Become Leader

Proof required

Submit a 400-word self-assessment naming your leadership context, identifying three specific development gaps, and supporting each gap with one real situation from your experience where that gap manifested. The assessment must use a named leadership framework (servant leadership, adaptive leadership, situational leadership, or equivalent) to structure the analysis. ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION: a named practitioner or experienced leader who knows your work must read this assessment and provide written feedback confirming that the gaps identified are accurate rather than aspirational.

What gets checked

• 400 words covering leadership context, three named development gaps, and one real situation per gap
• A named leadership framework cited and applied — not just labelled
• Written feedback from a named practitioner or experienced leader confirming the gaps are accurate

Common mistakes

• Identifying gaps that are virtues in disguise ('I care too much', 'I try to do everything myself') rather than genuine areas where your leadership caused worse outcomes
• Choosing a practitioner reviewer who is a direct report or close friend and therefore unlikely to provide critical feedback
• Using a leadership framework as a label without applying its specific concepts — naming 'servant leadership' and not engaging with listening, foresight, or stewardship

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The three gaps must be specific behaviours or capabilities, not character traits — 'I struggle to delegate decisions on technical details when I know the answer' is specific; 'I need to be more confident' is not
• Real situations must be named — if the submitter cannot name the project or decision, the gap is hypothetical rather than observed
• The practitioner reviewer must have observed the submitter's leadership — a career coach who has not seen the submitter lead does not satisfy the confirmation requirement

Proof required

Submit your 8-week decision log (at least 8 entries, each 100+ words) covering a leadership role in a named project or initiative. Each entry must name the decision, describe how you applied or tested one of your three development gaps, and record the outcome. ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION: your named practitioner reviewer reads two of your log entries (your choice of which two) and provides 100 words of written feedback on whether the decision-making demonstrates genuine leadership growth.

What gets checked

• 8 or more weekly log entries, each 100+ words, covering a named project or initiative
• Each entry names a real decision and connects it to one of the three identified development gaps
• Practitioner feedback on two entries — at least 100 words engaging with the decision quality, not just acknowledging that the entries exist

Common mistakes

• Writing entries retrospectively (all 8 at the end of the project) — retrospective entries converge into a narrative rather than capturing real-time decision uncertainty
• Recording only decisions where the outcome is already known and positive — the log's value comes from recording uncertainty and choice, not documenting successes
• Selecting only successful decisions to document — leadership growth is best evidenced through entries where outcomes were mixed and the reflection demonstrates learning

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check entry dates — entries written in a single batch will show identical or missing timestamps; require timestamped evidence if authenticity is in question
• The practitioner reviewer's feedback must engage with specific decisions — generic encouragement does not satisfy the feedback requirement
• At least one entry should document a decision with a negative or ambiguous outcome — a log where every outcome is positive is a curated success story, not a genuine leadership record

Proof required

Submit your leadership portfolio (M1 assessment + M2 log + 500-word final reflection) and a brief record of the adversarial challenge session: the name and professional role of the reviewer, the date and duration, and notes on at least three challenges posed and your responses to each. A short written statement from the reviewer (50+ words) confirming that your responses demonstrated genuine leadership reasoning — not just recitation of the log — is required. ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE Level 2: live session required; written Q&A alone does not satisfy this milestone.

What gets checked

• Portfolio with all three components: M1 assessment, M2 log, 500-word final reflection
• Session record: reviewer named with professional role, date and duration (≥30 minutes), at least three challenges and your responses
• Reviewer statement (50+ words) confirming responses demonstrated reasoning, not recitation

Common mistakes

• Treating the challenge session as a presentation rather than a challenge — agree with the reviewer in advance that they will actively pose adversarial questions
• Choosing a reviewer who is supportive rather than critical — the challenge requires a reviewer willing to question your framing; a reviewer who confirms everything you say provides no independent verification
• Writing the final reflection as a summary of what happened rather than an evaluation of your growth — the reflection must answer 'how have I changed as a leader?' with specific evidence

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the session was live — written Q&A sent over email does not satisfy ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE Level 2; a synchronous session of at least 30 minutes is required
• At least three challenges must be documented — if the session record lists fewer than three, the session likely did not meet the adversarial challenge standard
• The reviewer statement must use language about the submitter's reasoning ('they justified…', 'they reconsidered…', 'they identified…') rather than just confirming the session took place
• Minimum qualified reviewer: a named experienced leader — manager, team lead, director, or equivalent — who has themselves led teams or organisations