This study investigated the relationship between the use of 360-degree feedback for executive leadership development and subsequent change in leadership. Participating executives were mid-level and senior executives at a US government agency. It was proposed that 360-degree feedback to executives regarding their leadership would enable them to improve if they critically reflected on the feedback, set development goals, created an Individual Development Plan, and sought organizational support for changing behavior.

A survey questionnaire was used to assess leadership and change. The study employed an experimental pretest-posttest-control group design to assess perceived changes in leadership behavior in response to receiving feedback and engaging in development activities. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Group A members received feedback and a training intervention after the first assessment. Group B members received only written feedback. Group C members received no feedback or intervention until after the experiment ended. Hypothesis 1(a) predicted posttest leadership scores of Group A members would be significantly greater than their pretest scores.

Hypothesis 1(b) predicted posttest leadership scores of Group A members would be significantly greater than posttest scores of Group B members. Hypothesis 1(c) predicted posttest leadership scores of Group A members would be significantly greater than posttest scores of Group C members.

Results showed no significant differences between pretest and posttest scores for Group A members. Hypothesis 1(a) was not supported. However, comparing Group A members’ posttest scores with those of Group B and Group C members revealed that Group A members’ mean posttest scores were higher than those of either Group B or Group C on all 10 scales of the assessment questionnaire. A number of these differences were statistically significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1(b) was partially supported and Hypothesis 1(c) was supported. Post-hoc tests revealed that these results were due to differential dropout of Group A members such that those completing the study had initial scores higher than members of the other groups. It is suggested that lack of top executives’ support for the study contributed to this outcome. The importance of such support for the success of any executive development efforts is discussed.