Your leadership programme has four modules. The work happens between them.

A four-module leadership programme is usually designed as four agendas. Each gets a day of thought: the opening, the energy curve, the case, the close. The three weeks between module one and module two get one line: "try it out at work." That line is where most of the value is decided, and it is the only part nobody designed.

What the evidence says about the gap

Joerg Hruby's 2026 study in The International Journal of Management Education tracked 170 participants from 47 countries, across 12 executive cohorts, over 24 months in three waves. Competency gains did not peak when the programme ended; they peaked at 18 to 24 months. End-of-course satisfaction had negligible value in predicting who progressed. Transfer climate, sponsor engagement and structured reflection predicted it far more strongly. Programmes that put roughly 30 to 40 percent of their resources into post-programme infrastructure (sponsor protocols, reflection scaffolds, alumni integration) produced markedly stronger long-term outcomes, with diminishing returns beyond about 40 percent.

A 2025 study by Constanze Diekmann and Alexander Pundt in the International Journal of Training and Development looks at a finer grain: how leaders' transfer behaviour changes week by week in the weeks right after training. Its finding is that how satisfied a leader is with an early attempt to apply something shapes whether they keep applying it in the following weeks.

Together they give the gap a design brief: one early attempt that is likely to go well, a sponsor who knows what that attempt is, and a fixed moment to reflect on it. None of that happens on its own in week two of a busy quarter.

Three things the gap needs

One commitment, not a list

Action plans with five items produce zero actions. Ask each participant for one behaviour, one situation where they will try it, and one date within seven days of module one. "Run Tuesday's team meeting with the first ten minutes as questions only, on 14 October" is a commitment. "Listen more" is not.

A sponsor who has read it

This does not need a coaching track for line managers. It needs each manager to receive the one-sentence commitment within 48 hours of module one and to hold a 15-minute conversation about it before the attempt date. The designer's job is to make that conversation hard to skip: the participant sends the calendar invitation from the room, with the commitment in the body.

Reflection with a deadline

Reflection that is encouraged does not happen. Reflection that is due on a named date, in a fixed format, and read aloud at the start of module two does. Three questions are enough: what did you try, what happened, what will you do differently.

The gap, designed

Put this block in the programme plan. Timings cover the close of module one and the opening of module two.

1. Module one, last 25 minutes. 0:00–0:08: each participant writes one commitment on a card: behaviour, situation, date within seven days. 0:08–0:18: pairs read cards to each other and sharpen them until the partner can say exactly what they would see happen. 0:18–0:23: each participant sends the 15-minute calendar invitation to their line manager, commitment pasted in. 0:23–0:25: facilitator states the reflection deadline and the module two date.
2. Week 1. Sponsor conversation and first attempt both happen this week. On day 3 the facilitator sends one message: "Has the conversation happened? Reply yes or no." Anyone who replies no gets a phone call, not an email.
3. Week 2. Reflection due Friday: the three questions, maximum 150 words, sent to the facilitator. The facilitator reads all of them and picks three to open module two: one that went well, one that went badly, one that did not happen.
4. Week 3. Second attempt of the same behaviour in a different situation. No new commitment. The point is repetition, not variety.
5. Module two, first 20 minutes. 0:00–0:12: the three chosen participants read their reflection aloud, four minutes each. 0:12–0:20: whole group on one question: what made the difference between the three? New content starts only after this.

Two numbers tell you whether the gap worked: at least four in five participants held the sponsor conversation in week one, and at least four in five sent the reflection by the week two deadline. Below either, fix the gap before touching module content.

Design time

Hruby's 30 to 40 percent is a figure for programme resources, but it is a fair rule for design time as well. If you spent four days designing four modules, spend two more on the three gaps. Most programmes are built the other way round. Design the modules and the gaps as one programme in Session Studio.

Sources

• Joerg Hruby, "From classroom to career: Longitudinal evidence of leadership transfer in executive management education", The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 24, issue 2, July 2026. sciencedirect.com
• Constanze S. Diekmann and Alexander Pundt, "Dynamic Training Transfer in Leadership Development", International Journal of Training and Development, first published 28 November 2025. onlinelibrary.wiley.com