Section 5
Turning findings into learning and support
A finding is not yet a design. This section shows what each survey result points towards: what could be taught, what could be practised at work, what a manager contributes, and what only the organisation can provide.
Six ways to respond
Most needs require more than one. Deciding which combination applies is the design work.
Taught development
Workshops, formal learning modules and the emphasis to be placed within them.
Appropriate when participants need shared concepts, common language, structured practice, exposure to alternative approaches or facilitated reflection. A workshop should not be used simply because a topic is popular.
What to specify
- The development outcome the session is intended to support
- The relevant evidence from the survey
- The concepts, methods or mental models to introduce
- The work situations participants should practise against
- The quality standards or distinctions participants should recognise
- The feedback and reflection required
- The application participants should attempt afterwards
- What the workshop cannot provide and must be supported elsewhere
On-the-job tools and aids
Practical resources, job aids, templates, prompts and checklists.
Appropriate when development depends on repeated application, timely prompts, access to examples or a way to structure reflection and feedback. Tools should be concise and usable in the flow of work.
What to specify
- Purpose: what development need or work outcome does it support?
- Point of use: when and where should the manager use it?
- User: participant, manager, peer, facilitator or another role?
- Expected action: what should the user do differently?
- Review: how will the user know whether it helped?
- Owner: who will maintain, explain or improve it?
Manager support (N−2 and N−1)
Expectations, access, authority, feedback and review.
Managers are not passive recipients of programme information. Their role is to make development possible. The precise role should follow actual reporting and acting arrangements rather than a generic hierarchy.
What to specify
- Understand the development purpose and the evidence supporting it
- Distinguish development support from performance correction
- Discuss the participant's application goal
- Clarify what good contribution looks like in context
- Provide access to suitable work, stakeholders or decision discussions
- Agree an appropriately bounded stretch opportunity
- Clarify authority, risk boundaries and available resources
- Observe or review the application and give specific feedback
- Recognise thoughtful attempts and adjustment, not only successful outcomes
- Avoid prescribing a survey interpretation as an individual diagnosis
- Identify barriers requiring escalation to HR or another owner
- Review progress at an agreed point without excessive reporting
HR and organisational support
Conditions, processes and resources needed to sustain development.
HR should not be assigned responsibility for every aspect of development. Its role is to enable conditions, processes and consistency beyond the participant and immediate manager.
What to specify
- Organisational need: what condition or barrier may affect development?
- Required action: what must change, be clarified or be made available?
- Owner: which HR, business or leadership role can act?
- Timescale: when is the action needed in the learning journey?
- Risk or constraint: confidentiality, capacity, operational or governance issues
- Review evidence: how will we know the support was available and useful?
Development through relationships
Peer learning, mentoring, sponsorship, observation and cross-level conversation.
The purpose of the relationship should be explicit. A mentor may support perspective and reflection; a sponsor may provide access and advocacy; a manager may provide authority, feedback and review. These roles should not be conflated.
What to specify
- Peer learning groups
- Mentoring
- Sponsorship
- Observation of experienced leaders
- Cross-level conversations
- Facilitated case exchanges
- Communities of practice
- Structured feedback partnerships
Evidence and review
How progress will be observed, discussed and assessed.
Progress should be judged against the intended development: quality of judgement, consistency of action, contribution through others or readiness for broader responsibility. Attendance, satisfaction and completion describe participation, not change.
What to specify
- What work example, observation or change in practice would show movement?
- When will it be reviewed, and by whom?
- A modest agreed work example and a focused review may be more useful than a large reporting requirement.
Popularity is not a design reason
Explore a development priority
Select a priority from question 1 to see what responds to it. This is the core mapping: it turns a counted result into a set of concrete design choices.
Q1-A / Q2-A
Priorities and organising work
Add to the journey
A review of an actual working week
How it works
The participant and manager compare planned priorities with where time actually went, then agree one change to test the following week.
What becomes visible
How priorities translate into choices, trade-offs and use of time.
Job aid
A one-page weekly priorities and trade-offs review.
What the manager contributes
Discuss competing demands and review one adjustment.
What HR or the organisation contributes
Help resolve conflicting expectations that exceed the manager's remit.
What the nature of the need changes
Question 3 does not change the topic. It changes how the topic is delivered.
Add: An experienced colleague demonstrates their approach and explains why they use it.
Adjust the design: Begin with a worked example or a brief practical guide before the participant applies it.
Add: Repeated attempts with a short feedback loop.
Adjust the design: Provide more than one opportunity to practise, changing one feature at a time and comparing the attempts.
Add: Compare two situations that require different responses.
Adjust the design: Ask the participant to identify what changes, which signals matter and why the same technique may not fit both.
Add: Conversations with people affected by the work.
Adjust the design: Include the perspective of a manager, colleague or recipient before deciding how to act.
Add: A manageable action with preparation and encouragement.
Adjust the design: Agree an appropriate first attempt, rehearse if useful and review what the person learned from acting.
Add: A visible commitment and a short progress review.
Adjust the design: Agree an outcome and checkpoints; discuss how obstacles were handled rather than simply whether the task was completed.
Add: A brief reflection or observation record around a real situation.
Adjust the design: Invite the participant to notice their initial reaction, action and effect, and compare this with available feedback.
Add: One explicit adjustment in response to feedback.
Adjust the design: Identify what will change, try it and ask whether the difference was useful.
Add: A manager or sponsor agrees the conditions required for the attempt.
Adjust the design: Make time, resources, decision authority or access available. Name the organisational owner rather than leaving the participant to supply these conditions.
Responding to question 4
Question 4 is wider context, not evidence about the chosen priority. Use these responses to explore, not to correct.
Participant thoughts (P4)
P4-ADoing it myself feels more reliable
Compare one appropriate task completed personally with another carried out by a colleague using agreed support. Review quality, time and the colleague's development.
Purpose: Explore what reliability through others can look like.
P4-BRaising a concern may seem to question seniority
A senior leader invites considered alternative views on a suitable case and explains how constructive challenge helps decision-making. Follow with a relevant opportunity to contribute.
Purpose: Make the expectations and experience of speaking constructively to seniority clearer.
P4-CA difficult conversation may damage a relationship
Rehearse a respectful conversation, then reflect privately on a real interaction and its effect.
Purpose: Examine how clarity and care can work together, without assuming every relationship concern is unfounded.
P4-DAsking for help may undermine credibility
An experienced leader shares a situation in which seeking help improved the work. Participants identify an appropriate opportunity to seek input themselves.
Purpose: Explore how judgement includes recognising when another perspective is useful.
P4-EA different approach may risk delivery or standards
Agree a bounded experiment with clear standards, review points and limits on what can change.
Purpose: Make it possible to learn from an alternative while maintaining appropriate delivery safeguards.
P4-FThere is little I can do until other teams act
Identify one dependency and agree a conversation about what each party can influence or contribute.
Purpose: Explore action beyond direct authority while recognising real constraints.
P4-GReflection or development is hard to justify alongside delivery
Add a brief learning review to an existing meeting and record one adjustment that improves the work.
Purpose: Connect development to delivery and reduce the extra time burden.
P4-HChanging what has worked may reduce effectiveness
Ask participants to compare what their previous success required with what their current or next responsibility requires; test one adaptation.
Purpose: Examine whether a successful approach needs to evolve as the work changes.
Stakeholder observations (S4)
S4-ATaking work back
A supported handover with agreed check-ins and review of when intervention is appropriate.
S4-BHolding back in senior discussions
A prepared contribution to an appropriate discussion, with leader feedback on its usefulness.
S4-CPostponing performance conversations
Preparation, rehearsal and a planned conversation, followed by private review.
S4-DSeeking help late
Agree useful points for seeking input during a real assignment and review the timing afterwards.
S4-ERetaining an approach despite signs it needs adjustment
A comparison of approaches followed by a small, appropriate test.
S4-FWaiting without exploring influence
A joint dependency conversation and one agreed action within the participant's influence.
S4-GDeferring development when busy
A brief review embedded in existing work, supported by the manager.
S4-HExplaining away feedback before exploring it
Select one piece of feedback as a hypothesis to test, then review what the attempt revealed.
Extended questions: intended gain and enabling conditions
If you ran the Extended version, these two questions tell you what success should look like and what has to be true for it to happen.
What the gain should be (E1)
E1-AReliable or timely delivery
Follow a real commitment from agreement to completion, including how risks are communicated.
Review: Reliability and usefulness of early updates.
E1-BQuality and less correction
Compare two work examples against an agreed standard and apply the learning to the next output.
Review: Quality of the output and the nature of any rework.
E1-CDecisions and escalation
Keep a short record of a decision, its reasoning and why it was handled or escalated.
Review: The appropriateness of the judgement and escalation.
E1-DRelationships and cooperation
Review a joint piece of work from both parties' perspectives and agree an adjustment.
Review: Whether cooperation and mutual understanding improve.
E1-EMore capable, independent team members
Transfer a suitable responsibility with progressively adjusted support.
Review: What the colleague can handle and what support remains useful.
E1-FCustomer or wider business contribution
Follow a work output to the person or function that uses it.
Review: Whether it creates the intended value and what could improve.
E1-GConsistency of standards
Discuss a realistic trade-off and review a subsequent decision against the relevant standard.
Review: How consistently the standard informs actual choices.
E1-HBetter use of time, resources or capacity
Review a recurring activity, test one change and examine what capacity it releases or redirects.
Review: Whether the change improves the use of resources without weakening the required outcome.
What has to be in place (E2)
E2-AClearer expectations
Leaders agree and communicate what useful contribution and excellent performance look like.
E2-BResponsibility and authority
Specify which decisions the participant can make and when input or escalation is required.
E2-CTime to practise
Agree a suitable work opportunity and time for preparation or review.
E2-DCoordination across teams
Provide a counterpart or sponsor who can support the shared activity.
E2-EInformation, resources or tools
Make the relevant information or resources available before the activity begins.
E2-FFeedback and reflection
Name a feedback partner and agree a brief review point.
E2-GSupport for ideas or alternatives
Agree what can be tried, the applicable boundaries and how learning will be received.
Conditions need an owner
Professionalism and progression
Questions 5 and 6 rarely justify their own module. They usually sharpen an activity you are already planning.
Q5-ACommitments and early communication
Starting point: Q1-C expectations conversation; E1-A commitment review.
Q5-BResponsibility and putting matters right
Starting point: Q3-F outcome commitment; a review of what was learned and put right after a real setback.
Q5-CRespectful communication
Starting point: Q1-I trade-off discussion; Q1-D preparation and review of a conversation.
Q5-DPreparation and recommendations
Starting point: Q1-G short recommendation followed by questions.
Q5-EQuality under deadlines
Starting point: E1-B comparison of work examples; E1-G standards review.
Q5-FEffects on colleagues and customers
Starting point: Q1-F follow a handover; Q1-L trace downstream effects.
Q5-GReceiving and using feedback
Starting point: Q3-H feedback-and-adjustment experiment.
Q6-AAchieving through others
Starting point: Q1-B deliberate handover with support.
Q6-BOutcomes across people or teams
Starting point: Q1-F joint improvement across a boundary, supported by Q3-F follow-through.
Q6-CTeam and wider business priorities
Starting point: Q1-L trace a decision's effects and discuss the trade-offs.
Q6-DDecisions with incomplete information
Starting point: Q1-E decision observation and recommendation, with Q3-C comparison of situations.
Q6-EDeveloping others
Starting point: Q1-B supported responsibility transfer and E1-E review of developing independence.
Q6-FRepresenting the team to senior leaders
Starting point: Q1-G recommendation and feedback.
Q6-GUnderstanding changing expectations
Starting point: A discussion of current and next-role expectations, followed by suitable observation or an existing acting assignment review.
What the organisation contributes
Some responses sit outside both the workshop and the participant's manager.
| Purpose | What it looks like | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Make excellence more visible | Experienced leaders compare two credible approaches to the same situation and explain the judgement behind their choices. | Workshop emphasis; manager or leadership support |
| Strengthen contextual judgement | Allow participants to observe a relevant decision discussion, then hear how the decision-maker weighed information, relationships and trade-offs. | On-the-job exposure; N−2/N−1 manager support |
| Support action and ownership | Agree a bounded stretch responsibility with a sponsor, clear authority and a short review point. | On-the-job application; N−2 manager and sponsor support |
| Examine assumptions through experience | Invite participants to test one alternative approach in a suitable work situation and compare what happened with what they expected. | Workshop preparation; job aid; manager review |
| Build reflection into ordinary work | Add a brief “what did we learn and what will we adjust?” conversation to an existing management meeting. | Manager guide; N−2 manager support |
| Strengthen relationships across levels | N−2 leaders explain what useful contributions from N−3 look like; participants explore how to exercise judgement within those expectations. | Manager guide; N−2/N−1 leadership support |
| Make progression tangible | Review an existing acting assignment around what changed in accountability, judgement and relationships, rather than whether duties were completed. | HR and manager guidance |
| Recognise learning as well as delivery | Share concise examples of improved practice: what the person changed, what they learned and what became more effective. | HR and leadership guidance |
| Remove structural barriers | Clarify decision rights, access, resources, time or escalation routes where these are necessary for participants to practise. | HR and organisational action; relevant business owner |
Practical additions to the journey
Elements that work across almost any set of findings.
One live development challenge
Each participant chooses a real situation linked to a priority and returns to it throughout the journey.
Manager development agreement
A short N−2/N−3 conversation identifies the behaviour to practise, the opportunity to practise it and the feedback available.
Peer case conversations
Small groups discuss one real challenge using a simple sequence: situation, interpretation, alternative, next action.
Assumption-to-action exercise
Participants identify one thought influencing a live situation, consider another interpretation and test a manageable alternative. Disclosure remains their choice.
Acting-role reflection
Where an acting assignment already exists, review what changed in accountability, judgement and relationships.
Short practice prompts
A brief reminder before a relevant task and a reflection prompt afterwards, using tools the client already supports.
Write it down: two records to complete
Complete a theme definition for each priority you carry forward, then a decision record for what you will do about it.
Theme definition
- Work and contribution
- What should managers become better able to handle or contribute?
- Development opportunity
- Improvement, greater consistency, excellence or broader responsibility? What remains unresolved?
- Nature of the development
- Which Task, Context, Will or Self indications are supported by the responses?
- Reach
- A shared cohort priority, a differentiated need, or a need whose next step is unclear?
- Intended result
- What observable difference in work would demonstrate progress?
- Primary support category
- Workshop emphasis, on-the-job aid, manager support, HR action, relationships, or a combination?
- Support owner
- Participant, facilitator, N−2/N−1 manager, HR, another owner or a combination?
Decision record
- Development opportunity
- What could become more effective, consistent or accomplished?
- Evidence
- Which questions and respondent groups support it? Keep views separate and state limitations.
- Interpretation
- Which capability areas are indicated? What remains a hypothesis or is unresolved?
- Intended result and value
- What should change in work, and why would that matter? Label proposed outcomes.
- Workshop response
- What should be taught, practised, demonstrated or emphasised?
- On-the-job tools and aids
- What prompts, templates, examples or review aids would help transfer?
- Manager support
- What should N−2 and N−1 managers discuss, enable, observe, provide or review?
- HR and organisational action
- What support or condition requires an owner beyond the participant and manager?
- Relationship support
- Would mentoring, sponsorship, peer learning or observation add value?
- Development through work
- What practice, feedback, reflection or exposure would establish progress?
- Evidence of progress
- What work example or change in practice could show movement, and when is it reviewed?
- Ownership and timing
- Who is responsible for each element, and when should it occur?