When Transformation
‍depends on Leadership.

We don’t build standard training series. We design programme architectures that are closely connected to your actual transformation — in terms of content, timing and methodology, and aligned with your existing OD processes.
Before we start, we define what success will look like. And we measure impact, not satisfaction. If neither behaviour nor ownership changes, the programme has not achieved its purpose. We agree on that benchmark with you from the outset.

At Chili, we use a flexible framework to help embed change sustainably within organisations. Our preferred change models include Trigon (OD model), ADKAR (Prosci) and Chili’s own Change Model.
We know that every organisation works differently. If your organisation already uses an established change model or framework, we can build on it seamlessly rather than introducing another one.

Our programmes range from compact formats for a small group of leaders to organisation-wide programme architectures. What matters is not the size, but whether there is a clear transformation need and a willingness to measure impact.

Yes. In fact, this is one of our most common and strongest use cases. We design a dedicated leadership track that is closely aligned with your existing OD architecture in both content and timing, so the initiatives reinforce each other rather than running in parallel.
This integration starts in the diagnostic phase, where we explicitly take existing OD activities into account.

Most of our programmes run for 9 to 18 months. Shorter programmes are possible, but we always recommend allowing enough time for behavioural change to actually take hold rather than simply be initiated.
We typically work in six-month planning cycles, allowing the programme to evolve continuously as needs change.

If collective habits are meant to change, the initiative needs to be visible and recognisable as a coherent programme. We therefore recommend a programme architecture — where useful with its own identity or branding — that reinforces the ambition and relevance of the transformation work.    

We turn down engagements where there is no genuine commitment to change at decision-maker level. The same applies if we cannot build a trusting, effective partnership with the internal stakeholders responsible for the programme — or if we cannot support the intended change from a professional or values-based perspective.

In principle, all leadership levels can be included, from executive management to operational leaders. Which levels make sense depends on the transformation goals.
Some programmes focus on one level, while others deliberately connect several through shared key events, large-group formats and dialogue spaces across hierarchical boundaries. After all, transformations often fail not within individual levels, but at the interfaces between them.