The Client & The Challenge — A Global Organisation. A Capability Challenge at Scale.
Our client is one of the world's leading financial services and risk management organisations, with a globally distributed workforce spanning multiple functions, geographies, and seniority levels. The challenge they faced is a familiar one for large, complex organisations: how do you build consistent, practical people capability at real scale – without losing relevance for any individual in the room?
The answer was the Impactful ME programme – a structured blended learning initiative designed and delivered by Tidal Consulting, running eight cohorts simultaneously from January through December 2025. The programme targeted employees across a broad range of bands and experience levels, crossing functions, market units, and time zones, with a common goal: to equip people with communication, listening, questioning, problem-solving, and decision-making skills that underpin meaningful professional impact.
Programme overview:
Cohorts: 8 cohorts, running concurrently
Participants: 180+ participants across multiple seniority levels
Duration: January – December 2025
Format: Live online sessions, breakout groups, group coaching, individual reflection, digital learning boards
| Block | Theme | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Communication & Foundations | Active listening, power of questions, above/below the line, feedback toolkit |
| 2 | Problem-Solving Mindsets | Design thinking, bulletproof problem-solving, four perspectives, energy & flow |
| 3 | Decision-Making & Psychological Safety | Decision styles, GROW model, saboteurs, sage practices |
| Closing session | Impact in Action | Structured retrospective, personal commitments, peer coaching, recommendations to the organisation |
Participant Feedback — What the Data Shows
Structured feedback surveys were completed after every block across all cohorts, providing a granular and consistent picture of participant experience. Across more than 100 individual responses, the overall pattern was strong – and reveals several important nuances worth noting for any organisation considering a similar investment.
Overall Experience Ratings — The majority of participants across all cohorts rated their overall learning experience as Good or Excellent. Block 1 (Communication & Foundations) consistently drew the highest ratings, reflecting its immediate relevance and accessibility. Block 2 (Problem-Solving) generated more varied responses – with strong scores overall, but with a subset of participants noting they wanted deeper, more applied practice time. Block 3 (Decision-Making) recovered strongly, with multiple cohorts returning to near-unanimous positive ratings, driven largely by the quality of facilitation and the practical decision-making tools introduced.
“Great energy and passion from the Tidal team. One of the best trainings I have taken part in during my professional life.”
Content Relevance — Across all cohorts and blocks, content relevance was rated Essential or Highly Relevant by the majority of participants. Block 1 consistently earned the strongest relevance scores, reflecting how directly the communication and listening frameworks connect to everyday professional life. Several participants noted that content was relevant for anyone working in a corporate environment – not only for those in management roles.
Where relevance scores dipped, the pattern was informative: more experienced participants – those with senior or specialist backgrounds – occasionally found earlier blocks pitched at a level they had encountered before. This is a healthy tension, and one we address directly in the learnings section below.
Facilitation Quality — In cohorts where facilitation quality was rated separately, scores were uniformly high. Participants consistently praised the energy, presence, and inclusivity of the facilitation team – and singled out the ability to hold attention across long virtual sessions as genuinely notable.
“It says a lot that I can keep focus during a 3-hour online meeting and not be distracted by other things.”
“The instructors were amazing, well spoken, approachable and made the class a safe space.”
“The coaching session was fantastic – a great empathetic coach.”
What Resonated — Six Themes That Landed Across All Cohorts
Synthesising the qualitative feedback across all eight cohorts and three blocks produces a remarkably coherent set of themes. These were not scripted responses – they emerged independently from participants in different geographies, functions, and seniority levels, which makes them all the more meaningful.
1. Above the Line / Below the Line — No single framework landed more consistently across every cohort than the Above/Below the Line model. Simple, memorable, and immediately applicable, it gave participants a concrete way to name what was happening in real workplace moments – and a choice about how to respond.
“The key takeaway for me is the awareness of behaviours above and below the line. Thinking on how to rephrase thoughts and actions was impactful. Our behaviour affects others, and this exercise was enlightening.”
“I have already started practicing staying above the line in my interactions with internal stakeholders.”
2. The Power of Questions — The reframe from giving answers to asking questions resonated deeply – particularly with participants who recognised themselves as solution-providers by habit. Several reported using the questioning framework in live situations before the session had even ended.
“I used 'what' and 'how' questions during a challenging conversation with senior stakeholders.”
“The power of questions in flipping a task and looking at it from a different angle. I am primed for the meetings to come!”
One participant offered a particularly vivid illustration – recounting a moment in an all-hands session where a question they posed was initially dismissed by a visiting Director as 'too heavy for a Wednesday afternoon', only for the Director to return ten minutes later to answer it. As the participant reflected: a good question has no regard for hierarchy or position.
3. Active Listening as a Creative Act — Across every cohort, the reframing of listening – from passive politeness to active, generative engagement – was one of the most cited shifts. For many participants, it was a direct and immediate behavioural change they could practise before the next conversation.
“Deep listening techniques, of which I have already started practicing, have led to more engaging and insightful conversations.”
“Listening is not passive; it's a creative act.”
4. The Feedback Toolkit — The structured five-step Feedback Toolkit was cited across multiple cohorts and blocks as one of the most immediately useful tools in the programme. Its clarity made it practical to pick up and use without additional scaffolding – a quality that is harder to achieve in programme design than it sounds.
“I find very powerful the feedback toolkit, and I will try to use it with my team.”
“I will incorporate the feedback framework in my work and also improve my listening skills.”
5. Problem-Solving Through Multiple Lenses — Block 2 introduced two distinct problem-solving frameworks – Design Thinking and Bulletproof Problem-Solving – alongside the concept of viewing problems through four perspectives: immediate, root cause, ripple effects, and strategic. For participants accustomed to moving quickly to solutions, the invitation to slow down and examine a problem more thoroughly was both challenging and valuable.
“Structured approach to problem solving – different approaches for different problems. The people-focused approach will be particularly useful with my change projects.”
“To spend more time understanding the problem itself and think from different perspectives.”
6. Saboteurs, Energy, and Self-Awareness — Block 3 introduced the concept of internal saboteurs – the psychological patterns that undermine our best thinking and decision-making. Alongside the energy batteries framework from Block 2, this created a thread of self-awareness that ran throughout the programme and was consistently cited as personally meaningful.
“Learning about our own saboteurs helped in self-reflecting and finding ways to optimise decision making.”
“Be more mindful – don't let myself be consumed by the daily overload of tasks and duties, both at work and at home. Continue to spot the saboteurs and fight them!”
Closing Retrospective — Impact in Action: What Participants Said at the End
At the conclusion of the programme, each cohort participated in an 'Impact in Action' session – a structured retrospective capturing what worked, personal commitments going forward, suggested improvements, and messages to the organisation. This data, drawn from all eight cohorts, provides the most complete picture of programme impact available.
What Worked Well – Across All Eight Cohorts:
Safe space and psychological safety: Participants repeatedly described the programme environment as open, trusting, and non-judgemental. Phrases like 'safe space to speak', 'Everyone was open and honest', and 'felt like a safe space to practice, maybe fail and share' appeared across almost every cohort.
Breakout sessions and peer learning: Small-group breakouts were the most consistently praised element of the programme delivery. Participants valued the intimacy, the diversity of perspectives, and the opportunity to apply concepts with colleagues they would not normally encounter.
Group coaching sessions: The small-group coaching format was singled out repeatedly as a highlight – described as a 'game changer' and 'particularly impactful' across multiple cohorts.
Facilitator quality and energy: The Tidal facilitation team was praised warmly and specifically across all cohorts. Participants noted energy, approachability, inclusivity, and the ability to hold a virtual room across long sessions.
Toolkit depth and practical structure: The combination of theory and practical tools was consistently valued. Participants appreciated having frameworks they could pick up and apply immediately and praised the balance between conceptual grounding and hands-on practice.
Cross-functional and cross-geography connection: A recurring theme – especially in globally distributed cohorts – was the value of meeting colleagues from other functions and regions. Many participants described this as an unexpected benefit of the programme.
“I loved the format and how Tidal run it – one can tell it's a well-oiled machine.”
Personal Commitments — The personal commitment data from the Impact in Action boards is one of the richest indicators of a programme's real-world traction. Across all eight cohorts, participants made specific, concrete commitments – not vague aspirations. Several patterns emerged:
Creating physical reminders: Post-its, desktop backgrounds, printed toolkits, and recurring calendar entries all appeared across cohorts – signals that participants wanted structures to hold the learning in place.
Sharing with others: A striking number of participants committed to teaching what they had learned to their teams, line managers, or peers. This is a strong indicator of genuine internalisation – you only teach what you believe.
Peer accountability: Multiple participants committed to ongoing check-ins with cohort members, peer coaching sessions, and staying in touch – suggesting that the cohort connection itself was experienced as a resource worth maintaining.
Applying tools in live situations: From using the GROW model in team meetings to practising the feedback toolkit in one-to-ones, participants were specific about where and how they intended to put their learning to work.
“Do a sharing session with colleagues so they learn too, but also so I am accountable to change!”
“I will write down what my goals are and follow through – if I see it on a post-it or screensaver, I'm more likely to do it!”
Messages to the Organisation — Participants were also invited to share messages directly with their organisation. These were candid, thoughtful, and pointed – and they tell a story that goes beyond programme evaluation. Several themes deserve attention:
Make this mandatory: Across multiple cohorts, participants independently called for the programme to be made compulsory – especially for line managers. This is a strong signal of perceived value, and of frustration that not everyone in their environment was operating with the same frameworks.
Create an alumni network: Participants wanted to stay connected after the programme ended. Questions about booster sessions, alumni groups, and cross-cohort networking appeared in almost every retrospective.
Extend access: Several participants suggested that the programme should be available to more of their colleagues – noting that it would be particularly valuable for those in leadership positions who had not yet been through it.
The workload context is real: A recurring undercurrent across cohorts was acknowledgement that high workloads made it difficult to get the most from the programme. One participant put it directly: 'It's a pity that we are too busy to make the most of this opportunity.' This is a system-level observation that sits beyond Tidal's remit – but it is worth noting for any organisation designing learning that requires genuine presence and reflection.
“Make this compulsory – structured thinking is so useful.”
“This programme should be mandatory for line managers.”
“Those who joined benefited from learning better ways to collaborate. Those who didn't – and continue to behave below the line – will carry on doing so. What will be done to address this?”
Programme Learnings — What We Are Refining – and Why
A mature development practice listens as closely to critical feedback as to positive feedback. Across all eight cohorts, participants offered a set of improvement suggestions that were specific, constructive, and recurring. These are not edge cases – they represent genuine design opportunities that Tidal Consulting is actively addressing.
Session Length — The most consistent piece of critical feedback across all cohorts and blocks – appearing in virtually every retrospective – was that three-hour sessions were too long for sustained online engagement. This was particularly noted by participants managing high workloads and by those in less favourable time zones. The preferred alternative, expressed repeatedly, was more frequent, shorter sessions rather than longer, more widely-spaced ones. This feedback is being actively integrated into future programme design. The evidence strongly supports a shift toward sessions of 90–120 minutes with built-in breaks, running more frequently to maintain learning momentum and reduce the recall gap between sessions.
Pitching for Range — With participants spanning multiple seniority levels, the programme serves people with significantly different levels of experience and prior exposure to this type of content. More experienced participants in some cohorts found earlier blocks pitched at a level that felt introductory; others found the same content genuinely revelatory. Both groups can be served – but it requires more deliberate differentiation within session design, and clearer signalling upfront about the level at which content is pitched.
Practical Application Time — A recurring request across cohorts was for more time to practise tools in realistic, contextualised scenarios – particularly for Block 2 (problem-solving) and Block 3 (decision-making). Participants wanted to move beyond understanding how to apply frameworks toward working through live challenges using them. This will inform how we structure the balance between content delivery and applied practice in future cohorts.
Facilitator Presence in Breakouts — Several cohorts noted that breakout rooms were most valuable when a facilitator was present to model, prompt, and provide real-time feedback. When left entirely peer-led, some groups struggled with dynamics – dominant voices, silence, or unclear objectives. Increased facilitator presence in selected breakouts has been incorporated as standard practice.
Digital Tools and Pre-Work Logistics — Participants across multiple cohorts found the digital toolkit – shared boards, pre-work assignments, and communication channels – occasionally confusing or hard to navigate. Suggestions included a single consolidated resource hub, earlier distribution of pre-work, calendar blockers sent with session invites, and clearer purpose-setting for reflection tools. These are operational improvements that are straightforward to implement and meaningfully affect participant experience.
Continuity Between Sessions — Several cohorts noted that the gaps between sessions – particularly where longer breaks interrupted programme delivery – made it harder to maintain momentum and recall earlier content. Shorter gaps, more frequent touchpoints, and lightweight between-session prompts are all being built into future programme architecture.
Closing Reflection — What This Tells Us About Learning at Scale
This programme is a genuine case study in what becomes possible when an organisation treats capability development as a sustained, systemic investment rather than a one-off event. Running eight cohorts simultaneously – across functions, geographies, seniority levels, and time zones – is ambitious. The feedback confirms it was worth it.
What makes this programme distinctive is not just what participants learned, but what they did with it. The evidence of immediate behavioural change – using new question frameworks in senior stakeholder meetings, applying feedback toolkits in the same week they were introduced, sharing tools with teams before the programme had even ended – speaks to learning that has genuinely transferred.
The messages to the organisation are equally telling. When participants independently and repeatedly call for a programme to be made mandatory – when they ask for alumni networks, booster sessions, and wider access – that is not polite feedback. That is genuine appetite. And appetite, in a learning culture, is the rarest and most valuable asset of all.
“I'm happy to be in this programme.”
“Awareness is everything!”
“One of the best trainings I have taken part in during my professional life.”