Session 0: Leader prep

Are senior leaders ready to receive what the program will surface?

Length: 45 to 60 minutes.
Format: short teach, real-work exercise, written output.

This session is the most consequential one in the program, and it is not for the broader team. It is run with the senior leadership cohort before Session 1 is announced to anyone else.

The reason: the entire program rests on what happens the first time a frontline person uses its language to raise a hard truth to a senior leader. If that first response goes well, the program compounds. If it goes poorly — even once, with witnesses — the program loses credibility faster than it built it. Session 0 makes sure that first response is muscle memory before it is tested.

This is not a content session. The leaders have read the guide. This is practice: public behavior commitments, a war-game of likely hard moments using real scenarios, and an explicit peer-grant of permission to call each other out when the program is violated.

Session at a glance

Length: 90 minutes. Longer than the content sessions because there is more practice and fewer participants.
Who: Senior leaders only. The people whose direct reports will be the first to test the program. Typically 4 to 10 people.
You will need:
- This page open on screen for the timed agenda
- The Guardrails, Scripts, and Session 4 tabs open
- The Operating the program page open to the section on the “program is being used as a weapon” channel
- A doc or board where each leader’s public behavior commitments will be captured and shared after the session
Participants leave with:
- Each leader has publicly named two or three program behaviors they will be personally observed on for the quarter
- Each leader has rehearsed the receive-bad-news response on four realistic scenarios
- Each leader has explicitly granted their peers permission to call them out when they violate the program

What this session is not

It is not a content review. If a leader has not read Purpose, the Short version, Session 4, and the Guardrails, reschedule the session. Reading is the prerequisite, not the work.
It is not a culture-change ritual. We are not committing to feelings; we are committing to specific observable behaviors.
It is not confidential in the sense that nothing leaves the room. The public behavior commitments are intended to leave the room — the rest of the company will see them.

Timed agenda

Time	Segment	Move
0:00 – 0:05	Frame the session	Open with the framing below. Name what success looks like.
0:05 – 0:20	Public behavior commitments	Each leader names two or three program behaviors they will be observed on.
0:20 – 0:40	War-game 1: ownership confusion	Practice the response to an ownership-unclear scenario.
0:40 – 1:00	War-game 2: chain of command	Practice the response when matrix structures conflict.
1:00 – 1:15	War-game 3: deliverables + tracking	Combined scenario covering soft dates and weak Asana tracking.
1:15 – 1:25	Permission exchange	Each leader formally grants peers permission to call them out.
1:25 – 1:30	Close	Set the date the program rolls to the broader cohort. Commit.

Opening words

Use these or something close.

“We are running this session before the program reaches anyone else for one reason: the program lives or dies in the first hard escalation that comes back at us. If we get it wrong — even once, even quietly — we will spend a year regaining the credibility we lost in that moment. So we are practicing the response before any of us is asked to give it for real.

By the end of this 90 minutes, each of us will have committed publicly to behaviors we will be observed on this quarter, we will have rehearsed the receive-bad-news response on four real situations, and we will have given each other permission to call each other out when we slip.”

Segment 1 — Public behavior commitments (15 min)

The point: every leader names two or three specific, observable program behaviors they will be personally accountable for this quarter. Not values. Behaviors.

What counts as a commitment

“I will end every meeting I run with owner, next step, and date — on the record.”
“Every weekly status I publish will use green / yellow / red / blocked with truth, including yellow when it is the truth.”
“Every escalation I receive will start with ‘thank you for raising this.’ If I forget, I will name it in the moment and restart.”
“I will name a not doing line on every project I sponsor this quarter.”
“Every time I assign work, I will use the scripts pattern: outcome, why, what done means, who owns it, when to check in, what to raise early.”

What does not count as a commitment

“I will be more visible to my team.” (not observable)
“I will lead with care.” (not specific)
“I will support the program.” (not a behavior)

How to run it

Each leader, in turn, states their two or three commitments aloud. The facilitator captures them verbatim on the shared doc as they are spoken. After everyone has gone, read the full list back. If something is too vague, name it kindly and ask the leader to rewrite it on the spot.

The list is sent to the entire participating cohort within 24 hours. That is the point.

Segment 2 — War-game 1: Ownership confusion (20 min)

The setup, read aloud:

A project that crosses business units has been moving for three weeks. Two people each privately believe they own it. The work has been quietly duplicated; a third piece of the work has not been done at all because each thinks the other has it.

Today one of them raises this to you: “I think we have an ownership problem on [Project X]. I have been treating it as mine but I noticed [other person] has been driving a parallel version. Can we resolve this?”

Practice

In pairs, one leader plays the person raising the issue and reads the setup aloud. The other plays the receiving leader.

Round 1 — the poor response, named explicitly. The receiving leader practices saying the wrong response aloud, on purpose:

“Why didn’t anyone catch this sooner? Whose fault is this?”

Notice what that question does to the room. Do not skip this round. The leaders need to feel how it lands.

Round 2 — the good response. The same leader now responds using the Session 4 pattern:

“Thank you for raising this. Walk me through what each of you thought you owned. What does the work actually need now — one of you driving it, or both with split scope? What do you recommend?”

Notice what that question does. Compare.

Swap roles. Both leaders take both sides.

Debrief (3 min)

Which response made it easier to keep talking?
Where did the poor response shut something down that the good response opened?
What would you say differently next round?

Segment 3 — War-game 2: Chain of command (20 min)

The setup, read aloud:

A project lead at one of our business units and a functional manager from a shared service disagree on a decision. The project lead wants to ship; the functional manager has a concern they will not waive. The frontline person caught between them comes to you — their direct manager — and asks: “Who do I actually listen to?”

Practice

In the same pairs, the messenger plays the frontline person; the receiver plays the manager.

Round 1 — the poor response:

“Well, technically I’m your manager, so listen to me.”

Or, equally poor:

“You need to work that out between them.”

Round 2 — the good response:

“Thank you for raising this rather than picking one and hoping. Tell me what the project lead wants and what the functional manager will not waive. Then tell me what you think the right call is. I want to know whether this is a one-time exception that I approve or a recurring pattern we need to fix in the operating agreement.”

Swap roles. Run it twice.

Debrief (3 min)

The chain-of-command question is rarely about hierarchy. It is usually about whose constraint takes precedence and why. The good response surfaces that explicitly instead of resolving by rank. Make sure every leader in the room hears that distinction.

Segment 4 — War-game 3: Soft dates + weak tracking (15 min)

The setup, read aloud:

The monthly status report is late for the third month in a row. Nobody has formally acknowledged the slip; the Asana board for the project has not been updated in two weeks; the deliverer assumed it was low priority because of other work; the receiver assumed it was on track because nothing had been said.

You notice this today. You decide to raise it.

This one is reversed: the senior leader is initiating the hard conversation, not just receiving it.

Practice

The same pairs. One leader plays the deliverer; the other plays the senior leader who is initiating.

Round 1 — the poor opening:

“This report has been late three times. What is going on?”

Round 2 — the good opening:

“I noticed the monthly report has slipped three times and the Asana board has not been updated in a while. Before I assume the worst, I want to understand: what is the current state, what is making this hard, and what would help? I would rather hear it from you than guess.”

Swap. Run it twice.

Why this scenario matters more than it looks

Soft dates are how most projects die quietly. Asana being out of date is the visible form of the same problem — people are no longer using the tool to publish truth, only to log activity. The leader’s tone in this conversation determines whether the next slip is named early or hidden again.

Segment 5 — The permission exchange (10 min)

This is the segment most leaders feel uncomfortable with. Run it anyway.

How it works

Each leader, in turn, says aloud to the room:

“I grant each of you permission to call me out when I violate the program. Specifically: if you see me [name one commitment from segment 1], remind me. I will not retaliate, sulk, or hold it against you. If I cannot accept the reminder in the moment, I will say so plainly and revisit it within 24 hours.”

Each leader says their own version aloud. The facilitator captures the language for the shared doc.

Why this matters

The peer-coaching pairs described in Operating the program cannot do their work without this. The 360 prompt cannot land. The weaponization channel cannot function. The whole operating layer of the program rests on senior leaders being callable-out by their peers.

If a leader will not grant this permission in a room of four to ten peers, they will not accept it from a direct report. Better to find that out now than at month three.

Segment 6 — Closing words (5 min)

Use these or something close.

“Three things leave this room. The list of public behavior commitments goes to the entire cohort within 24 hours. The response patterns we practiced are now the patterns we will use for real, including with each other. And the permission we just granted each other holds.

The program rolls to the broader team on [date]. Between now and then, each of you will use the Operating the program page to set up your peer-coaching pair, pick your one-habit anchor, and confirm the calendar dates for the 30-, 60-, 90-, and 180-day reviews. If any of that is unclear, raise it now.”

Common derailments and how to redirect

If you hear or see…	Then say…
A leader gives a vague commitment (“I will be more visible”)	“That is a feeling. What is the behavior?”
A leader resists the “poor response” round	“The point is not to embarrass you. The point is to feel how the bad version lands so the good version is real, not theoretical. Please run it.”
The room wants to skip the permission exchange	“If we skip this, the peer-coaching pairs cannot function. We need to do this here, even if it is awkward, exactly because it is awkward.”
A leader will not grant permission to be called out	Pause the segment. This is data. Note it. The session continues, but the program owner needs to know which leaders did not grant the permission — it predicts what will happen at month three.
The war-games drift into specific real grievances	“That sounds important. Let’s book a separate conversation about it. For this hour, we stay on the practice.”
A leader treats the rehearsal as performance art	“Play it like you would actually say it to a direct report at 8:30 a.m. on a Monday. The point is muscle memory, not theater.”

Output

A captured, shared document of each leader’s public behavior commitments. Sent to the broader cohort within 24 hours.
A captured, shared statement of the permission each leader granted to the peers in the room.
A confirmed calendar date for the program’s rollout to the broader team.

Facilitator notes

Most senior-leadership rooms will resist the “poor response” rounds because they feel awkward. Run them anyway. Skipping them undermines the whole session — the good response has no contrast.
If a leader cannot or will not grant the permission, do not press them in the room. Note it. Talk to them privately afterward. This is one of the most important early-warning signals the program produces.
Keep the war-games short and the swaps fast. Two minutes per round per pair is plenty. The point is reps, not depth.
The facilitator running this session should themselves have rehearsed the patterns. Walking the group through the war-games while still workshopping your own response is fine, and should be named openly if so.

When you fumble — and you will

Every leader in this room will fumble a receive-bad-news moment at some point in the next 12 months. The program does not assume otherwise.

What matters is what happens next:

Name it in the moment if you can. “That came out wrong. Let me start again.”
Name it later if you cannot in the moment. “Thinking about what you raised yesterday — I led with the wrong question. Let me try again.”
Tell the peer-coaching pair. The point of the pair is to surface these moments while they are still recent.
Do not pretend it did not happen. The frontline person watching remembers; pretending it did not happen costs more than naming it.

The week before

Confirm every senior leader in the cohort has read Purpose, the Short version, Session 4, and Guardrails. If not, postpone the session by a week.
Prepare a shared document for capturing public commitments and permission statements. Either a doc on a shared drive or a board everyone can see.
Decide who facilitates. The facilitator should not be one of the senior leaders being committed by the session. Often this is HR.

The week after

The public commitments list goes to the broader cohort within 24 hours of the session.
Each senior leader pairs with one other leader from the cohort for the 90-day peer-coaching arrangement. Use the pairing rules in Operating the program.
The 30-, 60-, 90-, and 180-day review dates go on every senior-leader calendar before Session 1 rolls.
Session 1 with the broader team is scheduled for two weeks out at most. Sooner if possible. Longer than two weeks and Session 0 starts to feel like a separate event from the program rather than its opening move.