Leadership "Regenerative Legacy Design" Pilot Program?Results - Significantly Outperforming Leadership Industry Standards Even With Hampered Program

Just How Effective can a Leadership "Regenerative Legacy Design" Program be in Comparison with Traditional Leadership Develop Programs?

Well, I had a Client who wanted to Know the Answer to that Question.

We have been running a Pilot Program with their Organization for about 10 Months Now.

I gave them my Original Full Proposal for what a Leadership "Regenerative Legacy Design" Program "Should" Look Like.

Now, due to several factors, I was Not allowed to Design the Program to my Original Standards.

However, I am always open to Meeting Clients where they are Able, and working with what they are Comfortable with.

So, I was allowed to run this Pilot Program with a Significant Number of Alterations.

Before we began the Pilot Program, I discussed with the Client "Exactly" what the Likely Results would be, based on the Numerous Alterations to the Program.

Looking at the Results - 100% of my Predictions about the Challenges that would be Experienced ended up being True.

I was given only a small set of Lower and Middle Managers - a Sample Size of 28 Leaders (Numbers Fluctuated due to Turnover at the Organization, but by the Program's End 28 Remained).

The Total Number of Employees at the Organization is around 300, so we were working with about 10% of the Organization.

Now, this Sample Size is Relatively Small, and as I am "Always" Honest and Open about Understanding Science/Data, this Sample Size may not be Perfectly Replicated.

In Scientific Research, they would say "There is a High Correlation based on the Data" and that "Results Appear to Be Replicatable, but Should be Studied Further in the Future to Ensure Validity", which is still Enough to say things like, "Proven to be Effective At...", even when Studies are Not Replicated Yet.

We knew and discussed that there would be several Challenges that would occur due to Upper Management Not Participating.

In my work, I call this "Being an Exemplar".

When Upper Level Leaders refuse to do what they expect of Lower Level Leaders, it will create things like Resentment or the Inability to Fully Solve Solutions that Require Upper Management as they are not "On the Same Program".

We see the "Exact" same Problem Occurring with the Return-To-Office "Mandates".

Many Upper Level Leaders are refusing to go into the Office Themselves, creating Larger Problems among Employees and Worsening the Already Horrible Discontent.

We were also aware that there were Limitations to what was Within these Leaders' Ability to Control.

When working with Lower Level Leaders, there are Certain Decisions they are Unable/Not Allowed to Make.

These known limitations required us to look for Workarounds within what was in their control.

Another Alteration was that I was not allowed to Host any Online Solutions - No Zoom Meetings, No Lesson Banks, etc.

Everything we did was In-Person.

Some of the Results would be Exactly the Same with the Use of Technology - Like Zoom (As Long as You Know How to Effectively Do Sessions Via Zoom).

Other Results could be Significantly Magnified with Online Solutions - Like Lessons Banks that All Leaders Could Have Access To for Immediate and Targeted Learning.

Another Limitation is that there were a Number of Leaders who were Forced to Participate in this Pilot Program.

The unfortunate thing for me is that I can't "Make" anyone Grow.

When people Refuse to Grow, there is Nothing I can do for them except be an Exemplar for "Why" Growth is Beneficial and help others who "Do" want to Grow Become Exemplars.

Due to this, some Individuals Refused to Participate in the Program and there were even Individuals who Regularly "Missed" Sessions.

Now this isn't necessarily "Bad" - as Not Everyone is Ready to become a Leader, or has a Desire to become a Leader.

It is Important for Organizations to Identify which Leaders want to Grow, which Leaders are Content where they are, which Leaders are Discontent, and which Individuals do Not want to be Leaders.

Especially in Larger Organizations, Everyone has a Role, and not Every Role "Should" be Large.

Even making certain Leaders More Effective has Benefits.

Another Large Hindrance that I encountered was that I had to have a Translator for many of the Sessions as there was a Language Barrier with many of the Leaders in this Group.

This did create Communication Challenges, and sometimes made High-Level Concepts Challenging to Get Across (Ask someone to Translate "Ceruloplasmin" and You'll Understand)

These are things I made everyone aware of Prior to beginning these Sessions.

But what were the Results?

Even with a Severely Hampered Program, how did it Perform?

Well, let's Start by comparing it to the Leadership Development Industry Standards.

I encountered some of the same Problems in Leadership Development Programs (which I no longer do), such as having Individuals who did not Desire to Grow.

The Leadership Development Industry's "Success" Rate is Abysmally Low.

Leadership Development "Fails" 80% of the Time Completely.

With an Overestimated Percentage, we can say that there is "True Success" only 10% of the Time.

Here, we are Defining "True Success" as a Graded Level of A/B Average graded by Leaders taking the Program.

The "True Success" Rate with our Hampered Leadership "Regenerative Legacy Design" Pilot Program?

Approximately 40% "True Success" Level, while "Still" Including the Individuals who Refused to Participate or Regularly Missed.

If we Include a Graded Level of C/D Averages, the Pilot Program also Out-Performed on "Some Success".

The Leadership Development Industry Standard for C/D Averages with "Some Success" we can Estimate to be the Missing 10%.

For our Pilot Program, we were between 30% - 40% of "Some Success".

This means that, even with the Cards Stacked Against the Program, we had a 70% to 80% "Overall Success" Rate.

We Basically Flipped the Percentage of the Leadership Development Industry Standard, while "Still" Including People Who Actively Did Not Want to Grow/Actively Avoided Sessions.

This is also True "With" Communication Barriers that had to be Overcome.

What Else Occurred?

We went through "All" of the Leadership Topics that we Discussed in these Sessions over the 10 Month Period of the Pilot.

For Context - if you did Traditional Leadership Development, you'd be "Lucky" to Address 1 Topic Every Week, Without Ever Needing to Repeat Topics for Further Clarity.

If you Listed them all out, you'd get about 40 Lessons, most of them General Lessons, which would be Unable to Touch on Specific Problems Leaders were Experiencing.

This could Fill up about 2 Pages of Paper.

Our List?

We Filled Up 15 Pages of Lessons the Leaders Underwent, All of which were "Specific" to their Current Problems which they Could, and Did, Immediately Implement.

Many of the Lessons we not only Learned, but we Frequently Re-Learned Topics on this list and Applied them in New Situations as they arose.

Not only this, but "Because" these Lessons were Applied Immediately, there were Cross-Trainings that Occurred between Leaders as they Improved Communication with each other.

Traditionally, you have 1 Person Teaching a Class of Individuals where each class has less than 5 people gaining Relevant Information.

We had 1 Primary Coach (Myself) with nearly 30 people Teaching and Encouraging each Other with Lessons, all of which were 100% Relevant.

Lessons were not only Learned, but they were further Solidified within a Learning Culture.

What else Happened?

Well, this group had been through Years of Traditional Leadership.

However, when I met with them, 100% of these Leaders were Drowning in Dis-Stress they could not Handle, Burnout, and Discontent.

All "Despite" having "Years" of Traditional Leadership Development.

However, after 10 Months of our Pilot Program?

Over 80% of Dis-Stress was Completely Resolved.

Frequently we had Leaders Reporting "No Stress" or "I had a Stressor but Solved It Already".

We also saw, for the first time in the History of this Organization, Middle and Lower Level Leaders Thinking About the Future of the Organization, and Innovating Solutions to Help the Organization as a Whole.

Not only were these Leaders Fixing their Own Challenges with their Teams, but they were Actively Looking to Help and Successfully Helping Other Teams Improve as well!

For the First Time in the History of the Organization, Innovative Changes were being Driven from the Grass-Root Level.

"That" is the Power of Regenerative Legacy Design.

Even with an "Extremely" Hampered Program, the Results Were Tremendous.

This is "Why" I Constantly Talk about Regenerative Legacy Design.

It is "Everything" that Leadership Development is Missing, and Why I "Refuse" to Do It Anymore. Regenerative Legacy Design is the Solution that Leaders "Need".

Regenerative Legacy Design is "How" Leaders Change the World.