analysis revealed many other organizational barriers, such as lack of learning and development (L&D) priority and focus, lack of effective communication, underutilization of functional leaders, and their context-specific expertise in LDP, ineffective and outdated training programs, lack of a fully integrated and an influential EBDM culture. Table 11 summarizes the identified barriers. The framing of the gaps within the interviews often stemmed from the respondents' perspectives prior to arriving at InfraM as opposed to being a reflection of internal LDP. Additionally, adopting generic and off-the-shelf solutions that worked in other contexts and applying them to current problems would never put InfraM in an optimized condition to grow and develop the organization’s future leaders. The ever-increasing competition in the industry, the demand for exceptional talent to navigate the challenges, and the nature of M&As activities prevalent at InfraM call for a unique context-driven LDP that fits the organization’s needs. The following KMO recommendations solely focus on the assumed organizational gaps confirmed and validated through data analysis as well as the additional emergent organizational gaps. Incorporating the recommendations and utilizing the subsequently 123 integrated implementation plan would significantly improve BU’s long-term business performance. Table 12 Summary of KMO Influences and Identified Gaps KMO influences Identified gaps Factual Knowledge BU leaders lack a unified understanding and definition of LD Procedural Knowledge BU leaders approach LD differently primarily depending on their previous exposures and other organizations’ LDP Organizational Commitment Learning and development is not a top focus or priority at InfraM Organizational Commitment InfraM lacks effective communication on competencies, strategies, goals, vision, and change initiatives Organizational Commitment InfraM lack an optimal culture of inquiry and an influential EBDM culture Organizational Commitment InfraM’s culture is not fully integrated Organizational Resources Underutilization of InfraM’s functional leaders in coaching, mentoring, and training capacities Organizational Resources Many existing training programs at InfraM are ineffective, outdated, and generic Organizational Resources InfraM lacks a unified branded customized context-driven LDP The qualitative and quantitative evidence in Chapter Four call attention and demand a top-down approach to address the barriers to effectively develop current and future leaders. The root cause analysis of such gaps primarily pointed to a lack of InfraM’s institutional reinforcement, commitment, and guidance for business units including BU. The following recommendations stemmed from study’s findings and existed within literature to better 124 triangulate the data with data-driven solutions. The recommendations would make InfraM a more conducive environment for learning, growth, and development which would positively influence the business performance goals achievement and optimize organizational outcomes. Adjusting InfraM’s LDP Competition and employee related challenges lead companies to deploy various strategies to develop leaders, and LDP investments continue to scale up (Meheshwari & Yadav, 2018). Efforts such as leadership development, management development, and executive development aim to improve those individuals’ performance, capability, and contribution with the goal of enhanced organizational performance and capacity and better preparation for upcoming challenges (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Underdeveloped leaders cannot implement change initiatives, manage organizational complexities, and meet the ever-increasing demands of their roles (Hannah et al., 2008; Kellerman, 2004). The overly matrixed and flat organizations demand leaders’ highly developed interpersonal skills to collaborate and communicate effectively, but many LD efforts fail to address that need (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). Most LDP efforts fail due to misalignment between leadership models and context-specific organizational strategies and a lack of focus on critical leadership behaviors that drive business performance (Feser et al., 2017). Moldoveanu and Narayandas (2019) identified three major gaps that lead to the failure of many LD trainings: lack of motivation, lack of training transfer, and lack of alignment between the organization’s needs and the employed cookie-cutter, off-the-shelf programs offered by traditional providers. Institutions in highly competitive sectors demand effective and agile leaders develop the organization adequately and properly to navigate the turbulent, complex, and ever-changing business environment (Joiner, 2019). There needs to be strategic alignment between the 125 organization and environment to create a competitive advantage, and developing influential leaders contributes significantly to such goals (Anning-Dorson et al., 2017). The authors examined the innovation-performance relationship and identified the moderating role of effective organizational development and leadership. They further revealed that firms that effectively integrate human capital and developmental processes gain access to intangible organizational assets such as innovation, competence, and culture and tangible assets such as financial performance. In many tech-based organizations, individuals advance to managerial and leadership positions based on their technical knowledge and performance with the assumption of excelling at such roles as well as technical roles (Hysong, 2006). Johnson and Sergeant (1998) asserted that the gap between technical forte and business acumen would make career progress and upward mobility to higher management significantly less likely for individuals solely with a technical background. Plakhotnik et al. (2011) emphasized that transitioning to top management requires systematic and comprehensive processes, including building leadership potential and learning new behaviors. A branded and context-driven LDP, reinvented LDP practices, and a unified approach are three InfraM-specific recommendations stemmed from the study’s qualitative and quantitative findings and anchored in the literature. Branded and Context-Driven LDP InfraM, as an industry leader with several M&As activities and a focus on innovation, needs to adopt and implement a branded, context-driven approach to LDP. Researchers posit context as one of the primary considerations in all LD initiatives (Ardichvili & Dirani, 2017; Beer et al., 2016). Collins and Holton (2004) highlighted that LDP substantially improves knowledge and skills when leaders receive the proper development identified through adequate 126 front-end analysis of contextual needs. Day and Harrison (2007) emphasized that LDP best positions organizations for success when integrated with individual-based human capital, utilizing rigorous methods to identify gaps in a leader’s knowledge, skillsets, and ability, followed by addressing the gap. DeRue and Myers (2014) asserted that most effective organizations intertwine their efforts to advance individuals’ capacity with the collective’s development to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Kellerman (2012) and Petrie (2015) emphasized a collective process and holistic approach to LD that is not just leader-centric but also includes context and dyadic relationships within the organization. Many organizations have developed their in-house LDP to develop the competencies and capabilities of current and future leaders (Berzin, 2013; Brotherton, 2011; Hura, 2013; Wuestewald, 2016). While extending such offerings to all business units and expanding the volume, InfraM needs to adapt and shift the nature of LDP and evolve its pedagogical trends based on internal and external influencers. Companies like InfraM that undergo significant change, such as a substantial number of M&As, must tailor their LDP based on specific demands in their changing environments. The global rise in M&As as a business development option and a strategic choice to maintain competitive advantage prompt leaders to adopt new processes, employ new practices, and adapt to the internal and external demands of the new environment. Throughout such large-scale organizational change trigger events, effectively developed incumbent leaders modify behaviors and incorporate practices to align with the objectives, strategies, and processes to better adapt to the changes in the environment (Yukl, 2013). These practices include developing people, setting directions, modifying existing processes, and building cultures (Kouzes & Posner, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2006). Considering such context-specific needs in designing and implementing 127 LDP would lead to developing current and future leaders capable and competent to lead their organizations through turbulent times. Additionally, the existing LDP practices and the evaluation frequency, methodologies, and strategies need improvement. Reinvented LDP Practices InfraM needs to reinvent and revamp the established LD practices, employ and implement myriad initiatives, and incorporate a robust, agile methodology to monitor and evaluate their content, process, and outcome frequently. Several BU leaders alluded to the lack of adequate and effective institutional resources for individuals, especially at the director and senior director levels. Leader and leadership development processes, practices, and programs influence the cadence of change and form of development over time (Day et al., 2014). In their extensive review of literature on LD’s best practices, Leskiw and Singh (2007) identified six critical areas of focus in all LD initiatives: a comprehensive needs assessment, an appropriate selection of participants, a supporting infrastructure design, a robust learning system development, an effective evaluation system, and an immediate action plan to highlight and celebrate success and identify and improve deficiencies. Day et al. (2014) asserted that it is imperative to incorporate a rigorous methodology to evaluate the three dimensions of LD that would propose change: content, process, and outcome. The authors argued that fixation on performance is not the most appropriate way of measuring the effectiveness of LD interventions as performance is time bound and affected by several moderating factors. They suggested “markers and proxies of development” as the criterion for evaluation (p. 77). The effective measurement of change (Day et al., 2014), holding senior leaders to account for developmental results, and maintaining their commitment to developing current and future leaders (Berard, 2013) need to be at the forefront of InfraM’s LD initiatives. Aside from incorporating the 128 organizational context in LD design and avoiding one size fits all mentality, research (Gurdjian et al., 2014; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013; Petrie, 2015) highly recommends ensuring real work application of LD, closing the gap between theory and practice, distinguishing between leader and leadership development, and equally addressing both, improving mental models, focusing on innovation, measuring results, and evaluating outcomes beyond Kirkpatrick’s first level of evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) during in the strategic plans for the implementation of such initiatives. In addition to contextual considerations and practical modifications, merging the present diversity of LDP approaches and perspectives into one that fits the business performance goals and desired organizational outcomes is essential. Unified Approach InfraM, as a prominent technology company with an extensive global presence, needs to adopt and reinforce a unified definition and frame of reference for LD based on the organization’s contextual influences. DeRue and Myers (2014) defined leadership development as the process of developing individuals and groups to engage effectively in leader-member interactions. Two factors that moderate the relationship quality between leaders and their team members, especially in diverse organizations, are social psychological processes and contextual influences (Boyd & Taylor, 1998; Day et al., 2014; Scandura & Lankau, 1996). The former includes communication, cultural competence, and self-knowledge; the latter pertains to climate, team composition, and the external environment. The authors highlighted the importance of creating a learning environment to foster an integrated self-concept with intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions. The development of these dimensions relies heavily on the organizational processes, practices, and programs (Day et al., 2014), and companies should integrate them into individuals’ daily activities (Couch & Citrin, 2018). Research highlights that 129 leadership development is multilevel and longitudinal as it involves change within and between individuals, teams, and originations and focuses on social mechanisms (Day & Sin, 2011; Galli & Muller-Stewens, 2012). InfraM needs to incorporate compelling trends in reshaping, establishing, and fueling leadership development efforts. The emergence of corporate universities and the digitalization of learning environments (on-demand and virtual leadership education) offer both convenience and cost-effectiveness (Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). Berard (2013) posits on-demand informal learning as an effective way to reinforce learning and development for current and future leaders. With no conventional structure, these efforts aim to provide individuals with guidance and acumen (Berard, 2013; Moldoveanu & Narayandas, 2019). While utilizing these convenient and cost-effective options, InfraM should not lose sight of the importance of keeping such learning environments relevant to participants’ roles and aligned with organizations’ needs. Another emerging trend in LD is forming communities of practice (CoP) that involve professionals with common goals to generate, share, and maintain knowledge (Berard, 2013). Moldoveanu and Narayandas (2019) noted that the contextualized, socialized, personalized, and adaptive approaches to learning and development offer tremendous value more efficiently and perfectly align with the new generation of organization leaders. Cultural Shift Culture consists of values, skills, paradigms, norms, habits, and philosophies prevalent in an organization (Schein, 2017). Culture is pivotal in motivating organizational members to achieve performance goals (Schein, 2011). Goal attainment is subject to the alignment of culture, behaviors, policies, procedures, and access to adequate resources (Schein, 2017). Researchers have suggested other cultural influences, such as data-driven decision-making and accountability 130 mechanisms, to frequently measure stakeholders’ performance progress and promote a culture of competency (Marsh, 2012; Shahin & Zairi, 2006). Research highlights the influence of cultural models and settings in identifying the root causes of performance gaps and driving change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2017). Cultural models are the shared understanding of the organization interpreted through values, experiences, and responses to change; they are tacit, evolve over time, and shape the unconscious background of organizations (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings, however, are the observable actions and frequent daily interactions between members and the processes by which members accomplish goals within the organization’s social context. Rueda (2011) asserted that cultural models and settings are not independent and static but dynamic and relational. The study’s qualitative and quantitative findings create a sense of urgency to address several culturally related organizational barriers. The findings serve as a point of departure for InfraM leaders to commit to cultivating and promoting a culture aligned with organizational business performance goals and desired outcomes. Culture of commitment to learning and development, cultural integration, culture of inquiry and EBDM, and culture of effective communication are four culture-focused recommendations paired with and supported by the literature. Culture of Commitment to Learning and Development InfraM needs to promote a culture committed to growth, learning, and development. Culture can form positive or negative perceptions around organizational learning and development activities and programs (Grant, 2014; Kegan & Lahey, 2016). Beer et al. (2016) 131 asserted that cultivating a culture committed to learning and development would reinforce the utilization of LDP and foster sustainable growth and change. InfraM needs to systematically develop as a learning organization. InfraM leaders need to understand their role in developing a learning organization and cultivating a culture of growth, competency, and mastery. Learning organizations cultivate a culture focused on inquiry and growth, develop leaders, and expand capacity (Kegan & Lahey, 2016). In learning organizations, leaders facilitate system thinking, and members examine their mental models, engage in self- reflection, employ cooperative learning, and establish a shared vision (Senge, 2006). Senge highlighted the role of leaders in learning organizations: social architects and designers of effective learning and development processes, stewards for the people and mission of the organization, and coaches and mentors who help reshape mental models and views of reality. Learning organizations establish and monitor developmental initiatives. Schein (2011) asserted that a systematic and frequent assessment of developmental initiatives is a critical reinforcement mechanism leaders should utilize to embed and transmit culture in conjunction with visible artifacts. Coaching and mentoring are essential institutional and developmental resources in learning organizations. Altman et al. (2010) noted that while distinct from each other, coaching and mentoring’s role is complementary in expanding the collective capacity in an organization and developing leaders. InfraM needs to cultivate a coaching culture. Coaching supports a culture of learning and development and fosters resilience for change (Grant, 2014). A coaching culture reinforces a growth mindset in members of an organization, informs the relationship between leaders and employees, and exhibits an organizational commitment to learning and development (Hawkins, 2021; Jones & Gorell, 2014). A coaching culture results from leaders’ efforts to expand and 132 support employees’ capabilities through feedback and measuring progress (Gormley & van Nieuwerburgh, 2014). InfraM needs to offer formal and evidence-based coaching at all levels of the organization. Robertson (2014) posits coaching as providing adequate and timely feedback, identifying strengths, and leveraging them to elevate performance and confidence and achieve organizational goals and desired outcomes. Hagen (2012) asserted that coaching could enhance learning processes, improve competitive advantage, and improve individual and organizational performance. Evidence-based coaching is an effective management tool in LDP. The practice includes inspiring them to seek knowledge, encouraging them to self-reflect, empowering them through delegation and trust, providing guidance and timely feedback, broadening, and shifting perspective, challenging them to grow, and recognizing improvements (Beattie et al., 2014; Hamlin et al., 2006, 2008; Hawkins, 2021). In a qualitative case study, Beattie (2006) concluded that effective coaching results from developing a learning organization where all members collectively promote learning and development practices, processes, and programs. InfraM needs to involve functional managers and leaders in forming coaching relationships with their teams. Shifting some developmental responsibilities, such as coaching from the HR function to the managerial and leadership function, would have several advantages, including improved quality of development, improved performance of both sides of the dyadic relationship, and expanding the range of employees benefiting from such development (Hagen, 2012). Furthermore, outsourcing developmental responsibilities to external consultants and coaches would only sometimes have the impact and effectiveness of using internal sources familiar with the organization’s context, goals, and dynamics. Effective coaching requires a shift from a command-control paradigm in the relationship between the coach and coached to one 133 based on knowledge and empowerment (Hagen, 2012). Ellinger et al. (2008) asserted that coaching becomes ineffective and impedes development when using autocratic leadership and ineffective communication styles. InfraM needs to engage in frequent evaluation of coaching relationships to ensure their effectiveness. Effective coaching has both individual and organizational outcomes. Individual outcomes include job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, commitment, improved performance, self-confidence, and learning (Ellinger et al., 2009; Park et al., 2008). Organizational outcomes of coaching are better team performance, organizational improvement, customer satisfaction, enhanced quality, and creative problem-solving (Ellinger et al., 2009; Hagen, 2010). In their study, Ellinger et al. (2003) concluded that effective coaching behavior from managers significantly increased employees’ job satisfaction, commitment, performance, and eventually led to organizational improvement. Har (2008) reflected a significantly positive relationship between coaching and organizational commitment and a significant negative relationship with turnover intentions. Liu and Batt (2010) posited that coaching predicts employees’ performance improvement, while Park et al. (2008) identified a significant positive relationship between coaching and employees’ learning and development in a large-scale survey study. Matsuo (2018) obtained data from over 500 individuals in 98 engineering teams, demonstrated that coaching directly influenced individual and team learning, and asserted that facilitating coaching skills would enhance team reflexivity. Hagen and Aguilar (2012) reported on the positive effects of coaching practice on teamwork and team effectiveness. Furthermore, business units can achieve many desired organizational outcomes and performance goals by implementing a robust coaching program and integrating it with other components of LDP, such as mentoring. 134 InfraM needs to develop a formal internal mentorship program. Social learning theory indicates that learning is social, and individuals learn behaviors by observing, modeling, and emulating their role models (Bandura, 1986). The theory conveys that role models enable individuals to acquire many types of behavior (Bandura & Walters, 1977). Developing a robust mentorship program and involving current leaders and managers in building mentorship relationships with employees is a common practice in all organizations that build effective leadership pipelines (Berard, 2013). The researcher made a generational observation and noted that millennials prefer a supportive leadership style that offers networked learning through mentorship. Groves (2007) highlighted mentorship as a common thread amongst model organizations. Hart (2012) emphasized passing organizational knowledge to newcomers through mentorship relationships with organizations’ veterans. Research suggests that positive leader modeling and mentorship improve goal achievement and increase employee retention. Additionally, employees at all levels of the organization are more apt to meet satisfaction, compensation, and promotion goals while building competence and self-esteem (Allen et al., 2004; Brown & Trevino, 2014; Gibson, 2003; Ragins et al., 2000). Mentorship leads to individual career outcomes and desired organizational outcomes. Employing a national sample of over 1,000 employees, Ragins et al. (2000) examined the relationship between satisfactory mentorship and several variables such as career attitude, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and retention. The results indicated a strong positive impact of mentorship on all variables in the study, both in formal and informal mentorship relationships. In a meta-analysis of the benefits of mentorship, Allen et al. (2004) concluded that mentored individuals would have more significant and better career outcomes and greater intentions to stay with the firm than unmentored ones. Gibson (2003) referred to a lack of 135 mentorship in an organization as a developmental vacuum that might put firms at the risk of losing or misdirecting their experienced human capital. The author emphasized the importance of establishing a portfolio of various developmental relationships, including exposure to exemplary peers and leaders during an individual’s developmental path. Promoting a culture of growth and development, committing to being a learning organization, establishing and evaluating institutional resources such as coaching and mentoring, and aligning policies, procedures, and behaviors to the culture is essential for InfraM to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. However, the past and ongoing M&As activities and lack of a proper and timely integration process have led to several existing subcultures within the organization. Such a lack of a shared culture impedes growth and development at all levels of the organization; addressing and resolving this ongoing challenge is paramount. Cultural Integration InfraM’s multiple M&As have triggered a significant change within the organization and have impacted stakeholders and business units. As a large-scale organizational change trigger event, M&As significantly affect organizational stakeholders and require myriad organizational integration, including procedural, leadership, and sociocultural (Seo & Hill, 2005). M&As as a business development option and a strategic choice to maintain competitive advantage prompt leaders to adopt new processes, employ new practices, and adapt to the internal and external demands of the new environment. Schraeder and Self (2003) posited culture as a make-or-break factor in the success of M&As. They further noted, “Cultures serve as forces that draw organizational members together, creating a sense of cohesion.” (p. 2). The literature highlights the impact of the lack of cultural integration and the presence of cultural clash, a post-M&A 136 phenomenon, on the diminished performance and success of M&As (Appelbaum et al., 2007; Bligh, 2006; McKinnon et al., 2003; Stahl & Mendenhall, 2005). The presence of subcultures and lack of adequate and proper integration, specifically from the cultural standpoint, puts InfraM in suboptimal conditions for leadership development. InfraM needs to define and cultivate a desired shared culture with each M&A. In promoting cross-cultural management in all stages of integration, Weber et al. (2012) emphasized clarifying, measuring, and evaluating cultural differences, followed by defining a desired shared culture. The authors listed several advantages of their proposed strategy: coping with human factor challenges, cooperation, preventing key personnel and managers from leaving, commitment preservation, and motivation. Moreover, the authors asserted the implementation of HR practices such as training, recruiting, and communication, identifying and capturing the synergetic potential, enabling feedback, and further organizational improvements, among other benefits companies gain from properly handling cultural differences in all stages of the M&As process. InfraM needs to engage in a comprehensive integration process before, during, and post- M&As. Cultural integration should span all stages of M&As: planning, negotiation, and implementation. Organizational leaders and HR professionals must map out plans for cultural amalgamation as early as the M&As planning phase (Tetenbaum, 1999). Leadership’s agility and effective practices throughout the integration process are critical to the success of the M&As. Research (Kouzes & Posner, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2006) recommends some critical practices: developing people, setting directions, modifying existing processes, and building cultures. InfraM needs to reinforce the utilization of uniform processes and practices. Effectively developed incumbent leaders should modify behaviors and incorporate practices to align with the 137 objectives, strategies, and processes to better adapt to the changes in the environment (Yukl, 2013). Failing to do that would result in a real and measurable impact on organizational performance and outcomes (Schraeder & Self, 2003). Furthermore, lack of integrative decision- making and systemic processes impedes successful sourcing and internalization of external knowledge during M&As (Rossi et al., 2013). Weber et al. (2012) asserted that leadership’s beliefs and assumptions shape a system with unique content that influences the processes of decision making and the choice of principles, strategies, policy, and behaviors in the organization. InfraM’s leaders and HR professionals need to strategically plan adequate and proper integration by grounding their practice in scholarship. In their study, Schraeder and Self (2003) accumulated prominent strategies to ensure successful cultural integration: performing due diligence pre-event, including assessing cultural compatibility and deploying a comprehensive cultural audit followed by post-event factors such as developing a flexible and comprehensive integration plan, sharing information and encouraging communication, involving stakeholders in the process, enhancing commitment by establishing relationships and building trust, managing acculturation through training and org support, respecting individuals and temporal aspects of the integration process. Researchers emphasized post-event integration strategies to create synergy (Schraeder & Self, 2003) and extract the potential (Almor et al., 2009; Ellis et al., 2009) between the acquiring and acquired companies. Considering such context-specific areas of focus in designing and implementing LDP and acquiring resources that fit the demands of the environment would lead to the development of current and future leaders capable and competent to lead their organizations through turbulent times of change and uncertainty. Additionally, 138 utilizing data to inform practice and decision making would significantly support InfraM in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Culture of Inquiry and EBDM Culture of inquiry values questioning, willingness to challenge the status quo, curiosity, and innovation. Research indicates that organizations with such culture encourage and support questioning, experimentation, critical thinking, and pursuit of knowledge while exhibiting the culture through challenging assumptions, providing opportunities for growth and development, and rewarding creativity and innovation (Dowd, 2005; Katz & Dack, 2014; Park & Datnow, 2014; Patterson et al., 2017). Such organizations have higher levels of performance and innovation, more significant employee engagement and satisfaction, and an enhanced ability to learn and adapt to the changes in the environment. A crucial aspect of fostering a culture of inquiry is effective and rigorous organizational data collection design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation. Research posits data-driven decision-making as a cultural influence that enables frequent measurement of stakeholders’ performance progress (Marsh, 2012; Shahin & Zairi, 2006). InfraM needs to design data collection procedures and processes properly. Research highlights the steps involved in the design process before attempting to collect organizational data to be: context relevance, identifying and operationalizing the phenomenon (e.g., variables, constructs) of interest, identification of the gap in the knowledge base, purpose of data collection, desired outcomes, careful selection of central and significant factors of study, and diligent crafting of questions that would provide answers relevant to the phenomenon of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Norris et al., 2015). Following the design process, employing various data collection methods on different aspects of the organization, such as decision-making 139 processes, employee engagement, and performance, portrays a strong culture of inquiry and helps organizations identify areas of improvement and gain insight into required data-driven decisions. InfraM needs to diversify its data collection methodologies. Drawing on multiple sources of data and utilizing various data collection methods helps confirm emerging findings while capitalizing on advantages and diminishing the limitations inherent in each method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Bergin (2018) mentioned three reasons to employ multiple sources of data: triangulation, to bring greater credence to results and ensure the validity of data analysis; illumination, to use findings obtained from qualitative research to inform questions or themes to investigate in subsequent quantitative research or vice versa; diversification, to uncover a broader and more diverse set of findings than could be found with one method. The methods complement each other, providing a comprehensive, in-depth understanding of organizational dynamics. Qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups can provide rich insights into employees’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, while quantitative methods help identify patterns and relationships within the organization (Choy, 2014; Gibbs, 2018). Creswell and Creswell (2018) highlighted that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not rigid categories and opposites. They represent different ends on a continuum. Qualitative data can identify areas of interest and generate hypotheses; quantitative methods allow the testing of hypotheses, and quantitative data can help validate, refute, and interpret qualitative findings (Queiros et al., 2017; Salkind & Frey, 2021). Focus groups can serve various purposes, including stimulating creative concepts, diagnosing potential challenges with new programs and processes, interpreting previously collected quantitative data, and generating a hypothesis that can be further tested 140 using quantitative approaches (Johnson & Christensen, 2019). The authors also noted that observations serve as a methodical and unobtrusive way to obtain information about a phenomenon of interest by watching behavioral patterns in certain circumstances. Contrary to laboratory observations, naturalistic observations are carried out in the real world where the behaviors occur. While rigorous data collection methods indicate a culture of inquiry, the methods can also apply to the assessment of the culture itself and identify whether it is thriving or struggling. Moreover, fostering a culture of inquiry and perpetually assessing and enhancing the culture through meticulous, in-depth, and methodical data collection enhance organizational effectiveness and efficiency at InfraM when coupled with thorough data analysis and meaningful interpretations. InfraM needs to conduct diligent analysis of the collected data and engage in thorough interpretations to find meanings. Ravitch and Carl (2019) proposed the notion of intentionality in systematic data analysis to conduct rigorous studies. After extracting qualitative data, the coding process would help organize it by bracketing chunks and labeling them with a word representing the category (Rallis & Rossman, 2012). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted that categories should be responsive to the purpose of research, exhaustive to encompass all relevant data, mutually exclusive, sensitizing to what they represent, and conceptually congruent with the same level of abstraction. Bergin (2018) suggested three layers of analysis for qualitative data: content analysis (focusing on patterns and prominent themes), discourse analysis (examining the linguistic nuances and conventions), and narrative analysis (probing the narrative elements of textual data). Analyzing the relationship between the components of each category as well as the relationship between the themes can produce helpful information for practice (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Research highlights critical steps in the quantitative analysis and interpretation 141 phase: analyze patterns of data in light of the context, the identified problems, and the phenomenon of interest, characterize the properties of the collected raw data through descriptive statistical analysis including measures of central tendency (most representative average value within the data set), frequencies (how often values occurred), and measures of dispersion (variability and spread in the data) followed by inferential statistics to facilitate meaningful and precise interpretation of findings and to enable meta-analytic options (Norris et al., 2015; Salkind & Frey, 2021). Additionally, comparing the findings with information gleaned from the literature would effectively and scientifically inform the leadership practice and decision-making processes. InfraM needs to employ evidence-based interventions (EBI) and engage in EBDM. EBI are programs, practices, processes, and policies proven effective and efficacious. Erwin et al. (2019) noted that EBDM is the process by which organizations choose and implement EBI and is characterized by many elements such as reviewing peer-reviewed evidence, utilizing information systems, applying program planning frameworks, engaging others in the process of decision- making, conducting evaluations and assessments, communicating findings to important stakeholders, and integrating skills and context-driven common sense through the decision- making process. Fostering EBDM is essential to utilize data in practice and translate the collected data into decisions that improve organizational performance and capacity (Erwin et al., 2019). Brownson et al. (2013) suggested that EBDM requires decision-makers to actively engage with their stakeholders to ensure a proper understanding of data and to ensure they disseminate those findings back to the key stakeholders. Cultivating a culture of inquiry and committing to enhancing organizational practices, programs, policies, and processes to support EBDM allows InfraM to achieve business performance goals and desired organizational outcomes. 142 Additionally, effective communication processes facilitate the top-down, bottom-up, and lateral flow of information within the organization. Culture of Effective Communication Communication is the central process through which employees exchange information, create relationships, and build meaning, values, and organizational culture (Jablin & Putnam, 2004). Internal communication mediates between leadership and employees in achieving business performance goals and enables employees to meet social and psychological needs (Bolden & Gosling, 2006; Stevanović & Gmitrović, 2016). Research asserts that while effective communication has a positive correlation with several organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, engagement, commitment, performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors, lack of it is correlated with job dissatisfaction, stress, absence, lack of trust, decrease in organizational commitment, and an adverse effect on efficiency (Malmelin, 2007; Zhang & Agarwal, 2009). InfraM needs to identify, develop, utilize, and manage its communication capital. Narrow views of communication center on it being a simple means of transferring information through press releases, memos, staff presentations, and negotiations instead of a function with significance and impetus that involves the entire org and impacts its success in achieving business performance goals and desired organizational outcomes. Communication’s abstract and intangible nature has made it challenging to quantify its impact on employee perceptions and attitudes. Malmelin (2007) highlighted a broader understanding of communication as a function that cuts through the entire organization and as an intangible organizational asset called communication capital. The author proposed a model that supports the integration of various dimensions of organizational communications with business operations and strategies. The four 143 components of Malmelin’s model encompassing communication capital are organizational capital (invisible assets like culture and management systems), human capital (essential employees’ skills and competencies), relational capital (managing diverse intraorganizational and external interactions and relations), and juridical capital (physical assets containing documented information and legally protected rights). InfraM needs to establish change communication processes. Organizational change and communication are inextricably related processes, as communication is vital for the effective implementation of change (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998; Jones et al., 2004; Kotter, 1996; Lewis, 1999). Poorly and ineffectively managed change communication leads to resistance to change and augments its negative aspects (DiFonzo et al., 1994; Smeltzer & Zener, 1992). Meaningful communication during change informs and educates employees at all levels, motivates them to support the strategy (Barrett, 2002), and requires comprehension and appreciation of the proposed change. Van Vuuren and Elving (2008) refer to it as cognitive organizational reorientation. Elving (2005) highlighted an important distinction in change communication, i.e., the difference between information and communication. Organizations share information about the change through e-mails, websites, and newsletters. However, communication aims to create mutual understanding and trusting relationships which the author called critical and vital interactions and efforts. Van Vuuren and Elving (2008) asserted that a myopic view on information, such as the rationale for change, does not offer the benefits of communication efforts such as participation with a willing attitude towards change. The authors posit communication, change, and sensemaking as a “cord of three strands” that ensure organizational integrity during complex and turbulent times. Research highlights that the success of adapting to organizational change significantly depends upon managers’ communicative and informative 144 skills at all levels (Bolden & Gosling, 2006; Elving & Hansma, 2008). Bennebroek-Gravenhorst et al. (2006) noted that in addition to addressing the employees’ role and contribution to the success of impending change, highlighting the purpose of the change is critical. To increase employees’ understanding of the change process, Husain (2013) suggested managing media effectively, reducing communication pollution, and applying discipline to the torrent of information from management. The author further proposed several principles of change communication: address employees’ concerns, generate community spirit, build trust, clarify the purpose of change, motivate employees, minimize uncertainty, seek stakeholders’ input, gain employees’ commitment, buy-in, participation, and involvement. InfraM needs to develop and implement a comprehensive context-driven communication plan prior to engaging in any M&A activities. Preoccupied with the financial and legal aspects of the M&As, leadership teams often lose sight of the impact of such activities on the human resource factors. M&As can create significant stress responses leading to psychological, health, behavioral, performance, and survival problems. Research proposes the development and implementation of an effective communication system spanning through all stages of planning, transition, and stabilization, intending to diminish the destructive impact of M&As on employees significantly (Angwin et al., 2016; Barkema & Schijven, 2008; Daniel & Metcalf, 2001; Ivancevich et al., 1987; Junni & Teerikangas, 2019; Kramer et al., 2004; Sarala et al., 2019; Schuler & Jackson, 2001). The collective authors suggest that during the planning stage, inaccurate information leads to lingering rumors, inaccurate appraisals, and mounting stress. Effective and frequent communication helps reduce uncertainty, dispel rumors, and generate coping strategies throughout the subsequent stages of M&As. At this stage, leadership needs to reconcile employees’ concerns, negotiating secrecies, and legal demands. They continue to posit 145 that in the transition stage, uncertainties and appraisal intensify. To maintain the organization’s integrity and reduce stress response, leadership must communicate known changes swiftly, frequently, and clearly. Empathic and honest communication significantly enhances leadership’s image as the acquired company’s employees deal with the trauma associated with loss of identity and pride. During the stabilization stage, communicating the need for readjustment and flexibility is essential for employees across the organization (Angwin et al., 2016; Barkema & Schijven, 2008; Daniel & Metcalf, 2001; Ivancevich et al., 1987; Junni & Teerikangas, 2019; Kramer et al., 2004; Sarala et al., 2019; Schuler & Jackson, 2001). InfraM needs to adopt a purpose-driven and autonomy-supportive communication style in L&D initiatives. Research indicates that forcing or pressuring people to comply with expectations, their motivation to engage diminishes (Dasgupta et al., 2012, 2014; Deci et al., 2001; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). Furthermore, compliance-driven communication leads to negative emotional responses such as frustration, resentment, and anxiety. On the contrary, a communication style emphasizing autonomy, choice, and empowerment promotes motivation, engagement, and a sense of ownership of goals. Employing social exchange and organizational support theories, Dasgupta et al. (2014) further explored the relationship between communication style and employee satisfaction, performance, commitment, absenteeism, and organization-based self-esteem. They asserted that employees’ satisfaction with communication fosters a strong emotional bond with the organization. Summary of Recommendations Stemming from the study's findings in Chapter Four and supported through literature, Chapter Five's previous sections collectively developed the response to RQ2, offering knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations to enhance and improve LDP to 146 achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Reinventing the existing leadership development programs to a branded and context-driven LDP and reinforcing a unified approach appropriate to the cultural context elevates the current unfavorable perceptions around professional development and career growth, makes InfraM a more optimal environment for change, and leads to the retention of its exceptional talent and the preservation of its institutional memory. Creating a shift in the overarching disintegrated culture that emerged by default and cultivating a culture that values learning and development, inquiry, evidence- based decision-making, and effective communication followed by a concerted effort and diligence to embed that culture in all business units and functions makes the organization conducive to the growth, and development of its current and future leaders. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest collecting data and researching performance-based KMO gaps is only a first step; developing action plans provides the means to meet the organization's overall goal. Their framework helped identify the root cause of performance gaps, followed by recommendations to close them. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) complements Clark and Estes's framework by developing integrated implementation strategies, designing a comprehensive program delineating outcomes, behaviors, learnings goals, and engagement criteria, and evaluating the results. Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan The implementation and evaluation plan begins with the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), built on the original Kirkpatrick Four-Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick, 1959). The model is an implementation tool and framework used to build measures for progress in the implementation plans of a particular performance gap. The original framework comprises four levels of assessment: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. 147 Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) reverse the order and start the plan by focusing on the desired outcome in mind first. The data provided through Levels 3 and 4 helps assess the effectiveness of the intervention. The information provided through Levels 2 and 1 helps assess the degree to which the intervention resulted in applied learnings. Such data is relevant to stakeholders and is critical to establishing the intervention’s added value to organizations. Figure 3 depicts the four levels of the model. Figure 3 The New World Kirkpatrick Model Practitioners often leverage this methodical and rigorous approach to propose, execute, and assess their research-based recommendations and to translate them into a robust implementation and evaluation plan (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 1998, 2006). Employing this model, they demonstrate how implementing their recommendations for interventions would lead to achieving and, at times, exceeding organizational performance goals and stakeholders’ expectations. Based on the findings and recommendations, this study designed an effective and 148 comprehensive intervention plan by integrating the Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) and Clark and Estes model (Clark & Estes, 2008). The intervention plan’s design process starting with Level 4, identifies the desired outcomes and incorporates internal and external leading indicators that provide a perpetual assessment of progress toward the desired outcomes and offer insight into whether efforts are on track based on the plan. Level 3 intentionally focuses on behaviors from the organizational standpoint to evaluate the extent to which it drives desired behavior through support and accountability measures. Level 2 addresses the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) essential to achieve in the behavioral response in Level 3 and organizational performance results in Level 4. Level 1 addresses learning activities, and environmental responses, including how individuals feel about the activities and the reactions that indicate learning has happened. Before addressing the plan’s four levels in more detail, InfraM needs to redefine its purpose, needs, and expectations within the scope of this study. InfraM’s Purpose, Needs, and Expectations This study aimed to explore and analyze the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact the development of current and future leaders at one of InfraM’s business units, BU. The findings, confirmed and validated through data analysis, indicated BU leaders possess conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge pertaining to study’s topic. Results also revealed that BU leaders are self-efficacious and perceive high expectancy value in leadership development programs and initiatives. However, the identified organizational barriers at InfraM have prevented the effective design, utilization, and implementation of LDP at an organizational level, and have kept BU in a suboptimal condition impeding its optimal growth, development, and efficiency. Findings primarily pointed to the lack of InfraM’s institutional 149 reinforcement, commitment, and guidance for business units, including BU. Therefore, the recommendations, which stemmed from findings and supported by literature, focused on a top- down enterprise-wide approach to the overarching organizational factors to address the identified gaps and optimize the development and retention of human capital and talent. Table 13 includes a summary of the recommendations. InfraM needs to create alliances between business unit leaders, HR business partners, and the organization’s talent development teams, collectively referred to as the designated stakeholder group in this implementation plan, to execute pre- and post-implementation plan activities to ensure institutionalization and thorough embedment of the plan. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) noted that pre-implementation activities help identify a lack of KSA. Post- implementation activities focus on the performance and reinforcement of the newly adopted KSA through support and accountability. Incorporating the recommendations and employing the integrated implementation plan would make InfraM a more conducive environment for learning, growth, and development which would positively influence the business performance goals achievement and optimize organizational outcomes for BU and other business units. Level 4: Results The Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) proposes a plan to measure the desired internal outcome metrics such as individuals’, teams’, business units, and organization’s performance and satisfaction, as well as external metrics reflecting a response from the market and customers such as market share and customer acquisition, retention, and satisfaction. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest examining the alignment of results with performance goals ahead of implementation. 150 Table 13 Summary of Recommendations to InfraM Recommendations Adopt and implement a branded, context-driven approach to LDP. Reinvent and revamp the established LD practices, employ and implement myriad initiatives, and incorporate a robust, agile methodology to monitor and evaluate content, process, and outcome frequently. Reinforce a unified definition and frame of reference for LD based on the organization’s contextual influences. Incorporate compelling trends in reshaping, establishing, and fueling LD efforts. Promote a culture committed to growth, learning, and development. Develop systematically as a learning organization. Cultivate a coaching culture. Offer formal and evidence-based coaching at all levels of the organization. Involve functional managers and leaders in forming coaching relationships with teams. Engage in frequent evaluation of coaching relationships to ensure their effectiveness. Develop a formal internal mentorship program Define and cultivate a desired shared culture with each M&A. Engage in a comprehensive cultural integration process before, during, and post-M&As. Reinforce the utilization of uniform processes and practices. Plan adequate and proper integration by grounding their practice in scholarship. Design data collection procedures and processes properly. Diversify its data collection methodologies. Conduct diligent data analysis and engage in thorough interpretations to find meanings. Employ EBI and engage in EBDM. Identify, develop, utilize, and manage organization’s communication capital. Establish change communication processes. Develop and implement a comprehensive context-driven communication plan prior to engaging in any M&As activities. Adopt purpose-driven and autonomy-supportive communication style in L&D initiatives. 151 Institutions like InfraM that operate in highly competitive sectors demand effective and agile leaders to develop the organization adequately and properly to navigate the turbulent, complex, and ever-changing business environment (Joiner, 2019). There needs to be strategic alignment between the organization and environment to create a competitive advantage, and developing influential leaders contributes significantly to such goals (Anning-Dorson et al., 2017). The authors further revealed that firms that effectively integrate human capital and developmental processes gain access to intangible organizational assets such as innovation, competence, and culture and tangible assets such as financial performance. Table 14 reflects the leading Indicators in the form of internal and external outcomes, metrics (operational and tactical) and KPIs (strategic), and methods for InfraM. Achieving internal outcomes positively influences the realization of external outcomes. Identifying the desired internal and external outcomes, effectively employing metrics, and measuring and monitoring progress are crucial in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Such efforts need to stay aligned with the reinforcement of critical behavioral change among the designated stakeholder group within the organization. Level 3: Behaviors The achievement of Level 4 outcomes is contingent upon critical measurable behaviors and activities executed by the designated stakeholder group. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) noted that this level determines if the recommendations would be effective through changes in the behaviors adopted through the implementation intervention. Based on this model, unless the transfer of learning into behaviors occurs, interventions are not effective or impactful. The implementation plan suggests two overarching critical behaviors to the designated stakeholder group who oversee and support the entire organization. 152 Table 14 Level 4: Results Overview Outcome Metric(s) Method(s) External outcomes Increased market share Financial and non-financial market KPIs Track market’s quarterly reports and compare data sets Improved financial performance Profit margin, revenue growth, and efficiency In-depth analysis of quarterly financial reports Increased customer acquisition, retention rate, and satisfaction Revenue per customer, number of new and repeat customers, frequency of complaints Frequently solicit input and track customers’ records and scorecards Enhanced products quality Frequency of meeting quality acceptance criteria Track business units’ quality reports Internal outcomes Increased employee retention Percentage of voluntary employee turnover rate Solicit data from all business units quarterly Enhanced employee perceptions of organization’s leadership Employees’ scores and ratings Extract exit interviews data, employee surveys, focus groups, and interviews results Enhanced employee perceptions of L&D efforts Employees’ verbal feedback and survey ratings Solicit data from trainings and employee surveys Improved employee satisfaction Assessment of the five variables pertaining to satisfaction indicated in Table 7 Pearson’s coefficient to indicate most significant predictors Increased internal promotions Number of promotions Quarterly performance evaluation to identify rising leaders Improved employee performance Meeting and exceeding performance goals Solicit data from all business units monthly, conduct quarterly business reviews and teams’ performance evaluation The first critical behavior is that InfraM’s designated stakeholder group needs to commit to adjusting the LDP. The ever-increasing competition in the industry, the demand for 153 exceptional talent to navigate the challenges, and the nature of M&As activities prevalent at InfraM call for a branded context-driven LDP that fits the organization’s needs. The second critical behavior is that InfraM’s designated stakeholder group needs to commit to shifting the organization’s culture. The study’s qualitative and quantitative findings created a sense of urgency to address several culturally related organizational barriers. InfraM’s commitment to cultivating and promoting a culture aligned with organizational business performance goals and desired outcomes is critical at this stage of their growth. Data collection at this level informs the process and helps monitor the progress. Subsequently, the data help make necessary adjustments for improved performance if the results do not meet expectations (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Therefore, each critical behavior has a metric that describes the measurement, a method for the metric’s data collection, and the frequency of data collection to evidence the critical behavior. The specific metrics, data collection methods, and timing for every critical behavior appear in Table 15. Table 15 Level 3 Behaviors Overview Critical behavior Metric(s) Data collection method(s) Timing InfraM committing to adjusting the LDP Number of LDP change initiatives HR and talent development reports Quarterly InfraM committing to shifting the culture Number of cultural change initiatives Enterprise-wide reports Quarterly Required Drivers Behaviors and activities need accountability, direction, and oversight. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest implementing mechanisms and contextualized systems and processes 154 to reinforce, encourage, monitor, and reward critical behaviors. The authors’ prescribed drivers align with Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO influences: reinforcing drivers with knowledge-based recommendations; encouraging and rewarding drivers with motivation-based recommendations; monitoring drivers with organization-based recommendations. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick posited monitoring as the accountability driver, while the support driver includes reinforcement, encouragement, and reward activities. Originating from the findings and grounded in best-practice literature, the recommendations in this study are primarily organization-based. Therefore, the required drivers focus on InfraM’s structural support and resources within the organizational context. Table 16 shows the recommended drivers to reinforce, encourage, monitor, and reward the designated stakeholder group’s critical behaviors, their corresponding knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors, the periodicity for the implementation of the driver, and the corresponding critical behavior supported by the driver. Organizational Support InfraM’s leadership, business unit leaders, functional managers, directors, and senior directors will supplement and complement the adoption of critical behaviors and the required drivers. Additionally, InfraM’s leadership needs to articulate a clear vision for the implementation plan, establish clear organizational performance goals, and oversee the respective execution and administration of resources, activities, tasks, and communication to ensure the critical behaviors and required drivers achieve the internal and external outcomes. 155 Table 16 Required Drivers to Support the Designated Stakeholder Group Drivers Timing Critical behaviors supported Reinforcing (aligns to knowledge) Adopt and implement a unified, branded, context-driven approach to LDP Ongoing 1 Utilize uniform processes and practices Ongoing 1/2 Develop a learning organization Ongoing 2 Integrate cultures throughout M&As process Ongoing 2 Cultivate the desired shared culture Ongoing 2 Ground practice in scholarship Ongoing 1/2 Design effective data collection procedures and processes Ongoing 2 Diversify data collection methodologies Ongoing 2 Conduct diligent data analysis Ongoing 2 Employ EBI and EBDM Ongoing 2 Develop communication capital, change communication processes, and supportive communication style Ongoing 2 Encouraging (aligns to motivation) Share enterprise-wide success stories Monthly 2 Engage in inter departmental and peer group feedback Monthly 1/2 Collaborate to develop goals Monthly 2 Emphasize on expectancy outcomes Ongoing 2 Communicate purpose and values Ongoing 2 Rewarding (aligns to motivation) Publicly recognize business units for promoting a culture of growth, learning, and development Monthly 2 Recognize model behaviors Monthly 1/2 Offer incentives to business units with the desired shared culture Quarterly 2 Monitoring (aligns to organization) Engage in frequent evaluation of all LDP initiatives Ongoing 1 Track data collection outcomes Semi-Annually 1/2 Evaluate communication efforts and processes Ongoing 2 Track EBDM in business units Ongoing 2 Evaluate business units’ cultivation of the desired shared culture Ongoing 2 Track utilization of LDP in business units Quarterly 1 Track progress of the implementation plan Quarterly 2 156 Level 2: Learning The integrated implementation plan includes the Alliance Program, a collaborative effort to redesign InfraM’s LDP and create the cultural shift to holistically address InfraM's business performance goals, administrative, human resource, and operational goals, and optimize the desired organizational outcomes. The program aims to train, align, and equip the designated stakeholder group with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitude to perform and execute the critical behaviors and subsequently drive the desired internal and external outcomes. Level 2 determines the essential learning goals, their effectiveness in demonstrating the critical behaviors in Level 3, and the degree to which the stakeholder group has acquired the intended knowledge, skills, abilities, attitude, commitment, and confidence (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Deploying the Alliance Program allows InfraM to target the designated stakeholder group’s critical behaviors. Establishing learning goals and outlining implementation details precede the execution of the Alliance Program. Learning Goals Upon completion of the program, the designated stakeholder group will be able to: 1. Possess a unified definition and an InfraM-based frame of reference for LD (Factual Knowledge) 2. Create consensus on the components of a desired shared culture (Factual Knowledge) 3. Recognize the benefits of a branded, context-driven approach to LDP (Conceptual Knowledge) 4. Recognize compelling trends in reshaping, establishing, and fueling LD efforts (Conceptual Knowledge) 5. Determine the most contextually appropriate LDP (Conceptual Knowledge) 157 6. Recognize the benefits of an enterprise-wide shared culture (Conceptual Knowledge) 7. Recognize the benefits of an integrated culture of commitment to growth, learning, and development (Conceptual Knowledge) 8. Recognize the benefits of different data collection methodologies, effective communication, EBI, and EBDM (Conceptual Knowledge) 9. Carry out steps to establish an effective InfraM-centric LDP (Procedural Knowledge) 10. Carry out steps to effectively shift the culture (Procedural Knowledge) 11. Reflect on existing LDP efforts and utilize best practices to reshape and reinvent them (Metacognitive Knowledge) 12. Reflect on current organizational culture and the value of employing best practices to foster and cultivate a cultural shift (Metacognitive Knowledge) 13. Feel confident in their ability to establish an effective branded LDP (Self-Efficacy) 14. Feel capable and competent in shifting the culture (Self-Efficacy) 15. Perceive value in establishing a context-driven LDP (Expectancy-Value) 16. Perceive value in creating a cultural shift (Expectancy-Value) Alliance Program The Alliance Program will train, align, and equip the designated stakeholder group with the necessary KSAs and motivation to establish and implement an effective context-driven LDP and foster a culture conducive to growth, learning, and development. A task force comprised of representatives from the designated stakeholder group will plan, direct, and oversee the program. The program employs a blended model and offers 10 modules, each with a two-hour synchronous virtual component and a two-hour asynchronous (readings, on-demand videos, scaffolded information sheets, and assessments) element, with the expectation of completing one 158 module per week. The progression of modules will be in the following order: (a) branded LDP benefits and challenges; (b) contemporary and compelling LDP trends; (c) LDP best practices, model organizations, and benchmarking; (d) role of leaders in learning organizations; (e) benefits and challenges of data collection methodologies; (f) EBI and EBDM; (g) cultural integration; (h) best practices and model organizations in creating a cultural shift; (i) communication capital; and (j) autonomy-supportive and change communication. To culminate each module, there will be formative assessments to evaluate the knowledge, skills, and abilities solidified through discussions and activities, followed by a post-module evaluation using value-based surveys, a Likert scale, and open-ended questions. To anchor practice in scholarship and to bridge the gap between theory and application, the task force will build module content grounded in literature while contextualized based on InfraM’s specific internal and external demands. Asynchronous modules will create a shared understanding of concepts and terminologies and lay the foundation for effective and engaging synchronous components of the program. The task force will direct and facilitate synchronous modules by discussion prompts relevant to the asynchronous content and brainstorming context- driven applications, anecdotal and evidence-based examples, sharing insights, ad tapping into the collective genius. Leveraging social learning, flipped classroom format, reflective facilitation, and peer modeling will lead to several byproduct outcomes such as team efficacy, team cohesion, and instant breakthroughs. The task force will share observations and highlights of synchronous events within 24 hours after the event. Using document-sharing platforms at the end of the program will allow for collaborative crafting of emergent policies and procedures. The program will be most effective with follow-throughs, reinforcements, institutionalization, and monitoring. To implement epistemological accountability measures, the 159 Alliance Program culminates with a summative assessment, an immediate post-program evaluation using value-based surveys, a Likert scale, open-ended questions, and a delayed post- program evaluation quarterly. The task force will ensure the execution of the required drivers to realize the critical behavior through institutional resources, aids, metacognitive practices, and support tools. Additionally, the task force will monitor progress, provide feedback, and recognize improvement to keep the designated stakeholder group accountable and maintain their motivation. The Alliance Program task force will write a column in the monthly newsletter and other internal media outlets to inform, engage, and motivate the organization, and gain traction and visibility. An annual one-day Alliance Reunion will reconnect, realign, recommit, reinforce the Alliance Program’s vision, mission, goals, and objectives. Evaluation of the Components of Learning The comprehensive evaluation of the Alliance Program entails assessing several components of learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) outlined five components for evaluating learning: knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Knowledge evaluates the factual and conceptual knowledge components. The skills evaluate procedural knowledge. From a motivation perspective, attitude gauges the participants’ perceived value of the program; confidence assesses the internal belief in the ability to apply the knowledge and skills; and commitment captures dedication to apply and utilize learnings at work. Table 17 illustrates the data collection methods and activities for evaluation and their timing. 160 Table 17 Level 2: Learning Overview Data collection method or activities Timing Declarative knowledge “I know it.” Knowledge checks Formative and summative assessments during asynchronous sessions Task force observations and notes During and after synchronous events Discussions and sharing During synchronous events Procedural knowledge “I can do it right now.” Roleplay, peer-modeling, and skill demonstration During synchronous events Case studies and simulations Formative and summative assessments during asynchronous sessions Task force observations and notes During and after synchronous events Retrospective post-program evaluation After each module and the culmination of the program Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.” Post-module ad post-program evaluation and value assessment After each module and the culmination of the program Task force observations and notes During and after synchronous events Discussion prompts about purpose and perceived value of the program and its alignment with organizational strategy for growth and development During synchronous events Reflection-on-action and reflection in-action practices Before, during, and after asynchronous sessions and synchronous events Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.” Discussion prompts to solicit warm feedback During and after synchronous events Task force observations and notes During and after synchronous events Post-program evaluation After the culmination of the program Commitment “I will do it on the job.” Discussion prompts to solicit warm feedback During synchronous events Task force observations and notes During and after synchronous events Post-program evaluation After the culmination of the program 161 Level 1: Reactions Level 1 examines the leaders’ reactions and assesses the degree to which they are engaged in the program, are satisfied with it, and find it relevant (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Conducting efficient formative and summative Level 1 evaluation ensures that the program’s content, pacing, and delivery are on track and as planned and, if otherwise, allows the task force to make necessary adjustments swiftly. Table 18 lists the recommended methods to assess the designated stakeholder group’s reactions to the Alliance Program. Table 18 Level 1: Reactions Overview Methods and tools Timing Engagement Attendance in synchronous events During synchronous events Completion of the 10 modules, formative, and summative assessments After the allotted time for each module Active participation and engaging in conversations During synchronous events Task force observations and notes During and after synchronous events Live anonymous polls, warm feedback, and brief surveys During synchronous events Relevance Live anonymous polls, warm feedback, and brief surveys During synchronous events Post-program evaluation After the culmination of the program Satisfaction Live anonymous polls, warm feedback, and brief surveys During synchronous events Post-program evaluation After the culmination of the program Data Analysis and Reporting The discipline of the task force to frequently monitor, evaluate, and course-correct different aspects of the Alliance Program will maintain motivation and momentum about the 162 implementation plan and the change process. The study recommends a dual blended approach to analyze the data collected through the program’s evaluation instruments and quarterly reporting. Dashboard performance indicators serve as effective visual tools depicting the external and internal outcomes of the implementation plan (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). They compare and contrast the current performance state, progress (or lack thereof) made since the last quarter and the desired state. Employing qualitative data and infographic representations in quarterly reports will effectively inform InfraM’s leadership about leading and lagging indicators and serve as evidence for their engagement in EBDM. Limitations and Delimitations Limitations are elements of the study that the researcher cannot control and should disclose to protect the trustworthiness and credibility of the research study (Maxwell, 2013). There were five identified limitations in this study. First, the study took place in a work unit of a single technology company, and only one stakeholder group participated in the research study, which limited the generalizability and eroded the applicability of the findings. Second, utilizing other data collection methods such as surveys and focus groups could yield further insight into the role of leadership development in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. Third, the study could not verify the truthfulness in participants’ responses and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that as a limiting factor in a research study. Fourth, the veracity of collected corporate documents and reports could not be determined. Lastly, the time constraint to complete the study prevented the participation of other stakeholder groups and the use of more validation strategies and implementations of recommended solutions. Such implementation, followed by the proposed evaluation instruments, could serve as an 163 additional layer of verification of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors identified throughout the study. Delimitations are elements of the study the researcher chooses to set boundaries in the study and to protect the credibility and reliability of the study, the researcher must disclose them (Maxwell, 2013). This study had four deliberate delimitations. First, from a multitude of documents, artifacts, reports, and memos, the study only analyzed the organizational documents and reports deemed to be most relevant to the study. Second, while several stakeholder groups are contributing to BU’s achievement of business performance goals and optimization of organizational outcomes, the study focused on the leadership team for sampling purposes. Third, of the many methodological approaches available to conduct this study, the study only employed qualitative methodology including interviews, and secondary document analysis. Lastly, several frameworks provide an ability to assess the role of LDP in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. The study limited its scope to utilizing Clark and Estes (2008) framework to explore the phenomenon. Recommendations for Future Research This study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in leadership development in one of the business units at InfraM. The stakeholder group was the leadership team at the business unit. Future research could explore other InfraM business units and stakeholder groups’ perspectives and experiences in BU or across InfraM to further verify identified KMO influences and find emergent ones. Implementation research focused on the differences in employee perceptions between a generic LDP and a branded, context-driven LDP would help determine the generalizability and validity of the findings. Expanding the scope of the study to include other technology companies and further developing KMO influence would 164 help identity model organizations with an established branded LDP and best practices. Further research should examine using proven conceptual frameworks such as Kotter (1996) or Burke and Litwin (1992) to implement an enterprise-wide change initiative. Conclusion Leadership remains the most critical determinant of an organization's success or failure and is the centerpiece of the organization's vitality, profitability, productivity, employee satisfaction, and retention. Many businesses in the United States invest notably in their leadership development efforts to identify and advance high-potential employees. However, evidence suggests that such efforts' outcomes and impact are unfavorable. Addressing this problem is imperative, especially in the technology space, where competition and talent shortage lead companies to deploy various strategies to develop leaders, and LD investments continue to scale up. Adequate and effective leadership development is imperative in achieving business performance goals and optimizing organizational outcomes. As a prominent technology company that has grown rapidly through significant M&As and operates in a highly competitive market, InfraM must focus on performance goals and organizational outcomes. The M&As have led to change being a constant at InfraM. Underdeveloped leaders cannot implement change initiatives or manage organizational complexities. Managing the change and the various InfraM products demand exceptional leadership. A persistent gap between leaders’ technical forte and business acumen can impact InfraM’s long-term success. InfraM needs a systematic, comprehensive, and effective process to prepare leaders capable of facing the ongoing and upcoming challenges, can meet the ever- increasing demands of their roles, and are qualified to develop the next generation of leaders at InfraM. 165 This study aimed to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in leadership development efforts at InfraM. Conducting an extensive lit review and employing Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, the study identified and extracted the assumed KMO influences. Subsequently, interviews and organizational documents verified and validated the assumed KMO influences. Additionally, the study findings identified emergent KMO influences. InfraM lacks a shared understanding and definition of what leadership is, what determines success, and what LD means in InfraM. From the motivation lens, the organization lacks clear communication on the outcome and payoff for individuals that engage with LDP. InfraM is sub-optimized as the overarching culture emerged by default rather than design. The multitude of organizational heritages that shape InfraM has led to people operating from different points of reference. Organizational decisions exist within an individual rather than a cultural context. The culture of acquiring talent rather than growing and developing leads to a lack of development and preservation of institutional memory over time. Survey results pointed to the employees’ unfavorable perceptions around the presence of professional development and career growth opportunities within the organization. The collective findings suggested KMO gaps exist within InfraM. The primary challenges exist within the organizational context of how InfraM implements LDP on an enterprise level to establish tailored and standardized practices within each unit. Due to their ongoing M&As activities, the need for such practices is essential to crafting a branded approach to LD that meets current and foreseeable capabilities. These findings helped the study shape comprehensive recommendations that serve as a point of departure for InfraM to address the identified gaps. 166 The knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations will help achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Reinventing the existing leadership development programs to a branded and context-driven LDP and reinforcing a unified approach appropriate to the cultural context elevates the current unfavorable perceptions around professional development and career growth, makes InfraM a more optimal environment for change, and leads to the retention of its exceptional talent and the preservation of its institutional memory. Creating a shift in the overarching disintegrated culture that emerged by default and cultivating a culture that values learning and development, inquiry, evidence-based decision- making, and effective communication followed by a concerted effort and diligence to embed that culture in all business units and functions makes the organization conducive to the growth, and development of its current and future leaders. The study proposes the systematic application of recommendations through an integrated implementation plan. InfraM needs to create alliances between business unit leaders, HR business partners, and the organization's talent development teams. The Alliance Program will serve as a framework to adopt and adapt by the designated stakeholder group and the task force comprised of their representatives. The program is a collaborative effort to redesign InfraM's LDP and create the cultural shift to holistically address InfraM's business performance goals, administrative, human resource, and operational goals and optimize the desired organizational outcomes. The program aims to train, align, and equip the designated stakeholder group with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitude to perform and execute the critical behaviors and subsequently drive the desired internal and external outcomes. The recommendations have significant implications for organizations that plan to expand by acquiring or merging with other companies. The study demonstrates that even though 167 individuals might have the knowledge and motivation to develop other employees, the overarching organizational culture strongly influences the design and direction of procedures and programs. Considering the technological advancements and the fast-changing environment in that sector, it is prudent for technology companies to fuel their L&D efforts with compelling trends, groom and develop future talent in parallel with focusing on business performance goals and invest in shaping a desired shared culture. Such fiscal investments only translate to desired outcomes when carefully and deliberately designed and aligned with the organization’s business performance goals, objectives, mission, and vision. The rampant changes in the technology sector in 2023 call for reinforcing sustainable measures, adopting a metacognitive perspective, and reinventing corporate learning and training that leads to a quantum shift in how learning can better meet the needs of the 21st-century workforce. Inspired by the transdisciplinary educational paradigm (Madni, 2019), this study recommends adopting three transdisciplinary pillars to better address the needs of employees in this era. These pillars include developing a 21st-century mindset, storytelling as a pedagogical strategy, and dynamic and actionable assessments. First, to develop an innovation-oriented mindset for the workforce, particularly in the face of ambiguity and uncertainties, organizations need to develop interdisciplinary and leadership skills that balance opportunism and pragmatism when making decisions. Fostering the development of leadership qualities, including the ability to envision and evaluate alternate futures before making decisions, engaging in, and learning from self-reflection, and resisting the tendency to become enamored with one’s own ideas, is paramount. Moreover, interactive storytelling and role-playing exercises foster engagement, retention, transfer, and recall while motivating and inspiring learners. Stories effectively capture historical lessons and lessons learned and offer an effective vehicle for continuous improvement 168 in decision-making. When executed, stories enable the discovery of new knowledge through the exploration of alternate futures using different assumptions and conditions. In this sense, stories become effective experience accelerators. Stories should also convey abstract concepts such as ethics, norms, and culture. Storytelling is an effective pedagogical strategy with self-reflective properties that encourage and enhance critical thinking and systems thinking. Lastly, organizations should employ dynamic and actionable assessment techniques to create a platform for cognitive skills acquisition. These skills include troubleshooting, critical and creative, lateral, and systems thinking. These skills, foundational to learning leadership and interdisciplinary skills, are reinforced by storytelling pedagogy, which enables the dynamic and actionable assessment of employees during real-world problem-framing and problem-solving (Madni, 2019). The study emphasizes that an organization’s leadership development initiatives serve as market signaling for the type of advancements and engagements the organization strives to be a part of in their respective market (Spence, 1973). All organizational actions contribute to its throughline, the noble intent, and the force that moves the organization through time (Labalme, 2022). Organizations need to realize that it is never about the transactions; it is all about what is transcendent and the connection to that noble intent. In the grand scheme, this study overlays an equity mindset on what learning should look like in an organization. Adopting the metaphor from Emily Styles (1996), this study intends to serve as a window and mirror for InfraM to reinvasion learning in their organization: A window into what learning currently looks like and a mirror to see itself in that particular characterization of what it means to learn in that environment. That is the beginning of the change process and a point of departure for equity to be more of a central issue with the realization that people and 169 companies learn differently and to operationalize the study’s recommendations toward modeling as a cognitive entity. 170 References Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451-474. Alexander, C. S., & Sysko, J. M. (2013). I'm Gen Y, I love feeling entitled, and it shows. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(4), 127. Alldredge, M., Johnson, C., Stoltzfus, J., & Vicere, A. (2003). Leadership development at 3M: New process, new techniques, new growth. People and Strategy, 26(3), 45. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 89(1), 127. Almor, T., Tarba, S. Y., & Benjamini, H. (2009). Unmasking integration challenges: The case of Biogal's acquisition by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. International Studies of Management & Organization, 39(3), 32-52. Altman, D. G., Rego, L., & Harrison III, S. D. (2010). Democratizing leader development. The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development, 221-250. Angwin, D. N., Mellahi, K., Gomes, E., & Peter, E. (2016). How communication approaches impact mergers and acquisitions outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(20), 2370-2397. Anning-Dorson, T., Odoom, R. K., Acheampong, G., & Tweneboah-Koduah, E. (2017). Innovation and organizational development: the role of organizational leadership. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 8(3), 338–351. Appelbaum, S. H., Lefrancois, F., Tonna, R., & Shapiro, B. T. (2007). Mergers 101 (part two): training managers for culture, stress, and change challenges. Industrial and Commercial Training. 171 Aragón-Sánchez, A., Barba-Aragón, I., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2003). Effects of training on business results1. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 956-980. Ardichvili, A., & Dirani, K. M. (2017). Leadership development in emerging market economies. In Leadership development in emerging market economies (pp. 1-12). Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Ardichvili, A., Natt och Dag, K., & Manderscheid, S. (2016). Leadership development: Current and emerging models and practices. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 275-285. Arthur Jr, W., Bennett Jr, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied psychology, 88(2), 234. Ashford, S. J. (1989). Self-assessments in organizations-a literature-review and integrative model. Research in organizational behavior, 11, 133-174. Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 423-426. Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Quisenberry, D. (2010). Estimating return on leadership development investment. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 633-644. Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Psychology Press. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2008). The high impact leader. McGraw Hill Professional. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood cliffs. 172 Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American psychologist, 33(4), 344. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23- 28). Bandura, A. (2012). Cultivate self‐efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence‐Based Management, 179-200. Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1-3. Barber, J. (2004). Skill upgrading within informal training: lessons from the Indian auto mechanic. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(2), 128-139. Barkema, H. G., & Schijven, M. (2008). Toward unlocking the full potential of acquisitions: The role of organizational restructuring. Academy of management journal, 51(4), 696-722. Barley, M. (2012). Learning from reflective practice and metacognition–an anaesthetist’s perspective. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 271-280. Barnett, R. C., & Weidenfeller, N. K. (2016). Shared leadership and team performance. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 334-351. Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: using strategic employee communication to facilitate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), 219- 231. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and application. Free Press. 173 Beattie, R. S. (2006). Line managers and workplace learning: Learning from the voluntary sector. Human Resource Development International, 9(1), 99-119. Beattie, R. S., Kim, S., Hagen, M. S., Egan, T. M., Ellinger, A. D., & Hamlin, R. G. (2014). Managerial coaching: A review of the empirical literature and development of a model to guide future practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 184-201. Beer, M., Finnström, M., & Schrader, D. (2016). Why leadership training fails—and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 50-57. Bennebroek-Gravenhorst, K., Elving, K., & Werkman, R. (2006). Test and application of the communication and organizational change questionnaire. In annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany, June. Berard, J. (2013). Accelerating leadership development: Practical solutions for building your organization's potential. John Wiley & Sons. Bergin, T. (2018). An introduction to data analysis: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Sage. Bernthal, P., & Wellins, R. (2006). Trends in Leader Development and Succession. Human Resource Planning, 29(2). Berzin, J. (2013). Explosive growth in the corporate training market. Bersin. Bird, H. (2008). Articulating the value of training: Linking training programs to organizational goals. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 22(2), 20- 23. Bligh, M. C. (2006). Surviving post-merger ‘culture clash’: can cultural leadership lessen the casualties. Leadership, 2(4), 395-426. Bolden, R., & Gosling, J. (2006). Leadership competencies: time to change the 174 tune? Leadership, 2(2), 147-163. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons. Bowles, S., Cunningham, C. J., Gabriel, M., & Picano, J. (2007). Coaching leaders in middle and executive management: Goals, performance, buy‐in. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 388-408. Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 1-25. Brotherton, P. (2011). Critical thinking: A top skill for future leaders. T+ D, 65(11), 24. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 587-598. Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2013). Evidence-based decision making to improve public health practice. Frontiers in Public Health Services and Systems Research, 2(2), 2. Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. Callahan, J. L., Whitener, J. K., & Sandlin, J. A. (2007). The art of creating leaders: Popular culture artifacts as pathways for development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(2), 146-165. Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self‐leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International journal of manpower, 27(1), 75-90. Chelimsky, E. (1997). Thoughts for a new evaluation society. Evaluation, 3(1), 97-109. 175 Chelimsky, E. (2008). A clash of cultures: Improving the “fit” between evaluative independence and the political requirements of a democratic society. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 400-415. Choy, L. T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR journal of humanities and social science, 19(4), 99-104. Clardy, A. (2005). Reputation, goodwill, and loss: entering the employee training audit equation. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 279-304. Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. IAP. Clutterbuck, D. (2020). Coaching the team at work 2: The definitive guide to team coaching. Nicholas Brealey. Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 217–248. Conger, J. A. (2014). Addressing the organizational barriers to developing global leadership talent. Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), 198-204. Couch, M. A., & Citrin, R. (2018). Retooling leadership development. Strategic HR Review, 17(6), 275-281. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 176 Creswell, J. W., and Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. (2008). Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments. The leadership quarterly, 19(5), 569-581. Daniel, T. A., & Metcalf, G. S. (2001). The management of people in mergers and acquisitions. Greenwood Publishing Group. Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2012). Impact of managerial communication styles on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Employee relations, 35(2), 173-199. Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2014). Managerial communication practices and employees’ attitudes and behaviours: A qualitative study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 19(3), 287-302. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613. Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., & Halpin, S. M. (2004). Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360-373. Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. Routledge. Day, D. V., & Sin, H. P. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 545-560. 177 Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82. Deci, E. L. (1976). Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation. Organizational behavior and human performance, 15(1), 130-145. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of educational research, 71(1), 1-27. Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of personality and social psychology, 40(1), 1-10. DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1), 129-139. DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: the role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of applied psychology, 94(4), 859. DeRue, D. S., & Myers, C. G. (2014). Leadership development: A review and Agenda for future research. DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096. De Vaus, D. (2002). Analyzing social science data: 50 key problems in data analysis. Sage. De Vries, R. E. (2012). Personality predictors of leadership styles and the self–other agreement problem. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 809-821. Dewey, J. (1910). What is thought? DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during 178 organizational change. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 37(3‐4), 295-303. DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23(1), 47-62. Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data Don't Drive: Building a Practitioner-Driven Culture of Inquiry to Assess Community College Performance. Lumina Foundation for Education Research Report. Lumina Foundation for Education. Drucker, P. F. (1997). Toward the new organization. Leader to Leader, 1997(3), 6-8. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of management journal, 45(4), 735-744. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 109-132. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101859. Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human resource development quarterly, 14(4), 435-458. 179 Ellinger, A. D., Hamlin, R. G., & Beattie, R. S. (2008). Behavioural indicators of ineffective managerial coaching: A cross‐national study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 240-257. Ellinger, A. E., Ellinger, A. D., Bachrach, D. G., Wang, Y., & Baş, A. B. E. (2009). The influence of managerial coaching on relationships between organizational investments in social capital and employee work-related performance. In Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Washington, DC. Ellis, A. P., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (2005). An evaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and skill‐ based outcomes. Personnel psychology, 58(3), 641-672. Ellis, K. M., Reus, T. H., & Lamont, B. T. (2009). The effects of procedural and informational justice in the integration of related acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 137-161. Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate communications: an international journal, 10(2), 129-138. Elving, W., & Hansma, L. (2008). Leading organizational change: On the role of top management and supervisors in communicating organizational change. In annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Quebec, May (pp. 1-45). Erickson, A., Shaw, J. B., & Agabe, Z. (2007). An empirical investigation of the antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes of bad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(3), 26-43. Erickson, A., Shaw, B., Murray, J., & Branch, S. (2015). Destructive leadership: Causes, consequences and countermeasures. Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 266-272. Erwin, P. C., Parks, R. G., Mazzucca, S., Allen, P., Baker, E. A., Hu, H., ... & Brownson, R. C. 180 (2019). Evidence-based public health provided through local health departments: importance of academic–practice partnerships. American journal of public health, 109(5), 739-747. Eubanks, D. L., Antes, A. L., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., Blackwell, L. V., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Criticism and outstanding leadership: An evaluation of leader reactions and critical outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 365-388. Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. E., & Poteet, M. L. (1998). Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 427-448. Fernández-Aráoz, C., Roscoe, A., & Aramaki, K. (2017). Turning potential into success: The missing link in leadership development. Harvard Business Review, 86-93. Feser, A., Nielsen, N., & Rennie, M. (2017). What's missing in leadership development? McKinsey Quarterly. Galli, E. B., & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 176-201. Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56. Gallup, I. (2015). State of the american manager: Analytics and advice for leaders, 11. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. 181 Garcia, M. U. (2005). Training and business performance: The Spanish case. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1691-1710. Gentry, W. A., & Martineau, J. W. (2010). Hierarchical linear modeling as an example for measuring change over time in a leadership development evaluation context. The leadership quarterly, 21(4), 645-656. Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage. Gibson, D. E. (2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization science, 14(5), 591-610. Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Goldsmith, M. (2009). Executive coaching: A real world perspective from a real-life coaching practitioner. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 22-24. Goleman, D. (2000) Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 78-90. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Gormley, H., & van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2014). Developing coaching cultures: A review of the literature. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 7(2), 90-101. Grant, A. M. (2014). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change. Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 258-280. Groves, K. S. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best practices. Journal of management development, 26(3), 239-260. 182 Guerrero, S., & Barraud-Didier, V. (2004). High-involvement practices and performance of French firms. The international journal of Human Resource management, 15(8), 1408- 1423. Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014). Why leadership-development programs fail. McKinsey quarterly, 1(1), 121-126. Gurr, D. (2004). ICT, Leadership in Education and E‐leadership. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 25(1), 113-124. Hagen, M. (2010). Black belt coaching and project outcomes: An empirical investigation. Quality Management Journal, 17(2), 54-67. Hagen, M. S. (2012). Managerial coaching: A review of the literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(4), 17-39. Hagen, M., & Gavrilova Aguilar, M. (2012). The impact of managerial coaching on learning outcomes within the team context: An analysis. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(3), 363-388. Hamlin, R. G., Ellinger, A. D., & Beattie, R. S. (2006). Coaching at the heart of managerial effectiveness: A cross-cultural study of managerial behaviours. Human Resource Development International, 9(3), 305-331. Hamlin, R. G., Ellinger, A. D., & Beattie, R. S. (2008). The emergent ‘coaching industry’: A wake-up call for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development International, 11(3), 287-305. Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692. 183 Hansen, M. T., & Haas, M. R. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative science quarterly, 46(1), 1-28. Hanson, B. (2013). The leadership development interface: Aligning leaders and organizations toward more effective leadership learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(1), 106-120. Har, C. L. (2008). Investigating the impact of managerial coaching on employees’ organizational commitment and turnover intention in Malaysia. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Maiaysia. Hart, J. (2012). Learning in the social workplace. Internet Time Alliance, [online] Available at: http://internettimealliance. com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/liswpwp. pdf. Hawkins, P. (2021). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational leadership. Kogan Page Publishers. Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard business review, 87(7/8), 62-69. Hezlett, S. A. (2016). Enhancing experience-driven leadership development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 369-389. Hoffman, B., Lance, C. E., Bynum, B., & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Rater source effects are alive and well after all. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 119-151. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169. Hoppe, B., & Reinelt, C. (2010). Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 600-619. 184 Hura, G. (2013). A new model for executive education. Journal of Executive Education (HIATUS), 2(2), 1. Husain, Z. (2013). Effective communication brings successful organizational change. The Business & Management Review, 3(2), 43. Hysong, S. J. (2008). The role of technical skill in perceptions of managerial performance. The Journal of Management Development, 27(3), 275-290. Ivancevich, J. M., Schweiger, D. M., & Power, F. R. (1987). Strategies for managing human resources during mergers and acquisitions. Human Resource Planning, 10(1). Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (Eds.). (2004). The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Sage. Joiner, B. (2019). Leadership agility for organizational agility. Journal of Creating Value, 5(2), 139-149. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage publications. Johnson, D., & Sargeant, A. (1998). Motives for transition: An exploratory study of engineering managers. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(3), 41-53. Jones, G., & Gorell, R. (2014). How to create a Coaching Culture (Vol. 3). Kogan Page Publishers. Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 722-750. Junni, P., & Teerikangas, S. (2019). Mergers and acquisitions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. 185 Kaiser, R. B., & Curphy, G. (2013). Leadership development: The failure of an industry and the opportunity for consulting psychologists. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(4), 294. Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4), 205. Katz, S., & Dack, L. A. (2014). Towards a culture of inquiry for data use in schools: Breaking down professional learning barriers through intentional interruption. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 35-40. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2016). An everyone culture: Becoming a deliberately developmental organization. Harvard Business Review Press. Kellerman, B. (2012). Cut off at the pass: The limits of leadership in the 21st century. Governance Studies at Brookings Institution, 1-11. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Harvard Business Press. Kennedy, F., Carroll, B., & Francoeur, J. (2013). Mindset not skill set: Evaluating in new paradigms of leadership development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(1), 10-26. Kerfoot, K. M. (2010). Listening to see: The key to virtual leadership. Nursing Economics, 28(2), 114. Kets de Vries, M. F. (2005). Leadership group coaching in action: The Zen of creating high performance teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 61-76. 186 Kezar, A. (2001). Research-Based Principles of Change. Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 28(4), 147. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of American Society of Training Directors, 13(3), 21-26. Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett- Koehler Publishers. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (1998). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Barrett. Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development. Kochan, T. (2015). The leaders' choice. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 69-73. Korotov, K. (2016). Coaching for leadership development. The SAGE handbook of coaching, 11(3), 139-58. Korotov, K., Florent-Treacy, E., de Vries, M. F. K., & Bernhardt, A. (Eds.). (2012). Tricky coaching: Difficult cases in leadership coaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, JM, & Posner, BZ (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). The leadership challenge (Vol. 3). John Wiley & Sons. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Kramer, M. W., Dougherty, D. S., & Pierce, T. A. (2004). Managing uncertainty during a 187 corporate acquisition: A longitudinal study of communication during an airline acquisition. Human communication research, 30(1), 71-101. Labalme, V. (2022, June 30). #1 way to focus your “performance” - victoria labalme. Victoria Labalme - RISK FORWARD. https://www.victorialabalme.com/1-way-to-focus-your- performance/?inf_contact_key=2a0137a07607b98f978f48c4cc9c3de416358d5485884e2f3 1e6019a0d26c8b0 Lakewood Media. (2021, November 16). Training November 2021 page 18. Training November 2021 Page 18. Retrieved August 31, 2022, from https://pubs.royle.com/publication/?m=20617&i=727569&p=20 Lang, M. (2009). Conflict management: A gap in business education curricula. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 240-245. Leary, M. R., & Buttermore, N. R. (2003). The evolution of the human self: Tracing the natural history of self‐awareness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(4), 365-404. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Leskiw, S. L., & Singh, P. (2007). Leadership development: learning from best practices. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 444-464. Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers’ targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management communication quarterly, 13(1), 43-75. Ling, T. (2012). Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time. Evaluation, 18(1), 79-91. 188 Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors influence performance: A multilevel study of coaching and group management in technology‐mediated services. Personnel psychology, 63(2), 265-298. Loew, L., & Wentworth, D. (2013). Leadership: The state of development programs. Brandon Hall Group: Delray Beach. Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The leadership quarterly, 16(4), 591-615. Mabey, C., & Ramirez, M. (2005). Does management development improve organizational productivity? A six-country analysis of European firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7), 1067-1082. Machida, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2011). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leader development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 459-468. Madni, A. M. (2019). Transdisciplinary systems engineering: Exploiting disciplinary convergence to address grand challenges. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine, 5(2), 6-11. Madsen, S. R. (2012). Women and leadership in higher education: Current realities, challenges, and future directions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(2), 131-139. Maheshwari, S. K., & Yadav, J. (2018). Leadership development strategy: The missing links. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal. Malmelin, N. (2007). Communication capital: Modelling corporate communications as an organizational asset. Corporate communications: an international journal. Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management review, 11(3), 585-600. 189 Marks, M. L. (2006). Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings: facilitating individual adaptation to major organizational transitions. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 384-399. Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-48. Marshall-Mies, J. C., Fleishman, E. A., Martin, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Baughman, W. A., & McGee, M. L. (2000). Development and evaluation of cognitive and metacognitive measures for predicting leadership potential. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 135-153. Matsuo, M. (2018). How does managerial coaching affect individual learning? The mediating roles of team and individual reflexivity. Personnel review, 47(1), 118-132. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Does styles research have useful implications for educational practice? Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 319-320. McCauley, C. D., & Moxley, R. S. Van Velsor. E. 1998. The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it. Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15-21. McKinnon, J. L., Harrison, G. L., Chow, C. W., & Wu, A. (2003). Organizational culture: Association with commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to remain, and information sharing in Taiwan. International journal of business studies, 11(1). Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 190 Militello, M., & Benham, M. K. (2010). “Sorting Out” collective leadership: How Q- methodology can be used to evaluate leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 620-632. Moldoveanu, M., & Narayandas, D. (2019). The future of leadership development. Harvard business review, 97(2), 40-48. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Chapter 3: Research design and research methods. In Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods (pp. 45-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Muff, K. (2012). Are business schools doing their job? Journal of Management Development. Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The leadership quarterly, 18(2), 154-166. Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2010). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence. Pearson. Norris, J. M., Plonsky, L., Ross, S. J., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods and results in primary research. Language Learning, 65(2), 470- 476. Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications. O'Connell, P. K. (2014). A simplified framework for 21st century leader development. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 183-203. O'Neil, J., & Marsick, V. J. (2009). Peer mentoring and action learning. Adult Learning, 20(1-2), 19-24. Orvis, K. A., & Ratwani, K. L. (2010). Leader self-development: A contemporary context for leader development evaluation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 657-674. 191 Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self‐efficacy and managers' motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(2), 215-235. Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5, 339-367. Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2014). Data-driven leadership. John Wiley & Sons. Park, S., McLean, G. N., & Yang, B. (2008). Revision and Validation of an Instrument Measuring Managerial Coaching Skills in Organizations. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Panama City, FL. Park, S., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2008). An Examination of Relationships between Managerial Coaching and Employee Development. Online submission. Patterson, A. E., Mason, T. M., & Duncan, P. (2017). Enhancing a culture of inquiry. The Journal of nursing administration, 47(3), 154-158. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait emotional intelligence and children's peer relations at school. Social Development, 15(3), 537-547. Petrie, N. (2015). Future trends in leadership development: The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). Petriglieri, G. (2011). Identity workspaces for leadership development. The handbook for teaching leadership, 295-312. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. 192 Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667. Plakhotnik, M. S., Rocco, T. S., & Roberts, N. A. (2010). Development review integrative literature review: Increasing retention and success of first-time managers: A model of three integral processes for the transition to management. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1), 26-45. Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European journal of education studies. Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of management journal, 43(6), 1177-1194. Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2012). The research journey: Introduction to inquiry. Guilford Press. Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage Publications. Reichard, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). Leader self-development as organizational strategy. The leadership quarterly, 22(1), 33-42. Robertson, D. (2014). Leaving first-line managers to sink or swim will hit your bottom line. Dev and Learning in Org, 28(4), 2–4. Robinson, S.B. & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles: SAGE. Robinson, G. S., & Wick, C. W. (1992). Executive development that makes a business difference. People and Strategy, 15(1), 63. 193 Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. Roeder, T. (2013) What Is a Stakeholder? Managing Project Stakeholders: Building a Foundation to Achieve Project Goals, 3-17. Ronald, B. (2014). Comprehensive leadership review-literature, theories and research. Advances in Management, 7(5), 52. Rosenbach, W. E. (2018). Contemporary issues in leadership. Routledge. Ross, S. (2014). A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership development and action-steps to promote personal leadership development. Journal of Management Development. 33(4), 299-323. Ross, C. M., Robinson, L., & Francis-Smythe, J. (2015). The contribution of academic scholarship to management development. Journal of Management Development. 34(3), 286-298. Rossi, M., Yedidia Tarba, S., & Raviv, A. (2013). Mergers and acquisitions in the hightech industry: a literature review. International journal of organizational analysis, 21(1), 66- 82. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 194 Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological science in the public interest, 13(2), 74-101. Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2021). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel. Sage publications. Sang, K., & Sitko, R. (2014). Analysing qualitative data. Research methods for business and management a guide to writing your dissertation, 137-153. Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., & Esposito, M. (2010). Small to mid‐sized nonprofit leadership development initiatives: organizational lessons learned. Development and Learning in Organizations, 24(6), 17–19. Sarala, R. M., Vaara, E., & Junni, P. (2019). Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: New avenues for research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Journal of World Business, 54(4), 307-321. Saunders, M. (2006). The presence of evaluation theory and practice in educational and social development: toward an inclusive approach. London Review of Education. Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leader-member exchange approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 243-263. Schein, E. H. (2011). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother. Classics of organizational theory, 7, 349-360. Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schmidt, G. B. (2014). Virtual leadership: An important leadership context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 182-187. Schraeder, M., & Self, D. R. (2003). Enhancing the success of mergers and acquisitions: an 195 organizational culture perspective. Management decision. Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (2001). HR issues and activities in mergers and acquisitions. European management journal, 19(3), 239-253. Seifert, C. F., & Yukl, G. (2010). Effects of repeated multi-source feedback on the influence behavior and effectiveness of managers: A field experiment. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 856-866. Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance goals: When should each be used? Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 124-131. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business. Seo, M. G., & Hill, N. S. (2005). Understanding the human side of merger and acquisition: An integrative framework. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 422-443. Shahin, A., & Zairi, M. (2006). Strategic management, benchmarking and balanced score card (BSC): an integrated methodology. International Journal of Applied Strategic Management, 2(2), 1-10. Shipper, F., Hoffman, R. C., & Rotondo, D. M. (2007). Does the 360 feedback process create actionable knowledge equally across cultures? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 33-50. Smeltzer, L. R., & Zener, M. F. (1992). Development of a model for announcing major layoffs. Group & Organization Management, 17(4), 446-472. Snook, S., Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, and being. Sage. Spence, M. S. M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, 225-243. 196 Stahl, G. K., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2005). in Mergers and Acquisitions. Mergers and Acquisitions: Managing Culture and Human Resources, 401. Stevanović, M. I., & Gmitrović, A. M. (2016). Importance and role of internal communication in organizations. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 806, 302-307. Style, E. (1996). Curriculum as window and mirror. Social science record, 33(2), 21-28. Swensen, S., Gorringe, G., Caviness, J., & Peters, D. (2016). Leadership by design: intentional organization development of physician leaders. Journal of Management Development. Taylor, S. N. (2010). Redefining leader self‐awareness by integrating the second component of self‐awareness. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(4), 57-68. Terblanche, N. (2014). Knowledge sharing in the organizational context: Using social network analysis as a coaching tool. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 12(2), 146-164. Tetenbaum, T. J. (1999). Beating the odds of merger & acquisition failure: Seven key practices that improve the chance for expected integration and synergies. Organizational dynamics, 22-22. Thach, E. C. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness. Leadership & organization development journal. 23 (3), 205-214. Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail: Perspectives across time and cultures. Academy of Management Perspectives, 9(4), 62-72. Van Vuuren, M., & Elving, W. J. (2008). Communication, sensemaking and change as a chord of three strands: Practical implications and a research agenda for communicating organizational change. Corporate communications: an international journal, 13(3), 349- 359. 197 Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(2), 246. Volz-Peacock, M., Carson, B., & Marquardt, M. (2016). Action learning and leadership development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 318-333. Weber, Y., Tarba, S. Y., & Rozen Bachar, Z. (2012). The effects of culture clash on international mergers in the high tech industry. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 8(1), 103-118. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press. Wellins, R. S., Selkovits, A., & McGrath, D. (2013). Be better than average: A study on the state of frontline leadership. Development Dimensions International. Westerman, J. W., Rao, M. B., Vanka, S., & Gupta, M. (2020). Sustainable human resource management and the triple bottom line: Multi-stakeholder strategies, concepts, and engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100742. Wick, C. W. (1989). How people develop: An in-depth look. HR Report, 6(7), 1-3. Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-Value Theory. In Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 69-90). Routledge. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384. 198 Wuestewald, T., PhD. (2016). Adult learning in executive development programs. Adult Learning, 27(2), 68-75. Yeager, K. L., & Callahan, J. L. (2016). Learning to lead: Foundations of emerging leader identity development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 286-300. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (Global ed.). Essex: Pearson. Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2016). The trickle-down effect of good (and bad) leadership. Harvard Business Review. Zenger, J. H., & Stinnett, K. (2006). Leadership coaching: Developing effective executives. Chief Learning Officer, 5(7), 44-47. Zhang, H., & Agarwal, N. C. (2009). The mediating roles of organizational justice on the relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 676-693. Zhang, Y., Leslie, J. B., & Hannum, K. M. (2013). Trouble ahead: Derailment is alive and well. Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(1), 95-102. Ziskin, E. (2015). Developing the next generation of leaders: Trends and truths about the future of leadership development. HR People+ Strategy: SHRM’s Executive Network. 199 Appendix A: Interview Protocol Research Questions 1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers preventing the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes? 2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations for improving the utilization of leadership development programs to achieve business performance goals and to optimize organizational outcomes? Introduction to the Interview and Opening Comments Thank you for making the time to meet with me today. As I discussed with you earlier, the purpose of this study is to explore the influences within leadership development and the role of leadership development programs in achieving business performance goals and organizational outcomes. This is a topic I am very passionate about and have spent the past two years researching on. I will be asking you 25 questions and the interview will take about 60 minutes. You can stop the interview at any time or decline answering any questions you do not wish to answer. Everything you discuss during the interview will remain confidential and not shared with anyone inside or outside the organization. Recording the session would allow me to be present with you during the interview and would provide me access to the transcript after the interview. Do I have your permission to record the session? Before we start, could you please describe your role and primary responsibilities at the company? 200 Table A1 Interview Protocol Interview questions Key concept addressed 1. How would you define leadership development? 1.1. Walk me through an example of what leadership development looks like. Knowledge (Declarative) 2. Discuss your leadership development goals. Knowledge (Declarative) 3. Describe the competencies that your next generation of leadership would exhibit if you achieve your leadership development goals. Knowledge (Declarative) 4. Describe the process of LDP in your business unit. 4.1. Can you give me specific examples? Knowledge (Procedural) 5. Describe how the leadership team is currently involved in developing leaders. 5.1. What do you expect to garner from these activities? Knowledge (Procedural) 6. Describe what effective coaching and mentoring look like to you. Knowledge (Declarative) 7. Discuss how you make an effective individual development plan. Knowledge (Procedural) 8. Reflecting on your past efforts, how do you know your LDP is on track? 8.1. How do you monitor it? Frequency? Modality? Knowledge (Metacognitive) 9. Reflecting on your time developing others, describe how taking time to develop others has influenced you. 9.1. What prepared you to develop leaders? Knowledge (Metacognitive) 10. Describe the typical barriers you face in developing your people. 10.1. Discuss your confidence in navigating those barriers. Motivation (Self-Efficacy) 11. Describe the impact of LDP on your confidence within the workplace. Motivation (Self-Efficacy) 201 Interview questions Key concept addressed 12. Discuss your confidence in your ability to provide effective and critical feedback. 12.1. How often do you provide feedback? 12.2. What modality or form do you use? 12.3. Provide an example of its use to help coach/mentor. Motivation (Self-Efficacy) 13. Describe your approach to ensuring your employees understand elements within their LDP. Motivation (Goal Orientation) 14. Describe how you prioritize achievement of LDP goals. 14.1. Describe your definition of success with regards to LDP goal achievement. (Trying to discern whether they are performance oriented [i.e., check the box] or mastery oriented [i.e., employees and mentors want to ensure mastery of skills]). Motivation (Goal Orientation) 15. Describe the criteria to advance individuals into leadership roles? Motivation (Attribution) 16. When individuals advance to leadership roles, to what extent do you think it is due to their AKS (ability, knowledge, skills) in the job or to some other factor? Motivation (Attribution) 17. Discuss your perspective on the value of LDP in achieving business performance goals and organizational outcomes. Motivation (Expectancy Value) 18. Describe the extent the organization clearly states the expected leadership competencies. 18.1. Describe these competencies if different from Q3. Organization (Cultural Setting) (LDP Structure and Resources) 19. Describe the effectiveness of the company’s LDP. 19.1. Describe how you would improve company’s LDP. Organization (Cultural Setting) (LDP Structure and Resources) 20. Discuss your understanding of company’s practice in advancing individuals to leadership roles internally or hiring externally. Organization (Cultural Setting) (LDP Structure and Resources) 21. Describe how the leadership team develops future leaders. 21.1. How do you think the company prioritizes people development? Organization (Cultural Setting) (LDP Structure and Resources) 202 Interview questions Key concept addressed 22. From your vantage point, describe how it feels to work as a member of leadership team. Organization (Cultural Model) (Commitment to LDP) 23. Describe how you used the employee engagement survey results to help improve the culture of your business unit. 23.1. What type of training, if any, have your received on how to use employee engagement survey results? 23.2 What are some themes in the work environment that would lead to the 3 psychological needs (competency, relatedness, autonomy) that would lead to motivation and eventually to engagement? Organization (Cultural Setting) (Commitment to LDP) 24. Describe what your employees would say about the company and its LDP. 24.1. What would they say about you as a leader? Organization (Cultural Model) (Commitment to LDP) 25. Describe the organizational resources available to individuals who seek to advance to leadership roles. Organization (Cultural Setting) (LDP Structure and Resources) Conclusion to the Interview In closing, how do you describe the company’s journey ahead? What change would you like to see? What has worked and what has not? What other questions should I be asking on this topic? What other input or advice do you have on implementing effective LDP in your business unit? Thank you so much for your time today. The findings and recommendations of this study will certainly serve other organizations in implementing an effective and efficient LDP that helps them achieve business performance goals and desired organizational outcomes. Once I have the first draft ready, I would like to connect with you again to ensure it is meaningful and applicable. Would that be ok? 203 Would it also be ok if I reach back to you if I have any questions during the review process? I appreciate your participation in this research study and your contribution to the field of learning and development. Thank you for your time. 204 Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol Three documents provide quantitative data to support the nature of leadership development and the associated programs. Specifically, the study incorporated 1 year of manager survey results and 3 years of employee engagement surveys: • 2020 Employee Engagement Survey Results • 2021 Employee Engagement Survey Results • 2022 Employee Engagement Survey Results Human Resources provided the reported survey results. The study had access to the raw data; however, no employee personally identifiable information, or any specific information attributable to an individual within the organization appeared in the data. Analysis of the survey results focuses on trends and elements specifically relating to leadership development and leadership development programs. Omission of data reflecting other aspects of the organization, other departments and divisions, or aspects outside of focus of this study was purposeful to protect organizational and individual anonymity. Data analysis centered on answering the following questions: 1. What are the top three areas influencing LD that need improvement based on employee engagement survey results? 2. How do employees perceive growth and development efforts? 3. What kind of pattern, if any, emerge from three consecutive survey results? Reporting of results and findings from the survey analysis appears in Chapter Four and enhances the understanding of information derived from the qualitative interviews. There is no presentation of survey data outside the scope of the study. 205 Appendix C: Employee Engagement Survey Survey items I feel empowered to make decisions regarding my work. I am encouraged to find new and better ways to get things done. I am satisfied with my direct manager. I can openly share my opinions and concerns without fear of consequences. Where I work, employees are held accountable for their work. My business unit executes with thoroughness and rigor. My business unit innovates to solve its customer’s needs. I have sufficient information to perform my job successfully. I know how to report ethical concerns or suspected misconduct at InfraM. I am treated with respect and dignity. I feel I am able to balance between my work and my personal life. People live the InfraM Core Behaviors. I feel InfraM has an inclusive culture. People at InfraM act with integrity. People at InfraM help each other achieve their objectives. I believe the company would take appropriate action against an employee at any level for engaging in unethical behavior or misconduct. I am fairly compensated for the work that I do. I feel satisfied with the recognition or praise I receive for my work. I would recommend working at InfraM to my friends. How happy are you working at InfraM? I am excited about InfraM's future. The work that I do at InfraM is meaningful to me. I rarely think about looking for a job at a different company. I have good opportunities to learn and grow at InfraM. My manager provides coaching and advice on how to grow my career at InfraM 206 Appendix D: Combined Survey Results Factor M SD Range eSat 76.64 5.44 22.00 Recommend 77.24 5.78 27.00 Retention 67.88 8.51 42.00 Respectful Treatment 82.12 7.63 38.00 Integrity 81.32 4.87 19.00 Core Behaviors 77.00 4.42 18.00 Manager Satisfaction 80.16 10.59 39.00 Initiative 76.48 7.05 34.00 Empowerment 77.36 9.09 38.00 Openness to Speak Up 77.04 10.12 51.00 Innovate 83.56 6.91 30.00 Prospects 85.76 5.32 23.00 Execution 80.72 5.36 27.00 Collaboration 78.48 5.10 25.00 Purpose 78.72 5.10 21.00 Work-Life Balance 67.83 15.33 34.00 Well Informed 76.96 6.72 30.00 Career Guidance 69.20 12.54 42.00 Growth 74.48 6.70 28.00 Rewards 70.56 7.42 31.00 Recognition 70.08 8.86 41.00 Satisfaction 73.92 6.15 27.33 207 Appendix E: Analysis of Means Oneway Analysis of Team Climate By ReOrg Status Quantiles Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum Post-Reorg 61.75 61.75 72.0625 80.5 86.25 93 93 Pre-Reorg 53 68.25 73 80.5 82.75 84.25 91 Oneway Anova Summary of Fit Rsquare 0.009127 Adj Rsquare -0.03395 Root Mean Square Error 8.841293 Mean of Response 77.76 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 25 Pooled t Test Pre-Reorg-Post-Reorg Assuming equal variances Difference -1.906 t Ratio -0.46028 Std Err Dif 4.140 DF 23 Upper CL Dif 6.659 Prob > |t| 0.6496 Lower CL Dif -10.471 Prob > t 0.6752 Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.3248 208 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F ReOrg Status 1 16.5605 16.5605 0.2119 0.6496 Error 23 1797.8745 78.1685 C. Total 24 1814.4350 Means for Oneway Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 79.2083 3.6094 71.742 86.675 Pre-Reorg 19 77.3026 2.0283 73.107 81.499 Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Means and Std Deviations Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 79.208333 10.349416 4.2251315 68.347287 90.06938 Pre-Reorg 19 77.302632 8.3743072 1.9211978 73.266345 81.338918 Analysis of Means 209 Oneway Analysis of Team Performance By ReOrg Status Quantiles Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum Post-Reorg 73.5 73.5 78 82 85.625 87.5 87.5 Pre-Reorg 68 75 79 83 85.5 91 94.5 Oneway Anova Summary of Fit Rsquare 0.003256 Adj Rsquare -0.04008 Root Mean Square Error 5.705884 Mean of Response 82.14 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 25 Pooled t Test Pre-Reorg-Post-Reorg Assuming equal variances Difference 0.7325 t Ratio 0.27412 Std Err Dif 2.6720 DF 23 Upper CL Dif 6.2600 Prob > |t| 0.7864 Lower CL Dif -4.7950 Prob > t 0.3932 Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.6068 210 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F ReOrg Status 1 2.44640 2.4464 0.0751 0.7864 Error 23 748.81360 32.5571 C. Total 24 751.26000 Means for Oneway Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 81.5833 2.3294 76.765 86.402 Pre-Reorg 19 82.3158 1.3090 79.608 85.024 Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Means and Std Deviations Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 81.583333 4.8725421 1.989207 76.469914 86.696753 Pre-Reorg 19 82.315789 5.916574 1.3573552 79.464092 85.167487 Analysis of Means 211 Oneway Analysis of Work Environment By ReOrg Status Quantiles Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum Post-Reorg 70.5 70.5 78 81.25 87 90 90 Pre-Reorg 56 72.5 76 79.5 84.5 86 87.5 Oneway Anova Summary of Fit Rsquare 0.028992 Adj Rsquare -0.01323 Root Mean Square Error 6.928196 Mean of Response 79.54 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 25 Pooled t Test Pre-Reorg-Post-Reorg Assuming equal variances Difference -2.6886 t Ratio -0.82868 Std Err Dif 3.2444 DF 23 Upper CL Dif 4.0230 Prob > |t| 0.4158 Lower CL Dif -9.4002 Prob > t 0.7921 Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.2079 212 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F ReOrg Status 1 32.9622 32.9622 0.6867 0.4158 Error 23 1103.9978 47.9999 C. Total 24 1136.9600 Means for Oneway Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 81.5833 2.8284 75.732 87.434 Pre-Reorg 19 78.8947 1.5894 75.607 82.183 Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Means and Std Deviations Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 81.583333 6.5682316 2.6814693 74.690397 88.47627 Pre-Reorg 19 78.894737 7.0249139 1.6116258 75.508837 82.280637 Analysis of Means 213 Oneway Analysis of Corporate Culture By ReOrg Status Quantiles Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum Post-Reorg 71 71 77 80.66667 83.58333 84.33333 84.33333 Pre-Reorg 72.33333 73 75.33333 79.33333 80.66667 84 89.66667 Oneway Anova Summary of Fit Rsquare 0.014148 Adj Rsquare -0.02872 Root Mean Square Error 4.401607 Mean of Response 78.93333 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 25 Pooled t Test Pre-Reorg-Post-Reorg Assuming equal variances Difference -1.1842 t Ratio -0.57451 Std Err Dif 2.0612 DF 23 Upper CL Dif 3.0798 Prob > |t| 0.5712 Lower CL Dif -5.4482 Prob > t 0.7144 Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.2856 214 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F ReOrg Status 1 6.39474 6.3947 0.3301 0.5712 Error 23 445.60526 19.3741 C. Total 24 452.00000 Means for Oneway Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 79.8333 1.7969 76.116 83.551 Pre-Reorg 19 78.6491 1.0098 76.560 80.738 Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Means and Std Deviations Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 79.833333 4.7877158 1.9545768 74.808934 84.857733 Pre-Reorg 19 78.649123 4.2881889 0.983778 76.582282 80.715964 Analysis of Means 215 Oneway Analysis of Recognition and Rewards By ReOrg Status Quantiles Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum Post-Reorg 54.5 54.5 62 68.5 76.625 81.5 81.5 Pre-Reorg 56.5 59.5 66 71.5 75 77.5 88.5 Oneway Anova Summary of Fit Rsquare 0.014304 Adj Rsquare -0.02855 Root Mean Square Error 7.635672 Mean of Response 70.32 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 25 Pooled t Test Pre-Reorg-Post-Reorg Assuming equal variances Difference 2.0658 t Ratio 0.577725 Std Err Dif 3.5757 DF 23 Upper CL Dif 9.4628 Prob > |t| 0.5691 Lower CL Dif -5.3312 Prob > t 0.2845 Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.7155 216 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F ReOrg Status 1 19.4597 19.4597 0.3338 0.5691 Error 23 1340.9803 58.3035 C. Total 24 1360.4400 Means for Oneway Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 68.7500 3.1173 62.301 75.199 Pre-Reorg 19 70.8158 1.7517 67.192 74.440 Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Means and Std Deviations Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 68.75 9.2452691 3.7743653 59.047685 78.452315 Pre-Reorg 19 70.815789 7.1243139 1.6344297 67.38198 74.249599 Analysis of Means 217 Oneway Analysis of Employee Satisfaction By ReOrg Status Quantiles Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum Post-Reorg 73 73 73.15 76.7 85.85 88.4 88.4 Pre-Reorg 66.4 71 74.6 77 78.8 82.8 89 Oneway Anova Summary of Fit Rsquare 0.031177 Adj Rsquare -0.01095 Root Mean Square Error 5.17763 Mean of Response 77.248 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 25 Pooled t Test Pre-Reorg-Post-Reorg Assuming equal variances Difference -2.0860 t Ratio -0.86032 Std Err Dif 2.4246 DF 23 Upper CL Dif 2.9298 Prob > |t| 0.3985 Lower CL Dif -7.1017 Prob > t 0.8008 Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.1992 218 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F ReOrg Status 1 19.84170 19.8417 0.7401 0.3985 Error 23 616.58070 26.8079 C. Total 24 636.42240 Means for Oneway Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 78.8333 2.1138 74.461 83.206 Pre-Reorg 19 76.7474 1.1878 74.290 79.205 Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Means and Std Deviations Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 78.833333 6.5573369 2.6770216 71.95183 85.714836 Pre-Reorg 19 76.747368 4.7233896 1.0836199 74.470768 79.023969 Analysis of Means 219 Oneway Analysis of Professional Development By ReOrg Status Quantiles Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum Post-Reorg 59.5 59.5 65.125 75 83.125 88 88 Pre-Reorg 60.5 63 68 73.5 76 79 91 Oneway Anova Summary of Fit Rsquare 0.009453 Adj Rsquare -0.03361 Root Mean Square Error 7.636752 Mean of Response 73.06 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 25 Pooled t Test Pre-Reorg-Post-Reorg Assuming equal variances Difference -1.6754 t Ratio -0.46849 Std Err Dif 3.5762 DF 23 Upper CL Dif 5.7226 Prob > |t| 0.6438 Lower CL Dif -9.0734 Prob > t 0.6781 Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.3219 220 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F ReOrg Status 1 12.8004 12.8004 0.2195 0.6438 Error 23 1341.3596 58.3200 C. Total 24 1354.1600 Means for Oneway Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 74.3333 3.1177 67.884 80.783 Pre-Reorg 19 72.6579 1.7520 69.034 76.282 Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Means and Std Deviations Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95% Post-Reorg 6 74.333333 10.12752 4.1345428 63.705153 84.961514 Pre-Reorg 19 72.657895 6.7844852 1.5564677 69.387878 75.927912 Analysis of Means 221 Appendix F: Factor Distribution Team Climate Compare Distributions Show Distribution AICc BIC -2*LogLikelihood [x] Normal 182.62927 184.52157 178.08382 Quantiles 100.0% maximum 93 99.5% 93 97.5% 93 90.0% 86.95 75.0% quartile 83.25 50.0% median 80.5 25.0% quartile 73.125 10.0% 65.65 2.5% 53 0.5% 53 0.0% minimum 53 Summary Statistics Mean 77.76 Std Dev 8.6949099 Std Err Mean 1.738982 Upper 95% Mean 81.349082 Lower 95% Mean 74.170918 N 25 Fitted Normal Distribution Parameter Estimate Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Location μ 77.76 1.738982 74.170918 81.349082 Dispersion σ 8.6949099 1.268283 6.7892323 12.095943 222 Measures -2*LogLikelihood 178.08382 AICc 182.62927 BIC 184.52157 Goodness-of-Fit Test W Prob<W Shapiro-Wilk 0.9312613 0.0929 A2 Simulated p- Value Anderson-Darling 0.6522018 0.0840 223 Team Performance Compare Distributions Show Distribution AICc BIC -2*LogLikelihood [x] Normal 160.58483 162.47713 156.03938 Quantiles 100.0% maximum 94.5 99.5% 94.5 97.5% 94.5 90.0% 88.9 75.0% quartile 85.25 50.0% median 83 25.0% quartile 79 10.0% 74.4 2.5% 68 0.5% 68 0.0% minimum 68 Summary Statistics Mean 82.14 Std Dev 5.5948637 Std Err Mean 1.1189727 Upper 95% Mean 84.449446 Lower 95% Mean 79.830554 N 25 Fitted Normal Distribution Parameter Estimate Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Location μ 82.14 1.1189727 79.830554 84.449446 Dispersion σ 5.5948637 0.8160947 4.3686283 7.7833068 Measures -2*LogLikelihood 156.03938 AICc 160.58483 BIC 162.47713 224 Goodness-of-Fit Test W Prob<W Shapiro-Wilk 0.9812786 0.9092 A2 Simulated p- Value Anderson-Darling 0.2502217 0.7336 225 Work Environment Compare Distributions Show Distribution AICc BIC -2*LogLikelihood [x] Normal 170.94387 172.83617 166.39841 Quantiles 100.0% maximum 90 99.5% 90 97.5% 90 90.0% 86.6 75.0% quartile 84.5 50.0% median 80.5 25.0% quartile 77 10.0% 71.7 2.5% 56 0.5% 56 0.0% minimum 56 Summary Statistics Mean 79.54 Std Dev 6.8828289 Std Err Mean 1.3765658 Upper 95% Mean 82.381092 Lower 95% Mean 76.698908 N 25 Fitted Normal Distribution Parameter Estimate Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Location μ 79.54 1.3765658 76.698908 82.381092 Dispersion σ 6.8828289 1.0039638 5.3743081 9.5750623 Measures -2*LogLikelihood 166.39841 AICc 170.94387 BIC 172.83617 226 Goodness-of-Fit Test W Prob<W Shapiro-Wilk 0.878689 0.0065* A2 Simulated p- Value Anderson-Darling 0.7698202 0.0376* 227 Corporate Culture Compare Distributions Show Distribution AICc BIC -2*LogLikelihood [x] Normal 147.88309 149.77539 143.33764 Quantiles 100.0% maximum 89.666666667 99.5% 89.666666667 97.5% 89.666666667 90.0% 84.133333333 75.0% quartile 81.5 50.0% median 79.666666667 25.0% quartile 75.666666667 10.0% 72.733333333 2.5% 71 0.5% 71 0.0% minimum 71 Summary Statistics Mean 78.933333 Std Dev 4.3397389 Std Err Mean 0.8679478 Upper 95% Mean 80.724689 Lower 95% Mean 77.141977 N 25 Fitted Normal Distribution Parameter Estimate Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Location μ 78.933333 0.8679478 77.141977 80.724689 Dispersion σ 4.3397389 0.633016 3.3885912 6.0372371 Measures -2*LogLikelihood 143.33764 AICc 147.88309 BIC 149.77539 228 Goodness-of-Fit Test W Prob<W Shapiro-Wilk 0.9669594 0.5693 A2 Simulated p- Value Anderson-Darling 0.3667682 0.4032 229 Recognition and Rewards Compare Distributions Show Distribution AICc BIC -2*LogLikelihood [x] Normal 175.43012 177.32242 170.88467 Quantiles 100.0% maximum 88.5 99.5% 88.5 97.5% 88.5 90.0% 79.1 75.0% quartile 75 50.0% median 71.5 25.0% quartile 65.25 10.0% 58.3 2.5% 54.5 0.5% 54.5 0.0% minimum 54.5 Summary Statistics Mean 70.32 Std Dev 7.5289441 Std Err Mean 1.5057888 Upper 95% Mean 73.427795 Lower 95% Mean 67.212205 N 25 Fitted Normal Distribution Parameter Estimate Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Location μ 70.32 1.5057888 67.212205 73.427795 Dispersion σ 7.5289441 1.0982094 5.8788132 10.473907 Measures -2*LogLikelihood 170.88467 AICc 175.43012 BIC 177.32242 230 Goodness-of-Fit Test W Prob<W Shapiro-Wilk 0.9720045 0.6962 A2 Simulated p- Value Anderson-Darling 0.3675072 0.4156 231 Employee Satisfaction Compare Distributions Show Distribution AICc BIC -2*LogLikelihood [x] Normal 156.4376 158.32989 151.89214 Quantiles 100.0% maximum 89 99.5% 89 97.5% 89 90.0% 86.36 75.0% quartile 79.2 50.0% median 77 25.0% quartile 73.8 10.0% 71.72 2.5% 66.4 0.5% 66.4 0.0% minimum 66.4 Summary Statistics Mean 77.248 Std Dev 5.1495242 Std Err Mean 1.0299048 Upper 95% Mean 79.373619 Lower 95% Mean 75.122381 N 25 Fitted Normal Distribution Parameter Estimate Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Location μ 77.248 1.0299048 75.122381 79.373619 Dispersion σ 5.1495242 0.7511353 4.0208946 7.1637718 Measures -2*LogLikelihood 151.89214 AICc 156.4376 BIC 158.32989 232 Goodness-of-Fit Test W Prob<W Shapiro-Wilk 0.9492783 0.2415 A2 Simulated p- Value Anderson-Darling 0.538425 0.1656 233 Professional Development Compare Distributions Show Distribution AICc BIC -2*LogLikelihood [x] Normal 175.31445 177.20675 170.769 Quantiles 100.0% maximum 91 99.5% 91 97.5% 91 90.0% 84.1 75.0% quartile 76.5 50.0% median 74 25.0% quartile 67.5 10.0% 62 2.5% 59.5 0.5% 59.5 0.0% minimum 59.5 Summary Statistics Mean 73.06 Std Dev 7.5115467 Std Err Mean 1.5023093 Upper 95% Mean 76.160614 Lower 95% Mean 69.959386 N 25 Fitted Normal Distribution Parameter Estimate Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Location μ 73.06 1.5023093 69.959386 76.160614 Dispersion σ 7.5115467 1.0956717 5.8652287 10.449704 Measures -2*LogLikelihood 170.769 AICc 175.31445 BIC 177.20675 234 Goodness-of-Fit Test W Prob<W Shapiro-Wilk 0.9631082 0.4798 A2 Simulated p- Value Anderson-Darling 0.3864057 0.3880 235 Appendix G: Pearson's Correlation Coefficient Scatter Plot Matrix 236 Appendix H: Communication Gaps Pseudonym Communication Lux Ensure that communication is going up, going down and going back up … stay on the same page … the same outcome … keep it cascading forward … if leadership across company is not moving in the same direction, same priorities, same way, company is gonna move forward slower Cypress You got to communicate why you're doing things they don't like … as long as you explain it and there's logic to it, it's going very well … lack of leaders spending the quality time they should has been a hurdle, but we have improved a lot. There are some leaders that don't show core behaviors … yet they are still in their roles … they stay in it … we need to show we're taking leadership seriously. Rory Core behaviors are pretty fundamental ... teamwork, integrity, respect, innovation … political animals struggle with them … most of them didn't survive … some survived longer than others … very few of those guys are left ... it becomes very apparent when you're not able to emulate those behaviors. Culture has changed drastically with this CEO and his executive staff … they have made a concerted effort to make core values and behaviors real … everyone needs to be emulating those behaviors … the organizations that are taking core behaviors to heart and living it, you can see the difference it makes. Sol A lot of talk about InfraM core behaviors ... they're good and very effective. Not enough talk about the industry context and what's going on … it's not like CEO’s team, or BU don't know it or talk about it … there's a wall they don't want to cross over about what's going on in the industry … they talk more about general stuff as it goes down … often the top down communications tend to be watered down … a little raw, raw … a little less on our challenges … the real pain points of our customers. Arden Hardest thing to do is maintaining a culture of transparent communication all the time. … Our employees love hearing from our CEO … he started communicating very openly during the pandemic quarantine … that was so well received … it's a really good thing but it's a high bar to maintain … transparency can be tough … next level of leadership is now working on their own culture of communication and transparency. Mid-level people hear about the core behaviors for the most part … we need to establish a clearer set of expected leadership competencies by level. … We are not as mature in that area as some other organizations. 237 Pseudonym Communication Arlie We can get more productivity out of the organization if we as a leadership team provide more consistent kind of goals, objectives, clear vision, and inspiration ... our organization has hashed out the last year and a half trying to figure out our strategy … thrashed different products … we need to lock down what we're doing, clearly communicate the strategy, get everyone aligned to it and inspired by it, and execute it. Coby VPs to define the strategy of the company to achieve revenue or enter a market … there is no clarity within the company of who owns that and executives keep it to themselves … some of that expectation and responsibility should be going down the hierarchy to people that are interacting with customers … if they don't think it’s their authority or role, they are not bringing information back to more senior level because those senior levels can make a better decision … so leadership development can fall flat if organization is not using leaders in the right way and cascading down decision making to the right level … communicate what it takes to be successful at InfraM ... what success looks like at each level of the company Every company appreciates and rewards certain behaviors more than others ... InfraM evaluates leaders in terms of what they have produced not in terms of leadership skills … there is this franticness to produce which is rooted in the urgency to excel and deliver … sometimes it is necessary to pause, step back, and reflect. Sage Not effective enough in articulating what leadership is ... we use it as a platitude … we need better vocabulary … the generic ones lack context … be more descriptive than prescriptive … improve the frequency for which we highlight them. The technical aspects of the job are mandatory. You don't volunteer to be technical … that is your job … obligatory, mandatory … the non- technical aspects we could do a much better job of articulating. Every engineering oriented organization … everybody works in teams … everybody is constantly assessing your competency and performance … consciously or subconsciously … it's rare to perceive someone as a good leader if they are not highly competent … behaviors outside the technical domain, done improperly, can backfire and detract significantly from your perception as being a good leader. Articulating leadership competencies on the non-technical side is challenging … each person has to internalize and ultimately decide how to embody or demonstrate those leadership qualities … a personal choice … a personal mapping. 238 Appendix I: Existing Training Programs Pseudonym Training programs Lux Having a more structured, visible buffet of types of leadership development is appropriate. They exist, but we can do more. Not static and pre-recorded. It needs to be live and fully immersive, all in one place ... interactive group setting. Cypress Some of the course work here stinks ... too long or too basic for the level of individuals in the meeting ... people already know this stuff ... don't see how it's gonna help them. Coby InfraM has put together great programs ... some are highly valued … but leaders don’t necessarily know where to find them ... what is offered ... how to direct their people towards that. … Some programs have eroded over time ... some need to get revamped, rejuvenated, and packaged differently. People get a notice on their calendar, no context of what the program is about, the purpose, how many modules, how to reinforce it ... their boss is not notified either. Director and senior director level needs some investment ... they are people with engineering background and not necessarily equipped with what it takes to be a good leader ... they are responsible to execute the strategy ... that can be one reason some things are not happening. Arlie Someone comes in a leadership position ... have a philosophy on leadership training ... pour it over ... years later someone else in charge ... it changes again. My retention of the last training is about 20% because there's no institutionalization of that training going into the organization or reinforcement ... Trainings here are not institutionalized. … There should be a distillation down of expectations for these different topics. … We're not using the terminology we learn and driving it down into the org ... how to do it ... expectations around it. … I've never been to a leadership training that actually does that ... we need to do a better job of cascading things down into the organization. I have less and less confidence in leadership skills going deeper into the organization ... that's not an HR responsibility ... it's ours to take ownership and drive it down ... ownership doesn't mean sign up all your guys for HR training ... it means you're committed to pass on the skills necessary to be successful and to take ownership of the development of those skills into your organization ... not an outsource thing ... sending people to leadership training run by a third party or an HR organization is not really leadership training. Sage There's an underlying expectation that you're gonna build your leadership skills or at least understand the leadership challenges that you're gonna face if you want to scale or take on more responsibility.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study employed Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development in a business unit of a technology company. The literature review identified assumed influences examined through qualitative data collection and secondary quantitative data collection methods. Findings from the interviews and organizational documents verified and validated the assumed as well as emergent new influences, pointing to gaps in performance. The organization lacks a shared understanding and definition of leadership development and clear communication on the outcome and payoff present for employees that engage with LDP. This prominent technology company is sub-optimized as the overarching culture emerged by default rather than by design. The multitude of organizational heritages that shape the company define and perceive LD from the cultural frame of their prior firms and organizational decisions exist within an individual rather than a cultural context. Furthermore, secondary data pointed to the employees’ unfavorable perceptions around the presence of professional development and career growth opportunities within the organization. The study offered several recommendations to address the identified assumed and emergent gaps for the organization to better achieve business performance goals and optimize organizational outcomes. Founded on the findings and corresponding recommendations, the study developed a comprehensive, integrated implementation and evaluation plan utilizing Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's (2016) New World Model. Additionally, the study proposed a collaborative program comprised of several stakeholder groups and led by a task force with representation from each stakeholder group to implement and measure the effectiveness of the recommendations.
Keywords: leadership development, learning, development, knowledge, motivation, organization

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

PDF

Theory-practice gap: MBA curricula as preparation for business practice in marketing

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Understand how leaders use data to measure the effectiveness of leadership development programs

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

PDF

Leave no leader behind (LNLB): leadership development for K-12 operations leaders

PDF

Closing the leadership development learning transfer gap

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in aligning learning to business performance results: a study of a promising practice

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Leadership readiness: evaluating the effectiveness for developing managers as coaches

PDF

Stress in the Fire Service

PDF

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

Leadership development and Black pentecostal pastors: understanding the supports needed to enhance their leadership development and ministry effectiveness

Asset Metadata

Creator Ghalambor, Donna (author)

Core Title Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/12/2023

Defense Date 05/04/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag awareness,business performance,Coaching,cognitive entity,commitment to learning and development,Communication,communication capital,conceptual knowledge,critical feedback,cultural integration,cultural shift,culture,culture of inquiry,descriptive statistics,Development,developmental resources,evaluation,evidence based decision making,evidence based interventions,expectancy value,factual knowledge,gap analysis,goal setting,implementation,individual performance,inferential statistics,institutional resources,Kirkpatrick,Knowledge,leader development,leadership,leadership development,Learning and Instruction,learning organization,market signaling,mentoring,mergers and acquisitions,metacognitive knowledge,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational commitment,organizational development,organizational effectiveness,organizational improvement,organizational influences,organizational performance,organizational support,performance feedback,performance goals,procedural knowledge,qualitative data,quantitative data,reflection,self efficacy,team performance,technology company,technology sector,training,training program

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Pritchard, Marc (committee member)

Creator Email donna_538@yahoo.com,Donnagha@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113121664

Unique identifier UC113121664

Identifier etd-GhalamborD-11833.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GhalamborD-11833

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Ghalambor, Donna

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230512-usctheses-batch-1043 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu