• There is significant evidence that management skills training programs are, on average, effective at improving outcomes, including the quality of management practices and organisational productivity.

• Two characteristics of training design are robustly associated with more effective training: training with a facilitator (rather than self-administered) and training content adapted to context, including through training needs analysis (rather than one-size-fits-all training).

• Several other training characteristics tend to be associated with greater effectiveness in most studies: conducting training face-to-face, providing feedback on behaviour to participants, focusing on practice applications and longer training duration.

• There are mixed findings – and thus robust generalisations are not possible – for many other training characteristics, such as whether mandatory or voluntary training is more effective or which level of hierarchy to train.

• As a result, for many pedagogical choices in management training, local evidence and evaluation is needed to guide decision-making.

• This is especially true for civil service training as most evidence so far on management training is from private sector contexts.

The quality of management is a key predictor of organisational productivity, both in the private sector (e.g. Bloom et al, 2013) and in the public sector. For example, in Italy’s social security administration, increasing managerial talent by one standard deviation raises office productivity by 10% (Fenizia, 2022). This puts a premium on understanding how to improve managerial skills in public administrations and, in particular, the role that training can play therein. Is management training effective at enhancing the quality of management and, ultimately, organisational productivity? And, if so, how can management training be most effectively designed?

This rapid evidence review looks at recent meta-analyses of the effects of management skills and leadership training to provide answers. 

Meta-analyses are systematic reviews of the literature on a topic – in this case: of management and leadership training – which statistically combine the results of studies on a topic to provide quantitative average estimates of effects (in this case: of management and leadership training on outcomes such as management quality and productivity, differentiated by training design). As they combine results from all studies, meta analyses are generally regarded as high quality evidence.

As detailed below, this evidence review informs the design of the UK civil service management and leadership training offer, including by underscoring areas in which evaluations within the civil service are required to guide decision-making. Government Skills is working to ensure that evidence underpins each stage of the learning and development design and delivery cycle, as laid out in its Government Campus Evaluation Strategy (2021). 

Management training tends to improve productivity
Meta analyses of management skills training programmes agree that “despite much heterogeneity in their design, management skills training programs are usually effective at improving outcomes” (Busso et al. 2023). These outcomes include not only the quality of management, but also organisational productivity. This finding holds both for meta-analyses of management and leadership training generally (Lacerenza et al. 2017), and for meta-analyses which focus only on experimental or quasi-experimental (or similar) studies, which provide more causal estimates of management training effects (Busso et al. 2023). 

A note of caution on how to interpret these results: meta-analyses provide average effects of training across studies. This does not imply that any given management training is effective. Moreover, meta-analyses focus largely on training in private firms, with often higher-powered performance incentives (e.g. in the form of larger bonuses or layoffs tied to performance) – including incentives to be good managers – and greater measurability of outcomes of good management. The (few) field experimental studies on leadership and skills training in public sector contexts (e.g. An et al., 2018, Azulai et al., 2020), however, suggest that it is not implausible to assume that the positive average effects of management training also hold in the public sector.

Several training design features are associated with greater training effectiveness
Meta-analyses provide insights into not only average training effects, but also training design features associated with greater training effectiveness.

Two design features have seen relatively robust support in prior studies:

• Trainings adapted to context, rather than pursuing one-size-fits-all approaches – including through a training needs analysis, based on an identification of gaps between required management skills to perform effectively and current management skills which training could address, with gap identification drawing on, e.g., surveys of managers and their employees, (text) analyses of performance appraisals of managers, and/or focus groups – are more effective (Busso et al. 2023, Lacerenza et al. 2017).
• Training facilitated by a trainer is more effective than self-administered training (Lacerenza et al. 2017) .

Meta-analysis also more cautiously provide positive – but more mixed – evidence for four further design features:

• Face-to-face training is more effective than virtual training (Lacerenza et al. 2017).
• Training with feedback to participants (e.g. about on-the-job management behaviour of participants) is more effective (Lacerenza et al. 2017), although this may depend on the form of feedback.
• Training focused on practice applications is more effective than that focused solely on demonstration or on providing information (though training comprising all three is best) (Lacerenza et al. 2017, Powell and Yalcin, 2010).
• Longer training is more effective (Lacerenza et al. 2017).

The effect of a range of other training characteristics is context-specific and requires within-context evaluation data

For most training design features – those mentioned above are the exception – findings in prior studies are mixed. For instance, what content is most effective, whether voluntary training is more effective than mandatory training, which level of hierarchy within an organisation is prioritised in management teaching or how far to space training sessions apart – among others – have all seen mixed findings (Busso et al. 2023, Collins and Holton, 2004, Lacerenza et al. 2017, Powell and Yalcin, 2010).

1. Implications for Developing Line Management Capability in Government

Meta-analyses underscore the relevance of investing in line management training in the civil service. They also provide evidence in support of the effectiveness of several design choices in the existing cross-government line management training suite (offered by the Cabinet Office), including:

• Interactive workshops with facilitators.
• Mixing practice applications, demonstration and information.
• A (long) length of courses.
• Providing feedback on applications of training material in practice (in the case of the line management training suite: from managers of training participants).

At the same time, prior studies underscore that there is an opportunity for the central line management training provision to build in a greater number of components associated with effectiveness than are currently present, including, including:

• The lack of a training needs assessment, based on an identification of gaps between required management skills to perform effectively and current management skills which training could address, for instance by surveying line managers about their training needs or subordinates about areas in which their managers would benefit from further training. 
• The (occasional) provision of remote – rather than in-person – training (though greater effectiveness through this measure would also enhance the costs associated with training).

For many other pedagogical components of the line management training suite, however, mixed findings in the literature preclude strong empirical inferences about their “evidence basis” (or lack thereof). Instead, they will require original empirical assessment through an evaluation.

2. Evaluations to address evidence gaps

To evaluate and ensure that its Line Management Training Suite is designed effectively, Government Skills in the Cabinet Office is conducting a process and impact evaluation of its Line Management Training Suite. The impact evaluation will pioneer combining survey and workforce data to assess the effect of line management training on workforce outcomes. The process evaluation will shed light – through surveys, interviews, focus groups and training shadowing – on why the trainings have (or do not have) effects on outcomes, and how their design can be further improved. 

In addition to these technical outputs, Government Skills will also deliver practical guidance to inform approaches to the design and evaluation of future management and leadership training, both by the Cabinet Office and in Departments. By engaging with this evidence base and guidance, stakeholders from across government can plan for, commission and deliver targeted and effective management and leadership training and deliver practical impact on Civil Service productivity.