A leadership development request for proposal should tell providers what needs to change in the work, who must participate and how you will judge the engagement. A request that only asks for a two-day course invites incomparable answers: one provider prices classroom time, another includes assessment and coaching, and neither knows which operating problem matters most.
The useful question for an HR or operations leader is simple: what are we buying, and what must our own team contribute? A short RFP can make that clear before the sales conversations begin. The guide to choosing a leadership consultant covers the broader selection decision; this template turns the problem into a brief providers can respond to.
Choose the right document (AI-assisted editorial): If you need a leadership initiative proposal for internal approval rather than a request for provider responses, use the leadership-development business-case brief. It helps record the decision requested, evidence, alternatives and resource commitments before money and time are approved. An RFP gathers supplier proposals; it does not replace your internal approval process.
Editable resource (AI-assisted editorial): Download the leadership development RFP template for Word to prepare a client brief, request comparable provider responses and record proposal clarifications. Replace the bracketed prompts and expand the response space to fit your purchase. The three-page document covers sponsor authority, internal participation, delivery staffing, phase scope, fees, exclusions and the selection rationale. It is a discussion aid, not a contract, approved budget or validated provider ranking. Keep confidential personnel and customer records in your organization’s approved systems.
1. Describe the business situation without diagnosing it prematurely
Start with a situation the leadership team recognizes. 'Our managers need accountability' leaves too much open to interpretation. 'Cross-functional commitments are repeatedly reopened because teams disagree about the next decision' gives the discussion a place to begin. Include the work affected, who is involved, what you have already tried and what remains uncertain. That is enough to begin discovery without pretending the cause is settled.
Copyable prompt: Our priority is [operating outcome]. The recurring situation is [work example]. We have observed [evidence] over [period]. We have tried [previous action]. We need help determining whether the constraint involves capability, shared expectations, authority, workflow or another condition. These observations are our starting evidence, not a confirmed root cause.
Need still unconfirmed? (AI-assisted editorial): Use the leadership needs-assessment guide to record the required behavior, observed work, operating conditions, consequence and next question before specifying a course. If authority or information is missing, name that unresolved condition in the brief rather than treating a training request as an established diagnosis.
2. Specify participants, sponsorship and working constraints
Identify the leader who can sponsor the work and resolve competing priorities. Describe the management levels, locations, shifts and relevant working conditions. State the time leaders can realistically protect for observation, practice and review. A proposal that assumes every supervisor can leave operations for a full day may not fit an organization that cannot provide coverage.
Participation access check (AI-assisted editorial): Ask providers how participants will use materials, join discussions and practise the proposed activities, not only whether they can attend. W3C's accessible-events checklist highlights accessible documents, captions, platforms, venues and advance materials. In your RFP, request the arrangements relevant to your group, who coordinates them, any additional cost or lead time, and how an alternative activity would preserve the learning goal. Use your approved internal process to discuss individual needs rather than including personal health details in a supplier brief. This is a planning prompt, not a claim of accessibility certification or a promise about what a Lean Leaders Plus engagement includes.
Ask each respondent to distinguish provider responsibilities from internal responsibilities. Who supplies data? Who arranges observations? Who coaches participants between sessions? Who decides when a recommendation conflicts with existing policy? Keep confidential personnel and customer information out of the initial brief; use approved arrangements if sensitive evidence is needed later.
Supplier-tool questions (AI-assisted editorial): If a provider plans to use AI to draft, summarize or analyze engagement information, ask which activities it will support, what approved information it would receive and who will check important findings before your team acts. Agree permitted tools and data with your responsible internal owners before sharing material. The AI drafting-and-review buying guide separates producing an output from verifying evidence and approving release. Request specific answers in the proposal; this is not a claim that Lean Leaders Plus uses AI on client records or that a tool is approved for your organization.
Before consolidating training suppliers, what needs must stay covered?
Coverage check (AI-assisted editorial): Map each supported development need to a role, work behavior and delivery requirement before reducing the supplier list. For each need, record what the current catalog or internal team supplies, what a retained provider would supply, and the evidence behind that answer. Name the relevant activity, practice and review rather than treating a matching course title as complete coverage. Mark an unconfirmed answer as unknown.
Fictional worked example: An existing learning platform provides feedback concepts and knowledge checks for supervisors. A separate facilitator provides observed feedback practice. Removing that facilitator leaves a practice requirement unresolved unless a retained provider or an appropriately prepared internal colleague can supply it. A course remaining in the catalog does not settle that question. Record who must confirm the replacement, its availability and any added work or cost before recommending the change. These invented arrangements are not client results or a claim about any platform.
CDC training-needs guidance recommends reviewing existing training against learner needs. Its setting is public-health training, not supplier consolidation. The coverage check here is an editorial application for the purchasing discussion, not a validated supplier score. Take unresolved needs into the RFP and review proposed supplier changes with your procurement owner; fewer suppliers alone does not establish savings or better development.
3. Request an approach, not just a curriculum
The response should explain how the provider will understand the starting condition, agree priorities, support practice in real work and review what changes. It should distinguish the parts that adapt to your setting from the parts that are fixed. A work-based structure such as the Discover, Plan, Execute, Evaluate approach is one example, not a universal specification. The important point is the connection between discovery, practice and review.
Request tangible outputs: a shared problem definition, agreed observable behaviors, a practice plan, review checkpoints and a handover of responsibilities. Ask what the team should be able to continue without the provider. Slide decks and attendance records may be deliverables, but they are not evidence of sustained application.
Internal-delivery check (AI-assisted editorial): If your own facilitators must teach future groups, include that requirement in the brief; attending participant training is not the same assignment. CDC's training-of-trainers overview describes modeled delivery, practice teaching, feedback and follow-up in a public-health education setting. Ask respondents to separate facilitator preparation from participant sessions: who is prepared, what delivery guidance they receive, how they rehearse with feedback, who reviews readiness and what later support is included. Confirm which activities your internal team would actually lead. This is a proposal-comparison prompt, not a claim that Lean Leaders Plus offers a train-the-trainer package or that CDC endorses a provider.
Combined-service proposal check (AI-assisted editorial): If executive coaching is included in a wider transformation proposal, use the coaching, consulting and training comparison to separate participant practice from sponsor responsibilities. Ask what progress information the sponsor will receive, what remains confidential and who must address operating constraints.
4. Make scope and pricing comparable
Have every respondent separate preparation, assessment, facilitated sessions, coaching, materials, travel and other expenses. Ask for assumptions, exclusions, change conditions and the internal time required. Share a budget range if your procurement process permits it, or require clearly separated options. Do not compare a narrow workshop fee with a longer engagement as if they buy the same work.
Copyable response requirement: For each proposed phase, state the purpose, participants, provider effort, internal effort, output, review point, price and exclusions. Identify conditions that would change scope or timeline. Explain how unresolved findings would be handled without an automatic extension.
What if a proposal assumes time your managers cannot supply?
A proposal is not comparable while its internal participation assumptions remain unworkable. Ask the provider to name the preparation, practice and review time required from each role, then have the sponsor confirm what can actually be protected. The consulting cost comparison helps distinguish provider fees from that internal commitment—neither disappears because the purchase is described as training.
Participation worksheet (AI-assisted editorial): Download the participation-capacity planner (Excel, no sign-up) to compare required and protected hours for each role or group in the same period. It flags missing inputs, exact duplicate group/period labels and uncovered hours; spare time in one group does not cancel another group’s shortage. Review overlapping participation and confirm assumptions with the sponsor. The arithmetic does not approve staffing, scheduling or provider fit. Keep populated copies in your organization’s approved systems.
If the available time does not fit, request an explicitly narrower scope or different sequence rather than accepting the original promise with less support. In an illustrative small-business brief, the owner may also be the participant and daily decision-maker. The small-business consulting guide examines that capacity constraint. Record what each revised option excludes so the purchasing team is still comparing the work, not just a lower quote.
Did every proposal use the same clarified brief?
Clarification example (AI-assisted editorial; fictional): The original request does not say whether managers need a follow-up review. One respondent asks and prices the review after receiving clarification; another prices only the session. The different totals cannot establish which provider offers better value while the comparison uses different assumptions. Distinguish a common requirement from a supplier's proposed alternative.
Use the clarification and communication process your procurement owner permits. Record the question, approved answer, brief version, affected requirement and response point. Where a common requirement changes, have the authorized owner decide how the applicable clarification reaches respondents and how their revised answers will be compared. Keep supplier-confidential material in its proper channel rather than circulating a competitor's proposal. A question being answered is not approval to expand scope or bypass purchasing rules.
What should a proposal disclose about recommended vendors?
Independence check (AI-assisted editorial): If a consultant recommends a paid assessment, software platform or another provider, ask whether they receive a commission, referral payment or other benefit connected with that choice, and whether they have a financial interest in the recommended service. Have the respondent explain which recommendations involve that relationship and what alternatives were considered. Keep that disclosure separate from the evidence that the proposed product fits the work.
IMC USA’s ethics code addresses conflicts of interest and third-party benefits for its members and Certified Management Consultants. Use that published code as a reference for the purchasing questions, not a universal legal obligation or a Lean Leaders Plus credential claim. Route disclosed relationships and any proposed consent through your procurement owner before committing. Disclosure alone does not establish whether the recommendation is suitable. If the response is incomplete, record the open question and seek clarification instead of inferring a conflict or accepting a general assurance of independence.
5. Agree evaluation criteria before reviewing proposals
Agree what will matter in the selection before the proposals arrive: understanding of the problem, relevant experience, realistic participant demands, support for application and transparent cost. Use the same criteria for each response. A simple internal scale from 'not addressed' to 'specific and supported' can expose missing information. It is a discussion aid, not a validated ranking of providers, and a high score does not replace judgment about fit.
Ask shortlisted providers to discuss one real, appropriately anonymized operating situation. Request a reference conversation about a comparable engagement and ask what changed, what the client had to contribute and what remained difficult. A persuasive presentation is not a substitute for checking fit and evidence.
Do three case-study links mean three separate engagements?
Evidence-reading example (AI-assisted editorial; fictional): A proposal points to a provider case page, a client interview and a summary published by a third party. All three describe the same team, work and review period. That is one engagement described through three sources, not evidence of three separate client engagements. Check what each source actually adds and whether it contains independent reporting or repeats another account. Ask the respondent which engagements are distinct, who supplied the evidence and what was independently checked. Keep repeated accounts together while retaining genuinely additional observations. Counting links does not establish how many situations the provider has handled, how reliable the evidence is or whether your team should expect the same result.
How should you handle an incomplete proposal?
Proposal comparison note (AI-assisted editorial): Do not treat a missing answer as an included service or a zero cost. Ask whether the item is excluded, requires a separate price or simply has not been answered. For example, if follow-up coaching is not specified, clarify the proposed sessions, participant commitment, support period and price before comparing that response with one that includes coaching. Use the clarification process permitted by your procurement rules, record the revised scope and keep unresolved assumptions visible. If a required input remains unconfirmed, explain that limit in the selection discussion rather than letting a total score conceal it.
Who will actually deliver the engagement?
Buyer guidance (AI-assisted editorial): Ask respondents to distinguish the person presenting the proposal from the people who will conduct discovery, facilitate sessions, coach managers and lead reviews. Request relevant experience for those actual delivery roles, not just the firm's general credentials. Have the provider state which assignments and availability are confirmed and which remain provisional. A strong sales conversation does not establish who will work with your team.
Copyable response requirement: For each delivery role, identify the proposed person or team, responsibilities, relevant experience, expected involvement and any unconfirmed availability. Explain how a staffing change would be communicated, how continuity would be maintained and which client decision would be needed before the change. Use the same questions for each provider and route the actual agreement through your normal procurement process. This is an editorial comparison prompt, not a mandated contract clause or a provider certification.
Worked response comparison (AI-assisted editorial): The development procurement example connects a fictional business case, supplier request and response comparison. Use the response section to practise identifying which assumptions and unanswered items must be clarified before selection. It supplements the blank RFP worksheet; its fictional responses are not provider ratings, quotations or approved purchasing decisions.
What should a finished RFP accomplish?
You should be able to explain the problem being investigated, the decisions the engagement must support, the responsibilities on both sides and the evidence you will review. If those remain unclear, improve the brief before collecting more proposals. The RFP has done its job when your team can compare the work being offered and explain why one approach fits the situation better.
What happens after you choose a provider?
Selecting a provider is not the same as agreeing to the work. Convert the chosen proposal into a leadership consulting statement of work that names deliverables, client-side prerequisites, review points and change approval. This template is a discussion aid, not a legal contract; route the actual agreement through your procurement process and qualified advisers.
Agree who will maintain the work after outside support ends before the engagement begins. The consulting handover plan helps specify owners, usable records and a rehearsal of the routine. Requesting handover in the RFP does not establish that the team can sustain it; make that a question to examine during the work.
If you want to discuss whether the need is individual development or a wider leadership-system issue, book a conversation with Shannon. Bring the problem brief, not a commitment to buy a program.
Inquiry option (AI-assisted editorial): If you want to discuss the brief before choosing a meeting time, send a non-confidential RFP-fit inquiry. Include the operating situation, proposed participants, sponsor availability and the decision the engagement should support. This starts a fit-and-scope discussion; it does not submit a procurement bid or commit either side to an engagement.
About this resource: Prepared with AI-assisted drafting from published leadership guidance. The template is illustrative, not a validated procurement assessment or a contract. Cover illustration: AI-generated.