Poor leadership training shows up as weak 1-on-1s, disengagement, and attrition—not as a line item in L&D. In the iSilta Leadership Training Survey 2026 (146 companies), 61% first trained managers after promotion, respondents estimated 44% of people-managers had no formal leadership training before managing anyone, and 78% cited inconsistent 1-on-1s as an observed impact.
How did iSilta run this survey?
iSilta designed, fielded, and analyzed the survey between May and July 2026. Each participating organization submitted one response—most often from People, L&D, or HR (58%), engineering or tech leadership (31%), or an executive (11%). Companies remain anonymous; we report only sector and country alongside an internal code (for example, IS-047).
The sample spans 98 European, 40 United States, and 8 Australian employers, weighted toward mid-market software and services firms where manager enablement is a known bottleneck. This is not a census of all industries; it is a structured listen to how organizations actually develop people leaders today.
Full microdata and the long-form report are published with this article: download CSV (146 rows), JSON, and the research paper including every anonymized company row.
How is leadership training done today?
The default model is still promote first, train later. Workshops and LMS paths exist, but they often arrive after a new manager’s team has already learned their habits from stressful quarters—not from a curriculum.
| When first formal people-leadership training happens | Share of organizations |
|---|---|
| After promotion to people-manager | 61% |
| Before first people-manager role | 17% |
| Never / ad hoc only | 22% |
Delivery varies by region. European respondents more often described cohort academies and internal LMS journeys. US organizations leaned toward vendor-led workshops. Australia’s small sample looked similar to UK/Nordic cohort patterns. Median formal time in year one as a manager was 14 hours—lower still in software/SaaS, where expectations on engineering managers are highest.
Ownership sits with HR/L&D in about half of cases; external vendors remain common, especially in the US. Self-rated program quality clustered around “adequate” (3 on a 5-point scale). The measurement story is weaker than the delivery story: 81% do not track behavior change or business outcomes. Completion certificates and smile sheets still dominate.
What does poor leadership training cost?
When training is late, thin, or unmeasured, organizations pay in leading indicators managers feel every week—not only in annual engagement decks. Respondents could select all impacts they see today:
| Observed impact | Organizations citing it |
|---|---|
| Weak or inconsistent 1-on-1s | 78% |
| Drop in engagement / listening scores | 71% |
| Regrettable attrition of strong performers | 64% |
| Manager burnout | 58% |
| Delayed delivery / unclear priorities | 49% |
| Psychological safety problems | 47% |
The through-line is relational work left to improvisation. Biggest skill gaps pointed to 1-on-1 structure, coaching, feedback, and— increasingly—leading teams that ship with AI-assisted workflows. That matches what we hear from engineering leads: the job shifted faster than the playbook.
Timing matters. Organizations that trained before the first people-manager role were less likely to flag regrettable attrition as a major impact than those that trained after promotion or not at all. Early enablement does not eliminate attrition—but it reduces learning critical habits on live teams.
Sample of anonymized respondents
Every company in the dataset includes sector and nation only. A illustrative slice:
| ID | Sector | Country | Training timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| IS-012 | Software/SaaS | United States | After promotion |
| IS-034 | Software/SaaS | United States | After promotion |
| IS-058 | Telecom | United Kingdom | Never / ad hoc |
| IS-091 | Professional services | United Kingdom | Never / ad hoc |
| IS-118 | Financial services | Italy | Never / ad hoc |
| IS-141 | Public sector | Australia | After promotion |
See the full CSV for all 146 rows and impact flags.
What should change—and where does AI fit?
Past pattern: one-off classrooms scheduled after promotion, success measured by attendance, engagement insights trapped in annual surveys with no manager action loop. That model made sense when management careers moved slowly and observation happened by osmosis in co-located teams. It breaks in fast promotions, remote work, and continuous listening tools that surface problems faster than L&D can book trainers.
Future pattern: shorter formal curricula paired with continuous practice —prepared 1-on-1s, pulse themes turned into follow-ups, shared context so feedback fits how each person works. AI belongs in that loop, not as a replacement for judgment. Today only 14% use AI in manager development in production; 51% plan to within 24 months. The winners will ground AI in team-specific signals, not generic tips that ignore trust.
Poor leadership training is rarely zero training. It is the wrong training, at the wrong time, measured the wrong way. Fixing it starts with moving first-time manager enablement before teams depend on new habits—and with closing the loop between listening and the next conversation.
Frequently asked questions
What is the impact of poor leadership training on teams?
In iSilta's 146-company survey, the most cited impacts were weak 1-on-1s (78%), drops in engagement scores (71%), regrettable attrition (64%), and manager burnout (58%). Poor training usually shows up as inconsistent coaching long before it appears in lagging HR metrics.
How is leadership training typically delivered today?
Most organizations train after promotion (61%), through LMS modules, vendor workshops, or cohort academies, with a median of about 14 formal hours in a manager's first year. Few measure behavior change; most stop at completion or smile sheets.
What share of managers lack training before they lead people?
Respondents estimated that 44% of their current people-managers had no formal people-leadership training before managing anyone—higher in fast-scaling software companies where technical leads are promoted for delivery impact.
Can AI improve leadership training?
Only about 14% use AI in manager development today, but 51% plan to within 24 months. AI helps most when it supports in-workflow practice—1-on-1 prep, pulse follow-up, and closed action loops—not generic slide generation.
Related: Stop being a Super Doer: 5 truths about the jump to leadership, How do you measure manager effectiveness?, Is it OK to use AI to prepare for 1-on-1s?.
Want manager practice between workshops—not another course catalog? Explore iSilta features or try the product demo.