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.
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.
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.
Decide what to build internally and what to buy
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.
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
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.
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.
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.