Observable change, or it doesn’t count.
Coaching that cannot be reviewed against something concrete is difficult to justify and impossible to improve. This is the standard applied to every engagement.
What counts as a result.
A result is something a third party could notice. Not “the participant found it valuable” — that is satisfaction, not change.
Objectives and measures are agreed with the sponsor and the participant before an engagement begins, and reviewed at the midpoint and at close against those same measures. What follows is the kind of evidence used.
- Movement on a repeat Hogan 360°, where one was used at the outset.
- Specific behavioral change confirmed by the sponsor or by stakeholders.
- A decision, conversation or relationship that had been stuck, and is not.
- Team-level change: decision rights clarified, commitments held.
- Retention, promotion or successful transition — reported only where the organization attributes it and agrees to say so.
What an engagement typically looks like.
These are illustrative, not clients
The three examples below are constructed illustrations of the kind of work this practice does and how it is structured. They are not descriptions of real engagements, they are not anonymised clients, and nothing in them should be read as a claimed outcome. Actual client case studies are published only with permission and only where the change can be evidenced.
- The situation
- An excellent clinician is appointed medical director. Three months in, they are still doing clinical work at their previous intensity, chairing meetings that reach no decisions, and avoiding a conversation with a colleague whose behavior everyone else has noticed.
- What the sponsor wants
- The appointment to succeed. Specifically: decisions made at the right level, and the difficult conversation held.
- How the engagement is built
- Three-way contracting to agree those two measures. A Hogan 360° at the outset to establish how they are currently experienced. Higher-cadence coaching through the early months, then steadier. Midpoint and final review against the agreed measures.
- What change would look like
- Clinical sessions reduced deliberately rather than by exhaustion. Meetings ending with named owners. The avoided conversation held — and the relationship intact afterwards, which is the part that takes coaching.
- The situation
- A senior executive is technically excellent and over-prepares for every board meeting. They present exhaustive data, then watch a shorter, less complete argument carry the room.
- What the sponsor wants
- Their judgment to carry the weight it deserves — and to stop losing good decisions to better-framed ones.
- How the engagement is built
- Stakeholder input from board members and peers on how the leader is actually experienced. Coaching focused on framing: leading with the judgment call and the trade-off rather than the evidence trail. Real papers and real meetings, not simulations.
- What change would look like
- Shorter papers. A stated recommendation with the risk named. Fewer requests to “come back with more detail” — which is the observable signal that credibility has shifted.
- The situation
- Strategy is agreed and execution is fragmented. Clinical and corporate priorities compete openly. Trust is polite. The same three items return to the agenda every month without resolution.
- What the sponsor wants
- Decisions made once. Disagreement surfaced in the room rather than after it.
- How the engagement is built
- Sponsor and team-leader brief, then confidential discovery interviews with every member — themes reported, attributions never. A diagnostic played back to the team, facilitated sessions on the actual disagreements, individual coaching where two relationships are doing most of the damage, then written operating commitments.
- What change would look like
- Explicit decision rights. The recurring three items closed. A team that disagrees in the meeting instead of in the corridor afterwards.
Case studies from real engagements.
Published only with written permission, and only where the change can be evidenced. Anonymised is expected: Chief Medical Officer, regional health system carries more weight than a name used without consent.
Client case studies are published here as engagements conclude and permission is given. Each will carry the participant’s level and organization type, the objectives agreed at contracting, how the engagement was structured, what became observably different, and how that change was evidenced.
If you are evaluating the practice now and want to discuss real engagements, Alexandra can talk through relevant examples directly, within the confidentiality her clients are owed.
What leadership capability does your organization need next?
Share the context, the leaders involved and the change you want to see. Alexandra will respond personally to arrange a confidential introductory discussion.