Leadership development diagnostic

Purpose

Leadership feedback often goes to the lowest score, which rarely improves results. This skill finds the behavior change that most increases the leader's ability to get results through the system they lead. It develops one thing at a time, and it measures success by how much better the people around the leader perform, not only by the leader's own score.

When to use

• A leader asks for a development plan.
• A new manager is struggling in the role.
• A leader has been promoted to manage other managers.
• A promotion, development, or replacement decision is pending.
• A founder believes they have become the bottleneck.

Route elsewhere when:

• The question is team-wide key-person risk. Use bench-strength-and-succession.
• The question is how one sales call went. Use call-scoring.

Inputs

• The leader's role, time in role (at least thirty days), and the stage the role requires.
• Four to six weeks of calendar data, if the leader will share it.
• A multi-rater review: the leader's manager, peers, and direct reports.
• Access to observe real meetings, or recordings with consent.
• The leader's own answer on what they want in eighteen to twenty-four months.

Procedure

1. Set the purpose and stage. Choose the reason for the diagnostic: development, transition, readiness for the next role, or a baseline for a new leader. Place the leader on a stage ladder and name the transition they face.
2. Anchor in the leader's goal. Ask where they want to be in eighteen to twenty-four months, and what they are doing now toward it. Then ask what they have changed about how they lead in the past year, and what prompted it. The answers set the frame for the feedback.
3. Rule out the system first. Check whether the leader has the information, resources, and incentives the role needs. A behavior problem caused by a broken system is not fixed by coaching the person.
4. Gather four kinds of evidence:
   • time allocation from the calendar, compared with the standard for the stage,
   • a multi-rater review,
   • direct observation in real meetings,
   • a practice test: give specific feedback, observe a repeat attempt, and note what changed.
5. Analyze the evidence. For each competency, record the situation, the behavior, and the impact. Read the multi-rater review for blind spots, hidden strengths, overuse of a strength, and any behavior that gets worse under pressure. Compute the gap between actual time allocation and the stage standard.
6. Type the leader. Answer four questions:
   • What stage does the role require?
   • What stage is the leader operating at now?
   • What is blocking the move: skill, mindset, motivation, environment, or opportunity?
   • Which single change would most increase leverage? Separate "can they" from "will they". A skill gap calls for practice. A will gap calls for a conversation about what the leader wants.
7. Choose one headline priority by leverage, not by the size of the gap. Confirm it with the leader, using their own goal as the reason.
8. Deliver the feedback in a form the leader can hear. Lead with what they are already doing well, then the one priority, with evidence for each.
9. Set the ninety-day sprint. One behavior, one measure the people around the leader would notice, a practice schedule, and a review date.
10. Give a readiness verdict: promote, develop in role, or replace, with the reasons.

Output

• A one-page brief with the stage, the readiness verdict, the headline priority, and the evidence for each.
• The four-question typing.
• The ninety-day sprint: behavior, measure, practice plan, and review date.

Quality bar

The system is checked before the person. The headline priority is chosen by leverage. The brief cites evidence from at least three of the four sources. The sprint has one behavior and one measure others can see. Watch for a plan built on the lowest score, a verdict with no evidence behind it, and a development plan that ignores whether the leader wants the change.