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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.