In my HR work, I fulfilled the development schedule and its reporting requirements.
Managers had received leadership training and understood the content.
I saw improvements, but the lasting gains in management practice were modest relative to the learning acquired and the resources invested.
Alongside the program, I worked with managers on situations they were handling.
We examined how they understood a situation, reached a judgment and chose a response.
Leadership training can improve learning and its application.
[1] Program completion alone cannot show whether a manager’s practice has improved.
Examining how a manager assesses a situation
A conversation might begin with a small business observation, a concern about a team member or an imbalance between functions.
We explored how the manager understood it. Given their role, objectives, and the company’s circumstances, we questioned whether a familiar approach still made sense.
The discussion could reveal connections beyond the starting topic.
An explanation might rest on an untested assumption.
A proposed response might overlook something that changed how the situation should be handled.
The development work took place as we examined the manager’s judgment in an actual situation.
What another perspective contributes
The managers I worked with rarely made time to question their approach until serious warnings appeared.
Sitting together made that examination part of the working day.
The exchange mattered.
I could question an explanation and bring another perspective.
The manager could disagree, reconsider, or further develop their reasoning.
Knowing leadership concepts—or being an experienced leader—does not by itself establish the ability to develop another leader’s judgment.
That work requires understanding their business context and examining their reasoning without assuming your own interpretation is correct.
It means helping them notice connections, test assumptions and consider what these imply for their next decision.
In my practice, we moved between the immediate concern and the circumstances around it.
Recurring conversations gave us time to return to what happened and what still needed attention.
Development visible in everyday work
The most significant change I observed was that managers began questioning their own assessments and responses as situations unfolded, between our conversations.
They could catch an initial reaction, reconsider their interpretation and adjust how they proceeded.
The questioning we practiced together was becoming part of their everyday work.
Alongside this, I saw greater care in feedback and appraisals, and, for some, greater confidence.
A 2025 study distinguished leaders who tried to train skills from those who improved how they supported employees’ psychological needs. [2] Although specific to that behavior and setting, it illustrates why application and improvement need separate assessment.
To judge whether such changes represent development, examine how the reasoning and response fit the situation, what followed for the people and work involved, and whether improved practice recurs over time.
A pause or a favorable outcome alone is insufficient.
These changes matter to the business.
When a manager misreads performance, they can ask an employee to correct the wrong problem.
Their judgment shapes where people direct their effort.
Establishing how improved practice contributes to business results requires examining what followed, including other influences on the outcome.
The capability required of HR
Helping leaders build organizational and people capability is already part of HR business partnering. CIPD guidance includes understanding the business, using evidence and challenging leaders. [3]
The responsibility is established.
The capability still needs to be demonstrated.
Can HR understand a manager’s situation well enough to question their first explanation?Can it then explain what has improved in their practice, what supports that judgment and what still needs attention?
That includes recognizing difficulties that individual development cannot resolve.
Understanding the organizational context helps determine what needs to change.
HR also needs time, access and support to do this competently.
Follow-through means returning to practice: what the manager does differently, whether it helps and what still needs work.
What the organization accepts as evidence
An organization needs to examine how development is supported in daily work and whether improvement becomes visible there.
That applies to learning within a formal program and development that happens through working on actual situations.
Participation, attempted application and improvement in practice tell the organization different things.
Recording the conversations I describe would also document an activity.
Their value still needs to be judged through what managers subsequently do.
If an organization accepts participation as sufficient evidence, it can conclude that development has happened before examining whether practice improved.
Its confidence needs to rest on changes it can explain and substantiate in everyday work.
What do your managers now question for themselves that they previously took for granted?