Case study
SolastaTech is a medium-sized software development company based in Dublin. The organisation currently employs 360 staff. Over the past three years, SolastaTech has expanded rapidly and grown its market share in a highly competitive sector by broadening its product lines and entering new European markets.
Throughout the organisation, leadership and management are seen as distinctive yet interdependent. Leaders are expected to set a clear vision, inspire teams, and drive strategic change, while managers focus on planning, organising resources, and ensuring day-to-day operations run smoothly. Some staff hold both leadership and management responsibilities, requiring them to adapt their style depending on the context – for example, using a coaching approach in team development but a more directive style during critical project phases. This approach has served the operation well. However, recently SolastaTech has faced challenges including project delays, communication breakdowns between teams, and reduced staff morale.
Job profiles in the organisation state that knowledge, skills and behaviours for effective leaders at SolastaTech include strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and the ability to inspire and motivate a diverse workforce. Managers, meanwhile, are required to demonstrate strong organisational skills, attention to detail, and effective communication. Both roles must show adaptability, problem-solving skills, and a commitment to promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). In practice, team leaders and line managers have typically been promoted from within, based on technical expertise rather than proven/tested leadership or management skills or behaviours.
The Learning and Development Team at SolastaTech is small and stretched to capacity. However, they are directed by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) to play a central role in supporting leadership and management development initiatives and given a modest budget for this work. A key focus is ensuring that EDI principles are embedded in all development programmes/courses, that content is adapted to reflect diverse perspectives, and that participation from underrepresented groups is encouraged. Given the pressures the team is under, evaluation of leadership and management development activity is minimal and ‘in the moment’, consisting mainly of participant satisfaction questionnaires at the end of learning sessions, rather than longer-term business impact.
Assessment Questions
Q1.
Explain how recent and potential future trends in SolastaTech’s external business environment drive the need for effective leadership and management within the organisation. (AC 1.1)
Q2.
Explain the distinctive and overlapping roles of leaders and managers in SolastaTech including where power, authority and control lie. (AC 1.2)
Q3.
The case-study suggests that managers and leaders at SolastaTech practice a contingent approach, adapting their style according to the context. Explain this approach and how it contrasts to one other leadership and management style. (AC 1.3)
Q4.
Compare the knowledge, skills and behaviours required of leaders and managers at SolastaTech, linking this to the risk of SolastaTech continuing with their practice of promoting team leaders and line managers from within based on technical expertise. (AC 1.4)
Q5.
Identify two different ways in which the Learning and Development Team at SolastaTech could more proactively support and develop leadership and management development initiatives. (AC 2.1)
Q6.
The case study indicates that the key approach used for leadership and management learning at SolastaTech is formal courses/programmes. Evaluate two different approaches to leadership and management development that could be adopted by SolastaTech. (AC 2.2)
Q7.
The case-study states that the learning and development team focus on ensuring that EDI principles are embedded in all leadership and management development programmes/courses and that content is adapted to reflect diverse perspectives. Discuss why EDI should be an integral component of the design and delivery of learning programmes at SolastaTech. (AC 2.3)
Q8.
Identify two stakeholders and the involvement they might have in leadership and management development initiatives at SolastaTech. (AC 3.1)
Q9.
Evaluate the indicators of successful leadership and management development initiatives, suggesting ways to improve the evaluation of leadership and management development success at SolastaTech. (AC 3.2)
Q10.
The SLT at SolastaTech is keen to understand the impact and importance of leadership and management development for the business. Assess two specific business benefits that can accrue to organisations which invest in high-quality, needs-driven leadership and management development initiatives. (AC 3.3)
Completed Responses
Introduction
This assessment applies leadership and management development principles to SolastaTech, a rapidly expanding Dublin-based software organisation with 360 employees and growing European operations. The case presents a business that has achieved market growth but is now experiencing project delays, communication breakdowns and reduced morale. The response therefore treats development as a strategic intervention connected to business outcomes, not merely as attendance at courses. It also recognises that leaders and managers are different but interdependent, and that technical promotion alone does not guarantee capability in people leadership.
Q1. External business trends driving the need for effective leadership and management at SolastaTech (AC 1.1)
SolastaTech operates in a highly competitive software market where growth, product innovation, customer expectations and technology change create a continuous need for effective leadership and management. External trends affect what the organisation must achieve and therefore the capabilities required from people who set direction and coordinate work.
The first trend is rapid technological change, including cloud computing, artificial intelligence, automation, cybersecurity, data regulation and increasingly digital products. Leaders must understand enough of these developments to make strategic choices, decide where to invest and explain change credibly. They do not need to be the most technically specialised people, but they must connect technology with customer value, risk, ethics and commercial priorities. Managers must translate strategic decisions into project plans, resource allocations, delivery standards and capability requirements. If SolastaTech’s leaders fail to interpret technological change, the organisation may invest in the wrong products; if managers cannot implement change, projects may be delayed and staff may lose confidence.
The second trend is intensifying competition for digital skills. Software engineers, product specialists, data professionals, cybersecurity experts and experienced managers can often compare employers internationally. Hybrid and remote working have widened the potential labour market but have also increased competition. SolastaTech must therefore offer meaningful work, career development, inclusive leadership and credible management, not simply salary. Leaders need to communicate a distinctive purpose and future; managers need to provide a good day-to-day employee experience through workload planning, feedback, development and fair treatment.
The third trend is international expansion. Entering new European markets creates opportunities for revenue and learning but also introduces different customer expectations, languages, cultures, employment practices, regulations and working patterns. Effective leaders need cultural intelligence, strategic adaptability and the ability to create a shared direction without imposing a single local assumption. Managers need to coordinate across time zones, clarify accountability, manage handovers and prevent communication breakdowns. SolastaTech’s current problems may intensify if international growth occurs without common processes and inclusive communication.
The fourth trend is changing customer and investor expectations around responsible technology. Organisations are increasingly scrutinised for data protection, algorithmic fairness, security, environmental impact, accessibility and ethical use of technology. Leaders must set values and make trade-offs visible. Managers must embed requirements in design reviews, delivery processes, risk controls and team objectives. EDI cannot be treated as a separate classroom topic because product and employment decisions may affect diverse users and employees.
The fifth trend is economic and funding uncertainty. Changes in interest rates, investment conditions, customer budgets and technology spending can make demand less predictable. Leaders need scenario thinking, prioritisation and transparent communication when resources change. Managers need financial awareness, disciplined planning and the ability to reallocate people without creating unnecessary stress. Development can improve these capabilities and reduce the risk that rapid growth is followed by chaotic contraction.
The sixth trend is new ways of working. Distributed, hybrid and project-based work can improve access to talent but may weaken informal communication and belonging. Leaders must create connection, trust and clarity across locations. Managers need to maintain regular communication, coordinate dependencies, assess performance by outcomes rather than visibility and ensure remote staff receive equal development. This is directly relevant to SolastaTech’s communication breakdowns.
The seventh trend is greater diversity in the workforce and society. Diverse teams can support creativity and better understanding of customers, but only when inclusion is actively managed. Leaders need to challenge bias, sponsor underrepresented talent and model inclusive decision-making. Managers need practical skills in inclusive recruitment, feedback, conflict resolution, reasonable adjustment and psychologically safe team discussions.
Finally, software organisations face a higher pace of organisational change. Product launches, acquisitions, new markets and restructuring require employees to learn and adapt. Leaders provide the case for change and maintain direction; managers convert change into workable routines and support employees through uncertainty. CIPD identifies leadership development as an important area for developing leadership capability and understanding how leadership differs from management [1].
For SolastaTech, effective leadership and management are therefore necessary to convert external opportunity into coordinated execution. Development should focus on strategic thinking, communication across teams, change leadership, commercial awareness, people management, coaching, EDI, risk and delivery. Without this, technical growth may continue while project delays, morale problems and employee turnover erode the organisation’s advantage.
Q2. Distinctive and overlapping roles of leaders and managers, including power, authority and control (AC 1.2)
Leadership and management are distinct but overlapping activities. Leadership is primarily concerned with direction, meaning, influence and change. Management is primarily concerned with planning, organising, coordinating and controlling resources so that agreed outcomes are delivered. CIPD treats leadership as a subject with different approaches and explicitly considers how leadership differs from management [1]. In practice, a person can perform both roles, as happens at SolastaTech.
A leader sets or communicates a compelling vision, interprets the external environment, establishes priorities and inspires people to move towards a future state. At SolastaTech, leaders might decide that the organisation will compete through secure, accessible and innovative software products in selected European markets. They create meaning around the strategy, build coalitions, make difficult choices and model the values expected from others. Leadership also includes challenging established practice and developing future leaders.
A manager translates direction into plans, budgets, roles, processes, measures and schedules. Managers allocate engineers to projects, manage dependencies, monitor quality, coordinate communication, address performance and ensure that work is completed. At SolastaTech, managers should make sure that a product strategy is converted into realistic sprint plans, staffing decisions, customer communication and delivery controls. They also have responsibility for the employee experience through workload, feedback, absence, development and fair treatment.
The roles overlap in communication, decision-making, problem-solving, relationships and accountability. Leaders need management skills to make strategy executable; managers need leadership skills to motivate people, manage change and make judgement calls when plans no longer fit reality. A team leader may set a direction for a technical team, allocate work, coach an employee, resolve a conflict and report progress. The difference is one of emphasis rather than a strict job boundary.
Power is the capacity to influence decisions or behaviour. It can arise from formal position, expertise, access to information, relationships, reputation or control of resources. Senior leaders have power through strategy, budgets and appointments. Managers have power through work allocation, priorities, performance feedback and access to development. Technical experts may have substantial expert power even without formal authority, which explains why promotion based solely on technical expertise can create tension if the person lacks people-management capability.
Authority is the legitimate right to make decisions within a role. It normally flows through the formal hierarchy: the SLT has authority over strategic direction and significant investment; heads of function have authority over departmental priorities; line managers have authority over day-to-day work and people processes; and project leads may have delegated authority over a delivery stream. Authority should be clear, especially when projects cross teams. Ambiguous decision rights can contribute to the communication breakdowns described in the case.
Control involves setting standards, monitoring performance, managing resources and taking corrective action. Managers often exercise direct operational control through plans, schedules, budgets and procedures. Leaders exercise broader strategic control by setting goals, governance, risk appetite and culture. Control should not mean excessive surveillance or micromanagement. Effective control gives people clarity and feedback while allowing appropriate autonomy.
At SolastaTech, power and authority should be distributed according to capability and accountability. A technical lead may have expert authority over architecture, while a line manager has people authority and a product leader has prioritisation authority. A RACI-style decision framework can clarify who is responsible, accountable, consulted and informed. Development should help leaders and managers use power ethically, avoid over-reliance on hierarchy and involve employees in decisions that affect their work.
Q3. Contingent leadership and management compared with an alternative style (AC 1.3)
A contingent approach proposes that no single leadership or management style is effective in every situation. The appropriate behaviour depends on factors such as the task, urgency, risk, employee capability, team maturity, relationships, organisational culture and external environment. SolastaTech’s case illustrates this: a manager may use coaching during team development but become more directive during a critical project phase.
In a contingent approach, a leader diagnoses the situation before choosing how to act. With an experienced team working on a familiar task, the leader may delegate and provide autonomy. With a newly formed team, the leader may provide more structure, explanation and support. During a serious production incident, a directive approach may be necessary to protect customers and restore service. Once the immediate risk is controlled, the leader can return to consultation, learning and coaching.
The benefits for SolastaTech are flexibility and fit. Software work contains routine planning, creative problem-solving, urgent incidents, customer negotiation and organisational change. A single style would be unlikely to work across all these contexts. A contingent leader can preserve high standards while adapting the degree of direction and support. This may improve project execution, employee development and morale.
The risks are inconsistency and poor diagnosis. Employees may experience changing behaviour as unpredictable or unfair if the reasons are not explained. A manager may claim to be “situational” but simply use directive behaviour whenever under pressure. The approach also requires emotional intelligence and judgement. SolastaTech should therefore develop managers to explain why a style is appropriate, consult where possible and review whether the situation has changed.
A useful contrast is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders seek to inspire people around a compelling purpose, challenge assumptions, encourage innovation and develop followers. This could suit SolastaTech’s growth and need for product innovation. A transformational leader might communicate a vision for accessible European software, encourage cross-team collaboration and motivate employees to see project work as part of a larger mission.
Transformational leadership can create commitment, innovation and a sense of shared identity. However, it can become too visionary if operational planning and accountability are weak. Employees may be inspired by a product ambition but still experience delays, unclear ownership and excessive workload. It may also depend heavily on the leader’s charisma and can overlook employees who need structure rather than inspiration.
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Transformational leadership can provide direction and meaning, while contingent leadership determines how that direction should be enacted in different contexts. For SolastaTech, the best practice is a values-led and strategically transformational direction combined with contingent day-to-day leadership and management. Leaders should inspire and align; managers should adapt the level of structure, support and autonomy to the needs of each team and delivery situation.
Q4. Comparing the knowledge, skills and behaviours required of leaders and managers (AC 1.4)
SolastaTech’s job profiles correctly distinguish between leadership and management while recognising that both roles require adaptability, problem-solving and EDI commitment. The following comparison shows the different emphases.
| Dimension | Leaders at SolastaTech | Managers at SolastaTech | Shared requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Strategy, market trends, customers, technology direction, change, risk, culture and organisational systems. | Operations, project planning, resources, processes, quality, performance and employment responsibilities. | Knowledge of the organisation, products, customers, people and EDI expectations. |
| Skills | Vision-setting, influencing, strategic communication, political awareness, innovation, coalition-building and change leadership. | Planning, organising, prioritising, delegation, coordination, feedback, problem-solving and performance management. | Communication, collaboration, judgement, adaptability and conflict resolution. |
| Behaviours | Courage, curiosity, inclusion, integrity, resilience, confidence and willingness to challenge. | Reliability, fairness, attention to detail, accountability, consistency and supportiveness. | Respect, learning orientation, ethical conduct and commitment to diverse teams. |
Leaders need strategic thinking to interpret market and technology trends, decide priorities and connect work to purpose. They need emotional intelligence to understand how change affects people, regulate their own responses, listen and build trust. They also need the ability to inspire and motivate a diverse workforce. Their performance should be assessed not only by growth but by the quality of direction, collaboration, talent development and ethical decision-making.
Managers need organisational and operational knowledge. They must convert priorities into plans, allocate resources, monitor delivery, manage risks and ensure details are not lost between teams. They need communication skills to clarify expectations, provide feedback and coordinate dependencies. They also need to handle everyday people responsibilities such as absence, development, performance and conflict.
Both require adaptability and problem-solving because software projects change rapidly. Both must be committed to EDI because inclusive behaviour is relevant to strategy, product design, recruitment, team climate and employee retention. A technically excellent manager who excludes colleagues or fails to communicate can damage performance; an inspirational leader who ignores delivery discipline can also create risk.
SolastaTech’s practice of promoting from within based on technical expertise has advantages. Internal candidates understand the products, systems, customers and culture. Promotion can support retention, credibility and career opportunity. Technical expertise can be important for gaining respect from software professionals. However, technical performance does not prove competence in coaching, feedback, delegation, conflict resolution, inclusion, prioritisation or strategic judgement.
The risks include the Peter Principle, where people are promoted until they reach a role in which their previous technical strengths no longer predict success. A new manager may continue doing technical work rather than managing, hoard decisions, micromanage or avoid difficult conversations. Teams may experience inconsistent expectations, weak development and reduced morale. A technically dominant leader may also promote people who resemble them, reducing diversity.
SolastaTech should introduce a leadership and management competency framework, structured assessment before promotion, realistic role previews, 360-degree feedback, probationary leadership assignments, coaching and development plans. Technical expertise should remain relevant but should be one element of a balanced assessment. Selection should consider behaviours, potential, motivation and evidence of working inclusively. Existing managers who were promoted under the old approach should be supported rather than labelled as failures.
Q5. Two proactive ways the L&D Team could support leadership and management development (AC 2.1)
The first proactive approach is to create a needs-driven leadership and management capability framework linked to business strategy. The L&D Team should work with the SLT, managers, employees and project stakeholders to identify the capabilities required for SolastaTech’s next stage of growth. This should include strategic thinking, change leadership, communication across teams, coaching, project governance, commercial awareness, EDI, psychological safety, performance management and remote-team leadership.
The framework should distinguish expectations for aspiring team leaders, first-line managers, experienced managers, project leaders and senior leaders. It should describe observable behaviours rather than vague traits. For example, “communicates effectively” could become “clarifies decision rights, adapts communication to different audiences, checks understanding and escalates cross-team dependencies early”. The framework can support recruitment, promotion, development plans, performance conversations and evaluation.
The L&D Team should then conduct a capability audit using self-assessment, manager assessment, 360-degree feedback, project data, engagement findings and interviews. Gaps should be prioritised according to business risk and strategic value. This is more proactive than offering generic courses because it directs limited budget towards issues associated with project delays, communication and morale. CIPD recommends linking coaching and mentoring to an overall learning and development strategy and specific goals [2].
The second approach is to build a distributed development ecosystem rather than relying on the small L&D Team to deliver everything. The team could establish a leadership community of practice, train internal facilitators, create manager toolkits, develop a mentor and coach pool, and provide short digital resources that managers can use at the point of need. Senior leaders could sponsor cohorts and share real business challenges. Experienced managers could facilitate peer case clinics, while L&D provides quality standards, resources and evaluation.
This approach increases reach and transfer. Managers practise skills on real issues, receive peer support and learn from different functions. It also makes development part of work instead of an occasional event. The L&D Team’s role changes from course administrator to capability architect, curator, adviser and evaluator. Digital resources should be accessible and inclusive, and the team should protect quality by training facilitators and checking content.
Both approaches should be governed through an annual development plan with clear owners, budget, milestones and outcomes. The L&D Team should report to the SLT on participation, capability movement, behaviour transfer and business indicators. Proactive support also means advising on promotion criteria, role design, succession and manager workload. Development will not solve communication problems if systems, incentives or decision rights remain unclear, so L&D should make those dependencies visible.
Q6. Evaluation of two alternative leadership and management development approaches (AC 2.2)
Approach 1: Coaching and mentoring
Coaching is generally a structured, future-focused process that helps an individual improve performance, solve problems and develop capability through questioning, feedback and reflection. Mentoring is usually a longer-term relationship in which a more experienced person provides guidance, perspective, role modelling and career support. CIPD identifies coaching and mentoring as effective approaches when linked to an overall L&D strategy and specific skills or goals [2].
For SolastaTech, internal coaching could help newly promoted technical specialists learn delegation, feedback, conflict management and inclusive leadership. Mentoring could connect emerging leaders with senior managers from different functions or backgrounds. A cross-team model would help build relationships and reduce communication silos. External coaching could be reserved for senior leaders facing complex change or for situations requiring confidentiality.
The strengths are relevance, personalisation and transfer. Participants work on real leadership challenges rather than abstract examples. Coaching can support behaviour change and self-awareness; mentoring can broaden networks and career visibility. The approach is scalable if managers learn basic coaching skills and peer mentoring is structured. It can also support underrepresented groups when access is transparent and mentors are trained.
The limitations are quality, time and access. Poorly trained coaches may give advice, act as evaluators or reproduce their own biases. Mentoring can become informal sponsorship for people already visible to senior leaders. Confidentiality and boundaries must be clear. Coaching cannot compensate for unrealistic workloads or flawed systems. SolastaTech should use matching criteria, role guidance, supervision, evaluation and equitable access.
Approach 2: Action learning and project-based development
Action learning places participants in a small group that works on real organisational problems, questions assumptions, tests solutions and reflects on learning. SolastaTech could create action-learning sets around project delays, cross-team communication, product-market entry, inclusive team design or morale. Participants would include managers, technical leads and emerging leaders from different teams.
The strengths are direct business relevance, collaboration and problem-solving. Participants practise leadership while delivering a useful output. The approach can create cross-functional networks and expose people to perspectives outside their technical specialism. It uses the organisation as the learning environment and may be cost-effective for a small L&D Team.
The limitations are that action learning requires psychological safety, skilled facilitation and protected time. Senior stakeholders must be willing to consider recommendations; otherwise participants may become cynical. Real problems can be politically sensitive, and learning may be dominated by confident voices. Outcomes may be difficult to attribute to the programme alone. L&D should set a clear charter, use inclusive facilitation, protect confidentiality, give access to data and require sponsors to respond to recommendations.
Comparison and recommendation
Coaching and mentoring are more individualised and suitable for personal behaviour, confidence and career development. Action learning is more collective and suitable for system problems, cross-team relationships and applied problem-solving. Both can complement formal courses and improve transfer, but both require management support and evaluation. SolastaTech should adopt a blended approach: coaching and mentoring for newly promoted and underrepresented leaders, and action-learning sets for the specific organisational problems identified in the case. Formal learning can provide common concepts, while these approaches make the concepts usable.
Q7. Why EDI should be integral to learning-programme design and delivery (AC 2.3)
EDI should be integral to SolastaTech’s leadership and management development because it affects business performance, employee experience, innovation, risk and legal responsibilities. Treating EDI as a separate optional module would imply that inclusion is an additional topic rather than a way in which leadership and management should be practised.
First, EDI supports better decision-making and innovation. Software products are used by people with different abilities, identities, cultures, languages and experiences. Diverse teams can identify risks and customer needs that homogeneous teams may overlook. However, diversity of membership does not automatically produce better outcomes. Leaders must create psychological safety, invite challenge, manage participation and prevent ideas from being dismissed because of status or similarity bias.
Second, EDI improves talent attraction, retention and progression. SolastaTech competes for scarce digital skills and cannot afford to lose capable employees because of exclusion, bias or unequal opportunity. Managers influence everyday experience through recruitment, allocation of work, feedback, flexibility, promotion and conflict handling. Development should help them recognise bias, use structured decisions, give inclusive feedback, make reasonable adjustments and sponsor talent fairly.
Third, EDI supports ethical and accessible technology. Leadership development should encourage teams to consider who may be excluded or harmed by a product, dataset or design decision. EDI content should include accessibility, cultural assumptions, algorithmic bias, inclusive user research and data ethics. This connects people practice with product responsibility.
Fourth, EDI strengthens communication and collaboration. SolastaTech’s current communication breakdowns may be aggravated by different professional languages, locations, cultures or levels of confidence. Inclusive leaders clarify terms, invite quieter voices, record decisions, create accessible channels and resolve conflict constructively. Managers need practical tools for hybrid meetings, cross-cultural communication and fair participation.
Fifth, EDI is relevant to leadership legitimacy and trust. Employees judge whether stated values are reflected in decisions. If development programmes celebrate diversity but promotion continues to favour technical stereotypes or established networks, credibility will decline. Participation data, completion, feedback, promotion, performance ratings and employee experience should be analysed by relevant groups while protecting privacy.
Design should use diverse examples, facilitators and case studies rather than presenting one cultural model of leadership as universal. Delivery should include accessible materials, flexible participation, psychological safety and opportunities for reflection. EDI should appear in objectives, assessment, coaching, action learning and evaluation. Facilitators need capability to manage disagreement and avoid treating one participant as a spokesperson for a group.
EDI does not mean lowering standards. It means making standards relevant, transparent and accessible, and ensuring that people are assessed on capability rather than similarity, accent, confidence style or informal connections. The SLT should hold itself accountable for outcomes, not simply attendance. EDI-integrated development is therefore both a values requirement and a performance intervention.
Q8. Two stakeholders and their involvement in development initiatives (AC 3.1)
The first stakeholder is the Senior Leadership Team (SLT). The SLT has strategic authority and controls the organisational priorities and budget that shape leadership development. It should define the business outcomes SolastaTech needs, sponsor the capability framework, model expected behaviours and remove barriers to participation. Individual SLT members can sponsor action-learning projects, mentor emerging leaders and communicate why development matters. They should also review evaluation evidence and accept responsibility for improvements in communication, morale and delivery.
The SLT must avoid treating L&D as a delegated administrative issue. If senior leaders do not attend, release participants, respond to project recommendations or model inclusive behaviour, programmes will have limited credibility. Their involvement should include agreeing success measures, reviewing quarterly dashboards, participating in calibration and ensuring that development is connected to promotion and succession decisions.
The second stakeholder is line managers and team leaders, including technical leads who may be newly promoted. They are both participants and delivery partners. They identify development needs, support transfer into work, provide feedback, allocate time, coach team members and model day-to-day behaviours. Their involvement is essential because employees often experience leadership through their immediate manager rather than through the SLT.
Line managers should help diagnose needs, test tools, take part in coaching or action learning, set personal development goals and conduct follow-up conversations. They can provide data on project coordination, morale, capability and team climate. Their workload must be considered; expecting managers to develop others without time or support will weaken the initiative. Other stakeholders, including employees, the L&D Team, HR, customers and project sponsors, should also be consulted, but the SLT and line managers have especially direct influence.
Q9. Indicators of success and improving evaluation at SolastaTech (AC 3.2)
Successful leadership and management development should be evaluated at several levels. Current end-of-session satisfaction questionnaires measure immediate reaction but do not demonstrate learning, behaviour change or business impact. The Kirkpatrick Model provides four linked levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. It emphasises starting with intended results and measuring transfer into the workplace rather than relying only on participant satisfaction [3].
Reaction indicators include relevance, accessibility, psychological safety, confidence in applying the content and participant satisfaction. These are useful for identifying immediate barriers and improving the programme, but high satisfaction does not prove capability or organisational benefit. SolastaTech should ask whether participants found the content relevant to real work and whether they intend to use it, not just whether they liked the trainer.
Learning indicators include pre- and post-assessments, scenario exercises, role plays, teach-backs, reflective plans and evidence of improved knowledge or confidence. For a feedback programme, participants could demonstrate a structured conversation. For inclusive leadership, they could analyse a decision for bias and design an inclusive response. Assessment should be practical and linked to the capability framework.
Behaviour indicators examine whether participants apply learning in their work. Measures could include 30-, 60- and 90-day follow-up, manager observation, 360-degree feedback, quality of one-to-ones, delegation, decision clarity, inclusive meeting behaviour, cross-team escalation and coaching frequency. Participants need support, accountability and job aids; otherwise a course may not transfer.
Results indicators should reflect SolastaTech’s business problems. Possible measures include project-delay rates, delivery predictability, cross-team rework, customer escalations, defect trends, employee morale, engagement, regretted turnover, absence, internal promotion, diversity in progression and time to competence. Measures should be segmented by team and programme participation where appropriate. Not every result can be attributed solely to development because product demand, staffing, technology and management systems also change.
SolastaTech should improve evaluation in five ways. First, begin with a needs and outcomes logic model. For each initiative, define the business problem, target behaviours, leading indicators and expected results. Second, establish a baseline before delivery so that change can be assessed. Third, use mixed methods: data, interviews, focus groups, observation and 360 feedback. Fourth, use comparison where feasible, such as phased rollout or matched teams, while recognising ethical and operational limits. Fifth, review results at planned intervals rather than at the end of a session only.
The L&D Team should create a simple dashboard with participation, access by demographic group, learning, transfer and business indicators. Data should be interpreted carefully and privacy protected. The SLT should review the dashboard quarterly and decide whether to continue, adapt or stop interventions. Evaluation should also include unintended effects: increased workload, exclusion, fear of feedback or excessive pressure. Success means that leaders and managers behave differently in ways that improve employee experience and organisational delivery.
Q10. Two business benefits of high-quality, needs-driven development (AC 3.3)
The first benefit is improved organisational performance and execution. SolastaTech’s current project delays and communication breakdowns suggest gaps in coordination, prioritisation, decision-making or leadership behaviour. High-quality, needs-driven development can improve managers’ ability to plan realistic work, clarify accountability, manage dependencies, give feedback and escalate risks early. Leadership development can improve strategic alignment, change communication and cross-functional collaboration.
The benefit is not the course itself; it is the resulting capability. If managers use common planning and communication practices, teams may reduce rework, missed dependencies and avoidable delay. If leaders communicate priorities consistently, employees can make better trade-offs. Action learning can generate practical solutions to current delivery problems while developing participants. Measures could include delivery predictability, cycle time, rework, customer satisfaction, defect rates and successful product launches.
The second benefit is stronger talent retention, succession and innovation. Effective managers create better employee experiences through inclusion, development, recognition, workload management and psychological safety. This can improve morale and reduce avoidable turnover, which protects technical knowledge and lowers recruitment and replacement cost. A structured leadership pipeline also reduces dependence on external hiring and gives talented employees a reason to remain. Internal candidates can progress based on tested leadership potential as well as technical expertise.
A stronger pipeline supports growth into new European markets because SolastaTech has more leaders who can manage change, collaborate across cultures and develop diverse teams. Inclusive leadership can widen participation and improve innovation by allowing more people to contribute. The organisation gains resilience when leadership capability is distributed rather than concentrated in a few senior individuals.
Both benefits depend on quality and need. Generic programmes that are disconnected from business problems may produce attendance without impact. SolastaTech should therefore align development with strategy, involve stakeholders, provide opportunities to practise, support transfer, evaluate results and improve the system. Investment in leadership and management development is most valuable when it changes decisions, relationships and delivery outcomes.
Conclusion
SolastaTech’s growth has created a need to professionalise leadership and management development. Leaders must provide vision, strategic judgement and inspiration; managers must coordinate resources, performance and delivery; and many roles require both capabilities. A contingent approach is appropriate for a changing software environment, provided it is applied transparently and supported by sound judgement.
The L&D Team should move from reactive course administration to a needs-driven capability framework and distributed development ecosystem. Coaching, mentoring and action learning can complement formal programmes. EDI should be integrated into every stage because it affects innovation, talent, product responsibility, collaboration and trust. The SLT and line managers must actively sponsor and transfer development. Finally, evaluation should extend from satisfaction to learning, behaviour and business results. These actions can improve delivery performance, morale, retention, succession and innovation.
References
[1] CIPD (2025), “Leadership in the workplace”, factsheet, 21 July 2025.
[2] CIPD (2025), “Coaching and mentoring”, factsheet, 11 August 2025.
[3] Kirkpatrick Partners, “The Kirkpatrick Model”, accessed 4 September 2026.
Additional resources and further reading
The following resources provide additional study and practical guidance related to leadership and management development. They are supplementary reading materials and should be checked against the learner’s institution, current professional guidance and applicable law.
| Topic | Resource | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Leadership development | CIPD: Leadership in the workplace | Covers leadership concepts, leadership approaches, differences from management and leadership development. |
| Coaching and mentoring | CIPD: Coaching and mentoring | Explains coaching, mentoring, coaching culture and links to L&D strategy. |
| Learning evaluation | Kirkpatrick Partners: The Kirkpatrick Model | Provides the four-level framework of reaction, learning, behaviour and results. |
| Learning needs analysis | CIPD: Learning needs analysis | Supports identification and prioritisation of capability needs. |
| Learning culture | CIPD: Learning cultures | Explores how organisational culture supports continuous learning and performance. |
| Equality, diversity and inclusion | CIPD: Equality, diversity and inclusion | Provides guidance on inclusive people practice and organisational benefits. |
| Inclusive leadership | CIPD: Inclusive leadership | Supports further study of inclusive behaviours, belonging and leadership responsibility. |
| Professional standards | CIPD Profession Map | Provides professional standards for ethical, evidence-based people practice. |
| Leadership practice | Chartered Management Institute | Offers management research, practical insights and development resources. |
| Action learning | Action Learning Associates | Provides background on action learning sets and practical problem-solving development. |
| Psychological safety | CIPD: Health and wellbeing | Supports consideration of wellbeing, healthy work and the conditions for open communication. |
| Inclusive workplaces in Ireland | Workplace Relations Commission | Provides Irish employment-rights and equality information relevant to organisational practice. |
Suggested academic texts
For deeper academic reading, learners may consult Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice; Yukl, Leadership in Organizations; Kotter, Leading Change; Bolden, Hawkins, Gosling and Taylor, Exploring Leadership; and CIPD or Chartered Management Institute publications on management development, coaching, mentoring, EDI and learning evaluation. The latest available editions should be checked through the learner’s institution or library.
