Realistic practice. Relevant challenges. An honest picture of what comes next.

What post-session feedback can tell us.

The Year 2 evaluation pools voluntary feedback from three modules delivered between February and May 2026 to Level 1 and Level 2 leaders. It includes 50 survey responses; the number of responses varies by question. These are response records across modules, not a confirmed count of unique leaders.

The results are self-reported and have no pre-program baseline. They show reaction and perceived confidence, not independently verified behaviour change or a measured improvement at 90 days.

The response rate relative to attendance was modest. Read these findings as directional signals, not as a representative measurement of the entire cohort.

The difference between seeing a conversation and practising one.

The strongest-rated design element was the comparison of ineffective and effective conversations: 80% strongly agreed that the scenes showed this distinction. That item averaged 4.78 out of 5.

Other strengths in the pooled design ratings, with 37 to 50 responses per item:

• Psychologically safe environment: 74% strongly agreed; average rating 4.71 out of 5.
• Identifying behaviours to improve: 68% strongly agreed; average rating 4.65 out of 5.
• Practice strengthened ability to apply the tools: 63% strongly agreed; average rating 4.53 out of 5.

The evaluation reports that 95% said the sessions addressed real leadership challenges. That is a relevance result, not a 95% adoption or behaviour-change rate.

Confidence is softer when the pressure is real.

Participants' self-rated confidence was less emphatic in the high-pressure moments. These items had 11 to 25 responses each.

The share strongly agreeing with the confidence items was:

• Creating psychological safety under pressure: 36%.
• Responding to pushback: 38%.
• Modelling accountability after trust is broken: 40%.

Relevance is the start, not the finish.

The evaluation reports 75% strongly committed to applying their habit. Written comments asked for more realistic pressure, more practice opportunities, and reference tools after the sessions.

The next phase should focus on reinforcement and measuring what happens back at work, rather than treating a positive session rating as proof of sustained change.

Practise the pressure moments. Then measure the change.

The evaluation recommends:

• Senior leaders model it: make responses under pressure part of the leadership team's own work.
• More practice: target safety under pressure, pushback, and accountability after trust breaks.
• Reinforcement after the room: put the Leadership Playbook and Conversation Coach into daily use and prepare cases before sessions.
• Behavioural measurement: add pre- and post-measures and a 90-day manager check. These are recommended future measures, not completed results.
• Better survey coverage: build feedback time into the session close.

Transparent about what we know.

Prepared from the September 2026 Year 2 evaluation summary, based on voluntary Typeform post-session feedback from February to May 2026. Content was identical across leadership levels, so responses were pooled. One out-of-range response of 6 on a 5-point scale was counted as 5.

The client is anonymized here. The confidential source report and participant comments are not reproduced. Self-reported reaction and confidence should not be presented as observed workplace behaviour change.