645887

research-article2016
ADHXXX10.1177/1523422316645887Advances in Developing HumanHezlett

Article
Advances in Developing Human
Resources
Enhancing 1­–21
© The Author(s) 2016
Experience-Driven Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Leadership Development DOI: 10.1177/1523422316645887
adhr.sagepub.com

Sarah A. Hezlett1

Abstract
The Problem.
The notion that a high proportion of leadership development should be the result of
learning from experience has become popular, increasing the need for human resource
development (HRD) professionals to understand experience-driven leadership
development in order to design systems and processes that facilitate it. Relevant research
on the topic has been increasing. Although this has improved the opportunity to build
evidence-based practice, it also has created the challenge of identifying and digesting
key concepts and findings. In addition, there are important misunderstandings regarding
experience-driven development and core areas where additional information is needed.
The Solution.
This article synthesizes recent research related to the emerging practice of
experience-driven leadership development, using a question and answer format. As a
result, key concepts and relevant research results about experience-driven leadership
development are summarized in an action-oriented framework. Gaps in knowledge
are highlighted and recommendations for future research are offered.
The Stakeholders.
This article will be of particular relevance to scientists pursuing research on experience-
driven development and HRD practitioners responsible for improving leadership
development, particularly those interested in driving learning through experience.

Keywords
leadership development, experience-driven development, job challenges, work
experience

Learning from experience, also known as experience-driven development, has been

gaining status as an approach to developing leaders. This approach, which involves

1Korn Ferry Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Sarah A. Hezlett, Korn Ferry Institute, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4900, Minneapolis, MN 55402, USA.
Email: Sarah.Hezlett@KornFerry.com

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

2 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

individuals taking on challenging tasks, projects, assignments, or roles that enable

them to enhance their leadership capabilities, is featured in the increasingly popular
catchphrase “70-20-10.” The phrase describes a touted distribution of emphasis to
place on on-the-job development, relationships, and formal education and training,
respectively (McCauley, DeRue, Yost, & Taylor, 2014). Several practitioner-oriented
books providing guidance on using experience to help leaders develop have been pub-
lished (e.g., McCauley et al., 2014; McCauley & McCall, 2014; Yost & Plunkett,
2009), and more research on learning from experience has been appearing in peer-
reviewed literature (e.g., Carette, Anseel, & Lievens, 2013; DeRue & Wellman, 2009;
Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh, 2009). This growing interest has increased the need
for human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners to understand
experience-driven leadership development.
The purpose of this article is to analyze relevant literature to inform HRD profes-
sionals’ enablement and enhancement of experience-driven leadership development,
as well as increase awareness of resources and gaps within the literature. Through this
review, this article contributes to one of the two critical focuses of this special issue:
offering insights into and stimulating research on emerging leadership development
practices.
Key research findings and relevant theory are organized around seven questions
of interest to practitioners considering the use of experience-driven development.
The questions focus on helping practitioners plan, design, and support experience-
driven leadership. Their selection was informed by models of Instructional Systems
Design (ISD), such as the Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate (ADDIE)
model, as well as prior practitioner-focused literature reviews on related topics

Figure 1.  Key questions addressed.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 3

(Morgeson, Mumford, & Campion, 2005; Nowack & Mashihi, 2012). Figure 1 pro-
vides a summary of the seven questions addressed.
Before turning to the analysis of the literature, the nature of experience-driven
development is discussed and the literature review methods are described. The article
concludes with a critical look at methodology used in prior research on experience-
driven development and suggestions for future work.

What Is Experience-Driven Development?

Individual development involves “the expansion of an individual’s capacity to func-
tion effectively in his or her present or future job and work organization” (McCauley
& Hezlett, 2001, p. 314). Leadership development, therefore, involves intrapersonal
changes in knowledge, skills, abilities, or other attributes (KSAOs) relevant to per-
forming leadership roles (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Hezlett & McCauley, in press;
McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). In addition, it may involve interpersonal changes, such as
the development of social capital, that enhance collective leadership capabilities (Day
& Dragoni, 2015).
The boundaries of experience-driven leadership development are challenging to
delineate. Many developmental practices, such as job rotations, action learning, and
expatriate assignments, clearly are exemplars of experiences from which leaders learn,
but other experiences are more difficult to place within or outside the space of this
approach to development. The terms on-the-job development, stretch assignments, job
challenges, development activities, accumulated work experiences, and developmental
experiences all have been used to refer to experiences leaders have utilized to develop.
However, not all developmental experiences happen on the job (Maurer, Lippstreu, &
Judge, 2008). For example, volunteer experiences, either outside of work or sponsored
by employers, can provide valuable opportunities to build leadership skills (Flaherty &
Osicki, 2014). And, not all experiences on-the-job will be developmental for all indi-
viduals. Tasks performed routinely over time by leaders are unlikely to enable learning.
At times, developmental experiences have been conceptualized quite broadly. For
example, when asked about experiences that have helped them develop, executives
have sometimes described business mistakes, as well as family and personal chal-
lenges (McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994; Yip & Wilson, 2010). While
recognizing the growth value of these kinds of experiences for individual leaders,
emphasis in this article is placed on typically positive experiences that leaders are
motivated to approach. Specifically, experience-driven leadership development is
used to refer to learning from doing assignments, projects, tasks, or jobs that require
KSAOs needed in leadership roles.
An iterative process was used to find relevant literature to include in this review. Initial
search terms were generated by reviewing a few recent reviews on leadership develop-
ment, as well as empirical studies and practitioner books on experience-based learning.
The resulting terms included keywords used to describe empirical work on experience-
based leadership development (job challenges, accumulated work experiences, develop-
ment activity), development practices featuring experiences (expatriate assignments, job

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

4 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

rotation, action learning), and development tools and resources conceptually related to
experience-driven development (reflection, after action review, development plans,
supervisor support, mentoring). The terms leader or leader development were used in
conjunction with these search terms to narrow the results returned from Google Scholar.
Relevant literature published after 2000 was targeted. After initially identified literature
was reviewed, citations within and citations of relevant articles were examined to identify
additional relevant sources. Searches using the names of authors who have published
articles on experience-driven leadership development also were performed.
When the search process was complete, several decisions were made about what
literature to include in this review. Although a detailed review of structured, experien-
tiallygrounded practices, such as action learning or expatriate assignments, is beyond
the scope of this article, examples of them are mentioned. Similarly, studies operation-
alizing self-development, self-directed learning, or participation in development activ-
ities in terms of diverse developmental activities (e.g., relationships with others,
reading books, and completing volunteer activities) are not featured, but they are high-
lighted when they speak to gaps in experience-driven leadership development research.
In contrast, studies operationalizing development activity in terms of hours spent in
training programs or classes are not included (e.g., Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006).

What Is Known About Experience-Driven Leadership

Development?
In the following sections of this article, theory and research related to experience-
driven development are reviewed. As discussed previously, seven questions are used
to frame this review in terms of issues related to planning, designing, and supporting
experience-driven leadership development in organizations.

What Are the Possible Outcomes of Experience-Driven Leadership

Development?
Starting with a series of ground breaking, interview-based studies initiated by research-
ers at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) in the 1980s, many key learning out-
comes or “lessons” that leaders may learn from experiences have been identified. In
the original study (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988), executives reported 33
important ways of thinking or kinds of skills they had learned from the challenges they
experienced. Subsequent studies with more diverse groups identified similar, and in
some instances additional, lessons (Yip & Wilson, 2010).
Comparing these lessons with learning taxonomies underscores the broad scope of
learning outcomes that may be driven by experience. As illustrated by the examples in
Table 1, looking across the critical lessons identified in qualitative studies, experiential
learning seems particularly well-suited for achieving learning outcomes pertaining to
complex skills, including interpersonal, strategic, and leading work competencies,
along with outcomes related to personal awareness, perspective taking, motivation,
and self-regulation.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 5

Table 1.  Examples of Proximal Learning Outcomes from Experience-Driven Leadership

Development.

Learning outcomes (Kraiger, Examples

Ford, & Salas, 1993) (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988)
Cognitive learning
  Verbal knowledge Learning about the business one is in
  Knowledge organization The balance between work and personal life
  Cognitive strategies
   Self-regulation Persevering through adversity
   Meta-cognition Innovative problem-solving methods
   
Skill-based learning
  Technical skills Building and using structure and control systems
  Leadership skills Strategic thinking
  Interpersonal skills Developing people; Dealing with people over
whom you have no authority
Affective-based learning
  Attitudinal change Changes in self-awareness; Changes in values
  Motivational change Enhanced self-confidence

More recent quantitative findings echo and extend these themes. Small to moderate
relationships have been reported between job incumbent ratings of job challenge with
self-reports of overall development and learning (McCauley et al., 1994), pleasant and
unpleasant feelings (Dong, Seo, & Bartol, 2014), supervisor ratings of leadership skill
development from the assignment (DeRue & Wellman, 2009), supervisor ratings of
managerial competencies (Dragoni et al., 2009), supervisor evaluations of promot-
ability (De Pater, Van Vianen, Bechtoldt, & Klehe, 2009), and peer-rated job perfor-
mance (Carette et al., 2013). Accumulated work experience and global work
experiences are also positively related to assessment center ratings of executives’ stra-
tegic thinking competency (Dragoni et al., 2014; Dragoni, Oh, VanKatwyk, & Tesluk,
2011). These results highlight that job challenges may lead to both proximal outcomes
(skill development) and distal outcomes (improved performance, readiness to be pro-
moted into more complex positions).

What Are the Constraints on Learning From Experiences?

Broadly speaking, one challenge is ensuring that leaders learn the desired lesson from
potentially developmental assignments, experiences, or activities. Developmental
experiences have the potential to teach multiple lessons (Ohlott, 2004), making it
highly probable that “. . . people may learn different things from the same kind of
experience . . .” (McCall, 2010, p. 27). Consequently, experience-driven leadership
development may be an inappropriate approach when very specific business knowl-
edge or leadership skills need to be acquired.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

6 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

In addition, there is growing evidence that there is not always a positive, linear rela-
tionship between the degree of challenge in a developmental experience and the extent
of learning. DeRue and Wellman (2009) identified interpersonal (e.g., social percep-
tiveness and persuasion) and business skills (e.g., operational analysis and resource
allocation) as learning outcomes where curvilinear effects were significant, with devel-
opment being highest at moderate to moderately high levels of challenge and lower at
low and high levels of challenge. In contrast, curvilinear effects were not significant for
cognitive (e.g., active listening and learning, critical thinking, information gathering)
and strategic skills (e.g., visioning and systems perspective). Carette and his colleagues
(2013) observed a similar, inverted U shaped, curvilinear pattern between job challenge
and performance for employees who were mid-career, but a more typical, positively
increasing function for those who were early in their careers. A key implication of these
results is that more challenge is not always beneficial when it comes to experience-
driven development. Too little or too much challenge may result in less development.
Stress at high levels of challenge has been one explanation offered for observed
curvilinear relationships between job challenge and leadership development. Cognitive
resources may be focused on processing and handling multiple demands, as well as
performance anxieties and evaluation uncertainties, leaving fewer resources available
for learning. Consistent with this idea, positive correlations have been observed with
negative stress emotions and level of challenge for several types of developmental
assignments (McCauley et al., 1994). In addition, developmental assignments have
been linked with both pleasant and unpleasant feelings, which in turn have an impact
on advancement and turnover intentions (Dong et al., 2014).
Other challenges in implementing experience-driven development include cover-
ing participants’ regular work during temporary assignments and changed expecta-
tions after returning to more routine work after a challenging special assignment
(McCauley & McCall, 2014). For example, leaders who have expatriate assignments
for the purpose of development have higher intent to turnover than those who com-
plete expatriate assignments for other reasons (Stahl, Chua, Caligiuri, Cerdin, &
Taniguchi, 2009). Thus, experience-driven development can, at times, have undesir-
able organizational costs.

What Models and Theories Offer Insight Into the Design of Experience-
Driven Development?
Experiences are widely recognized as critical to learning in adulthood (Merriam,
Cafferela, & Baumgartner, 2007) and are an essential element of multiple approaches
to understanding individual and leader development in the workplace (Hezlett &
McCauley, in press; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Andragogy, self-directed learning,
transformational learning, experiential learning, behavioral change, and constructivist
theories and models all offer insight into the roles played by experience in leadership
development (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Merriam et al., 2007). Practitioners are
likely to find different aspects of these models and theories helpful in addressing dif-
ferent experience-driven design challenges.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 7

Self-directed learning frameworks may be particularly valuable in understanding

key antecedents when leaders are encouraged to drive their own experience-based
development. Broadly speaking, self-directed learning theories are those that concep-
tualize the learner as having primary responsibility for planning, executing, and evalu-
ating their own learning (Ellinger, 2004). These include models of continuous learning,
participation in development activities, and self-management of careers (Hezlett &
McCauley, in press; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Focused on understanding the per-
sonal and situational antecedents of participation in development activities, self-
directed learning approaches highlight key individual differences and contextual
factors that affect motivation to develop (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Although
research drawing on this framework (Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver, 2010; Maurer
et al., 2008; Orvis & Leffler, 2011) has included a broader set of activities than experi-
ence (e.g., reading on one’s own, completing training outside work, building social
relationships), it highlights likely traits and situational variables that practitioners may
want to consider in creating tools and processes to help leaders build and sustain their
motivation in self-directed, experientially based leadership development programs.
In contrast, experiential learning theories have focused on understanding the
dynamics of the learning process. In the ideal, learning is a cyclic process driven by
experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting in response to the learning situation and
content being learned (Kolb & Kolb, 2009). Recent work on expertise (Ericsson,
2006) offers new insights into this process, focusing on the development of superior
performance through deliberate practice (McHenry & McKenna, 2014). Deliberate
practice involves regular, repetitive, individualized activities through which skills are
refined, often through setting specific goals for improving on narrow tasks and moni-
toring performance to achieve them. This practice appears to help individuals avoid or
overcome plateaus when acquiring complex skills (Ericsson, 2006). Although deliber-
ate practice has primarily been applied to understand the development of expertise in
sports, music, and chess, initial studies found deliberate, on-the-job practice of activi-
ties that support task performance (e.g., exploring new strategies, mental simulation,
asking for feedback) with the goal of improving competence contributed incremen-
tally to the performance of insurance agents (Sonnentag & Kleine, 2000) and business
owners’ acquisition of entrepreneurial knowledge and business growth (Unger, Keith,
Hilling, Gielnik, & Frese, 2009). “Everyday Learning Disciplines,” a framework com-
posed of eight practices or disciplines, is an example of one way concepts from the
expertise literature can be applied to help leaders routinely engage in deliberate prac-
tice during their regular work experiences (McHenry & McKenna, 2014).

What Experiences Are Most Likely to Be Developmental?

The nature of developmental experiences is one of the best researched areas on expe-
rience-based leadership development (Hezlett & McCauley, in press). Exploratory
studies conducted in the United Kingdom in the 1980s identified developmental fea-
tures of day-to-day experiences in managerial roles, including the novelty of the expe-
rience for the individual, high decision-making responsibility and latitude, lack of goal

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

8 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

clarity, the need to innovate, a changing environment surrounding the job, and super-
visory pressure (Burgoyne & Hodgson, 1983; Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984). At
roughly the same time, the previously discussed series of interview-based studies of
senior leaders’ development was initiated by CCL. Challenging assignments were
identified as particularly developmental (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; McCall et al.,
1988). Research to develop an assessment of these developmental components of
managerial jobs yielded five major components: unfamiliar responsibilities, creating
change, high levels of responsibility, managing across boundaries, and dealing with
diversity (McCauley, Ruderman, & Ohlott, 1999). These broad categories encompass
more specific challenges. For example, specific sources of challenge within the broad
category of creating change include being responsible for new directions, handling
problems inherited from prior job incumbents, and dealing with problem employees
(Dragoni et al., 2009; McCauley et al., 1994). Examples of particular assignments that
provide these more narrow challenges might include launching a new product, dealing
with a business crisis, and resolving subordinate performance problems, respectively
(Ohlott, 2004). At the present time, the best taxonomy for organizing challenging job
experiences is unclear. Initial studies provide support for models with different num-
bers of factors depending on how broadly or narrowly job challenges have been
defined (see DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Dong et al., 2014; Dragoni et al., 2009; Kizilos,
2014).
In addition, there is evidence that key developmental practices that incorporate
experiential learning, such as action learning and job rotation, promote leadership
development. In action learning, small groups come together to work on an important
or urgent task or project. Typically, working with a learning coach, the group commits
to learning while developing and implementing strategies to address the problem.
Looking across 21 studies using a variety of research methodologies, Leonard and
Marquardt (2010) concluded that action learning programs help participants develop
multiple skills. Similarly, job rotation, which involves lateral transfers of employees
between jobs in an organization, also is seen as enhancing diverse skills leaders need
(Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994).
At this time, sufficient precise and robust effect sizes are not available to compare
the likely impact specific job challenges, action learning, and job rotation will have on
leadership development. However, there are rich descriptions HRD practitioners may
use to identify or design experiences that promote leadership development, as well as
evidence-based insights into what specific developmental experiences will lead to par-
ticular learning outcomes. Action learning promotes the development of leadership
skills, particularly collaborative and coaching skills, along with the capacity to develop
win/win solutions in conflict situations (Leonard & Marquardt, 2010). Job rotation
appears to foster gaining a broader perspective on the business, adaptability, and flex-
ibility (Campion et al., 1994). For job challenges, linkages between lessons learned
and developmental experiences described at the mid-range of specificity have been
reported (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). These findings offer a starting point for prac-
titioners trying to direct leaders who would benefit from learning particular lessons to
the developmental experiences that are likely to foster them (Hezlett, 2010).

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 9

What Are the Delivery Options for Experience-Driven Leadership

Development?
The delivery options for experience-driven development vary. To systematically allo-
cate challenging job assignments, some organizations are highly systematic, struc-
tured, and proactive. They may fill job openings with both job performance and
on-the-job development in mind, identify stretch assignments to match high potential
leaders’ development needs, or systematically rotate leaders through specific jobs.
Matching talented leaders to the right development experiences requires several
steps. These include assessing the capabilities of leaders, identifying potentially devel-
opmental experiences, and placing the right people into the right experiences at the
right time (McCall & McCauley, 2014). One approach to implementing these steps is
to take development into account when hiring for leadership positions. The best can-
didate for the job is one who has the best mix of KSAOs and experience for the job,
including one or two big challenges in the new position that the leader has not faced
before (McHenry & McKenna, 2014). Executing this hiring strategy requires assess-
ment of leaders’ job-relevant KSAOs, along with their prior experience. For example,
the Leadership Experience Inventory assesses the amount, depth, and breadth of lead-
ers’ experience in 16 categories of experience (Dragoni et al., 2011; Van Katwyk,
Hazucha, & Goff, 2014). Jobs that may potentially offer developmental experiences
may be evaluated by asking job incumbents to complete an assessment of the chal-
lenge in their roles, such as the Job Challenge Profile (McCauley et al., 1999) or using
a structured process (Bly & Kizilos, 2014; Yost & Plunkett, 2009) to create an organi-
zation-specific matrix of key experiences and lessons learned. Case studies suggest
that creating an organizational culture supportive of learning from experience is valu-
able in implementing this strategy.
Other organizations encourage leaders to find their own developmental experiences
by embedding support for experience-driven development in the organization’s cul-
ture and offering resources that enhance leaders’ ability to learn from developmental
experiences. Organizations taking the middle ground may create new types of assign-
ments, such as overseas volunteer opportunities, so that more people in the organiza-
tion have the opportunity to take on and learn from new challenges (Hezlett &
McCauley, in press).

What Can Be Done to Increase the Likelihood That Leaders Will Learn
From Their Experiences?
Several approaches offer promise in enhancing learning from experience. These include
the broad strategy of ensuring leaders are ready for experiential learning and more narrow
learning strategies, including goal setting, having a learning goal orientation or mind-set,
feedback seeking, and reflection (DeRue & Ashford, 2014). Although the impact of these
strategies has not been studied in depth in the context of learning from experience, many
have been deployed in the practice of experience-driven leadership development and
have been supported by related research on training and development.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

10 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

Readiness.  One approach to maximizing learning from experiences would be to help

ensure leaders are ready for them. Although little attention has been given to how to
prepare leaders before they initiate or are placed in challenging experiences, Avolio
and Hannah (2008) posited learning goal orientation, developmental efficacy, self-
concept clarity, self-complexity, and meta-cognitive ability are critical to leader devel-
opmental readiness. They identified measures related to each of these, offering
potential tools HRD professionals can use to assess, inform, and coach leaders on their
preparation to learn from experiences.

Goal setting.  Goal setting is a key component of some theories of self-directed learning
(Ellinger, 2004) and is incorporated into models of several development practices
including multi-rater feedback (Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005), mentoring (Wan-
berg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003), and coaching (Gregory, Levy, & Jeffers, 2008). Within
these frameworks, goal setting is conceptualized as playing a key causal role, driving
and directing efforts to change and improve. In workplace training and educational
contexts, goal level has one of the strongest self-regulatory effects on learning, along
with persistence, effort, and self-efficacy (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011).
From a practical perspective, it is common for individuals working on their develop-
ment to be instructed to create an individual, or personal, development plan (PDP) that
specifies their developmental goals. Practitioners should be aware that focusing on
achieving goals can impair learning during some stages of skill acquisition during train-
ing due to the demands it places on cognitive resources (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989).
One study highlighting the complexity of using PDPs found that when PDPs are used
as part of the performance management cycle, individuals who used a PDP were more
likely to have engaged in learning activities in the past. Non-users were less likely to
have engaged in learning activities. However, PDP users were planning to target fewer
competencies for development in the future (Beausaert, Segers, Fourage, & Gijselaers,
2013). Many interpretations of these results are possible, including that PDP users have
more realistic development goals, they have fewer development needs after their greater
prior attention to learning, or they are less motivated to develop. This underscores the
need to use PDPs thoughtfully, taking into account the broader context and demands.

Learning goal orientation.  Individuals who have a learning goal orientation are motivated
to learn and develop themselves through mastering new situations, gaining skills, and
increasing their competence (Vandewalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Dragoni and her col-
leagues (2009) observed that the trait of learning goal orientation moderated the positive
relationship between the developmental quality of managerial assignments and supervi-
sor ratings of competencies, such that the relationship was stronger for those with higher
levels of learning goal orientation. This suggested fostering a state of learning orienta-
tion may be a means to catalyzing development from challenging experiences. However,
DeRue and Wellman (2009) did not find support for a similar hypothesis proposing
learning goal orientation moderated the relationship between developmental challenge
and leadership skill development. Further research will be needed to definitively under-
stand how and when learning goal orientation moderates the relationship between job

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 11

challenge and learning-related outcomes. In the meantime, practitioners may want to

consider selecting individuals with a strong learning goal orientation for developmental
assignments or fostering a learning goal orientation state to enhance experience-driven
leadership development. Related research on participation in development activity has
positively linked higher learning goal orientation to greater motivation to develop and
stronger developmental skills (Boyce et al., 2010; Maurer et al., 2008), as well as identi-
fied interactions between learning goal orientation and workplace support in predicting
self-development. Some models of self-directing learning suggest higher learning goal
orientation may help leaders sustain motivation when encountering challenges or set-
backs early in developmental experiences (Maurer, 2002).

Feedback.  Theory and research suggest feedback is generally likely to have a positive
influence on learning from developmental experiences. Self-directed theories of
development suggest feedback prior to engagement in developmental experiences
should help make leaders aware of development needs. In addition, these theories
highlight that ongoing feedback should help leaders as they apply or transfer knowl-
edge, behaviors, and skills in challenging developmental experiences (Hezlett &
McCauley, in press; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Models of development focused on
specific interventions, such as coaching (Gregory et al., 2008), also highlight the value
of feedback in helping leaders set goals and assess their progress. Consistent with
these ideas, meta-analytic research has determined that, on average, feedback has a
positive association with performance and development (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Smither et al., 2005). These effects, however, are variable and small, indicating that
feedback does not always have a positive impact on development.
Initial research on feedback and experience-driven development has been promis-
ing. DeRue and Wellman (2009) observed that the availability of feedback moderated
the relationship between the degree of developmental challenge and leadership skill
development. For leaders who perceived that they received relatively little feedback,
the relationship between degree of developmental challenge and leadership skill
development was curvilinear, showing diminishing learning as developmental chal-
lenge became high. In contrast, for leaders reporting relatively high levels of feedback
availability, the relationship between developmental challenge and leadership skill
development was positive and linear. It did not show diminishing returns. Feedback
availability may reduce cognitive overload and uncertainty that may accompany
highly challenging developmental experiences.
If formal feedback is to be provided before, during, or following experience-driven
development, research suggests feedback reports should be carefully formatted.
Individuals have more favorable reactions to feedback when their reports include a
high amount of procedural information about how the feedback was generated (Feys,
Anseel, & Wille, 2011). Graphical displays foster more accurate recall of results rela-
tive to norm groups, and development suggestions have a positive impact on the direc-
tion of behavioral intentions to develop (Higdem, 2013). Finally, leaders tend to prefer
multi-rater feedback reports that include numeric results with normative data over
reports featuring text-based feedback (Atwater & Brett, 2006). Favorable feedback

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

12 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

reactions are linked to greater subsequent effort in developing and greater improve-
ment over time (Atwater & Brett, 2006; Feys et al., 2011).

Reflection.  With roots in theories of experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2009) and the U.S.
Army’s practice of after-event reviews, reflection is being deployed by many organizations
seeking to improve leaders’ development (DeRue, Nahrgang, Hollenbeck, & Workman,
2012). Systematic reflection requires engagement in three activities: self-explanation, data
verification, and feedback (Ellis, Carette, Anseel, & Lievens, 2014). During self-explana-
tion, leaders analyze their behaviors and generate explanations for success or failure. Data
verification, or counterfactual thinking, challenges leaders to think of alternate perceptions
or explanations of the events. Feedback may include information on overall success or
failure, as well as process feedback. Although much of what is known on the impact of
reflection on experience comes from samples of soldiers and students (DeRue et al., 2012),
the findings are encouraging. Reflecting on experiences has been linked to gains in self-
efficacy, specific lessons for future performance, changes in interpersonal behavior, gains
in ratings of leadership behavior, and improved task performance (DeRue et al., 2012; Ellis
et al., 2014). The size of performance improvement depends on whether the experiences
reflected on are failures or successes, as well as whether the reflection focus was on correct
actions, erroneous actions, or both. After successful events, reflecting on erroneous actions
is most effective; after failures, reflecting on any kind of action is effective (Ellis, Mendel
& Nir, 2006). Feedback also affects performance improvement following reflection. In one
web-based work simulation, reflection in the absence of feedback did not result in perfor-
mance improvement (Anseel, Lievens, & Schollaert, 2009). Degree of prior job challenge
and personality (openness to experience, conscientiousness, and emotional stability) also
appear to interact with reflection in influencing improvement in leadership behaviors. Gen-
erally, each of these has a positive, amplifying effect on leadership development when
reflection is structured and facilitated and either no or negative effect when post-experi-
ence discussion is unstructured. In contrast, cognitive ability does not moderate the rela-
tionship between reflection and development (DeRue et al., 2012). At present, HRD
practitioners wishing to enhance leaders’ development through the strategy of reflection
should build processes that include feedback and invest in facilitated, structured reflection
protocols that thoughtfully target how failures and successes are analyzed.
The research on after-event reviews suggests working with a seasoned coach, savvy
boss, or trained peer may be a valuable way to systematically extract meaning from
experiences. Other approaches practitioners have encouraged leaders to use include
making reflection a habit by making it part of the daily or weekly routine and journal-
ing (McHenry & McKenna, 2014; Yost & Plunkett, 2009).

What Kind of Support Is Valuable to Leaders Throughout Experiential

Learning?
Support from others, such as coaching or mentoring, is often delineated as a distinct
approach to development (Yip & Wilson, 2010). It has been tied to a variety of positive
learning variables, including training effectiveness, personal learning, and effective

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 13

socialization (Eby et al., 2013; McCauley & Hezlett, in press; Lankau & Scandura,
2007). There is increasing recognition, however, that integrating developmental prac-
tices may maximize leadership development (Hezlett & McCauley, in press).
Organizations are building support into their experience-based leadership develop-
ment tools and practices with supervisors (McCall & McHenry, 2014; Preston-Dayne,
2014) and peers (Allen, 2014) among those providing support.
Action learning stands out as the most well-established integration of learning from
experiences and others. In their review of 21 studies on action learning, Leonard and
Marquardt (2010) summarized the key features of action learning that drive develop-
ment as being: questioning, taking action, learning from each other, listening, diversity
of team membership, feelings of confidence and well-being, the safe environment, and
the coach. These factors highlight the multi-faceted way in which support from others
may facilitate experiential learning.
Although research on job challenges has not thoroughly investigated the issue, related
theory and research suggest multiple mechanisms through which support may facilitate
leadership development. First, support providers may help motivate leaders to partici-
pate in the kinds of challenging job assignments that promote development and help
leaders find such opportunities. By definition, this is one of the functions performed by
mentors (Eby et al., 2013). Other members of leaders’ developmental network, such as
peers and bosses, may similarly enhance leaders’ intentions to participate in develop-
mental experiences by influencing leaders’ perceptions of the benefits of development
and improving their attitudes toward development (Maurer et al., 2008). Second, support
providers may enhance leaders’ learning by offering advice and serving as role models
on how to handle challenging job experiences. These also have been identified as some
of the key functions served by mentors (Eby et al., 2013; Wanberg et al., 2003) and could
be provided by others, as well. Third, psychosocial support may also facilitate leaders’
learning. Psychosocial support from mentors has small, positive associations with men-
tee learning and socialization (Eby et al., 2013). In the context of experience-driven
development, psychosocial support may help alleviate stress stemming from highly
challenging job assignments, freeing additional resources for learning. This idea is con-
sistent with the idea that coaching should increase individuals’ resilience (Gregory et al.,
2008) and research suggesting that mentoring reduces role stress (Baugh, Lankau, &
Scandura, 1996). Finally, support providers may help leaders reflect on their experi-
ences. The effectiveness of after-event reviews highlights the impact of facilitated refec-
tion on leadership development (DeRue et al., 2012; Ellis et al., 2006, 2014). These
potential mechanisms highlight diverse ways HRD practitioners could build support
from others into experience-driven leadership development.

Looking Back and Forward

With roots more than 30 years old, research on experience-driven leadership develop-
ment is hardly freshly sprouted. Yet, room remains for significant growth. In this sec-
tion, key gaps in the literature are highlighted, and methodological recommendations
for future studies are outlined.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

14 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

Summary of Research Gaps

An important next step is the accumulation of more research on the learning outcomes
associated with each kind of experience. This would enable estimation of specific
effect sizes associated with each kind of job challenge and experiential development
practice (e.g., job rotation, action learning, and expatriate assignments), providing
valuable information to HRD professionals designing leadership development sys-
tems. Little quantitative research has focused on cognitive or affective learning, but
further studies of skill-based learning also would be informative.
More research on how to help leaders maximize their learning from experience is
needed. Studies of the elements contributing to leadership development readiness may
help improve leader preparation for successfully navigating developmental experi-
ences. In addition, research would be helpful in understanding how to best design tools
for leaders to use during experiential learning. Specifically, research on PDPs (or other
goal-setting techniques) and feedback would illuminate boundary conditions for their
improvement of experience-driven leadership development. Research could also eval-
uate whether structured reflection can be achieved via self-directed analysis, or
requires interaction with a trained facilitator or seasoned coach.
Little empirical research speaks to the overall impact of support on cognitive, skill-
based, or affective learning during developmental experiences, let alone the processes
through which support influences experiential learning. There are few data available
to inform the best content, format, or timing of support from peers, supervisors,
coaches, or mentors. Additional research is needed to evaluate the extent to which sup-
port moderates the relationship between job challenges and leadership development,
as well as the extent to which support moderates, mediates, or has direct effects on
other factors (e.g., reflection) affecting experience-driven leadership development.
Researchers have only begun to explore how individual differences affect experience-
driven leadership development. As discussed earlier, initial studies suggesting extra-
version, openness to experience, and conscientiousness may play roles in leaders’
learning from experience. These merit replication and extension. In addition, further
studies would help clarify prior mixed findings regarding learning goal orientation
serving as a catalyst for experience-driven development. By definition, learning agil-
ity is thought to enable individuals to adapt to ambiguous, uncertain, and unfamiliar
situations, but few studies have directly examined the notion that learning agility helps
leaders learn from experience. Drawing on the expertise literature, learning agility
may help leaders counteract automaticity, enabling them to retain control of their per-
formance and achieve expertise (Hezlett & Kuncel, 2012).

Methodological Recommendations
The groundbreaking research that identified what job challenges were most develop-
mental relied on retrospective reports made by successful executives (McCall et al.,
1988; Yip & Wilson, 2010). This critical research has led to valuable insights, but
continued advances in enhancing experience-driven development requires additional

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 15

methods. The need is highlighted by the “70-20-10” rule. The original research from
which this prescription was derived supports a somewhat, but critically, different mes-
sage. In the CCL studies, about 70% of the incidents recalled by the participants as
being most developmental involved experiential learning. This does not mean that any
individual executive allocated 70% of his or her development efforts to learning from
experiences, nor does it demonstrate that the experiences each leader had contributed
to 70% of the development he or she achieved over the course of their careers. To best
understand the potential impact of experiential learning, effect sizes from experience-
driven development need to be observed in longitudinal research, ideally with quasi-
experimental designs, and compared with those from other methods of achieving
comparable learning outcomes. Recent quantitative research has begun to lay the
groundwork for the accumulation of these estimates.
Attention also needs to be dedicated to the operationalization of outcome vari-
ables. Leadership-relevant cognitive, skill-based, and affective learning are the gold
standards of leadership development, but they can be challenging to measure
robustly. Using multiple assessments and related indicators of success to evaluate
the validity of development measures (e.g., DeRue et al., 2012) is the best practice.
Alternative indicators, such as participation in development activity or intentions to
participate in development activity, can be valuable in understanding parts of the
construct space but cannot provide definitive answers to key questions about expe-
riential learning.
Future research on experience-driven development also needs to explicitly consider
the role of time. The research by Carette and his colleagues (2013) highlights that the
factors shaping experience-driven leadership development may change as leaders’
careers progress. More research is needed to understand how developmental assign-
ments differ by organizational level and career phase and to examine the optimal com-
bination and sequencing of experiences (Hezlett, 2010). What is the right length of
different kinds of experiences, and how frequently should they be undertaken?

Conclusion
This article contributes to the special issue on leadership development by summarizing
what is known and what we need to learn about experience-driven development, an
emerging practice with deep roots. In addition to highlighting misunderstandings and
research gaps, the article has identified a number of practical implications. To sum-
marize, experience-driven leadership development can be delivered in a variety of
ways that vary in terms of their degree of formal structure and reliance of leaders’
self-direction. Although there is not yet sufficient research to know what formats or
types of experience-driven development yield the largest or most stable learning out-
comes, features of experiences that are developmental have been identified. Many
types of cognitive, skill-based, and affective-based learning outcomes may be achieved
through experience-driven development, including building complex skills, perspec-
tive taking, and enhanced motivation. Although the search for the most appropriate
taxonomy for summarizing the nature of job challenges continues, connections

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

16 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

between types of developmental experiences and specific learning outcomes have

begun to be made. Experience-driven development also has been linked to other out-
comes of interest to HRD scholars and practitioners, such as improved performance
and readiness for promotion. One possible limitation of experience-driven develop-
ment is that leaders may learn different things from the same experience, making them
a potentially unreliable way of achieving a specific, short-term learning objective. In
addition, stress and turnover can be undesirable costs of experience-driven leadership
development. The degree of challenge in learning experiences needs to be carefully
considered. More challenging experiences are not always better. For some skills and at
some career stages, very high levels of challenge may be overwhelming. A variety of
theories offer insights into individual and situational factors that affect experience-
driven development. Self-directed learning models highlight factors affecting motiva-
tion during experience-driven development, including learning goal orientation.
Models of expertise highlight the potential impact of deliberate practice, goal setting,
and ongoing monitoring on leadership development. Consistent with these conceptual
models, research suggests that judicious promotion of learning goal orientation, goal
setting, feedback, and structured reflection offer the promise of enhancing develop-
ment from experiences. Research findings from related literatures suggest several
mechanisms through which social support also will foster experience-driven develop-
ment. Further research is needed to know whether 70/20/10 is the optimal ratio of
experience, relationships, and formal education to maximize leadership development,
but it is clear that experience-driven leadership development can be a valuable tool in
HRD practitioners’ toolkit.

Acknowledgment
I thank the journal and special issue editors and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feed-
back on drafts of this article. Their insights were invaluable in refining this work.

Author’s Note
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of the
Korn Ferry Institute, Korn Ferry, or its affiliates.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Allen, N. (2014). CompanyCommand: A peer-to-peer learning forum. In C. D. McCauley, D.
S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Experience-driven leader development: Models,

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 17

tools, best practices, and advice for on-the-job development (pp. 279-285). San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task perfor-
mance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 23-35.
Atwater, L., & Brett, J. (2006). Feedback format: Does it influence manager’s reactions to feed-
back. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 517-532.
Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leadership devel-
opment. Consulting Psychology Journal: Research and Practice, 60, 331-347.
Baugh, S. G., Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (1996). An investigation into the effects of
protégé and mentor gender on responses to mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
49, 309-323.
Beausaert, S., Segers, M., Fourage, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Effect of using a personal devel-
opment plan on learning and development. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25, 145-158.
Bly, P. R., & Kizilos, M. (2014). Building organization-specific knowledge of about key devel-
opmental experiences. In C. D. McCauley, D. S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.),
Experience-driven leader development: Models, tools, best practices, and advice for on-
the-job development (pp. 37-43). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity for self-development of
leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-
development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 159-178.
Burgoyne, J. G., & Hodgson, V. E. (1983). Natural learning and managerial action: A phenom-
enological study in the field setting. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 387-399.
Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and out-
comes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1518-1542.
Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2013). Does career timing of challenging job assignments
influence the relationship with in-role job performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior,
83, 61-67.
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and development from managerial work
experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 169-183.
Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review
based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 2, 133-156.
De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Klehe, U. (2009). Employees’
challenging job experiences and supervisors’ evaluations of promotability. Personnel
Psychology, 62, 297-325.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2014). Mindful engagement: Learning to learn from experience. In
C. D. McCauley, D. S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Experience-driven leader devel-
opment: Models, tools, best practices, and advice for on-the-job development (pp. 145-150).
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-experimental
study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97, 997-1015.
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of devel-
opmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 839-875.
Dong, Y., Seo, M., & Bartol, K. M. (2014). No pain, no gain: An affect-based model of devel-
opmental job experience and the buffering effects of emotional intelligence. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, 1056-1077.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

18 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

Dragoni, L., Oh, I., Tesluk, P. E., Moore, O. A., VanKatwyk, P., & Hazucha, J. (2014).
Developing leaders’ strategic thinking through global work experience: The moderating
role of cultural distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 867-882.
Dragoni, L., Oh, I., VanKatwyk, P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2011). Developing executive leaders: The
relative contribution of cognitive ability, personality, and the accumulation of work experi-
ence in predicting strategic thinking competency. Personnel Psychology, 64, 829-864.
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, I. (2009). Understanding managerial devel-
opment: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to devel-
opmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of Management
Journal, 52, 731-742.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S., . . .Evans, S.
C. (2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of protégés perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 441-476.
Ellinger, A. D. (2004). The concept of self-directed learning and its implications for human
resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 158-177.
Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2014). Systematic reflection: Implications for
learning from failures and successes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23,
67-72.
Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. (2006). Learning from successful and failed experience: The
moderating role of kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 669-680.
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development
of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R.
Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 39-
68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feys, M., Anseel, F., & Wille, B. (2011). Improving feedback reports: The role of procedural
information and information specificity. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
10, 661-681.
Flaherty, V. L., & Osicki, M. (2014). Developing IBM leaders through socially responsible ser-
vice projects. In C. D. McCauley & M. W. McCall, Jr. (Eds.), Using experience to develop
talent: How organizations leverage on-the-job development (pp. 205-227). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gregory, J. B., Levy, P. E., & Jeffers, M. (2008). Development of a model of the feedback pro-
cess within executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
60(2), 42-56.
Hezlett, S. A. (2010). Suggestions for new research on experience-based development. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 56-60.
Hezlett, S. A., & Kuncel, N. R. (2012). Prioritizing the learning agility research agenda.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 296-301.
Hezlett, S. A., & McCauley, C. D. (in press). Employee development: The process and practice
of work-related learning. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). London,
England: SAGE.
Higdem, J. L. (2013). Making feedback compelling: Examining the format of written develop-
ment feedback to promote feedback insight and retention (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/apti-
tude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
657-690.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 19

Kizilos, M. (2014). Intensity and stretch: The drivers of on-the-job development. In C. D.

McCauley, D. S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Experience-driven leader develop-
ment: Models, tools, best practices, and advice for on-the-job development (pp. 7-14). San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance:
A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach
to management learning, education and development. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42-
68). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective
theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 311-328.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2007). Mentoring as a forum for personal learning in organi-
zations. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 95-124). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Leonard, H. S., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). The evidence for the effectiveness of action learn-
ing. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7, 121-136.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big
Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
927-935.
Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee learning and development orientation: Toward an integrative
model of involvement in continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 9-44.
Maurer, T. J., Lippstreu, M., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Structural model of involvement in skill
development activity: The role of individual differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
72, 336-350.
McCall, M. W., Jr. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 3-19.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of
international experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience:
How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & McCauley, C. D. (2014). Experience-driven leadership development:
Surveying the terrain. In C. D. McCauley & M. W. McCall, Jr. (Eds.), Using experience
to develop talent: How organizations leverage on-the-job development (pp. 3-15). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & McHenry, J. J. (2014). Catalytic converters: How exceptional bosses
develop leaders. In C. D. McCauley & M. W. McCall, Jr. (Eds.), Using experience to
develop talent: How organizations leverage on-the-job development (pp. 396-421). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., DeRue, D. S., Yost, P. R., & Taylor, S. (2014). Experience-driven leader
development. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
McCauley, C. D., & Hezlett, S. A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N.
Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial,
work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 313-335). London, England: SAGE.
McCauley, C. D., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (2014). Using experience to develop talent: How orga-
nizations leverage on-the-job experience. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

20 Advances in Developing Human Resources 

McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., & Ohlott, P. J. (1999). The job challenge profile. San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
McCauley, C., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. (1994). Assessing the developmen-
tal components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544-560.
McHenry, J. J., & McKenna, D. D. (2014). Turning experience into expertise: The everyday
learning disciplines for leaders. In C. D. McCauley & M. W. McCall, Jr. (Eds.), Using expe-
rience to develop talent: How organizations leverage on-the-job development (pp. 355-395).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., Cafferela, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A com-
prehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgeson, F. P., Mumford, T. V., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Coming full circle: Using research
and practice to address 27 questions about 360-degree feedback programs. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 196-209.
Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about lever-
aging 360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64,
157-182.
Ohlott, P. J. (2004). Job assignments. In C. McCauley & E. V. Velsor (Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 151-189). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Orvis, K. A., & Leffler, G. P. (2011). Individual and contextual factors: An interaction-
ist approach to understanding employee self-development. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 172-177.
Preston-Dayne, L. A. (2014). PARR: A learning model for managers. In C. D. McCauley, D.
S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Experience-driven leader development: Models,
tools, best practices, and advice for on-the-job development (pp. 151-155). San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related train-
ing and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological
Bulletin, 137, 421-442.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following mul-
tisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings.
Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66.
Sonnentag, S., & Kleine, B. M. (2000). Deliberate practice at work: A study with insurance
agents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 87-102.
Stahl, G. K., Chua, C. H., Caligiuri, P., Cerdin, J. L., & Taniguchi, M. (2009). Predictors of turn-
over intentions in learning-driven and demand-driven international assignments: The role
of repatriation concerns, satisfaction with company support, and perceived career advance-
ment opportunities. Human Resource Management, 48, 89-109.
Unger, J. M., Keith, N., Hilling, C., Gielnik, M. M., & Frese, M. (2009). Deliberate practice
among South African small business owners: Relationships with education, cognitive abil-
ity, knowledge, and success. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82,
21-43.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W., & Slocum, J. (2001). The role of goal orientation following perfor-
mance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629-640.
Van Katwyk, P., Hazucha, J., & Goff, M. (2014). A leadership experience framework. In C. D.
McCauley, D. S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Experience-driven leader develop-
ment: Models, tools, best practices, and advice for on-the-job development (pp. 15-20). San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016

Hezlett 21

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and
dynamic process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel
and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39-124). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Yip, J., & Wilson, M. S. (2010). Learning from experience. In E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley,
& M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership
development (3rd ed., pp. 122, 63-95). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yost, P. R., & Plunkett, M. M. (2009). Real time leadership development. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.

Author Biography
Sarah A. Hezlett, PhD, has more than 15 years of experience creating talent management solu-
tions, including leadership development tools, 360-degree feedback systems, certification and
selection assessments, and employee engagement processes. She serves as a senior assessment
scientist with Korn Ferry Institute, leading a team conducting research on leadership assess-
ments. Her research, which focuses on development, 360-degree feedback, mentoring, and pre-
dicting work and academic performance, has been published in peer-reviewed journals, includ-
ing Science, Psychological Bulletin, Current Directions in Psychological Science, and Advances
in Developing Human Resources. She earned her PhD in industrial/organizational psychology
from the University of Minnesota, where she is now an adjunct faculty member.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on June 4, 2016