Most development budgets are defended with satisfaction scores. We run a behavioural baseline before we design anything — and re-measure after delivery, so the change is visible in data, not sentiment.
The instruments
Custom-built for each engagement — because a generic competency list cannot measure the behaviours your outcomes depend on.
Built per engagement around the two or three behaviours that actually move your outcomes. Rated by the participant's manager, peers and direct reports — then returned in a confidential one-to-one debrief.
Per participant · private debrief
A team-level read of psychological safety, trust, conflict handling, role clarity and follow-through. Reported as team patterns — no individual is ever exposed.
Team level · anonymity protected
A short re-measure at the midpoint and again 60–90 days after delivery. Your sponsor sees movement in behaviour, not applause.
Midpoint + 60–90 days
How it runs
The measurement wraps the program, so the before and the after are comparable — same behaviours, same raters, same scale.
Instruments out, interviews held, baseline report delivered. We name the behaviours that matter before any design begins.
Weeks 1–2
Confidential debriefs with every participant, then a program designed around the real gaps — not the assumed ones.
Weeks 2–3
The development work itself: coaching, cohort sessions, simulations — aimed at the behaviours the data named.
Weeks 3–10
The pulse runs again 60–90 days after delivery. The movement report goes to your sponsor in plain language.
Day 60–90
Confidentiality: individual 360 reports belong to the participant. Sponsors receive team-level patterns and aggregate movement — never a ranked list of people.
For the sponsor
Evidence you can take to the CFO: a baseline, measured movement and the specific behaviours that changed — not a satisfaction score.
For participants
Feedback that feels fair because it is specific, behaviour-level and delivered in private — with a plan attached, not a verdict.
For the organization
Every engagement adds to a dataset on where leadership actually strains. Your next program starts smarter than your last.
The evidence
We did not invent this method. It follows the strongest published research on team dynamics and performance — sources linked, so you can check.
180 teams
Google — Project Aristotle (re:Work)
Google studied 180 teams to learn what makes some effective and others not. The most important dynamic was not seniority, skill mix or personality — it was psychological safety.
Why our team questionnaire reads safety first.
Read the source →23%
Gallup — Q12 Meta-Analysis, 11th edition
Across more than 180,000 teams, business units in the top engagement quartile show 23% higher profitability than those in the bottom quartile.
Why we measure the behaviours behind engagement, not morale.
Read the source →360°
Smither, London & Reilly — Personnel Psychology, 2005
A meta-analysis of multisource feedback found performance improves after a 360 — and improves materially more when feedback is paired with goal-setting and follow-up.
Why every 360 we run ends in commitments, and a re-measure.
Read the source →Questions sponsors ask
The first step
Two weeks, fixed scope. The team questionnaire plus confidential interviews, ending in a baseline report and a readout with a costed recommendation. If the data says you don't need a program, we say so — and you keep the report.
No commitment beyond the diagnostic itself. What happens next is your call, made with data.
A 30-minute call to see what a baseline would read in your team — and to look at an anonymised sample report.