If leadership consulting is not working, start by defining what “not working” means. Was the agreed work not delivered? Were recommendations delivered but never applied? Or did the team apply them and find that the original problem remained? Those are different situations and call for different conversations.
The frustration is legitimate, but neither an automatic extension nor a blanket conclusion that consulting never works resolves it. Review the evidence with the sponsor and provider. This guide is an operating discussion aid, not advice about a contractual dispute or a substitute for qualified procurement or legal support.
Return to the problem you commissioned
Retrieve the original brief. Identify the observable situation, intended scope and expected responsibilities. “Better leadership” is too broad to assess. A recurring disagreement about which department can change a customer commitment is specific enough to investigate.
Write down what would count as evidence of progress and what would not. A well-received workshop may indicate that participants found the session useful. It does not establish that the decision disagreement was resolved. If the brief never distinguished these outcomes, acknowledge that gap before judging performance against a newly invented promise.
Check delivery separately from application
Use two columns. In the first, list the provider’s agreed actions and the evidence of delivery. In the second, list the organization’s agreed contributions and whether they occurred. Keep disputed entries marked as questions until reviewed. This is not a device for shifting blame to participants; it is a way to see which part of the engagement actually happened.
For example, a hypothetical team might receive a usable decision agreement but lack an authorized sponsor to resolve a contested boundary. Another might protect practice time but not receive the promised coaching. Both require action, but the same remedy will not fit both.
Evidence-review aid (AI-assisted editorial): The consultant deliverables and evidence pack contains fictional output samples and questions for clarifying unsupported proposal language. Use the examples to prepare questions, then examine your provider’s actual output against the real agreement. A sample cannot prove that work was delivered in your engagement or create a new acceptance requirement after the fact.
Look for a mismatch between the intervention and the constraint
A skill-building session cannot by itself remove contradictory targets, repair unavailable equipment or authorize a decision that company policy reserves elsewhere. Conversely, a process change does not necessarily develop a manager’s ability to coach an employee. Ask which conditions were examined and what evidence supports the current explanation.
The coaching, consulting and training comparison can help clarify the intended intervention. Do not turn that comparison into a diagnosis without examining the work.
Hold a review with four possible decisions
Bring a brief record: original problem, agreed actions, observed application, remaining obstacle and unresolved questions. Consider four decisions: continue the agreed work; narrow or redesign a bounded part; obtain evidence before deciding; or end the engagement through the agreed process. Record the reason, responsible owner and next review point.
If you redesign a part, specify what changes and what does not. The pilot guide provides a structure for testing a revised approach without assuming that more activity means more value. Do not extend merely because money has already been spent.
What if the engagement helped one team but not another?
Mixed-result example (AI-assisted editorial; fictional): Two departments receive the same handoff workshop. One protects practice time and resolves a disputed approval boundary; the other cannot release its managers or settle that boundary. A favorable account from the first department does not establish that the workshop will work everywhere. The second department’s unresolved problem also does not show that every part of the engagement should be abandoned. Record delivery, actual participation, application and operating conditions separately for each department.
Use that comparison to choose the next bounded decision. The first team might continue an agreed practice while the second first needs a sponsor’s decision, different support or more evidence. Those choices require examination with the responsible owners; the contrast alone does not prove which condition caused the result. Ask a provider proposing expansion to explain what must be present in the next setting and what evidence would justify proceeding. Keep the commercial review tied to the agreement. This example supports a selective review, not a claim of effectiveness, a personnel judgment or a recommendation to extend a contract.
Watch for reasons to pause
Pause expansion when nobody can state the current scope, required participation remains unavailable or results claims cannot be supported. Resolve access and confidentiality concerns through the appropriate owner. Keep the commercial conversation tied to the actual agreement rather than using this worksheet as a legal finding.
If you want a separate discussion of the operating situation, bring one recurring example to Shannon. A useful next conversation identifies what happened and what remains uncertain; it does not promise that replacing a provider will automatically solve the problem.
About this resource: Prepared with AI-assisted drafting. Examples and templates are illustrative, not reported client outcomes, a validated assessment or a substitute for required policies and qualified supervision.