By: Eva Keller
The program ends well. Participants rate it highly, say they learned something about themselves, and head back to work. Then Monday arrives. Steve Nolan, CEO of Ariel Group, who spent 18 years in media before moving into EdTech and then leadership development, argues that this is one of the main places leadership development fails. Changing the leader is not enough if the company around them stays the same.
The Survey Is Not the Result
Picture the participant who returns to work. They leave the session understanding their colleagues better and knowing where they need help. For example, they might need to develop listening skills or executive presence. Then the work resumes. “I go back on Monday, and the business snaps back, and I’m back to where I was in response mode,” Steve says, speaking as that participant.
The program then gets judged by a survey that shows everyone thought it was great, and the company runs it again. Steve calls that response one of the big problems with leadership development. A survey measures how people felt about the program. It does not show whether anything changed in the business.
Why Behavior Snaps Back
The reason is structural. “If the company structure isn’t changing, the behavior change is not going to last,” Steve says. Leaders in these programs need to change the things in the company that need changing, not just themselves.
People also watch the leaders above them for signals about what matters. A direct report who returns from training to a manager who carries on unchanged is reading exactly those signals. Steve names leadership alignment as a related problem: leaders who are not aligned cannot deliver the business impact their boards, investors, bosses, and customers expect.
What Changes the Outcome
Ariel Group’s approach starts before any curriculum is chosen. When a client wants to put a group through something as fast as possible, the first job is to test the diagnosis: “Let’s make sure it’s a problem and not a symptom.” Facilitators sometimes join before the program is designed, because the work may span multiple languages and locations.
Attendance matters as much as content. Training leaders in one room and their direct reports in another, on something completely different, limits what a program can achieve. The better design puts both groups on a shared business problem.
Delivery matters too. Ariel Group’s training business was started by people in the performing arts, so participants get up and do the work instead of sitting and scribbling notes in a conference room. Storytelling is one of its core programs. The company also partners with an AI company on a tool that lets leaders rehearse difficult conversations, such as reporting to executives. Steve calls the tool objective, discreet, and private. A leader can fail in front of it without anyone knowing and get instant feedback.
Ariel Group works mostly with very large enterprises. According to Steve, the company reports strong Net Promoter Scores and long-term client relationships, some lasting more than a decade.
The Case for the Program Anyway
When behavior change can’t be proven, there’s still a case for the program. Steve agrees. Being chosen for a program can lift retention, and participants gain time in front of their bosses. “You’re always going to come out better than you went in,” he says.
But a retention bump and a change in how the business operates are different results. A company that wants the first can enroll people in a program. A company that wants the second has to be willing to change its own structure alongside its leaders.
That makes the question for any company about to fund a program simple. It is not how many people will attend. It is what tangible effects the program will have for the organization on the following Monday.
