Choosing Experiential Learning Products

In the realm Experiential Learning specifically, Choosing a program that is not aligned with the level of office has more serious consequences. Experiential Learning works through emotional activation, cognition, and action simultaneously. When a challenge is too easy, participants were not stimulated. When it's too hard, they experience anxiety that hinders learning. Only when the challenge is in the right zone, what Vygotsky (1978) call it the Zone of Proximal Development, true transformation can occur.

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Investment in training and human resource development continues to increase globally. World Economic Forum report (2023) noted that more than 70% Large organizations around the world have increased their training budgets in the last three years, triggered by accelerating technological disruption, post-pandemic changes in work models, and demands for new competencies that have never existed before.

But behind the surge in investment, there is a surprising paradox. Gallup studies (2023) The State of the Global Workplace Report found that the level of employee disengagement in the Southeast Asia region, including Indonesia, still in numbers 78%, one of the highest in the world. This figure does not stand alone: he talked about training programs that don't really address the needs of their participants.

In the Indonesian context, This problem is increasingly complex. Deloitte (2023) in the Global Human Capital Trends Report noted that 62% HR leaders in Southeast Asia admit that the training programs they run do not produce real behavioral changes in the workplace. Huge funds were spent, work days are sacrificed, but three months after the program is completed, there is nothing different in the way people work and lead.

The most significant waste in corporate learning is not the budget, it is the mismatch between what is taught and who is being taught. (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1996)

This problem has very specific roots: mismatch between the complexity of the training program and the level of position and cognitive readiness of the participants. A frontline staff who was forced to take part in a director level strategic decision-making simulation, or rather a General Manager who follows the children's team building game, both are a real waste, not just financially, but also motivationally and psychologically.

1.2 Problem Formulation
This study seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

Why the selection of Experiential Learning products must be based on the participant's position level, not just a theme or activity format?
How the characteristics of learning needs differ substantially at each level of position — from frontline staff to C-Suite executives?
What theoretical basis and empirical evidence supports the importance of aligning EL programs with job levels to achieve sustainable transformational impacts?

1.3 Purpose of the Study
This study aims to:
(1) build a literature-based argument about the importance of choosing an EL program that is aligned with the position level;
(2) mapping the characteristics of learning needs per position level based on proven psychological and management theories;
(3) provides a practical framework that HR and L professionals can use&D in designing EL programs that are right on target in the Indonesian corporate context.

1.4 Methodology
This study uses a systematic literature review approach (systematic literature review) by integrating theories from the field of adult learning psychology, leadership science, organizational psychology, and HR management. Reference sources include seminal academic books, peer-reviewed journal articles, research reports from leading institutions such as Gallup, McKinsey, Deloitte, Center for Creative Leadership, and the World Economic Forum.

II. THEORETICAL BASIS

2.1 Experiential Learning Theory — Kolb (1984)

The main foundation of this study is the Experiential Learning theory developed by David A. Kolb in his monumental work, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (1984). Kolb proposed a four-stage cycle that describes how humans actually learn: Concrete Experience (experience directly), Reflective Observation (ponder and observe), Abstract Conceptualization (form a new concept), dan Active Experimentation (try in a new context).

What is often overlooked in the implementation of corporate EL programs is that Kolb himself emphasized that this cycle is not universal in its intensity. The complexity and depth of each stage must be adjusted to the participant's cognitive readiness and life experience. A new employee with three months of work experience has a ‘bank of experience’ which is a far cry from a General Manager with a twenty year career — and both require different stimulation to achieve meaningful reflection.

The Relevance of Kolb's Theory for Level-Based Program Selection
Kolb (1984) identified four dominant learning styles — Diverger, Assimilator, Converge, and Accommodator — which is statistically correlated with a person's experience and job title. Senior leaders tend to be more dominant in the Converger style (requires concrete practical application), while the new staff is predominantly Diverger (requires exploration and diverse experiences). EL programs that do not consider these differences fundamentally lose their effectiveness.

2.2 Andragogy Theory — Knowles (1980)

Malcolm Knowles, in his work The Modern Practice of Adult Education (1980) which was later expanded in The Adult Learner (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2015), introducing the concept of Andragogy, which is the science of helping adults learn as opposed to Pedagogy that applies to children. Andragogy rests on six fundamental assumptions about how adults learn.

The most relevant for this study is Knowles' fourth assumption: readiness to learn. Knowles argued that adults are best prepared to learn when the learning content is directly related to the issues or roles they are facing in real life. The implications are very clear: a supervisor who is learning to delegate will be much more receptive to a delegation simulation than a CEO level strategic planning simulation because the latter is not relevant to the realities of the position he faces today.

Assumption 1: Self-Concept Adult participants need a sense of autonomy in learning. EL programs must provide space for choice and control.	Assumption 2: Experience Participants' life experiences are a key resource. Getting more senior, the richer the bank of experiences that must be activated.	Assumption 3: Readiness Adults learn best when the topic is relevant to their actual role and job challenges.
Assumption 4: Orientation	Assumption 5: Motivation	Assumption 6: Need to Know
Learning must be oriented towards solving real problems, not an accumulation of abstract knowledge.	Intrinsic motivation (satisfaction, self development) stronger than extrinsic in experienced adults.	Adults must understand WHY they are learning something before they can learn effectively.

2.3 Situational Leadership Theory — Hersey & Blanchard (1969)

Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard introduced Situational Leadership Theory in their seminal article in Training & Development Journal (1969), which was then developed comprehensively in Management of Organizational Behavior (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2008). This theory argues that there is no one leadership style that is most effective, good leaders adjust their approach based on level of readiness (readiness level) his followers.

The relevance of this theory to EL program design is significant. The concept of 'readiness level’ that Hersey and Blanchard developed includes competencies (ability) and commitment (willingness) applies directly to training program design. A participant in a low position has a different readiness level from a participant in a high position. Forcing both into the same program is not only ineffective but actively counterproductive for either party.

The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority. And the key to influence is meeting people where they are not where you want them to be. (Blanchard, 2010)

2.4 Revised Bloom's Taxonomy — Anderson & Krathwohl (2001)

Benjamin Bloom in 1956 proposed a hierarchy of six cognitive levels in learning: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. In the year of 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl revised this taxonomy by changing labels to verbs: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating while strengthening the argument that each level requires fundamentally different stimulation.

In the context of a position-based EL program, Bloom's Taxonomy provides very precise guidance. Program for frontline employees (Level 1-2) must be dominated by stimulation at the Remembering level, Understanding, and Applying as an activity that builds awareness, understanding, and basic abilities. While the program is for executives (Level 4-5) must operate at the Analyzing level, Evaluating, and Creating, simulations that demand complex analysis, trade-off evaluation, and creation of original solutions.

Implications of Bloom's Taxonomy for EL Program Design per Position Level
EL programs designed without considering the targeted cognitive level will fail to produce meaningful transfer of learning. Simple activities such as bonding games that rely on Remembering are suitable for onboarding new staff, but this is stimulation that is far below the capacity of a Senior Manager who already operates at the Analyzing and Evaluating level every day. Instead of, High-stakes decision making simulations designed for executives can give rise to learned helplessness in junior participants who do not yet have sufficient managerial experience as references (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Dweck, 2006).

2.5 Model 70-20-10 — McCall, Lombardo & Morrison (1988)

The most influential research in the history of leadership development was conducted by McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison (1988) di Center for Creative Leadership. They interview 191 successful executives and asked what experiences most shaped their careers and leadership. The results were surprising: 70% learning occurs through hands-on experience and real job challenges, 20% through interactions with other people (mentor, feedback, observation), and only 10% through structured formal training.

Model 70-20-10 is not just a learning statistic — it is a manifesto about the types of stimulation that are most effective for different job levels. Frontline employees who are just entering the workforce require a greater proportion of formal and structured training (component 10%). But as someone rises in position, component requirements 70% — experiential challenges that reflect the complexity of real positions are becoming increasingly dominant. This is why EL programs for executives must explicitly model the complexity and ambiguity of the decisions they face every day.

2.6 Zone of Proximal Development — Vygotsky (1978)

Lev Vygotsky dalam Mind in Society (1978) introduced the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the space between what a person is already capable of doing on their own and what they can achieve with the right help. This concept, although it was originally developed in the context of child development, has proven equally relevant in adult learning (Built, Keogh & Walker, 1985; Mezirow, 1991).

In EL program design, ZPD is the strongest argument for program selection based on position level. Programs that fall below the participant's ZPD do not produce growth, it simply confirms what is already known. Programs that are far above the ZPD produce anxiety and psychological resistance. Only the right programs are on the 'edge'’ ZPD is challenging enough to stimulate growth, but it is still within reach with the support of facilitators to produce real transformation.

2.7 Transformative Learning Theory — Mezirow (1991)

Jack Mezirow dalam Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning (1991) proposed that the most meaningful adult learning occurs when a person experiences what he called a 'disorientating dilemma', an experience that shakes the frame of reference they have been holding. From this shock, critical reflection was born, and from critical reflection new, more adaptive perspectives emerge.

Mezirow's concept strengthens the argument that every level of position requires a 'disorientating dilemma’ different. For frontline staff, an escape room that demands collaboration is a transformative dilemma. For a CEO, only crisis simulations that reflect the real complexity of corporate decisions can create shocks meaningful enough to trigger transformative reflection.

III. MAIN DISCUSSION

3.1 Why the EL Program is 'Same for All'’ Doesn't work

One of the most common mistakes in planning corporate training programs in Indonesia is what can be called the ‘one-size-fits-all fallacy’, the assumption that a program that is good for one group will be equally effective for another group, without considering differences in position levels, experience, and learning needs.

McKinsey & Company (2022) in the report Rethinking Leadership Development in the Post-Pandemic Era found that 70% Global leadership training programs fail to produce measurable behavioral changes. When they dig into the cause, the most consistent factor found was the lack of relevance of the content to the real challenges faced by participants at their position level.

The results of this research are in line with the theories presented previously. Knowles (1980) unequivocally states that relevance is a key prerequisite for adult learning. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) shows that the effectiveness of development interventions is very dependent on the readiness level of participants. Dan Vygotsky (1978) remind that growth only occurs in the right ZPD not above or below it.

Case study: Mismatch Cost’ Program EL
A study by the Center for Creative Leadership (2020) on 247 organizations in Asia Pacific found that organizations running EL programs without position level alignment experienced average transfer rates (percentage of participants who apply learning in the workplace) just as big 21%. Instead of, organizations that align programs with job levels achieve average transfer rates 68% — three times higher. This difference directly impacts the ROI of training which is also drastically different: 1.2x vs 4.7x of initial investment.

3.2 Characteristics of Learning Needs per Position Level

Based on a synthesis of various theories and empirical evidence, Characteristics of different learning needs can be mapped for each position level in the organization:

LEVEL	DEPARTMENT	NEED LEARN TO DOMINANT	TYPE THE RIGHT PROGRAM	DIFFICULTY SCALE
L1 — All Staff	Staff, Operator, Frontline, Admin	Bonding, engagement, basic communication, team spirit, motivation	Fun & Creative Activities, Digital Adventure, Culinary, Outdoor Sport	★★ Easy
L2 — Supervisor	Supervisor, Team Leader, Foreman, Coordinator	Team coordination, problem solving, communication under pressure, initial delegation	Mystery & Escape, Engineering Challenge, Outdoor Challenge, Basic Leadership	★★★ Secondary
L3 — Manager	Manager, Asst. Manager, Section Head	Decision making, performance management, negotiation, cross-team leadership	Leadership Simulation, Strategy Execution, Negotiation, Culture Building	★★★★ High
L4 — Senior Mgr	Senior Mgr, GM, Dept Head, Plant Mgr	Strategic thinking, organizational transformation, risk management, change	Advanced Leadership Sim, Strategy Workshop, Risk Management, Transformation	★★★★ High
L5 — C-Suite	Director, VP, CEO, C-Level	Executive decision, crisis, turnaround, leadership legacy, legacy	High-Stakes Simulation, War Room, Executive Trial, Crisis Command	★★★★★ Expert

LEVEL 1 — ALL STAFF / FRONTLINE EMPLOYEE

Employees at this level are staff, operator, frontliner, and admin, are generally in the early stages of their careers. Their learning characteristics are in accordance with what Knowles (1980) describe it as the 'subject-centered' phase’ who still need external structures to learn effectively. Bandura (1986) in Social Cognitive Theory shows that individuals at this stage learn best through observation, imitation, and immediate, clear feedback.

The right EL program for this level is fun, energetic, easy to access, and does not require prior knowledge about business complexity. The goal is not deep cognitive transformation, but rather the formation of a foundation: sense of togetherness, basic trust between team members, pride as part of the organization, and fundamental interpersonal communication skills. Pink (2009) in Drive emphasizes that at this level, the experience of fun and autonomy are the most powerful drivers of intrinsic motivation.

LEVEL 2 — SUPERVISOR / TEAM LEADER

Supervisors and team leaders are in the most complex positions in the organizational hierarchy: they must lead the teams under them while responding to direction from management above. Gentry dan Chappelow (2009) calls this 'the middle squeeze’ pressure from two directions that requires special competencies that are not always intuitively possessed.

At this level, Learning needs shift from fun to functional. Participants need experiences that simulate team coordination challenges, decision making under time pressure, ability to delegate, and conflict management. Program Mystery & Escape, Engineering Challenge, and basic leadership simulations offer a laboratory experience’ the ideal safe environment to try and fail without real consequences, exactly like Schon (1983) described in The Reflective Practitioner as 'practice worlds'.

LEVEL 3 — MANAGER / ASSISTANT MANAGER

Managers are at the point where technical skills are starting to become less important than leadership skills and interpersonal effectiveness. Boyatzis (1982) in The Competent Manager identifies that at this level, The critical competencies that differentiate ordinary managers from extraordinary managers are: empathy, the ability to influence without formal authority, build a cohesive team, and translating strategic vision into executed actions.

Goleman (2000) dalam artikel ‘Leadership that Gets Results’ in the Harvard Business Review shows that at the manager level, emotional intelligence is a stronger predictor of performance than IQ or technical competence. EL programs for this level must explicitly activate the emotional dimension of placing participants in situations that demand empathy, self-regulation, and social awareness in a context that feels real and relevant to their work.

LEVEL 4 — SENIOR MANAGER / GENERAL MANAGER / DEPT HEAD

Senior managers and General Managers face different complexities in categories from the levels below. They don't just manage individuals or small teams, they manage the system: process, structure, culture, and strategies that impact hundreds or even thousands of people. Download (2013) in Leadership in Organizations defines leadership at this level as 'institutional leadership', the ability to establish and maintain an organizational culture conducive to long-term performance.

Senge (1990) in The Fifth Discipline argues that leaders at this level need to develop 'systems thinking', the ability to see the interconnections between seemingly separate parts in a complex system. EL programs for this level must simulate this systemic complexity: multi-tim, multi-departmental, trade-off between interests, and the consequences of decisions are not always immediately apparent.

LEVEL 5 — DIRECTOR / VP / C-SUITE / EXECUTIVE

At the top of the organizational hierarchy, relearning needs are changing fundamentally. Collis (2001) in Good to Great indicates that the leader Level 5 (Collins terminology for best leadership) characterized by a unique paradox: extraordinary personal humility combined with unwavering professional ambition. They learn from real experience, from the crisis, from failure, and from deep reflection — not from overly simplistic lectures or simulations.

Avolio and Bass (2004) Transformational Leadership Theory suggests that effective executives develop their abilities primarily through high-stakes experiences — situations with real consequences that force them to access their deepest reservoirs of wisdom.. EL programs for this level must be able to create a high-stakes environment that feels real, intellectually and emotionally challenging, and touches on existential questions about leadership legacy and long-term impact.

3.3 Psychological Dimensions: Why 'Wrong Level’ Damaging Is More Than Just Ineffective

Perhaps one of the strongest and least explicitly discussed arguments for the importance of aligning EL programs with job levels is the psychological dimension.. Programs that are not level appropriate are not only ineffective; it is actively destructive.

Dweck (2006) in Mindset shows that challenges that are too easy for a person's level of competence create boredom and stagnation which is a psychological signal that growth is not expected. Even more dangerous, Senior employees who are forced into programs far below their level often feel a sense of disrespect, a signal that the organization is not truly looking at their capabilities and experience.

Instead of, Junior employees who are forced to face simulations far beyond their current capabilities experience what Bandura (1986) call it a decrease in self-efficacy, erosion of self-confidence which can have a long-term impact on their motivation and courage in facing new challenges. Hackman (2002) in Leading Teams warns that poor program design not only fails but actively undermines the psychological foundations needed for high-performing teams.

Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works — and in learning, how it works is entirely determined by who it is working for. (Adapted from Kolb, 1984 & Vygotsky, 1978)

3.4 Empirical Evidence: Impact of EL Program Coordination with Department Level

Numerous empirical studies have confirmed the significant impact of aligning EL programs with job levels:

Society for Human Resource Management / SHRM (2022) in Learning & The Development Survey Report found that organizations that implemented level-differentiated training programs experienced 42% increase in employee retention rate compared to organizations that run uniform programs for all levels.
Center for Creative Leadership (2020) reported that a leadership development program tailored to position level resulted in an improvement in leadership effectiveness of 63%, compared only 18% for programs that are not adapted.
Gallup (2023) showed that employees felt the training programs they attended were ‘very relevant’ with their job and level 3,2 times more likely to be fully engaged at work.
McKinsey (2022) proves that organizations that invest time in position-based needs assessments before designing training programs experience an ROI of 4.7x, far exceeding the industry average of 1.5x.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) in their evaluation of hundreds of global corporate training programs found that Level 3 (behavior transfer) and Levels 4 (organizational results) from the evaluation model they are only achieved consistently when the program is designed taking into account the readiness level and position context of the participants.

3.5 Position Level Based EL Program Selection Framework

Based on the synthesis of the above theories and available empirical evidence, A practical framework can be formulated for selecting the right EL program based on position level:

Principle 1 — Position Relevance (Knowles, 1980)
Every EL program must explicitly address the challenges, dilemma, or the needs that participants experience at their current position level — not the position they aspire to. This relevance is a non-negotiable prerequisite for participant engagement and learning transfer.

Principle 2 — Calibration Challenge / ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978)
The level of difficulty and complexity of the program should be in the participant's Zone of Proximal Development — challenging enough to stimulate growth, but not so difficult as to trigger learned helplessness. Programs too easy = stagnation. Program too difficult = anxiety and psychological rejection.

Principle 3 — Graded Cognitive Stimulation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
The cognitive level stimulated should increase with position level: Level 1-2 dominan Remembering-Applying; Level 3 dominan Analyzing-Evaluating; Level 4-5 dominan Evaluating-Creating. Programs that do not take this into account will stimulate cognitive levels that are not relevant to the requirements of the position.

Principle 4 — Actualization of Learning Styles (Kolb, 1984 & Honey-Mumford, 1982)
Dominant learning style correlates with position level. New staff tend to be Divergers (open exploration), supervisor cenderung Accommodator (action & adaptation), managers tend to be Convergers (practical application), and senior executives tend to be Assimilator (conceptual synthesis). An aligned EL program activates the dominant learning style at that level.

Principle 5 — Proportional Depth of Debrief (Already, 1983 & Boud et al., 1985)
Depth and complexity of reflection sessions (debrief) must be calibrated to the position level. Debrief for staff using concrete and experiential questions. Debriefs for executives use existential questions that link experiences to leadership legacy and long-term organizational implications.

3.6 Implications for HR and L Practice&D in Indonesia

In the Indonesian corporate context in particular, There are several additional considerations that reinforce the importance of selecting an EL program based on job level:

Multi-Generation Dynamics. For the first time in history, Indonesian organizations have four generations working together: Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, dan Gen Z. Each generation brings a different frame of reference regarding leadership, collaboration, and self-development. EL programs that are aligned with job levels also implicitly address these generational differences, because job level correlates — albeit imperfectly — with generational experience and preferences (WEF, 2023).
Hierarchical Culture Context. Indonesia has a high Power Distance Index score (Hofstede, 1980) — meaning that a hierarchical structure is respected and expected in the work context. EL programs that do not consider participants' positions in this hierarchy risk creating psychological discomfort that inhibits authentic engagement — especially when participants from very different job levels are mixed in the same program without careful facilitation.
Post-Pandemic Trust Deficit. The COVID-19 pandemic has left scars that are not always visible on team dynamics in Indonesia: prolonged remote work, mass layoffs, and dramatic organizational restructuring creates a trust deficit that needs to be restored in layers — starting with rebuilding interpersonal trust at the staff level (who need a bonding program), to rebuilding trust in the vision and direction of the organization at the executive level (which requires strategic alignment simulation).
Acceleration of Digital Competency Needs. World Economic Forum (2023) projecting that 50% of all employees will require significant reskilling in the next five years. Job level-based EL programs enable organizations to target different digital literacy needs with precision: from basic tech adoption to frontline staff, to digital strategy leadership for the C-Suite.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusion

This study has built a strong argument — based on foundational theories in adult learning psychology, leadership, and organizational psychology, and reinforced by empirical evidence from leading research institutions that selecting Experiential Learning programs based on position level is not just 'best practice', but rather a fundamental prerequisite for the success of Corporate Team Building and Leadership Training programs.

The six main theories studied are Kolb (1984), Knowles (1980), Hersey & Blanchard (1969), Anderson & Krathwohl (2001), McCall et al. (1988), dan Vygotsky (1978) consistently and mutually reinforcing show that the effectiveness of adult learning is highly dependent on the match between stimulation complexity and cognitive readiness, department, and participant experience. Empirical evidence from Gallup, McKinsey, CCL, and SHRM confirmed that this alignment resulted in strong transfer of learning 3,2 times higher and training ROI 4,7 times bigger.

In the context of Experiential Learning 5.0 which was developed by Red Avenue Indonesia with 106 programs that have been categorized in 5 These job levels and alignments are not just theoretical arguments, rather, it is a design commitment embedded in every product. Each program is designed to operate in the appropriate Zone of Proximal Development, activate the relevant cognitive level, and creates a disorienting dilemma’ which is proportional to the capacity and context of the participant's position.

4.2 Practical Recommendations for HRD and L&D Professionals

Always carry out a Needs Assessment based on Position Level before choosing a program. Identify specific challenges participants face at their current position level, not a generalization of organizational needs.
Hindari ‘mixed-level programs’ without very careful facilitation. If multi-level gathering cannot be avoided, use programs that are explicitly designed to create productive dialogue between levels rather than ones that place all levels in the exact same activities.
Use Kirkpatrick's model (Level 3 & 4) as a benchmark for success, not just participant satisfaction (Level 1). Ask: whether participants actually behaved differently three months after the program? Is there a measurable impact on team and organizational performance?
Invest in quality facilitators who understand the dynamics of the position level. A good facilitator doesn't just lead activities, he is able to read group dynamics, calibrate the complexity of the debrief, and connect experiences with the reality of the participant's position with precision.
Design a 'learning journey', not just a 'learning event'. Research consistently shows that long-term transfer of learning only occurs when there are post-program reinforcement mechanisms: action planning, peer coaching, session follow-up, and accountability mechanisms that keep commitments alive.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

References are arranged based on APA format (American Psychological Association) 7th Edition:

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Mind Garden.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing organizations (Rev. ed.). FT Press.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals — Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
Built, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. Wiley.
Center for Creative Leadership. (2020). The state of leadership development: A global benchmark study. CCL Research Report.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. HarperCollins.
Day, D.V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8
Deloitte. (2023). Global human capital trends 2023: New fundamentals for a boundaryless world. Deloitte Insights.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Drucker, P.F. (1954). The practice of management. Harper & Row.
Dweck, C.S. (2006). The mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Gallup. (2023). State of the global workplace: 2023 report. Gallup Press.
Gentry, W.A., & Chappelow, C. (2009). Managerial derailment: Weaknesses that can be fixed. In R.B. Kaiser (Ed.), The perils of accentuating the positive (pp. 97–114). Hogan Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
Hackman, J.R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23(5), 26–34.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (2008). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (9th ed.). Pearson Education.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. SAGE Publications.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning styles. Peter Honey Publications.
Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business School Press.
Kirkpatrick, D.L.. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2ed.). Cambridge Adult Education.
Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). Routledge.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper & Row.
Lombardo, M.M., & Eichinger, R.W. (1996). The career architect development planner (1st ed.). Lominger.
McCall, M.W., Lombardo, M.M., & Morrison, A.M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington Books.
McCauley, C.D., & From Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2ed.). Jossey-Bass.
McKinsey & Company. (2022). Rethinking leadership development in the post-pandemic era. McKinsey Quarterly, Q3 2022.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P.G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
Revans, R.W. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Chartwell-Bratt.
Already, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2022). SHRM learning and development survey report 2022. SHRM Publications.
Spencer, L.M., & Spencer, S.M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. Wiley.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
World Economic Forum. (2023). Future of jobs report 2023. WEF Publications.
Download, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.