A leadership development program is a connected series of learning and work experiences designed to develop specified leadership practices. It is not simply a calendar of courses. Each part should prepare people for something they will attempt, receive feedback on and use again. For the company buying or building the program, the design question is: how do these experiences fit together?
Editorial note: This resource was prepared with AI-assisted drafting and editorial review. The design approach and example below are illustrative guidance, not a validated curriculum, a reported client engagement or a fixed Lean Leaders Plus package.
Start with a development priority, not a course catalog
First decide which leaders need to do what differently and why that matters to the work. A program cannot resolve an undecided organizational priority. Use the leadership development strategy guide for that upstream decision. Program design begins once the sponsor can name a reasonably bounded practice and the people expected to use it.
Write the entry condition and the intended exit capability. An entry condition might be managers who already allocate routine work but struggle to delegate exceptions. The intended capability might be agreeing what a colleague can decide independently, recognizing when an exception needs escalation and reviewing the decision without taking the work back. That is more specific than a program on leadership excellence.
Design the learning sequence around dependencies
Ask what a participant must understand or be able to do before the next practice makes sense. Someone cannot rehearse a useful escalation conversation if the decision boundary is still unclear. Equally, presenting a feedback model before there is an actual attempt to review can leave people practicing words without a relevant situation.
For each proposed module, complete this sentence: participants need this now because the next work assignment requires it. Remove or defer a module if its place in the sequence has no clear answer. A comprehensive topic list is not necessarily a coherent learning path; adding content also consumes the time needed to use what is already included.
The Center for Creative Leadership’s public leadership development best-practice guidance emphasizes development beyond a single event, connection to job challenges and support for application. Those broad principles inform this resource. The sequence and design brief here are our editorial illustrations, not CCL’s curriculum or an endorsement of Lean Leaders Plus.
Give each module a job before choosing its format
Describe the output before deciding whether to use a workshop, course, peer group or coaching conversation. One module might produce a draft delegation agreement. Another might help a participant examine an authorized example from work and revise that agreement. The output creates a reason for the next activity; the format is selected to help produce it.
Instruction can introduce a shared distinction. Demonstration and rehearsal can make an unfamiliar conversation less abstract. A work assignment provides an appropriate opportunity to try it. Feedback helps the participant examine the attempt. These activities need not have equal duration or appear in every module, but the program designer should explain why an activity is included or omitted.
If a proposal organizes those activities around learning percentages, use the 70-20-10 leadership development guide to examine the connected work and support before interpreting the numbers as a time allocation or fee split.
Distinguish shared learning from individual work. A cohort can discuss the same decision model while participants apply it in different situations. Do not require everyone to carry out an identical project simply because it is easy to administer. Check that the assignments demand the intended practice rather than rewarding whoever happens to have the easiest operating conditions.
Mixed-level design example (AI-assisted editorial; fictional): A company wants supervisors and department heads to make clearer commitments. A shared learning session could introduce the expected result, owner and decision boundary, while the work assignments differ. A supervisor practices agreeing one suitable team handoff within the existing operating standard. A department head practices settling a priority conflict with another department through the authorized decision route. Each needs feedback from someone who understands that work; the same completed worksheet would not make the assignments equivalent. Before buying, ask the provider to show one participant path for each management level: what is shared, what differs, who reviews the assignment and what support your organization must supply. This is a design illustration, not a required hierarchy of courses, a participant-ranking method or a claim that a provider includes these adaptations.
Distinguish shadowing from a rotational assignment
Method distinction (AI-assisted editorial): The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Talent Development Glossary describes a rotational assignment as development away from an employee’s current position, while shadowing involves observing a federal leader at work. These are federal-context definitions, not a rule for every employer or evidence that either method is better. Ask what the participant will actually do before treating the labels as equivalent.
Fictional design example: A manager is learning how another department handles exceptions. In a shadowing assignment, the manager watches an experienced owner review requests and asks about the information and trade-offs behind the decisions. The learning output is an explanation of those observations, checked with the host. A rotational assignment instead needs a brief naming temporary work to be performed in the host area; its review examines a suitable attempt at that work. A visit or attendance record does not show that the participant performed the role.
Ask the supplier to show how the review fits the proposed assignment. An observation review asks what the participant noticed, how they checked their interpretation and what they will examine next. A work-assignment review examines what the participant attempted against the agreed work expectations. The host’s work supervision and the provider’s developmental reflection may be different responsibilities. Specify the arrangement being bought rather than accepting cross-functional exposure as a complete description. This is an illustrative design comparison, not a validated assessment, promotion-readiness test or a promised Lean Leaders Plus program.
Decide who needs to practice together
Cohort-composition example (AI-assisted editorial; fictional): An organization is developing the same delegation practice in managers from six independent branches. A cross-branch learning group could compare attempts while each manager applies the practice locally. If the problem is an unresolved handoff between sales and operations, putting those managers into the same learning cohort does not itself settle the handoff. The actual upstream and downstream owners still need an authorized conversation about their joint work. These are different grouping decisions, not a rule that same-team or cross-team cohorts are better.
Record the participant group against each activity in the design brief, rather than using a single attendance list for the whole program. For this fictional example, peer rehearsal might involve managers from several branches, while a handoff review might require the relevant sales and operations owners and someone authorized to settle an unresolved operating decision. Clarify what those owners must contribute before committing their time. This is a design illustration, not a promised program arrangement or an outcome claim.
Can the group size support the promised feedback?
Planning calculator (AI-assisted editorial): Download the individual-feedback session calculator (Excel, no sign-up) to check participants, repeated attempts, parallel facilitators, practice and feedback time, and shared session time. It assigns whole attempts and displays the minimum elapsed time under its stated assumptions. The sample inputs are fictional. A result that fits the time does not establish learning quality, participant suitability or an approved staffing arrangement; ask the provider to confirm the actual delivery sequence.
Feedback-capacity example (AI-assisted editorial; fictional): A proposal promises 12 managers a separate ten-minute rehearsal and five-minute individual feedback conversation with the same facilitator during one 90-minute session. If each rehearsal and review requires that facilitator’s undivided attention and happens sequentially, the promise requires 12 × 15 = 180 facilitator-minutes before instruction, transitions or breaks. Those activities do not fit into 90 minutes with one facilitator. This is illustrative planning arithmetic, not a recommended group size, session length or Lean Leaders Plus package.
Ask the provider to sketch the delivery sequence and identify which activities run in parallel, who observes each attempt and whose feedback each participant actually receives. Peer review, additional facilitators or separate review appointments may change the capacity calculation, but they are different arrangements to examine, not interchangeable promises of individual facilitator attention. Confirm staffing, participant time and any separately priced support. Evaluate whether the proposed review fits the learning task rather than treating the participant count alone as a quality score.
A worked example: connect delegation, escalation and review
Consider a fictional regional distribution business developing newly appointed managers. They frequently pull routine exceptions back from team leaders. The sponsor has already clarified which decisions may be delegated; changing those limits is outside this program. The design challenge is to help managers use the agreed boundaries consistently, not create a new operating policy.
The opening activity asks each manager to examine one suitable delegation decision and identify what remained ambiguous. A short shared session then distinguishes the expected result, the team leader’s decision space and the conditions for escalation. Participants rehearse explaining those boundaries and receive feedback on whether another person can restate them clearly.
The first work assignment is to agree one appropriate delegation with a team leader under the existing policy. The participant brings an approved, non-sensitive account of the discussion to a review. If the decision boundary could not be explained, the next step is clarification and another attempt, not automatically moving on because the session date has passed.
The next learning activity uses an exception from the assignment to practice an escalation conversation. Participants compare what information was needed, who could decide and what response kept ownership clear. Later, they review a subsequent attempt and explain what they changed. A final discussion examines whether the practice can be used without the program facilitator directing every step.
This is a design illustration, not a recommended number of sessions, a universal sequence or an outcome claim. A different starting capability could require a different order. The useful feature is the dependency: each activity supplies something the following work or review actually needs.
Can a new manager join a leadership program after it starts?
Late-entry check (AI-assisted editorial): Before buying a cohort program, ask how a newly appointed manager or replacement participant can enter after the first session. Separate a spare seat from readiness for the next assignment. Which earlier concepts and work outputs are essential, who reviews them, and what catch-up support is included in the fee? Ask whether joining later changes the timetable or requires a separately agreed purchase; do not assume the same attendance allowance means the same learning opportunity.
For a fictional extension of the distribution example, a manager joins before the escalation session but has not prepared a delegation agreement. Giving them the previous slides does not establish that prerequisite. The designer could arrange preparation and a review of an appropriate agreement before the next activity, if the organization and provider can support it. If that cannot happen in time, agree a later entry point rather than quietly removing the prerequisite. Name who checks readiness and communicates the revised plan. This is an illustrative design choice, not a promised catch-up service, an employee-selection test or evidence of a training result.
Decide what to build internally and what to buy
Repeated-delivery comparison (AI-assisted editorial): Download the training delivery cost calculator (Excel, no sign-up) to compare external delivery with internal preparation and repeated cohorts. Enter your own assumptions; the input fields are blank. It separates cash, internal hours and staff-time value, and shows a whole-cohort crossover only where the entered costs support one. The arithmetic does not establish training quality, facilitator readiness, a saving you will realize or terms offered by Lean Leaders Plus. Compare the delivery work and support as well as the costs.
Carry forward the responsibilities agreed in the strategy. The program design brief should now state who writes, delivers and maintains each learning component, whether it is created internally or supplied from outside.
An internal design may make sense where the capability is understood, facilitators can teach and review it credibly, and time exists to develop and test the materials. Buying a defined module may help when a suitable method already exists and the team can integrate it. A custom design may be worth considering when the learning sequence must accommodate different roles or operating contexts. None of those choices removes the need to inspect actual fit.
Buying option (AI-assisted editorial): To compare ready-made offerings before commissioning a design, review the leadership development program examples by participant profile, learning work and time commitment.
Compare the same outputs rather than labels such as custom or turnkey. Ask who diagnoses the starting capability, writes the assignments, prepares managers, facilitates practice, provides feedback and revises materials after the pilot. Distinguish a content license from facilitator preparation and from delivery support. A low course price does not answer what your internal team must still create or administer.
Ask to see how one proposed module connects to the preceding and following work. A sample agenda can show topics and timings without demonstrating that connection. Have the provider walk through an assignment, the evidence it produces and how the next activity uses it. This is a purchasing question, not a claim that any particular supplier includes those services.
Write a program design brief that others can challenge
Editable planning sheet (AI-assisted editorial): Use the leadership program sequence planner (Word, one page, no sign-up) to record each module's prerequisite, learning activity, authorized work assignment, output and review. Add or remove rows to match your design, and name what must be ready before moving to the next module. Keep completed copies with personnel or operating details private. The sheet supports the brief below; it is not a validated curriculum or employee assessment.
Participants and starting capability: State who the program is for, what they already need to know and which practice they are developing. Note material differences within the group that may require a separate assignment or pathway. Do not use a broad audience label as the whole design specification.
Learning sequence and work outputs: For each module, name the capability, its prerequisite, the learning activity, the work assignment and the output reviewed next. If the sequence depends on a real decision occurring, describe what happens when that opportunity is delayed. Avoid filling the gap with an unrelated exercise and calling it equivalent practice.
Feedback and delivery responsibilities: Name who can observe or review the work appropriately, who facilitates shared learning and who resolves questions about operating authority. Specify the support the organization supplies and the support being bought. Use the training-transfer follow-up plan to work through the participant-manager agreement rather than duplicating it in the course outline.
Design review and revision: State how you will inspect the sequence before wider delivery. Check whether instructions can be understood, assignments can actually occur and reviewers can give useful feedback. Record the changes needed and the owner of each. Keep an unresolved design issue visible instead of treating a finished presentation as a finished program.
Delivery-design cases (AI-assisted editorial): The training access, continuity and transfer pack offers participation-requirement prompts, a supplier-substitution review and a fictional workplace-application case. Use the relevant case to challenge whether a proposed delivery change preserves the learning task and its support. It supplements the sequence planner; it does not certify accessibility, approve a supplier change or promise equivalent learning results.
Test the connections before expanding the program
A design review can expose a missing prerequisite without running an entire cohort. Walk through one participant’s path from the starting situation to the final work output. Ask what information, permission and practice opportunity each transition needs. If a required decision sits with someone outside the program, settle it before promising that the learning sequence will deliver the capability.
When the design is ready for a bounded real-world test, use the leadership development pilot guide to decide what the test should learn and what would justify expansion. A pilot can show that an assignment is impractical or support is insufficient; that is useful design information, not something to hide behind a completion rate.
The practical first deliverable is a connected design brief, not a larger collection of materials. A buyer should be able to explain why each part is there, what it prepares people to do next and who will help them examine the attempt. If those connections are unclear, improve the design before commissioning more content.
When the design is ready for supplier responses, use the leadership development RFP template to request comparable outputs, internal responsibilities, fees and exclusions.
About this resource: AI-assisted editorial guidance informed by the linked public CCL article, published January 30, 2025. The example is fictional; no proprietary CCL curriculum is reproduced, no affiliation is implied and no training result is guaranteed. Cover illustration: AI-generated.