Helping managers and high-potential contributors develop better leadership skills can be a critical part of building organizational capabilities — but for many companies, leadership development programs are falling far short. Those responsible for selecting such programs often struggle to show how their spending has produced significant, enduring changes in participants’ individual capacities or collective outcomes, yet operating executives continue to fund these efforts without requiring such accountability.1 The result: a massive leadership development industry in which few distinguish between snake oil and effective healing potions.

Our review of leadership development programs (LDPs) at several dozen business schools around the world illustrates the typical shortcomings.2 Few program directors we surveyed could identify how the design and evaluation of their leadership development offerings consistently meet scientific standards of desired impact. Instead of documenting improvement in participants’ capabilities, for example, the majority (70%) said they settle for positive reactions to the program or evidence of knowledge gained, at least in the short term (63%). None linked their programming to changes in participants’ career trajectories, followers’ attitudes or performance, or team- or organization-level outcomes.

Similarly, our recent interviews with 46 HR executives revealed that their selection of LDPs is seldom guided strongly by evidence of effectiveness. Rather, most acknowledged that they have made such decisions with limited information, often investing significant sums based on things like the “looks” of a program (such as a well-designed website) or the charisma of the faculty. As one executive noted, leadership development decisions seem to resemble the online dating industry, where swiping left or right is based more on appearance than substance.

This problem is not inevitable. From our years of studying leadership development, developing and delivering programs, and working with chief human resources officers and chief learning officers at organizations such as Ericsson, Microsoft, Philips, the Red Cross, and Siemens, we have arrived at a simple premise: Good leadership development requires attention to three core elements — a program’s vision, method, and impact — and the integration between them.

Just a few good questions about a program, and careful parsing of the answers, can clarify how well each of these elements is designed and aligns with the others — and lead to significantly better decisions.