Mixed-methods study reveals improved change-leader self-efficacy and identity following training in public sector leaders, indicating organizational factors moderate ongoing application.
Purpose The study aims to examine how a change-specific leader development training intervention influences proximal outcomes of leader development and how training transfers to on-the-job application in the public sector. The study also investigates whether holding a formal leadership position influences these processes. Design/methodology/approach An embedded mixed-methods design was employed, combining pre- and post-intervention questionnaires (n = 102) with semi-structured interviews conducted six months post-intervention (n = 15). Proximal outcomes were change-leader self-efficacy, change-leader identity and learning. The intervention, Förändringsledning med Evidens-och Användarfokus (FÖRA), consisted of workshops, online modules and between-workshop-assignments, delivered to public sector leaders, including formal and informal leaders in Stockholm, Sweden. Findings Quantitative analyses revealed improvements in change-leader self-efficacy and identity, with no differences between formal and informal leaders. Qualitative findings showed how the intervention functioned as a catalyst for internal changes (learning, change-leader self-efficacy and identity), which facilitated transfer attempts. However, continued transfer was described as strongly influenced by work-environment factors, including holding a formal manager position. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on leader development in the public sector by advancing the limited understanding of how proximal outcomes of leader development evolve and exploring their role in transferring training to on-the-job application. By highlighting the dynamic nature of transfer and the critical influence of the work environment, our study offers a nuanced understanding of how leader development training leads to organizational impact and provides practical guidance for designing interventions that leverage both training and work environment characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rundgren et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: