Executive Summary Excellent feedback with little behavioural change is a common (and fixable) leadership-programme failure mode: the programme is likely winning on “experience” (delivery, content quality, networking) but not driving measurable capability transfer into day-to-day leadership. Whether to redesign, pause, or discontinue depends on how repeatable the issue is, whether you have evidence of the failure at the competency level, and what “cost of inaction” looks like for your business.

Key Recommendations

1. Start with a short “diagnose, don’t decide” cycle (2–4 weeks)

Before discontinuing, validate where the transfer is breaking:

• Is the target behaviour clear and observable?
• Are participants held accountable post-programme?
• Are managers/coaches supporting reinforcement?
• Are there performance systems (goals, KPIs, feedback loops) that reward the new behaviours?
• Is the programme structure (practice → feedback → reinforcement) strong enough?

1. If behavioural change is near-zero across cohorts: pause and redesign (not discontinue immediately)

“Excellent feedback” suggests the programme is not a bad experience; it’s probably a bad mechanism for transfer. In most cases, pausing prevents continued spend while you rebuild the system around behaviour change.

1. If you can pinpoint structural gaps and fix them quickly: redesign with a transfer-first model

Typical redesign focuses on:

• Tight alignment to 3–5 business-critical leadership behaviours
• Behavioural practice embedded in real work (not only simulations)
• Coaching and manager reinforcement for 60–90 days
• Measurement that captures behaviour change, not satisfaction

1. Discontinue only if the root cause is systemic or the redesign economics don’t work

Discontinue if:

• Competency model/behaviours aren’t owned by the business and can’t be operationalized
• Line managers won’t reinforce (no buy-in, no time, no consequences)
• The org won’t fund coaching/measurement needed for transfer
• Or you’ve run the programme multiple cycles and it still fails to move behaviour/outputs

Business Impact (how to think about trade-offs)

• Cost of continuing: opportunity cost (leaders get trained but don’t improve), and credibility damage (“feedback is great but nothing changes”)
• Cost of redesign: higher short-term investment, but builds capability transfer and reduces future wasted cycles
• Cost of discontinuing: immediate budget relief, but may leave a capability gap unless you replace it with something more effective (manager enablement, coaching system, targeted interventions)

What I’d Recommend in Practice Option A: Redesign (most common when feedback is strong but behaviour doesn’t change) Use this if:

• Participants report the programme is valuable
• Skills/content are relevant
• Yet transfer fails (low coaching, no practice under pressure, weak accountability)

Redesign principles (high impact, not academic)

• Re-define success as “observable behaviour change”
• Pick 3–5 behaviours tied to business outcomes (e.g., decision clarity, coaching mindset, customer/employee focus, execution cadence)
• Define what “good” looks like with examples
• Make it practice-heavy and work-relevant
• Each participant completes 2–3 “behavioural challenges” in their actual role (e.g., run a difficult 1:1, introduce a team cadence, handle performance conversation, lead a cross-functional decision)
• Close the loop with feedback and coaching
• 360 or targeted feedback at start/end
• Manager participates in goal-setting and reviews progress during the 6–12 week follow-up
• Build reinforcement into the management system
• Add these behaviours to team goals, performance conversations, and promotion/assessment criteria
• Measure transfer continuously
• Midpoint pulse (week 4–6)
• End measurement (week 10–14) and a follow-up at ~3–6 months

Option B: Pause (briefly) before redesign Use this if:

• You have clear evidence across cohorts that behaviour change is consistently low
• You can’t fix accountability/coaching constraints in the next cycle without redesign time
• You need leadership alignment before spending again

Pause duration: typically one cycle (2–4 months) while you rebuild transfer mechanisms and measurement.

Option C: Discontinue Use this only if:

• After diagnosis, the programme is not salvageable (e.g., no organizational capability to reinforce)
• The behaviours aren’t actually demanded/owned by the business leaders
• Or the intervention cost to make it work is too high versus alternatives (e.g., a coaching/manager operating model may achieve more)

Risks (and how to mitigate them)

• Risk: “Disguised satisfaction” (people like it, nothing changes)

Mitigation: redesign around practice + accountability; change the measurement from satisfaction to transfer.

• Risk: Leadership programme becomes a “one-off event”

Mitigation: add structured follow-up, manager involvement, and work assignments.

• Risk: Behaviour change requires culture/system shifts (performance, promotion, line manager behaviour)

Mitigation: redesign the programme AND strengthen the leadership operating system (manager cadence, feedback norms, evaluation).

Immediate Next Steps (practical 2–4 week plan)

1. Confirm the behaviour target and measurement gap

• List the top 3–5 leadership behaviours the programme claims to develop
• Define “observable evidence” for each behaviour
• Review last 2–3 cohorts’ results: participant feedback vs. any available behavioural/360/performance data

1. Run a fast cohort diagnostic

• 10–15 participant interviews (mix high/medium/low implementers)
• 5–8 manager interviews (do they know what behaviours to reinforce?)
• Facilitator review (what practice/feedback exists, and how much is optional?)

1. Decide on a “mechanism change” roadmap

• If manager reinforcement is weak: redesign requires manager enablement + required check-ins
• If practice is weak: rebuild sessions around real work challenges and feedback
• If measurement is weak: implement a simple pre/post behavioural assessment and 60–90 day follow-up

1. Choose the action: redesign vs pause

• If you can implement transfer elements within one cycle → redesign
• If you need alignment/budget for coaching/follow-up → pause for one cycle, then redesign

Decision Rule (simple and executive-friendly)

• If it fails “because of transfer mechanics” → Pause briefly, then redesign
• If it fails “because the organization won’t reinforce” → Discontinue or radically re-scope into a manager operating model + coaching system
• If it fails “because target behaviours aren’t clear” → Redesign the competency/behaviour mapping first

If you want, I can also share a one-page “Leadership Programme Effectiveness Scorecard” you can use to quantify whether you should redesign, pause, or discontinue based on evidence (behavioural change, manager reinforcement, and business-linked outcomes).

If you need help implementing these recommendations or would like expert guidance tailored to your organization, the team at Zunavish would be happy to assist.