When an organisation invests in its leaders, it deserves to understand what it has gained. The difficulty comes when we try to make every aspect of development fit a neat return calculation, or assume that a positive evaluation form tells us the work has carried through into everyday leadership.
People can enjoy a programme and leave the original difficulties untouched. They can also find parts of the work uncomfortable and make changes that become significant for their team. We need to look beyond the experience in the room.
Start with what is happening in the organisation
Perhaps a leader is taking decisions that their team could make, or a senior group is spending so much time defending departmental positions that collective work barely moves forward. Perhaps capable people are exhausting themselves by checking everything repeatedly and carrying far more responsibility than their role requires.
Being clear about that situation gives the work a purpose and something to return to. It does not require every possible outcome to be fixed before people begin, particularly where the development reveals an issue that was not obvious in the original brief.
We want to understand what is changing as the work unfolds, as well as whether it has addressed the reason you commissioned it.
Look at the leader doing the job
A leader may say they feel more confident, and that is useful information. It becomes more meaningful when they can describe what that confidence allows them to do and when other people notice a difference too.
For someone working on delegation, that might involve giving clearer responsibility, allowing colleagues to use their own judgement and staying involved without taking the work back. The team may begin bringing decisions rather than requests for permission, while the leader has more space for their own responsibilities.
These are examples of the kind of change you could explore. The evidence should come from the work itself, with feedback and observation arranged appropriately for the people involved.
Include the capacity people gain
One of the things we pay attention to at PasedaLeader is the amount of a leader's attention being used by what we call the Inside Job: the internal criticism, doubt and judgement that can occupy someone long after a meeting has ended.
A person can spend hours replaying a conversation, preparing for every possible objection or trying to make a piece of work impossible to criticise. As they develop greater self-trust, some of that attention may become available for the role they are actually there to do.
It can be difficult to attach a precise financial value to that shift, but we can explore it through concrete examples: decisions made with less rumination, preparation that becomes more proportionate and conversations that happen sooner. The aim is to understand the practical effect rather than manufacture a number for it.
Where do organisational measures fit?
Existing measures such as retention, engagement or delivery can provide useful context when they are relevant to the brief. They are also influenced by pay, staffing, workload and decisions elsewhere in the organisation, so attribution needs care.
If a provider claims a financial return, you should be able to see how it was calculated and which assumptions connect it with the programme. A modest, transparent estimate gives you more to examine than an impressive figure with no explanation.
We also believe evaluation should leave people enough time to apply the development. Agree useful evidence, review it at sensible points and investigate where progress is uneven. That allows the organisation to make a grounded decision about the value of the work and any further support needed.
