How do you design leadership change that survives contact with Monday morning?
The standard fixes are more of the thing that is not working: leadership programmes, coaches, 360-degree feedback, certificates. The alternative is to stop treating leadership change as something that happens inside a person in a training room, and start treating it as something that has to be built into the environment the person returns to. Pixar offers the model: not a course on openness, but a standing structure, the Braintrust, that builds openness into the way work happens. New meeting formats. Explicit rules about feedback. A changed environment, alongside the changed person.
The training that the context erases
The conventional approach to developing leaders is to send them away to be developed. A programme, a coach, a feedback exercise, a certificate to mark completion. The leader returns changed, in theory, and the new behaviour spreads. The logic locates the problem in the individual's capability and the solution in their education.
But the individual goes back to the same environment, and the environment is stronger than the training. Three weeks later, the same meeting culture rewards the same behaviour. The same unwritten rules punish the same risks. The same structures elicit the same responses they always did. The leader may have learned a great deal, but the context they return to has not changed at all, and the context is what shapes behaviour day to day. The training fades not because it was bad but because it was overwhelmed, the moment it met the unchanged structure it was supposed to transform.
The alternative is to change the environment at the same time as the person, which is what Pixar did. Rather than running a training on openness and hoping it would stick, Pixar built openness into the structure itself, through the Braintrust, through new meeting formats, through explicit rules about how feedback works. The new behaviour was not asked to survive in an old environment; the environment was rebuilt to elicit it. This is the difference between hoping a changed person can resist an unchanged context, and changing the context so it produces the behaviour by default.
Why this is design, not willpower
You could read the failure of leadership development as a quality problem, the programmes simply are not good enough. But that misses the mechanism, and the mechanism explains why even excellent programmes fail.
The Pixar approach does not motivate leaders to behave differently and hope the motivation lasts. It does not rely on the inspired individual carrying new behaviour back into an unchanged world. Instead it changes the structure so the desired behaviour is what the environment naturally elicits. The leader is not asked to summon openness against a context that punishes it; the context itself now produces openness. The behaviour does not depend on willpower outlasting the environment, because the environment has been put on the behaviour's side.
That is the difference between design and motivation, and in leadership development it is the whole game. Motivation, which is what most programmes really sell, tries to change the person and sends them back into a context that will erode the change. Design changes the context so the change is sustained without constant individual effort. You cannot reliably inspire a leader to maintain new behaviour in a structure that elicits the old; the structure wins, every time, by three weeks in. You can change the structure, and let it carry the behaviour for them.
The relapse was never about insufficiently motivated leaders. It was about sending changed people back into unchanged environments. At SUE, the Influence Framework and SWAC are the methods we teach in the Behavioural Design Fundamentals Course to systematically analyse which structural conditions make the desired behaviour easier than the alternative.
Amsterdam
Rated 9.3 out of 10. Certificate included.
The principle: transfer climate
The research underneath this has a name, and naming it turns the failure of leadership development from a mystery into a predictable, fixable problem.[1]
Transfer climate, a concept from the work of Baldwin and Ford on the transfer of training, is the finding that the single strongest predictor of whether learned behaviour actually sticks is not the quality of the programme but the environment the learner returns to, the return environment. If that environment supports and elicits the new behaviour, it transfers. If it ignores or punishes it, the behaviour dies, no matter how good the training was. The decisive variable is not what happens in the training room but what happens back on the job.
This reframes the entire problem. The 360 billion dollars is largely spent optimising the training, the thing that turns out not to be the decisive factor. Meanwhile the return environment, the thing that actually determines whether anything sticks, is usually left untouched. Pixar's success and the typical programme's failure are the same principle seen from opposite sides: change the return environment and the behaviour transfers; leave it unchanged and the behaviour evaporates. The lesson is not to train harder. It is to stop treating the training room as the place where change happens, and start treating the workplace as the place where it has to be designed in.
The wasted spend was never really about bad programmes. It was about ignoring the return environment that determines whether any programme works.
It is worth sitting with how thoroughly this inverts the usual instinct. Faced with disappointing results from leadership development, the natural response is to look for a better programme, a more engaging facilitator, a more rigorous curriculum, a more prestigious provider. Transfer climate research says this is searching in the wrong place entirely. The decisive variable was never the quality of the room the leader sat in for two days; it was the quality of the environment they walked back into on the third. An excellent programme returning a leader to a hostile structure will fail. A mediocre programme returning a leader to a supportive structure may well succeed. The money, overwhelmingly, flows to improving the room and almost never to redesigning the return, which is exactly backwards given what determines whether anything sticks.
Learn to apply this yourself
What makes this approach effective is the shift from changing individuals to redesigning the structural conditions they return to — because behaviour follows environment, not intention. In the Behavioural Design Fundamentals Course, the Influence Framework and SWAC give you the tools to map those conditions systematically and identify exactly where the structure needs to change for new behaviour to take hold.
View the Behavioural Design Fundamentals CourseWhat you can design this week
You do not need to overhaul your leadership pipeline to apply this. The principle, that the return environment determines transfer, changes where you put your effort.
Design the return environment, not just the training. Before sending anyone on a programme, ask what in their daily environment will support or erode the new behaviour. Changing the structure they come back to does more than improving the course they attend.
Change the structure alongside the person. Pixar's move was to rebuild meeting formats and feedback rules, not just to train individuals. New behaviour survives when the structure elicits it. Pair any development effort with a change to the context it returns to.
Look at what the current structure rewards. Behaviour follows what the environment rewards and punishes, not what the training recommended. If the structure still rewards the old behaviour, the old behaviour returns. Audit the incentives the environment actually delivers, day to day.
Stop locating change only in the individual. This is the deeper shift. The whole industry assumes change happens inside a person in a room. The research says it happens, or fails, in the environment they return to. Move your attention, and your budget, from the room to the return.
The thread is the one that runs through everything we do at SUE. You rarely sustain behaviour change by improving the training. You sustain it by designing the environment people return to. Pixar did not run a better course on openness. It built a structure that elicited openness, and let the structure do what no course could.
If you want to learn how to design the return environment so that change actually sticks, rather than fading by the third week, that is exactly the kind of work our Behavioural Design training is built around.
Frequently asked questions
Why did Pixar's Braintrust work when leadership training does not?
The Braintrust did not ask individuals to carry new behaviour into an unchanged environment. It changed the environment itself, introducing new meeting formats and explicit rules about how feedback works, so that openness was structurally elicited rather than personally summoned. Leadership training typically sends a changed person back into an unchanged context, and that context is stronger than any two-day programme. Pixar removed the dependency on individual willpower by making the desired behaviour the default output of the structure.
How do I apply the transfer climate principle without overhauling our entire leadership programme?
Baldwin and Ford's transfer climate research identifies the return environment as the decisive variable, which means the leverage point is not the programme itself but what you change before the person comes back to their desk. Before anyone attends a development session, audit what the daily structure actually rewards: which behaviours get recognised, which get ignored, which get quietly punished. Then pair the training with at least one concrete structural change, a different meeting format, an explicit feedback rule, a changed reporting rhythm, so the new behaviour has somewhere to land when the person returns.
If the return environment determines everything, why do organisations keep spending on the training room?
Because the training room is visible, deliverable, and easy to evaluate. You can measure attendance, test satisfaction, issue a certificate. The return environment is diffuse: it is the sum of meeting cultures, incentive structures, unwritten rules, and managerial habits that no one controls in a single session. Improving the room feels like progress; redesigning the workplace feels like a different and much harder project. Transfer climate research says the harder project is the one that actually determines whether anything sticks, and the easier project is largely where the money goes.
Does this mean individual leadership development is worthless?
It means individual development without environmental change is reliably insufficient. A changed person returned to an unchanged structure will, within weeks, behave as the structure dictates, not as the training recommended. The individual capability gained in the room is real; what fails is the assumption that capability alone can override context. Development works when it is paired with a redesigned return environment. Without that pairing, the investment in the person is largely spent maintaining the status quo of the structure they walk back into.
If you want to learn how to design for behaviour rather than trying to motivate it, that's exactly what the Behavioural Design Fundamentals Course covers. View upcoming dates →
1.5 minutes on influence
Join 6,500+ readers · Free · Unsubscribe anytime