Yukl (1994) noted in his comprehensive book on leadership in organizations that many of the skills learned by corporate managers are based on experience rather than formal education. He went on to say that "Managers are more likely to learn relevant leadership skills and values if they are exposed to a variety of developmental experiences on the job, with appropriate coaching and mentoring by superiors and peers" (p. 456). Others (Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974; Hall, 1976; MacKinnon, 1975) agree that much if not most managerial-leadership development takes place on-the-job rather than in seminars or classrooms, and that early leadership experiences are among the key influences on career development (Margerison & Kakabadse, 1984).
Some, such as V. A. Howard (1995), have developed arguments for why leadership cannot be taught. Howard has argued that many of the propositional (knowledge about leadership) and procedural (knowledge about leading) components of leadership are teachable--at least available for discussion and reflection. However, he sees leadership as more like creativity, virtue, and musicianship than solely a cognitive accomplishment. That is, leadership is as much learned as it is taught. The learning is dependent "upon the interpretive abilities and practical opportunities of the learner given everything that has been taught" (p. 119). He would suggest that the instances when leadership can be identified as having occurred, and thus been "successful leadership" cannot be attributed to the behavior of a single individual. These successes are contingent on too many contextual factors. Thus, the cycle seems to return to emphasis on experience. In Howard's words,
Now leadership is very similar to musicianship in that regard [its teachability]. While it cannot be taught directly, it can be learned depending upon the interpretive ability and practical opportunities of the learner given everything that has been taught. (p. 119)