Most executives immediately assess individuals. They look at who's hitting their numbers, who seems sharp. This is the wrong starting point. Before you can lead a team strategically, you need to know if it has the collective capability to execute the strategy.
Before assessing anyone, name what the team needs to be collectively capable of — derived directly from the strategy work in Module 2. The strategy defines what's required. What's required defines what to develop.
"Strategy defines required capabilities → Capabilities define required competencies → Competencies define what each role must deliver behaviorally. Most VPs reverse this. They start with the people they have, assess against a vague sense of 'good performance,' and try to connect it back to strategy. The connection never holds."
Of the competencies you've listed — which 2 or 3, if this team doesn't have them, does the strategy fail regardless of everything else? Name them and say why each is irreplaceable.
Without a behavioral maturity scale, assessment is opinion dressed as management. You cannot develop someone toward a standard that doesn't exist. Build the standard first — observable, specific, calibrated to your context.
"'Strong communicator' means nothing. 'Operates at a 4 — delivers compelling messages and navigates difficult conversations, but hasn't yet reached the level where she drives decisions and alignment at the executive level' means something. It tells you where she is. And what the next level looks like."
For your most critical competency — could two of your direct reports independently arrive at the same rating for the same person using the description you just wrote? If not, the standard isn't specific enough yet.
Rate each direct report against your competency framework — based on observed behavior, not outcome data, not impressions. The goal is a diagnostic, not a performance ranking. A 2 is not a problem — it is information.
Looking at your capability map — where is the team collectively weakest? What does the distribution tell you about what this team has been asked to do versus what the strategy now requires?
The hardest decision: who gets what work. High performers turned leaders almost always give hard work to the strongest players because it's safe. The team's capability distribution never moves. This stage breaks that pattern.
"Development only happens through stretch. A 2 does not become a 3 by watching a 4 do the work. A 2 becomes a 3 by doing work that requires 3-level performance — with the right support structure around it. Either this person develops on your watch, or they don't. Which one are you choosing?"
Who are you currently giving the hard work to — and is that person the one who needs the reps? Name the person you've been protecting from difficulty, and the real reason why.
Two conversation types — the handoff conversation before the work begins, and the SBI coaching conversation as work unfolds. Both are structured. Both are specific. Vague feedback produces defensiveness. Specific, observable feedback produces development.
"'You need to be a better communicator' gives a person nothing. 'In yesterday's client meeting — when the client pushed back on the timeline — you defaulted to restating the original plan rather than engaging the concern. That landed as dismissive, and I watched the client disengage for the rest of the call' gives a person exactly what they need."
After delivering SBI feedback for your priority developing player — what does strong look like on this competency at the level you need them at? Name it behaviorally. And what specific piece of work will give them the reps to get there?