A Statewide Nonprofit Hits Every Leadership Target in Four Months
Four months after one day together, this leadership team met all three targets set in advance, and every leader who came back said the team was better.
Client
Statewide small-business nonprofit, Southwest
Size
About 30 staff, multiple regional offices
Engagement
One-day workshop (free pilot), survey + report, paid follow-on
Who took part
A dozen senior leaders in June; all staff in October
Disclosure
The first day was a free pilot. Kestryl Edge wrote the workshop outcomes together with the Chief Programs Officer and the CEO before designing anything. The organization paid for the October follow-on.
About the Client
A statewide team, in one room for a day.
For decades, this organization has lent money to and advised small businesses across its state, with staff in regional offices hundreds of miles apart. In June 2026, its senior leaders from every office, from the CEO and C-suite to the directors who run its regional centers and programs, spent a full day in one room after a difficult stretch for the organization.
The Challenge
Strong on mission. Stretched on everything around it.
The CEO's priorities were "the siloing and leadership" and "critical thinking and problem-solving." Directors worked across long distances, were adjusting to a new core curriculum and training model, and were still finding their footing as a team.
The survey we ran at lunch showed two very different experiences of the same workplace. Six leaders averaged between 7.8 and 9.1 out of 10 across 14 workplace measures. Five averaged between 3.7 and 5.6, and nobody fell in between. The widest gap was on whether leadership is transparent about decisions: 9.2 for one group, 2.8 for the other. Fair workload and recognition was the lowest-scoring item overall, at 5.0.
The team needed to work on collaboration and accountability without anyone feeling blamed. Our day-to-day contact asked for language that was "empathetic" and "least triggering," so the work was framed as leadership development, not a fix for people.
What We Did
Design around the real tensions. Measure. Come back.
Co-designed outcomes (April to May). Outcomes covered collaboration across silos, accountability, and buy-in for the new curriculum model. Conflicts were built into the activities rather than announced, to avoid defensiveness.
Leading With an Edge workshop (June). One full day: defining leadership, emotion awareness, empathy role plays, leadership styles applied to the team's own scenarios, values and aligned behavior, and a capstone practice.
Leader Impact Survey and report (July). The 14-item survey, taken at lunch, became a written report with findings, what each finding risks if nothing changes, six recommendations, and three targets to re-measure in the fall.
Follow-through (summer). We suggested the CEO send a weekly email explaining decisions and company status, to close the transparency gap the survey found.
Paid follow-on (October). A primer video brought newer staff up to speed. A directors session covered boundaries, feedback, and perspective through art, built on the survey's weak spots and the June feedback. An all-staff session covered ego at work, values-aligned behavior, and self-compassion, and included the re-measure.
The Results
Three targets, set in July. All three met in October.
The July report set three targets before anyone knew the outcome. In October, the leaders who had been in the room in June met all three.
| Target set in July | June (11 leaders) | October (8 returning leaders) | Met? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair workload and recognition at 6.5 or higher | 5.0 | 7.0 | Yes |
| "Strained" group down to 3 people or fewer | 5 of 11 | 1 of 8 | Yes |
| Narrow the transparency gap between the two groups | 6.4 points | 4.6 points | Yes (directional; 1 person left in the strained group) |
The biggest gains came on June's weak spots: workload, transparency, safety, work-life balance, and feeling safe raising problems. The average across all 14 items rose from 6.8 to 8.0.
The same people, both times. Respondents create an anonymous code, so some leaders can be matched across both surveys. Three exact matches all scored higher in October. Two more likely matches, whose codes differ by a typo, rose too. That makes 5 of 5.
What they say changed. All 8 returning leaders said their team is better than in June: 6 said "much better," 2 "somewhat better." Across all staff, 13 of the 17 who were there in June said things are better, and 4 said about the same.
Synergy. The team is working together more effectively and enjoying it.
Senior leader
What they do differently. Seven of the 8 returning leaders said something from the workshop now shows up in their work.
I have been actively approaching staff with curiosity and practiced grounding myself during intense times.
Senior leader
The CEO started a weekly all-staff email explaining decisions, after the report showed staff could not see how decisions were made. Three weeks in, she wrote that people seemed into it and thanked us for the advice and reflection across the board.
How the day landed. Leaders rated the June workshop 9.2 out of 10 for experience and 9.4 for usefulness (9 responses). All staff rated October 9.1 on both (22 responses).
What did not move. Compensation, growth opportunities, and access to SOPs stayed roughly flat. Pay is still the most common reason staff give for why they might leave. A workshop does not fix pay, and we would not claim it did.
What Was Hard
June feedback changed October.
The June feedback was not all praise. The CEO asked for more structured whole-group role play, for clinical labels like "narcissist" to be dropped, and for clearer lines between healthy vulnerability and oversharing at work. We changed the language and built a boundaries and feedback module, which became the core of the October directors session. In October, staff asked for more breaks and less text on slides.
The data has limits too. Pay and growth barely moved, one leader is still in the strained group, and staff partly credit leadership changes, new hires, and departures for the improvement.
How We Measured
The method, in full.
Who: A dozen senior leaders from every office in June; all staff in October.
Outcomes: Kestryl Edge Leader Impact Survey, 14 items on a 0 to 10 scale plus open questions. June: 11 leaders. October: 21 staff, 8 of whom attended in June. The June vs October comparison uses only those 8. Three matched exactly by anonymous code, two more likely.
Targets: Set in the July report, before the October survey.
Behavior: The CEO's weekly email, confirmed by the CEO and the Chief Programs Officer in writing; leader self-reports in October.
Reaction: Post-session feedback survey, 0 to 10. June: 9 responses. October: 22.
Limits: Small groups, self-reported scores, no comparison group, and the October group is not identical to June's. Other changes were under way at the same time. We claim contribution, not sole cause.
Work With Us
A team spread across sites, coming out of a hard stretch?
Start where this team did: one day of Leading With an Edge, and a survey read you can act on within 90 days.
Book a 20-minute call