Most leadership programmes produce binders that gather dust. Ours produces leaders who make decisions differently on Monday morning. The difference is methodology — and the courage to measure what actually shifts.
Request your leadership diagnostic
We follow a four-phase arc designed around adult learning science and the realities of organisational politics. Each phase builds on the last — skipping ahead breaks the model.
Before we design anything, we interview stakeholders at three levels, administer validated psychometric instruments, and map the gap between the leadership culture you have and the one your strategy demands. This phase typically takes two to three weeks and produces a candid report that most consultancies would soften. We do not soften it.
Our workshops are not lecture halls. Participants face simulated crises, receive real-time peer feedback, and practise difficult conversations with professional actors trained in organisational dynamics. Each intensive is built from the diagnostic data, so no two cohorts receive the same content. Sessions run over two consecutive days to allow overnight reflection and consolidation.
Behaviour does not change in a training room — it changes in the corridor afterwards. We embed six-week coaching sprints where each leader works with a dedicated coach on two specific behavioural shifts identified during the intensive. Progress is tracked through observable indicators, not self-report surveys, so we know whether the change is real.
Individual growth stalls when the system pushes back. In this final phase we work with your HR and executive team to align talent processes — feedback rituals, promotion criteria, meeting norms — with the leadership behaviours you have invested in developing. This is where most programmes fail; it is where ours compounds.
A mid-Wales engineering company asked us to address chronic middle-management disengagement. Here is what twelve months of structured leadership development produced.
When we started, voluntary attrition among team leads sat at 28 per cent annually — nearly triple the industry benchmark. Exit interviews pointed to a consistent theme: people felt managed, not led. Decisions were hoarded at the top, feedback was annual and formulaic, and high-potential engineers were leaving for competitors who offered more autonomy.
We ran diagnostic interviews with forty-six managers and their direct reports, then designed a bespoke programme combining experiential intensives with twelve weeks of embedded coaching. The executive sponsor attended every session — a non-negotiable condition we set before signing the contract.
Outcome data independently verified by the client's internal people-analytics team, Q4 2024. Engagement measured via Gallup Q12 instrument administered pre- and post-programme.
Every element of our methodology traces back to peer-reviewed evidence. Here are three findings that shape how we design programmes.
A meta-analysis by Baldwin and Ford (1988, updated by Blume et al. 2010) found that only 10–15 per cent of training content transfers to the workplace without structured follow-up. Our coaching sprints exist specifically to close this gap, and our measured transfer rate exceeds 70 per cent across all cohorts delivered since 2021.
Edmondson's research at Harvard demonstrates that teams with high psychological safety learn faster and innovate more. Our intensives teach leaders to build safety through specific conversational micro-behaviours — not abstract principles — and we measure safety shifts using a validated five-item scale at baseline and six months.
Ibarra's work on professional identity shows that leaders adopt new behaviours only when they begin to see themselves differently. Our programme deliberately creates "identity experiments" — structured opportunities for leaders to try on new ways of operating in low-risk settings before deploying them in high-stakes moments.
If your question is not here, the diagnostic conversation is a good place to raise it.
Most programmes run between four and nine months, depending on the size of the cohort and the depth of systemic integration required. The diagnostic phase alone takes two to three weeks, and we recommend at least two coaching sprint cycles for lasting change. We will never stretch a programme beyond what the data supports.
Our sweet spot is organisations with 80 to 2,000 employees — large enough to have systemic leadership challenges, small enough that we can access decision-makers directly. We have worked with teams as small as twelve and divisions within FTSE 250 companies, but the methodology scales best within that mid-market range.
The experiential intensives are always in person — the embodied, face-to-face dynamic is essential and cannot be replicated on a screen. Coaching sprints, however, run effectively via video call, and the diagnostic phase is a hybrid of on-site interviews and remote psychometric administration.
We agree on measurable indicators before the programme begins — typically a combination of engagement scores, attrition rates, 360-degree feedback shifts, and business metrics specific to your context. We publish a transparent outcomes report at the end of every engagement, and we encourage clients to have their own analytics teams verify the data independently.
Executive coaching develops individuals; our programme develops the leadership system. We combine individual coaching with cohort-based intensives and systemic interventions so that new behaviours are reinforced by the culture rather than undermined by it. A coached leader returning to an unchanged system will revert within weeks — our fourth phase prevents that.
Tell us what you are wrestling with. We will respond within one working day with an honest assessment of whether our approach fits your situation.
8 Emard Gate, New Bauchborough, Wales, KE02 8DQ, United Kingdom
