We are passionate about adopting the scientist-practitioner model, practicing business psychology in an evidenced-based manner and operationalizing the latest leadership research for our clients. We are pioneers of the strength-based approach to leadership development and have published on impacts on transformational leadership, developmental readiness, levels of organisational impact, ROI, team coaching and leadership coaching with the last year.
This approach brings a rigour, structure and innovation to our practice. We constantly question how to add value to clients, refine our practices, assess the return on investment and innovate new solutions to the challenges clients face. We are committed to our own professional development and to that end publish, write, present and advise in the areas of global leadership, transformational leadership, strength-based approaches, talent identification & assessment, positive leadership development and high performing teams.
We have built a solid academic base that supports out innovative practice and to this end have been appointed to a number of editorial journal roles, the practice editor role for Coaching: An international journal of theory, research and practice as well as publishing multiple papers in the area of leadership and team development.

Three years ago we established a research program to address some of the three major challenges I see in coaching research today; 1. Methodological inconsistency – that is practitioners may define themselves as solution-focused but we really don’t know what they do in session 2. Heterogeneity of outcomes- the absence of defined outcome parameters that relate to performance and 3. The over-reliance on self-report data – the majority of outcome studies rely on subjective reports of enhanced well-being etc. but are these changes noticed by anyone else in the organisation and what’s the impact for the organisational objectives? To address these issues I set up a waitlist controlled design with the top two layers of the local arm of a multi-national NFP organisation (N=37). I used transformational leadership as the dependent variable, recruited an average of 10 raters per participant and developed a strength-based methodology which was manualised to encourage consistency of delivery amongst the 11 coaches involved. The results were unequivocal – very significant changes between the waitlist and control groups after strength-based coaching on transformational leadership and crucially these differences were perceived at all levels in the organisation. In addition manual adherence was strongly predictive of ultimate change in transformational leadership suggesting the strength-based methodology was a significant factor. Finally the study delivered a very positive ROI (825%) for the organisation in a time of significant difficulty which was very gratifying.