Right People, Right Time: Rethinking How We Select Participants for Leadership Development

By Clive Martlew & David Mason

When organisations talk about leadership development, the conversation often jumps straight to programme design—content, workshops, facilitators, delivery. But before any of that matters, one question determines whether the investment will actually shift performance: are we selecting the right people at the right time?

This sounds obvious, but as many of us know, it’s where things frequently go wrong. This foundational step is often treated as a procedural task rather than a strategic one. When organisations default to hierarchy, length of service or broad eligibility, they can unintentionally dilute the potential impact of their leadership initiatives.

Clarifying the Purpose of Development: Start with Purpose, Not Hierarchy

Too often, participant selection defaults to hierarchy, tenure, or a vague sense of fairness. But the first task is much simpler: be clear about the purpose. The first and most important question is: What is the leadership development programme for? Organisations frequently lose sight of this once the work of design and delivery accelerates. Is the programme designed to:

• Fuel organisational transformation?

• Support a major change initiative?

• Strengthen the succession pipeline?

• Offer broad development opportunities?

When the aim is fuzzy, participation becomes confused—and impact diluted. A programme intended to drive organisational transformation will require different participants from one designed to strengthen the succession pipeline or to offer broad professional development. Without this clarity, selection becomes confused, and participants may enter programmes without a shared understanding of why they are there. High-impact programmes begin with a focused purpose that shapes the selection criteria from the outset. Clarity of purpose supports thoughtful prioritisation and an understanding of readiness at both the individual and organisational levels.

Identifying High-Leverage Roles: Target the “Strategic Implementers”

Research and practice consistently demonstrate that the most effective programmes focus on participants with high leverage: these are often people who sit at the hinge point between strategy and operations. They influence performance and change more directly than anyone else. These “strategic implementers” often sit in mid-to-senior roles. They span functions, geographies, and sometimes even organisational boundaries.

Selecting cohorts around these hinge roles ensures that development efforts are directed where they will most influence organisational performance and change. Effective cohorts frequently cut across functions and geographies, and in some cases include key external partners or stakeholders. This not only enriches the learning environment but signals the strategic importance of shared leadership across boundaries.

Navigating Differential Investment

Some organisations are comfortable openly investing more in those identified as having high potential or occupying mission-critical roles. Others, particularly in the public sector, prefer more egalitarian approaches. What matters most is consistency and transparency. Attempts to introduce selective investment without clear rationale or credible evidence often falter under scrutiny, leading to scepticism about fairness or accuracy. A robust, defensible approach to identifying talent is essential if differential investment is to gain traction.

Assessing Individual and Contextual Readiness

Readiness is a critical but sometimes overlooked dimension of participant selection. It has two components:

• Individual readiness: motivation, willingness to learn, openness to challenge and capacity to apply new skills.

• Contextual readiness: the ability—within the team, organisational structure and culture—to support, reinforce and allow new behaviours to take root.

Too often, programmes proceed without ensuring that participants and their line managers are adequately briefed and engaged. Even small interventions—such as structured manager briefings, clear expectations or prompt questions after key modules—significantly improve alignment and the transfer of learning. Organisations that invest time in preparing the ground give programmes a far greater chance of long-term success.

Timing Participation Around Career Transitions

The timing of participation can be as important as who participates. Leadership development is most powerful when it aligns with moments of career transition—promotions, new assignments, post relocations, major project leadership or taking on a change initiative. At these points, individuals are highly motivated and receptive, their “antennae are up” and they have opportunities to apply new insights immediately. Some organisations have predictable cycles of movement that make timing easier. Where this is not the case, selection processes should actively consider upcoming transitions as part of readiness assessment.

Encouraging a Shared Ownership of Development

Finally, organisations must recognise that leadership development is not simply something done for or to individuals. Many employees take a reactive, opportunistic approach to learning, leadership development and career progression, and are not always equipped for high-quality conversations about their aspirations or development needs. They wait for opportunities rather than shaping them. Organisations can enable richer, more proactive conversations about growth, aspirations, and future roles by developing the capabilities of individuals and line managers to have more intentional conversations about personal growth. Creating these conditions helps shift the dynamic from “the organisation will develop you” to “we’ll develop leadership together.” This helps shift leadership development from a one-sided process to a shared, ongoing partnership.

Conclusion

Selecting the right people at the right time is not an administrative requirement but a strategic lever. When organisations clarify purpose, target high-leverage roles, assess readiness, coordinate around transition points and foster genuine developmental dialogue, leadership development becomes far more than a programme—it becomes a catalyst for meaningful organisational improvement.