Research Model
Leadership Training Retention: How Different Approaches Compare Over 24 Months
Leadership training retention is the question most L&D teams avoid - because the answer is uncomfortable. Research consistently shows that most of what leaders learn in training fades within months. The model below visualizes exactly how fast, across six different training approaches, using parameters grounded in published meta-analyses.
All curves model leadership development programs (not syllable memorization). Parameters tagged RESEARCH are directly from meta-analyses. Parameters tagged ESTIMATED are interpolated from best available evidence - adjust them with sliders to test assumptions.
Phased Practice Model
Mo 0-6 · Workshops + sims
Mo 7-12 · Monthly sims
Mo 13+ · Quarterly sims · Never stops
What the Research Shows
The forgetting curve is not new - Ebbinghaus documented memory decay in the 1880s. What is new is applying this research specifically to leadership skill retention in professional settings.
The core finding: leadership training that relies on knowledge transfer alone - lectures, e-learning modules, even well-designed workshops - decays predictably. Experiential and procedural learning decays more slowly, but still decays. The only approaches that maintain retention above 50% at the 24-month mark are those that include ongoing, spaced practice.
This model draws on research from Cook et al. (2011) on health professions skill decay, Tatel & Ackerman (2025) on open vs. closed skill retention, Lacerenza et al. (2017) on leadership training effectiveness, and Ericsson's deliberate practice framework (2004, 2008). For the full literature review and parameter justifications, read the full research methodology.
Six Approaches Compared
E-Learning Only
Passive content delivery. Retention drops below 20% within six months and settles near 10% at 24 months. The fastest decay curve of any approach.
Single Workshop
A one-time experiential session. Better than e-learning because of the experiential component, but still drops below 30% by month 12.
Three Workshops (Months 0, 2, 4)
Spaced workshops create re-boost effects, but without practice between sessions, retention still declines to roughly 25% by month 24.
Workshops + Simulation → Stops at Month 6
Six months of practice builds procedural memory that persists even after practice ends. Retention stabilizes around 32% - better than workshops alone, but the decay after stopping is visible.
Workshops + Simulation → Maintenance Mode
Intensive practice for six months, then reduced-frequency maintenance sessions. Retention holds in the 60-70% range at 24 months.
Workshops + Continuous Simulation
Ongoing biweekly practice sessions. Retention stays above 70% at 24 months. The strongest outcome - and the clearest evidence that practice, not content, drives lasting skill development.
Why Practice Changes the Curve
The difference between approaches that retain and approaches that decay comes down to one mechanism: procedural memory formation.
When leaders practice a skill repeatedly - giving difficult feedback, navigating conflict, coaching a direct report - the skill gradually shifts from declarative memory (knowing what to do) to procedural memory (being able to do it under pressure). Procedural memory is more durable. It resists decay. And it transfers to novel situations more reliably than memorized frameworks.
This is why simulation-based practice produces a fundamentally different retention curve. It is not a slightly better version of a workshop. It is a different category of learning - one that builds the kind of memory that survives the pressures of daily work.
The Phased Practice Model
The research points to a practical implementation model:
Months 0-6 - Intensive Phase
Combine workshops with biweekly simulation practice. This is where procedural memory formation begins. Leaders practice specific skills in realistic scenarios, building fluency through repetition and variation.
Months 7-12 - Building Phase
Shift to monthly practice sessions. The procedural foundation from the intensive phase means less frequent practice still maintains high retention.
Month 13 onward - Maintenance Phase
Quarterly practice sessions prevent decay. The research suggests that even low-frequency practice, once the procedural base is established, holds retention at levels that no amount of initial training achieves alone.
Adjust the model's parameters using the sliders above to test different assumptions. Every parameter tagged ESTIMATED is adjustable. Parameters tagged RESEARCH are anchored directly to published meta-analytic data.
For the full literature review, parameter justifications, and model design rationale, read the complete research methodology or download the full research as a PDF.
Explore the Model
This tool is fully configurable. Toggle individual curves on and off. Adjust simulation frequency, decay rates, and procedural memory conversion rates to match your assumptions or your organization's specific context. The comparison table tab shows exact retention percentages at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for side-by-side evaluation.
If you are evaluating approaches to leadership development and want to understand how ongoing practice changes long-term outcomes, explore how AI leadership training platforms integrate simulation practice into existing programs. LeaderCoreAI provides the AI leadership training software that makes the continuous and maintenance practice models operationally feasible - including multilingual leadership training for global teams.
Download the Research
Full methodology, literature review, and parameter sources. No signup required.
Research References
Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, et al. (2011). Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf.
Tatel CE, Ackerman PL. (2025). Skill retention and decay: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.
Lacerenza CN, Reyes DL, Marlow SL, Joseph DL, Salas E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Ericsson KA. (2004, 2008). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance.
Jørgensen M, et al. (2025). Spacing effects in professional skill development.