Most executive teaching is designed for the job the participant currently holds. The curriculum is shaped by present responsibilities, the immediate challenge, and the way their organisation works today. The result is teaching that feels useful for a year and then dates badly as the participant moves on.

Our programmes proceed from the opposite assumption: that participants come to us precisely because they are about to change roles, and the teaching should be shaped by where they are going rather than where they are. This changes almost every curriculum decision, from which cases we use to how we assess the final work.

• A curriculum should serve the role the participant holds now, the role they are moving into, and the harder version of that role two stages out
• Teaching should anticipate the next scale of responsibility, not just the present one
• Assessment should value adaptability and reasoning as highly as demonstrated technique, because the situation will change

Teaching for the second phase

Every curriculum we design now includes a second phase test: would this teaching still serve the participant when their responsibility doubles? Where the answer is no, we revise the material until it is yes. This is rarely about teaching beyond the room; it is usually a matter of choosing cases with enough structural depth to reward a second reading.

• Strategic Leadership: cases chosen for organisations at 200 people, not just the 40 our participants currently lead
• Board Readiness: simulations built around the board a participant will join, not the executive team they are leaving
• Financial Acumen: accounts complex enough that participants return to them a year later

"Teaching that only serves the job someone holds today has a shelf life of about eighteen months. We design for the role they are about to be handed."