A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANIZING PILOT EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON SOFT-COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT AMONG LEADERSHIP PERSONNEL IN IN-SERVICE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

In-service professional development initiatives for leadership personnel increasingly seek to strengthen communication, emotional intelligence, and adaptive self-management; however, the reported gains are not always examined through a research design that can support a credible causal interpretation. To address this methodological gap, the article develops and substantiates an integrated procedure for pilot-experimental (quasi-experimental) investigation of soft-competency development in in-service settings, where administrative arrangements and ethical considerations commonly make full randomization impracticable. The study employs a theoretical-conceptual approach that combines comparative-typological analysis of methodological scholarship with structural modeling, bringing together classical quasi-experimental design principles, multi-level training evaluation, and psychometric reliability into one reproducible procedure. The resulting framework proposes a nonequivalent control-group design incorporating pretest, post-test, and follow-up measurements, with groups formed through matching; a triangulated assessment battery integrating self-report, 360-degree feedback, situational-judgement tasks, and structured expert observation; clearly defined reliability and validity procedures, including internal-consistency and test–retest assessment; a sequence consisting of baseline diagnosis, intervention, immediate post-intervention assessment, and delayed follow-up; a statistical plan that combines parametric and non-parametric comparisons within and across groups and requires effect-size reporting; together with an explicit correspondence between threats to internal validity and the safeguards used to reduce them. The article further specifies the ethical procedures, including a waiting-list control design, required for responsible implementation. The framework provides corporate universities, in-service training institutions, and human-resource development researchers with a reproducible and empirically defensible basis for evaluating soft-competency interventions, while also identifying priorities for future multi-site and cross-cultural validation.