Developing effective organizational leaders and managers cost-effectively is a crucial aspect of organizational learning and development. Traditional approaches, such as structured courses and MBAs, have faced criticism for failing to adequately develop the necessary capabilities for real-world application. A shift towards experiential, action-based, and coaching-based methods within the work environment is underway. However, a lack of a robust, integrated framework guides professional practice in this field. This research aims to present such a framework for HR practitioners to design, deliver, and evaluate leadership and management programs, providing clearer construct definitions for future research. The framework focuses on intentional leadership and management program interventions (group or individual), encompassing both formal and experiential learning approaches. This focus on structured, facilitated learning distinguishes it from other self-directed or experiential learning models.

The framework draws on various adult learning theories, integrating emotional, social, and cognitive competencies (ESCs) and self-directed learning theories (Boyatzis, Bonesso et al.). It utilizes Kolb's experiential learning cycle and incorporates reflective practice (Boud et al., Schön) and Biggs' work on meta-learning, although adapting it to workplace contexts. The framework emphasizes developing specific leadership and management competencies, rather than broader leadership mindsets, focusing on proximal development. Criticisms of competency-based approaches, such as oversimplification, are addressed by clarifying that competencies describe demonstrable abilities to perform functions to a standard, not the underlying knowledge, skills, or attitudes.

The Leadership and Management Learning Framework comprises three primary elements: learning inputs, learning processes, and learning outcomes, each considered at both individual and organizational levels. The framework's six key elements are: Organizational Learning Environment (OLE), Individual Learning Capabilities (ILC), Group Learning Processes (GLP), Individual Learning Processes (ILP), Organizational Learning Outcomes (OLO), and Individual Learning Outcomes (ILO). The relationships between these elements are depicted in a visual model showing how inputs influence processes which determine outcomes. OLE encompasses organizational culture, leadership styles, learning opportunities, and business systems. ILC includes individual learning characteristics, goals, and capacity. GLP are group processes for developing leadership capabilities, including action learning projects and reflective practices. ILP involves individual learning strategies. OLO represent changes in organizational capabilities resulting from learning processes, impacting various organizational outcomes. ILO are the individual's acquired knowledge and skills, measured by achieved competencies. The framework integrates facilitation throughout all phases of the learning process—assessing needs, planning, learning, applying, and evaluating. The paper also details the crucial role of meta-learning, encompassing metacognition, meta-learning strategies, and meta-skills (Nesbit). Meta-learning enhances learning quality by promoting self-awareness, strategic learning choices, and skill application in the workplace. Several reflective practice methodologies, such as those by Gibbs and London et al., and deliberate practice (Ericsson and Harwell) are discussed for developing various leadership skills.

The paper presents six theoretical propositions: 1) ILC strongly influences ILP; 2) OLE strongly influences ILP; 3) OLE strongly influences GLP; 4) GLP and ILP reciprocally influence each other; 5) ILP determines ILO; and 6) GLP determines OLO. Each proposition is supported by a review of existing literature. Proposition 1 highlights how individual traits like cognitive ability, personality, culture, metacognitive skills, and emotional intelligence influence learning processes. Proposition 2 emphasizes that organizational culture impacts meta-learning and motivation. Proposition 3 shows how organizational culture affects the quality of group learning processes; supportive cultures foster better learning. Proposition 4 discusses the reciprocal relationship between individual and group learning processes; individual contributions affect group processes, and group dynamics impact individuals. Proposition 5 highlights the established link between learning processes and outcomes; deep learning leads to better results. Proposition 6 emphasizes that the quality of group learning processes influences organizational learning outcomes. The framework underscores the importance of intrinsically motivated learners, organizational commitment to learning, the crucial role of facilitation, high-quality applied learning projects and opportunities, and the necessity of supported reflective practices for successful leadership and management development. The authors emphasize the need for future research to validate the framework empirically through various research methods such as action learning, mixed methods, or quasi-experimental designs. Such research should explore the interplay between workplace learning processes, organizational culture, and learning outcomes.

The framework addresses the research question by providing a comprehensive model for accelerating leadership and management development. It moves beyond existing models by integrating learning processes and learner preferences into the design and evaluation of leadership programs. The significance of the results lies in offering HR practitioners a structured approach to design effective interventions, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of leadership development initiatives. The framework's relevance to the field is in its holistic approach, incorporating multiple learning theories and contextual factors. The six propositions offer testable hypotheses for future research, advancing the theoretical understanding of leadership development.

This paper offers a holistic framework for designing, facilitating, and evaluating accelerated leadership and management development interventions. The framework's strength is in integrating learning processes, learner preferences, and contextual factors, unlike previous models. Future research should focus on empirically testing the six propositions, exploring the framework's applicability across different organizational contexts, and investigating the long-term impact of the framework on leadership effectiveness and organizational outcomes.

The study's primary limitation is its conceptual nature; it lacks empirical data to validate the framework. Future research is needed to test the framework's effectiveness in real-world settings. The framework's generalizability across various organizational cultures and industries also needs further investigation. The propositions presented are theoretical and require empirical verification.