Why Your Leadership Development Programme Feels Like Death (To the People in It) 

Let's start with the uncomfortable bit.

You've invested in leadership development. Maybe a culture change initiative. Perhaps you've brought in Agile ways of working, or psychological safety workshops, or some flavour of empowering, trust-based leadership training.

And it worked. For about three weeks.

People came back from the programme energised. They used new language. They tried new things. There was a brief opening, a pause in the mighty "normal"...

And then the gap closed again.

Everything returned to how it was before. The old equilibrium reasserted itself. Parent-child dynamics crept back. The command-and-control reflexes kicked in. Your carefully designed programme dissolved like sugar in tea.

If this sounds familiar, you're not alone. And more importantly: it's not because your programme was bad, or your people are resistant, or your culture is uniquely difficult.

It's because you're asking people to do something that feels, on a deep psychological level, like dying.

Wait, what?

Stay with us here.

When we talk about shifting leaders from "Parent-Child" to "Adult-Adult" ways of being – or from what developmental psychologists call the "Reactive/Socialised mind" to the "Creative/Self-Authoring mind" – we tend to frame it as learning new skills. Acquiring new tools. Upgrading capabilities.

That framing is dangerously incomplete.

Because this shift isn't just about doing differently. It requires people to question how they see and know themselves. To develop new abilities while simultaneously "turning down" some of their old ones – the very qualities that made them successful, that earned them their position, that they lean on for their sense of worth and safety.

Think about that for a moment.

We're asking the person who built their career on being the one with answers to stop providing answers. We're asking the person whose identity is "the responsible one" to let others be responsible. We're asking people to give up what has made them safe and acceptable.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

The “X” and “Y” of identity

We also tend to get caught up in “the facts.” Trying to determine an objective version of “the truth” in order to judge who was right and who was wrong.

Here's a useful way to think about it.

Most of us walk around with two deeply held beliefs about ourselves:

"I am X" – These are our strengths, our winning strategies. I'm effective. I'm smart. I'm caring. I'm the one who gets things done.

"I'm not Y" – These are our complaints about ourselves, often hidden. I'm not good enough. I'm not worthy. I'm not as competent as people think.

Our version of "X" is what keeps "Y" at bay. It's our protection system. And it's running constantly, beneath our awareness.

Now, here's the problem: Moving to an adult-adult, empowering leadership style often requires us to not be X – at least not in the way we're used to. To stop being the solver, the knower, the one in charge of everyone else's development.

And if we're not X... then maybe we're Y?

This is why change doesn't stick. It's not a mindset shift we're asking for. It's an identity disruption. And the amygdala is very clear about identity disruptions: they're threats. Avoid at all costs.

So people do what people do

So what is the alternative?

From one angle, this looks like people being difficult. Resistant. Not getting it.

From another angle – the more useful one – this is people protecting themselves from something that genuinely feels dangerous.

That person in your programme who keeps pushing back? Who needs more evidence? Who seems frustratingly stuck? They're not being obtuse. They're standing at the edge of something that feels like solid ground disappearing beneath their feet.

The Shawshank Problem

There's a scene in The Shawshank Redemption that captures this perfectly. An elderly man who's been in prison for 50 years is finally released. He's free – which is what he's wanted his entire life. But he can't stand it. The world outside is too foreign, too destabilising, too much of an identity rupture. He ends his own life.

It's a devastating scene because it shows something true: freedom can be more terrifying than confinement when confinement is who you've become.

This is what we're dealing with. Not skill deficits. Not motivational problems. Not people who "don't get it."

We’re dealing with the deep human difficulty of letting go of who we’ve been – even when who we’ve been isn’t serving us anymore.

What this means for you

If you're responsible for culture change or leadership development, this reframe matters. Because it changes what support actually looks like.

First, expect the resistance. Not as a problem to solve, but as evidence that your programme is touching something real. If everyone's comfortable, you're probably not changing anything meaningful.

Second, build for the long haul. One programme won't do it. A workshop won't do it. This is a developmental journey that requires sustained support, practice, community – and the humility to accept that lasting change happens slowly.

Third, consider the environment. Individuals can't sustain an adult-adult mindset alone. They need to be part of a community that supports what they're trying to become. If you send someone back into an unchanged team with an unchanged boss in an unchanged culture, don't be surprised when they revert.

Fourth, get the leadership involved. Really involved. As Anderson & Adams put it in Mastering Leadership: most change efforts seek to create structures and cultures that are flatter, more agile, more engaged, and require more ownership than the parent-child mindset can tolerate. If the leadership hasn't upgraded its own operating system, the new culture has nothing to take root in.

Fifth, remember to have compassion. The challenging people in your programmes are challenging because they're scared. Because what they’re being asked to try feels like loss. Finding empathy for that, being able to be with their reactions and resistance, listening to their underlying needs – this is what actually creates the safety for development.

In closing

Your leadership programmes aren't failing because they're not good enough.

They're confronting something much deeper than skill gaps: the profound human difficulty of becoming someone new. The fear of losing what has made us safe. The identity-level disruption that real development requires.

Understanding this doesn't make the work easier. But it does make it more possible. Because when you know what you're actually dealing with, you can design for it. You can create the conditions that make transformation not just desirable but survivable.

And maybe – just maybe – you can help people discover that what felt like death was actually the beginning of something much more alive.

Get in touch to explore how Tuff could support you in creating a culture of accountability and development.