In recent decades, high financial investments in Training, Development and Education (TD & E) actions in organisations have resulted in the strict and systematic adoption of technical and methodological criteria to assess training programmes. Theories of learning ( Gagné , 1968, 1980 ) and instructional design ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Reigeluth, 1999 ) subsidise the choice and development of content and strategies appropriate to different organisational contexts in order to favour the delivery of effective and successful instructional actions ( Abbad et al., 2006 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ). The vast literature on TD&E advocates that a well-structured instructional design with objectives, methods, strategies, tools and teaching resources is a condition for the delivery of effective training ( Bell et al., 2017 ; Ford et al., 2018 ; Reigeluth, 1999 ).

The instructional design theory advocates that training actions should adopt at least two components: methods that facilitate learning and development, and instructional indications/conditions of how and when these methods should or should not be used according to the outcomes desired by the organisation ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Reigeluth, 1999 ). Instructional methods refer to the approaches used in the structuring of TD&E actions established based on a Training Needs Analysis (TNA), with a focus on achieving individual, group or organisational outcomes ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ). Instructional conditions refer to the media, training channels and materials used to convey the content to learners ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ).

The scientific literature indicates that there is a misalignment between the theoretical prescription, which instructional science shows as effective ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ), and the practices of designing, delivering, and implementing training in organisational environments. What complicates this scenario is the lack of valid and reliable tools that allow managers and researchers to objectively evaluate the quality of the instructional design of training ( Bitton & Barnes, 2024 ). Given this methodological gap, the following research problems emerge: How to identify opportunities for improvement in the design and delivery of leadership training in a practical way and based on the analysis of instructional materials and resources? How to accurately indicate which instructional characteristics need to be improved to increase the effectiveness of leadership training? To what extent does the design and implementation of leadership training, conducted in a large Brazilian financial institution, adhere to the evidence-based criteria and principles that, according to the literature, condition instructional effectiveness? To answer these questions, this study was carried out in a large Brazilian banking institution with the following objectives: propose and apply a tool (checklist) to evaluate the extent to which the design and delivery of leadership training programmes have the characteristics associated with training effectiveness, following criteria established in instructional theories, reviews and meta-analyses, and compare face-to-face training with self-administered virtual training regarding these characteristics ( Arthur et al., 2003 ; Avolio et al., 2009 ; Blume et al., 2010 ; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003 ; Kraiger et al., 1993 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Latham, 1988 ; Reigeluth, 1999 ; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ; Wexley & Latham, 2002 ).

Given this context, the study is situated within the broader effort to examine how leadership training initiatives align with evidence-based instructional principles. Specifically, it explores 61 leadership trainings conducted in a large Brazilian financial institution to understand how their design and delivery reflect characteristics identified in instructional science as predictors of training effectiveness.

Organisations adopt learning theories, instructional theories and instructional design ( Anderson et al., 2001 ; Bloom et al., 1984 ; Goldstein & Ford, 2002 ; Kraiger et al., 1993 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ) mainly in the development of training aimed at leadership development, as the effectiveness of instructional design is conditioned to the designing of learning materials, procedures and strategies that drive appropriate cognitive processes in order to obtain successful learning outcomes ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ). All these organisational efforts should align the expectations of the individual and those of the organisation through the systematic process of TNA, instructional design planning and assessment ( Alabdali , 2020 ; Borges-Andrade et al., 2012 ; Goldstein & Ford, 2002 ).

The TNA aims to diagnose and/or predict TD&E needs. These needs, transformed into instructional objectives, facilitate the design of learning actions ( Alabdali , 2020 ; Arthur et al., 2003 ; Borges-Andrade et al., 2012 ). Instructional planning and training delivery are an important link between learning needs and expected outcomes, being composed of six steps: 1) Outlining of the instructional objectives, 2) modality, 3) sequencing, 4) learning procedures and strategies, 5) assessment criteria, and 6) instructional design testing ( Abbad et al., 2006 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ). The assessment, which is mainly responsible for providing information, pervades the whole instructional system and should be done before, during and after training in order to gather information and enable the review and feedback of the TD&E System ( Abbad et al., 2006 ; Borges-Andrade et al., 2012 ).

Research related to leadership development has emphasised the importance of reporting the instructional design and delivery characteristics (training method, feedback, type of learning, content, spacing between sessions, delivery modality) and instructional principles (closeness to reality, overlearning), as they are positively associated with learning, retention and transfer of leadership development training programmes ( Day, 2000 ; Day et al., 2021 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Tafvelin et al., 2019 ).

Recent literature on leadership training converges on identifying the central challenge of understanding how instructional design, delivery strategies, and implementation mechanisms condition the effectiveness and sustainability of learning outcomes ( Bitton & Barnes, 2024 ; Davies, Moos, & Van Vuuren, 2023 ; Phillipson et al., 2025 ). Phillipson et al. (2025) highlight structural weaknesses: most interventions are evaluated using unvalidated instruments, with little methodological standardisation and a lack of longitudinal follow-up. The effect of instructional design, therefore, is often inferred but rarely causally demonstrated. This is a methodological limitation, leading to criticism of the reliance on prescriptive instructional models and suggesting that the quality of the design extends beyond the pedagogical structure to include formative intentionality, ethical coherence, and social relevance ( Bitton & Barnes, 2024 ).

Based on the scientific literature and aiming at the development of leaders—from novice to executive leaders—and the succession process, organisations have used the pipeline training model to develop trainings. Pipeline training is delivered as a series of sequential stages, according to the level of complexity of content, leadership roles and succession structure ( Charan et al., 2017 ; Church et al., 2021 ).

Most articles on leadership training describe very briefly the characteristics, strategies and educational resources in the methods sections ( Church et al., 2021 ; Fernandez et al., 2020 ; Kragt & Guenter, 2018 ). Even in quasi-experimental studies, interventions are briefly described, leaving aside the theoretical rationale for the election of the training method ( Tafvelin et al., 2019 ; Tafvelin & Stenling, 2021 ). This gap may hinder the generalisation and comparison of different instructional designs and the selection of instructional characteristics that generate more effective results for the individual and the organisation ( Avolio et al., 2009 ; Barling et al., 2010 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Reyes et al., 2019 ).

The instructional quality assessment is a relevant step, as it allows the identification of flaws and gaps in the instructional design to feedback the system, as well as to verify the training’s potential of generating outcomes ( Abbad et al., 2006 ; Bell et al., 2017 ; Davies et al., 2023 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Okesina, 2020 ; Phillipson et al., 2025 ). In the field of instructional theory, the meta-analysis by Lacerenza et al. (2017) shows the effect of 11 characteristics of the leadership training design, delivery and implementation that moderate the effects of instructional actions at the level of the individual (reactions, learning and transfer of training), team (subordinates’ outcomes) and organisation (organisational outcomes).

Leadership programmes developed from a training needs analysis are positively associated with learning, transfer and organisational outcomes ( Alabdali , 2020 ; Collins & Holton, 2004 ; Goldstein & Ford, 2002 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). There is evidence that the more aligned and integrated the TNA is with the instructional system, the more positive effects it will produce in the post-training phase.

Voluntary participation in training is positively associated with higher transfer of learning outcomes ( Blume et al., 2010 ; Curado et al., 2015 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Salamon et al., 2021 ), while compulsory training is associated with organisational outcomes ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

The chances of a leadership training being more effective at the level of transfer of training and organisational outcomes increase when activities are delivered in several sessions, separated by time slots (spaced), rather than in a single session, concentrated in time (massed) ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

Regarding the hierarchical level of participants in a leadership training, the findings of Avolio et al. (2009) suggest that leadership trainings produce higher effects on low-level leaders compared to middle- and high-level leaders. Learning and organisational outcomes were not influenced by the variable of leadership hierarchy level. However, leaders in higher hierarchical levels showed four times lower transfer of training than that achieved by leaders in lower hierarchical levels ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). The low rate of learning transfer in high-level leaders may be related to the behaviours of this audience that have already been consolidated and are difficult to be changed in the workplace in the short term.

Regarding the type of training instructor (internal or external), meta-analysis results indicate that this variable is not a moderator of training effects at any of the assessment levels ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). However, training conducted by internal instructors generates higher effects on learning, transfer and organisational outcomes because they can arouse greater interest in participants when compared to those delivered by external instructors, who are not part of the organisation’s staff ( Culpin et al., 2014 ; Kalinoski et al., 2013 ). Having an external instructor to produce a self-administered activity is more workable.

When it comes to the variables ‘modality of the delivery’ and ‘implementation’, studies point out that face-to-face trainings provide greater chances of transfer of learning compared to trainings that adopt the virtual modality ( Magerko et al., 2005 ). While Sitzmann et al. (2006) found that web-based training was generally equal or superior to face-to-face training, Lacerenza et al. (2017) and Phillipson et al. (2025) concluded that face-to-face trainings have greater transfer effects than those delivered in the virtual modality. Since results are not convergent, more studies are needed to consistently assess the modality variable, as it involves contextual, social, historical and cultural factors. Many leadership training programmes were transferred to the virtual modality in 2020, for example, due to the social distancing protocols imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic and show positive results in leader motivation and performance ( Wolor et al., 2020 ).

Regarding the training site, this instructional aspect is little investigated in the scientific literature, and there are greater organisational outcomes associated with leadership training delivered within the work organisation’s facilities (on-site) than those delivered outside the organisation (off-site) ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). Regarding the source of feedback, it is recommended to invest in feedback from multiple sources, such as those from co-workers, managers and training instructors ( DeNisi & Kluger, 2000 ; Jacobsen et al., 2022 ; Wexley & Latham, 2002 ), as it increases productivity and reactions favourable to training. However, these results are not consistent and conclusive, thus needing further studies in literature ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

Training methods are made up of: 1) Transmission of information, 2) Demonstration of how to train a specific skill, and 3) Practice opportunities ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). Methods that use active learning approaches with opportunities for practice tend to be more effective in leadership programmes than other training methods because of the proximity between the instructional environment and job reality ( Jacobsen et al., 2022 ). In this training design, the learner plays an active role in the pursuit of learning and efficiency by leading the actions aimed at identifying and reducing errors ( Bell et al., 2017 ; Jacobsen et al., 2022 ; Weaver et al., 2010 ). A leadership intervention based on simulation showed a 56% improvement in the behaviour of the leaders trained ( Fernandez et al., 2020 ). The joint use of diverse methods, such as information, demonstration and practice, may be more effective than trainings that adopt one single method. Elements such as experiential learning and multiple teaching methods are strongly associated with better results at levels 1 and 2 of the Kirkpatrick model, reaction and learning ( Phillipson et al., 2025 ).

The characteristics of design, delivery and implementation are moderating variables and are positively associated with leadership training effectiveness ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Reyes et al., 2019 ; Shuffler et al., 2010 ). However, training effects vary according to strategies, the type of skill taught (cognitive, interpersonal or psychomotor), and the measure of the variable of criterion used, such as learning, job behaviour or organisational outcomes ( Arthur et al., 2003 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

A recent study on managerial and entrepreneurial competencies, analysing the relationship between instructional design, participant selection, and the effectiveness of training programmes, found a direct and significant positive impact on the development of entrepreneurial competencies (r = 0.471, p < 0.001) and business management skills (r = 0.400, p < 0.001). Furthermore, it suggests that training programmes should carefully consider the individual characteristics of participants, such as self-efficacy ( Davies et al., 2023 ).

The study by Phillipson et al. (2025) , based on 86 systematic and non-systematic reviews, indicated that design and delivery characteristics explain much of the variability in programme effectiveness. Elements such as experiential learning, multiple teaching methods, 360˚ feedback, coaching and mentoring, and longitudinal designs are strongly associated with better results at levels 1 and 2 of Kirkpatrick’s model (reaction and learning) and, to a lesser extent, at levels 3 and 4 (organisational behaviour and impact). In-person or hybrid programmes performed better than fully online ones, showing that social interaction and situated practice are determining factors in learning transfer ( Phillipson et al., 2025 ).

Training characteristics such as experiential learning, multiple teaching methods, 360˚ feedback, coaching and mentoring, and longitudinal designs are strongly associated with better results at levels 1 and 2 of Kirkpatrick’s model (reaction and learning) and, to a lesser extent, at levels 3 and 4 (organisational behaviour and impact) ( Phillipson et al., 2025 ).

Based on these 11 characteristics of design, delivery and implementation drawn from instructional theories ( Arthur et al., 2003 ; Avolio et al., 2009 ; Blume et al., 2010 ; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003 ; Kraiger et al., 1993 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Latham, 1988 ; Reigeluth, 1999 ; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ; Wexley & Latham, 2002 ) this study aims at assessing to which extent the design and delivery of 61 leadership trainings in a financial institution contain characteristics positively associated with training effectiveness, according to criteria extracted from instructional theories and the results of the integrative review by Kraiger & Ford (2021) and Lacerenza et al. (2017) .

This study adopts a qualitative approach ( Levitt et al., 2018 ; Morrow, 2005 ) to assess leadership training based on theoretical frameworks from instructional psychology and empirical evidence indicating which characteristics of training design and delivery produce better results ( Arthur et al., 2003 ; Avolio et al., 2009 ; Day, 2000 ; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003 ; Kraiger et al., 1993 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Reigeluth, 1999 ; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). The research, based on secondary sources of information (archival data), adopted categories of analysis established a priori predicated on scientific literature for experts in instructional design to assess the trainings.

Regarding the instructional design characteristics, the three pipelines were organized based on hybrid education that combines virtual modality with web-based technology support, and the face-to-face modality was composed of several training sessions, lectures, internships, and workshops. Given the size and geographical dispersion of the target audience throughout Brazil’s 27 geographic regions, the number of self-instructional training sessions in the virtual modality is higher than that in the face-to-face modality.

According to document analysis, the researched institution carries out a training needs analysis (TNA) in a non-standardised manner, which limits the accurate identification of skills gaps and the alignment between instructional objectives and expected organisational outcomes. The target audience has the autonomy and freedom to conduct virtual training sessions. The participation of leaders in training sessions is voluntary (95.9%). Students can take the training according to their learning gaps and expected skills development. Likewise, face-to-face training has a high percentage (91.7%) of voluntary participation but is conditional on the successful completion of the virtual training of the corresponding Pipeline.

Note. Total training assessed: 61; Number of virtual self-administered trainings assessed: 49; Number of face-to-face trainings assessed: 12; F = Frequency of “yes”: calculated by the sum of the “yes” responses, indicating the presence of each characteristic in the trainings, according to the consensus assessment of the evaluators, and (%) Percentage of “yes”, indicating the relative frequency of the presence of each characteristic in the assessed training samples.

Table 2 presents the results of analyses of the type of participation, spacing between training sessions, hierarchical level of the target audience, type of instructor, method, feedback, modality, content, type of learning, and level of assessment. These results represent the comparative analyses between virtual and face-to-face leadership training characteristics, calculated after three pipeline-separated analyses (Appendix 1, Spreadsheet 5 ).

The training spacing effect is mainly massed/concentrated, with no time spacing between sessions in the virtual modality (95.9%) and the face-to-face modality (91.7%). Virtual training sessions were developed for all leadership levels: high, medium, and low. Face-to-face training sessions were less offered due to the higher financial investment and more logistical complexity than virtual training. Therefore, only the target audience could attend these trainings, and leaders of other levels could participate only if places were available. Trainings were classified by leadership level, following the target audience description in the corporate university training program. The answer “all” was used when the employee’s position was not specified in the instructional program. Training could then be delivered to all hierarchical levels of leadership.

Virtual training sessions are self-administered without monitoring or tutoring. Face-to-face training is delivered by internal instructors with diversified academic backgrounds and expertise in the content area. They are trained to apply active educational methodologies and teaching-learning theories in the classroom and submit to a systematic assessment of their performance as instructors.

The characteristics pertinent to the training delivery and implementation variables of the three training programs reveal that 80.3% are virtual, while 19.7% are face-to-face. Regarding the training location, the corporate university guidelines state that all training sessions (virtual and face-to-face, mandatory and voluntary) should be delivery at the institution to the leaders during working hours.

Regarding the source of feedback, only 38.8% of virtual training sessions offer feedback to the student through automatic and standardized responses on the platform. The feedback indicates whether the participants’ answers to objective items of the knowledge assessment are “right” or “wrong”. In face-to-face training, feedback is mainly offered by the instructor (83.3%) and, in 16.7% of cases, by multiple sources (instructors and peers) during face-to-face meetings.

The unidirectional transmission of information (65.3%) is the method most used in virtual training. In this method, participants are required to read texts, and in 18.9% of the cases, a combination of two instructional methods is used, namely, transmission of information and demonstration. More diversified instructional designs prevail in face-to-face training, merging three methods: transmission of information, demonstration, and practice (58.3%), and two combined methods: transmission of information and practice, for 41.7% of the cases.

In addition to design, delivery, and implementation characteristics, other characteristics are considered relevant in the instructional design assessment, such as the training content, type of learning, and presence of assessments. When it comes to content, leadership skills are the most addressed in virtual training sessions (55.1%), followed by business-related content (53.1%), interpersonal skills (42.9%), and intrapersonal skills (36.7%). Leadership, business, and interpersonal skills were addressed in 66.7% of the face-to-face training, while intrapersonal skills were found only in 25% of the training in this modality.

Regarding the type of learning, the cognitive domain (61.2%) prevails in virtual training. The combination of affective and cognitive outcomes is present in 28.6% of cases. In face-to-face training, the combination of cognitive and skills domains accounts for 41.7% of the types of learning, and the combination of affective and cognitive contents stands for 33.3% of the cases.

The evaluation of the 61 leadership trainings showed that face-to-face trainings have more desirable characteristics than self-administered virtual training. The face-to-face training utilized more than one method (practical, demonstrations, and information), offered feedback to participants during the activities carried out in the classroom, presented varied content, delivered spaced training sessions, and selected internal instructors to teach the content based on examples, cases, and activities inspired in real work situations.

On the other hand, self-instructional virtual training has several gaps, including the lack of interactions between participants and instructors, the lack of approximation of examples and activities to the daily work of leaders, and the occurrence of many short trainings with no time spacing between sessions. These results suggest that self-administered training may be less effective than face-to-face training because of the lack of relevant characteristics.

As for the levels of training assessment, the CU applies the assessment of students’ reactions at the end of all training sessions. The learning assessment applied at the end of the training was observed in less than half (40.8%) of the virtual training courses, which demanded 70% of correct answers to pass. The instructional design and delivery did not include graded learning assessments, but instructors gave feedback to the participants during the exercises and other face-to-face activities.

The results of the current study showed that the 61-leadership training conducted in a large Brazilian financial institution has several characteristics of training design, delivery, and implementation that are positively associated with outcomes of better learning, transfer of training, and results. According to the scientific literature, the presence of these characteristics increases the chances of leadership training effectiveness, enables the diagnosis of flaws in the design and delivery of virtual and face-to-face training, and promotes continuous and systematic improvement of results-focused training (training modality, content type, learning domains, instructional methods) ( Arthur et al., 2003 ; Avolio et al., 2009 ; Bitton & Barnes, 2024 ; Blume et al., 2010 ; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003 ; Kraiger et al., 1993 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Latham, 1988 ; Phillipson et al., 2025 ; Reigeluth, 1999 ; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ; Wexley & Latham, 2002 ).

As for design characteristics, the lack of a TNA made it difficult to bring content and examples closer to the reality of the participants’ work. ( Alabdali, 2020 ; Collins & Holton, 2004 ; Goldstein & Ford, 2002 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). Losses arising from the lack of a TNA were more visible in self-instructional trainings containing content, exercises, and examples with little approximation to the reality of the participants’ work and few opportunities to put the skills learned into practice. In face-to-face training, in turn, the lack of TNA may have been compensated by the presence of the internal instructor who prepared materials, exercises and examples based on the participants’ work reality ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ).

The lack of a systematic TNA capable of disclosing the expected organisational outcomes for the set of training (face-to-face and virtual) decreases the evaluability of trainings at the organisational level. ( Arthur et al., 2003 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). The virtual and face-to-face training was offered without temporal spacing between sessions, which may affect the retention of the contents learned and decrease the transfer and organisational outcomes ( Bitton & Barnes, 2024 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Phillipson et al., 2025 ).

Soft skills contents, such as interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, were less addressed, especially in virtual training, which may imply lower training effects at the level of organisational outcomes. Phillipson et al. (2025) confirm that content focused on interpersonal skills, self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and communication are most strongly associated with the effectiveness of leadership programs at the reaction, learning, behavior, and results levels. Business content disregards specific situations of the financial institution, presenting generic examples, theories, and techniques applicable in any managerial context, which can hinder learning and transfer of training to work ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

Face-to-face and virtual training presented significant differences concerning the characteristics of delivery and implementation. In virtual training, one single method (transmission of information) prevails, while in face-to-face training, there is a combination of information transmission, demonstration, and practice. The joint use of methods in the face-to-face modality is positively associated with learning, transfer, and the achievement of organisational outcomes. ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Magerko et al., 2005 ; Sitzmann et al., 2006 ).

Training based on active teaching methodologies involving information, demonstration, and practice tends to be more effective in leadership training, as learners are closer to situations that fit into the reality of work ( Bell et al., 2017 ; Bitton & Barnes, 2024 ; Fernandez et al., 2020 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Phillipson et al., 2025 ; Weaver et al., 2010 ). Investment in the diversification of teaching strategies, especially in virtual training, enhance learning, transfer (application in the work environment of the knowledge and skills learned) and the organisational outcomes ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ).

Few of the pipeline trainings assessed in this study provided feedback to the participant, and those that did it were face-to-face, and feedback was from one single source, i.e., the instructor. The presence of feedback encourages learners to participate in activities, to plan, monitor, and review their behaviour during the training, and enhance learning ( Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ) and transfer ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

Training in both modalities in this study evidenced a prevalence of cognitive skills learning and a proportionally lower offering of intra-, interpersonal, and leadership content. This may reduce the effectiveness of training at the level of transfer and organisational results ( Avolio et al., 2009 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

Reaction assessments were identified in all training and learning assessments in some of the virtual training. Other assessment levels (transfer and outcomes) were not identified in the instructional materials and documents, which is a critical gap in the instructional system. This lack of a systematic evaluation process counteracts advances in this area of research, which assess results and all variables that could interfere with the training effects ( Borges-Andrade et al., 2012 ).

The present study presented a useful, practical and applicable instrument (checklist) for the process of evaluating the instructional quality of leadership training. This study provides evidence of the content and semantic validity of the checklist’s categories and assessment items, which were established following careful cross-cultural adaptation of the definitions of the moderating variables of training effectiveness adopted in the meta-analysis by Lacerenza et al. (2017) . Furthermore, evaluations of training materials and instructional resources conducted by judges with training evaluation expertise proved reliable and consistent. There was a process of refining definitions and seeking consensus when evaluators disagreed about the presence of any characteristic of the training. These results were ensured through an agreement analysis of instructional content conducted by a group of experts in evaluating educational programs. The usefulness of this checklist lies in its diagnostic value, which allows it to identify instructional design flaws and assess whether the training has characteristics recommended by scientific literature for effective measurement of learning levels, behaviour, and organisational results before allocating resources to impact measurements. At the same time, it equips work organisations in the process of monitoring and continuous improvement of training, and it encourages new scientific research to confirm the choice of some instructional characteristics during the planning and execution of leadership programs.

Additionally, the use of the checklist and the method of evaluating instructional materials and resources, added to the results of meta-analyses and literature reviews, can inform (through the effect sizes of moderating variables) which are the priority changes to be implemented in training. This study’s evidence showed that the use of two or more methods (information, demonstration, and practice) and varied training contents (soft skills—intrapersonal, interpersonal, and leadership, and hard skills as business skills) moderates (amplifies) effectiveness ( Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Kraiger & Ford, 2021 ; Phillipson et al., 2025 ). This implies that these moderating variables can be prioritised in leadership training optimisation processes.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable contribution of the undergraduate Psychology students who participated in this study as evaluators of the leadership training programme.

This research was financially supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Minas Gerais Research Foundation (FAPEMIG).

This appendix is composed of five spreadsheets originally constructed in Excel:

Spreadsheet 1. Definitions of categories and subcategories used in the checklist to assess training characteristics associated with leadership training effectiveness based on Lacerenza et al. (2017) .

Spreadsheet 2. Consensual experts’ assessment on training—Pipeline 1.

Spreadsheet 3. Consensual experts’ assessment on training—Pipeline 2.

Spreadsheet 4. Consensual experts’ assessment on training—Pipeline 3.

Spreadsheet 5. Comparative analyses between virtual and face-to-face leadership training characteristics in the three pipelines.