BRIDGE Leaders Mandate · Illustrative working example

What would management review?

Follow one fictional handover problem from a business issue to a workplace action, an evidence record and a continuation decision.

This is an example of the proposed output structure. The organisation, observations and actions below are invented. They are not results from a completed cohort or evidence of a measured improvement.

Example mandate

The decision was agreed. The receiving team could not act.

Business issue: A regional process change reaches country teams with different assumptions about who can approve exceptions. Work pauses while managers seek clarification.
Visible behaviour: Three functions repeat the decision in meetings, but no receiving owner acknowledges the handover.
Hidden protection to investigate: Country managers may be protecting local service commitments; regional managers may be protecting a common standard. Interview both sides before treating either explanation as fact.
BRIDGE route: Execution Rhythm is the initial route to examine. Relationship & Culture may also matter if the discussion reveals trust or interpretation issues.
Workplace action: Test one decision log for one process: decision, exception authority, sending owner, receiving owner, deadline and review point. Ask the receiving owner to confirm what they will do next.

Separate the room from the workplace.

Illustrative simulation observation: A participant states a decision and deadline but does not check that the receiving team accepts ownership.

Illustrative workplace record: The first test log has a named receiving owner. At review, an exception still waits for approval because its decision boundary is unclear.

What that permits us to say: One handover has an acknowledged owner; the exception route still needs work.

What it does not establish: Faster execution across the organisation, a financial return or a change caused solely by the programme.

A continuation decision management can make.

Ask the sponsor to confirm the exception authority, keep the log for the same process and review unresolved handovers each week. At the agreed 30-, 60- and 90-day points, compare records and decide whether to continue, adjust or stop the practice.

These review points illustrate a continuation plan. The sponsor agrees the actual measures, owners and schedule in the written scope.

Illustrative evidence review guide

Assess the claim against its source.

Use this guide to discuss a management submission. It is not a psychometric scale, an academic marking scheme or the scoring system for the online simulations.

Problem and scope: Ready to discuss: one named issue, affected group and observation period. Needs more work: a broad claim that culture or leadership improved.
Diagnosis: Ready to discuss: visible behaviour is separated from assumptions about motivation, with questions used to test those assumptions. Needs more work: an untested label about personality or culture.
Action and ownership: Ready to discuss: an action, accountable owner, receiving owner and review point. Needs more work: a list of intentions with no handover.
Evidence: Ready to discuss: dated source records, enough context to interpret them and a clear separation of simulation, self-report and workplace observation. Needs more work: attendance, ratings or a score with no source or comparison basis.
Attribution and limits: Ready to discuss: the submission states what changed, what did not, what else may explain it and what cannot yet be concluded. Needs more work: a programme-only explanation for a business result.
Continuation: Ready to discuss: the next action, owner, evidence to collect and date for a continue/adjust/stop decision. Needs more work: a generic commitment to follow up.

What to record for an actual case.

Record the source, observation date, task or context, baseline or comparison, observed behaviour, reviewer and limits. Mark missing evidence as “not available”; do not turn it into a zero score or a positive result.

Founding-cohort review

Confirm the evidence plan before committing.

The published Leaders Mandate offer includes founding cohorts with structured feedback and refinement. This example makes the output inspectable; it does not certify that every assessment component is ready or validated.

Ask for a walkthrough of the online simulations proposed for your cohort and identify what is ready for use, adapted or still to be developed.
Confirm what each score means, how it is produced, what can be compared and what a sample report looks like.
Agree baseline and follow-up observations, the rater arrangements, confidentiality, access to records and who reviews the final mandate.
Confirm the final deliverables, sponsor responsibilities and any permission to document anonymised learning evidence in writing.

Read the existing Leadership 360 administration guide →

Open the Sponsor Brief when ready to scope a cohort →

Leadership 360, online simulation assessment and the public Sight self-check are different tools. This review guide does not establish validation or equivalence between them.

Next step

Send what is stuck.

Describe the business issue first. Soo Hoo will discuss whether Leaders Mandate, a narrower intervention or another response fits.