Selected work · Capability overview
Leadership Development
Leadership development that survives the workshop.
I build manager and senior-leader development around observable behavior, workplace practice, business verification, and reassessment.
Proof story 01 · Sandbox VR
Leadership development as an operating system
The development cycle translated stakeholder perception into observable behavior, embedded that behavior into normal management routines, and returned six months later to test whether the experience of working with the leader had changed.
- Problem
- Leadership feedback produced insight, then stalled because the operating rhythm had no mechanism to carry it forward.
- Intervention
- One closed loop: 360 diagnosis, senior-leader practice, observable 90-day commitments, verification inside the business review, reassessment at six months.
- Result
- Across the same 15-leader cohort, average Structure and Clarity ratings moved from 9.6 of 12 at baseline to 10.9 of 12 at six months, on the same instrument. Coaching support ended and the practices held.
- Designed the leadership framework and the 360 instrument built against it
- Facilitated the senior-leader team effectiveness sessions
- Ran every individual debrief and built the 90-day plans with participants
- Moved verification into the participant's own business review
- Built and administered the six-month reassessment
Results
What actually moved
9.6 → 10.9
Structure and Clarity, cohort average of 12, same instrument at six months
15
Leaders assessed at both points, approximately 90% of raters unchanged
6
Dimensions reassessed, three behavioral items each
One system, six stages
Each stage produces what the next stage needs
The loop connects Leadership Fundamentals, a 360 assessment, an individual debrief, a 90-day plan, 30/60/90 reinforcement, and a six-month reassessment on the same instrument.
Senior-leader facilitation
The team effectiveness session brought together 20 executives, VPs, directors, and functional heads. Nineteen of 20 wrote a behavioral commitment before leaving the room.
- 01
Leadership Fundamentals
A shared model of what the six dimensions look like as behavior, so feedback later in the cycle has something to attach to.
Produces
A common vocabulary and behavioral definitions for each dimension.
- 02
360 assessment
Six dimensions, three behavioral items each, rated for impact by managers, peers, direct reports and the leader.
Produces
An individual feedback report showing where intent and experience diverge.
- 03
Individual debrief
A structured conversation that moves the leader from reading a report to choosing a focus.
Produces
One strength to keep using, and two observable behaviors to improve.
- 04
90-day plan
Each behavior written so a third party could tell whether it happened without asking the leader.
Produces
A dated plan with an evidence source for each commitment.
- 05
30/60/90 reinforcement
Checkpoints held by the leader's own manager, not by L&D, using the plan as the agenda.
Produces
A tracker row per checkpoint: activity, behavior, business effect.
- 06
Six-month reassessment
The same instrument, the same scoring method, the same cohort.
Produces
A matched pre-and-post comparison across all six dimensions.
Reinforcement was owned by each leader's own manager at 30, 60 and 90 days. The reassessment returned to the same instrument and scoring method.
Matched pre and post
Six dimensions, same 15 leaders, same instrument
| Dimension | Baseline | Six months | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological Safety | 9.8 | 10.4 | +0.6 |
| Meaningful Work | 10.4 | 10.7 | +0.3 |
| Dependability | 10.1 | 10.9 | +0.8 |
| Structure and Clarity | 9.6 | 10.9 | +1.3 |
| Impact | 10.5 | 10.8 | +0.3 |
| Core Values | 10.8 | 11.0 | +0.2 |
Across the same 15-leader cohort, average Structure and Clarity ratings increased from 9.6 of 12 at baseline to 10.9 of 12 at six months. The reassessment used the same instrument and scoring method, with approximately 90 percent of raters unchanged and replacement raters matched by relationship type where turnover occurred.
Cross-case
The transfer test
Four questions I use to decide whether a leadership program is finished.
- 01
Can they do it?
The behavior is observable.
- 02
Does it change the work?
There is an operating signal.
- 03
Can the business see it?
Evidence exists where the work happens.
- 04
Can the business carry it forward?
Ownership has transferred.
Third-party evidence
What people who worked with me observed
LinkedIn recommendations from people who saw this work up close.
She’s also an amazing facilitator. It’s no surprise that she was promoted three times in her time here. She’s literally perfect for L&D. I love watching her teach others, whether its 35 store leaders at once, members of our corp team, or her direct report.
Adam Hilliard
Former manager
She is exceptional at developing people and has an innate ability to recognize and nurture each individual’s unique strengths.
Brooke Ransom
Cross-functional partner