Evidence-informed. Honest about limits. Safe by design.
Why the format looks the way it does
Spaced, not crammed. A meta-analysis of 335 leadership-training studies found that training spread over time transferred to the job better than training delivered all at once, and that practice with feedback mattered (Lacerenza and colleagues, 2017). That is why every offer ends with four weeks of Integration.
Four weeks of practice. In a study with elite military personnel, the same eight hours of attention training improved attention and working memory when spread over four weeks, but not when compressed into two; more daily practice went with larger gains (Zanesco, Jha and colleagues, 2018).
What happens after the event matters most. Research on training transfer finds that whether people use what they learned depends more on support and chances to apply it afterwards than on the event itself (Brinkerhoff, 2003). That is why the work is on live issues, and why Integration exists.
The shape follows established practice. Several well-established workplace programmes combine about two days of live training with a few weeks of spaced follow-up. Ours does the same.
What we measure
We measure what people and teams do differently, not only how they feel. Measures are agreed with the sponsor at the start.
| Offer | What we look for |
|---|---|
| Leadership Alignment | Priorities stated the same way by every leader; decisions made and not reopened; mechanisms in use |
| Manager Effectiveness | Performance conversations held early; work delegated with clear ownership; priorities negotiated upwards |
| Emerging Leaders | Contributions in decision forums; work handed over; stretch assignments delivered |
| Team Effectiveness | Working agreements in use; risks raised early; reviews held; commitments kept |
Optional anonymous before-and-after ratings describe change in the group, never individuals.
What we don't claim
The programmes draw on well-researched approaches to attention, emotion regulation, decision-making, behaviour change and team learning. The combined approach has not been clinically validated, and results in one organisation do not guarantee results in another. We report honestly what changed and what did not.
Safeguards
Voluntary participation. People can take part without disclosing anything personal, and can step out of any exercise.
Private reflections stay private. Nothing a participant writes or says in reflective exercises is reported to their manager or HR, used in performance reviews or used to rank people. Sponsors receive agreed outputs and aggregate themes only.
No labels. The six stages are a reflection tool, never used to assess, rank or select people or teams.
Developmental, not clinical. The programmes do not diagnose or treat mental-health conditions. Facilitators point people who need more support to professional or employee-assistance services.
Structural problems get structural responses. The method is never used to make people adapt to unfair workloads, unsafe conditions or misconduct. Those are raised with the sponsor, and harassment goes through proper channels.
Sources
- Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L. and Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718.
- Zanesco, A. P., Denkova, E., Rogers, S. L., MacNulty, W. K. and Jha, A. P. (2018). Mindfulness training as cognitive training in high-demand cohorts. Progress in Brain Research.
- Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2003). The Success Case Method. Berrett-Koehler.
- Carmody, J. and Baer, R. A. (2009). How long does a mindfulness-based stress reduction program need to be? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 627–638.