You can always custom build your own custom course, Why not explore our building blocks library or book a consultation with our team
Most leadership programmes can't prove they worked. Here's how we do it differently.
Ask most organisations how they know their last leadership programme worked, and the honest answer is a satisfaction score. Did people enjoy the session. Did they rate the facilitator highly. It's the easiest thing to measure, and it's also the least useful one.
According to Hemsley Fraser's own 2026 L&D Impact Survey, the use of Kirkpatrick evaluation levels grew 3% year on year, and in the US, 82% of businesses now use performance metrics to assess learning, up sharply as organisations come under pressure to prove value, not just deliver content. The function knows satisfaction alone isn't enough. What's less clear, for most providers, is what to measure instead.
We measure every leadership programme we deliver across four dimensions, not one.
Engagement. Are learners genuinely participating, not just attending. A packed room and a low completion rate tell very different stories.
Competence. Have the specific capabilities the programme targeted actually been built. Not "did they enjoy learning about it", but can they demonstrate it.
Behaviour. Has how someone leads, day to day, actually changed. This is the dimension most programmes never reach, because it requires measurement after the learning event ends, not during it.
Business impact. Has that behaviour change shown up in outcomes the business already tracks. Retention. Promotions. Safety incidents. Engagement scores. Overtime.
That last point matters more than it sounds like it should. Plenty of evaluation frameworks ask organisations to build new dashboards and new reporting just to prove a programme worked. We measure against what's already being tracked. If a business already reports on retention or safety incidents or engagement scores, that's where we look for the signal, not a new system built specifically to justify the training spend.
This is also why our programmes are built on the same methodology from the first conversation with a client to the final measurement review: Excite, Engage, Embed, Evolve. Most learning design focuses on what happens during the learning event itself. Ours focuses on what happens before it (building genuine motivation, not just awareness), during it (real engagement, not passive attendance), and for a long time after it (embedding new behaviour through reflection and manager support, then evolving the programme based on what the data actually shows).
It's also why our leadership work is built on the same 10 core capabilities across every programme we design, whether that's a single workshop or a multi-year global leadership journey. Mindset, toolset, skillset. Not a generic competency list, the same structure behind every result we can point to.
The honest answer to "did the leadership programme work" should never be a satisfaction score. It should be evidence, across four dimensions, tied to numbers the business already cares about.
