XPO Development centre feedback view

Search results - XPO dev centre


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Profile : Initial confident introduction to himself & background but then tailed off – didn’t fulfil potential

‘guttering task’ Part 1 : initial suggestion about whether the group should “plan or rely on trial & error”, but thereafter 2 groups evolved for a time – Matt & Russell + everyone else
Interjected quite strongly when determining ‘ball drop’
Shouted out ‘slow, slow, slow’ to keep the team focused

Part 2 : more decisive, particularly on the technique for the uphill section ‘short into long’, ‘right should we get lined up’

Part 3 (2 ball) : tried to put across his ideas within the wider group
Was inclusive by ensuring that Matt was invited back into what had become a closed feedback circle

Development Areas: 

Profile : who / why /what he wants as an individual to enable career planning

‘guttering task’ : needs to ensure the whole team are involved, needs to draw them in by asking leading & closed questions
started experimenting separately with a solution, again not drawing team into discussion
Became a wee bit more peripheral as other characters took more of a lead, standing at back of group holding the guttering
Too passive / indecisive on occasion

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Profile : good intro. very confident

‘guttering task’ part 1 : spent a deal of time working through the problem by thinking out loud and then comparing his thoughts with Matt

Took greater control along with Matt by sheer force of talking louder, but to be fair ended up getting his message across !

Part 2 : significantly more decisive as his confidence grew and he better understood the task and the relative strengths within the group

Part 3 : made it clear that ‘our uphill section worked well’ and that was what the broader group adopted as the agreed technique

Development Areas: 

Inclusivity – bring more people into the brainstorming process earlier

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Introduction was bright and bubbly and kept the attention of the room with her energy. As soon as the teams were able to get the task underway Rebecca showed great enthusiasm and picked up the lead straight away. She immediately was in solution mode while the others were getting to grips with what they had to do. Throughout the task including joining up with the other team Rebecca showed confidence and was one of the most prominent voices and leaders of the group always directing and willing to contribute to get the task completed.

Development Areas: 

Based on day 1 tasks I would only advise Rebecca to perhaps ensure she takes her peers along with her and make them feel part of the solution. Her natural completer / finisher approach meant she would not always do this, however, a minor point.

Rating: 9

Soundbites: very common to hear Rebecca say “yes we can”, “we can do this cant we” all positive language


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Team player, time keeper, positive thinker, praising others. Commands the group.

Development Areas: 

At one point Simon had his back to half the team talking to the other half. Try to make sure everyone is involved.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: High fives for the team. “I like that idea” “well done everyone”


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Matts opening presentation was humorous which endeared him to the group straight away which was great as he may have felt uneasy as he was last to arrive so big plus. Matt started the task very vocal and was very methodical in his approach to the solution, he was thinking it through whilst other grabbed the apparatus straight away. He engaged with the rest of the group very well putting forward ideas to complete the task but was not pushy and this certainly helped the whole Team gel. He was very imaginative when finding the best solution for the 10cm drop and showed great lateral thinking to make it the first part of the solution not midway or at the end like everyone else.

Development Areas: 

When the 2 teams got together Matt very much took a back seat and only engaged with his own team he had previously been working with. Not a criticism but an observation that he was not as prominent in getting his point across or contributing to the larger group as there were stronger voices.

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Passionate, listened to her team mates, assertive, well presented in opening speech, confident. Has good sound ideas.

Development Areas: 

Appears slightly frustrated if not heard. Can be too assertive. Spoke over people s couple of times.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: Asked the opposing team when they came together, “what did you do to ensure the 90 degree turn”


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Personal Intro on rouges gallery was confident. Very personable, articulate & clear.

Development Areas: 

Maybe be a little more assertive in the rollerball task. Quietly spoken and therefore his point was often missed by the other team members. Needs to be a little more forceful and vary tone & impact.

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Good introduction, nice warm welcome and very smiley. Came across well. Also did her impromptu presentation first which she did on her role model (her mum), was very well received and set the bar high

Development Areas: 

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Good introduction went early on, used humour to his advantage – seemed very laid back

Development Areas: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Rollerball – Gave a few good, intelligent ideas

Development Areas: 

Rollerball – Generally on the periphery and happy to let others take the lead

Rating: 5

Soundbites:


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Great intro – articulate, confident and funny (cracked a joke about the name badge). Bright and engaging. Loves working for XPO – wants continuous development and to identify strengths and weaknesses.

Icebreaker – asked lots of questions. Has a coaching style to help clarify understanding and approach.
checked up on the time at regular intervals.

Impromptu presentation – expectations of XPO in 3 years – smash DHL – well delivered, again passionate, positive and refreshing.

Development Areas: 

Variation of style – maintained a coaching style throughout – when perhaps the group needed a little bit more directive approach to the end.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: Loved the positive language. Loves XPO and wants to smash DHL.


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

personal intro was good. Used humour well. Very personable. Rollerball task: very competitive vs the other team. Gave useful and good tips during the team to guide how they did the task.

Development Areas: 

knowing when to use humour is important i.e. In the debrief when they were reflecting on the task, he called out “IT” and to make a joke.

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

actively started the reflection discussion and was keen to provide his input. suggested alternative approaches and ideas during the task.

Development Areas: 

needs to raise his voice to be heard

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Rollerball – Really vocal throughout, particularly in both the debriefs, was happy to challenge Simon when he tried to steer the team off-track, competitiveness also came through

Development Areas: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Rollerball – Gave some good suggestions but didn’t make herself heard at times

Development Areas: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 1:

Key Strengths:

Intro – confident, articulate and nice style and approach. Was engaging. Surprised that he said had a weakness on public speaking, as he appeared very competent. Good level of humility.

Icebreaker – had a reflective style. Grew into the task and started to participate more in identifying solutions as the exercise went on. Was an active participant.

Development Areas: 

Intro – hand in pocket, negative language reinforces self belief on presentations.
Fairly reflective style and was quiet during the early stages of the task.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: “I have a development need on public speaking” – reinforcing negative believe.


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Very active during the tasks and is quote aware of others in the group (state). Likes to try and see how it works out. Trail & Error. Often checked the welfare of the other team members during the task (particularly on the cycling) – are you ok with the pace ? safety conscious. Took the role to read the instructions on a few of the tasks, articulate & clear. showed some traits of natural leadership on the tasks.

Development Areas:

sometimes did not always immediately digest the instructions and rules of the task

Rating: 7

Soundbites: 


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Human knot – Rebecca straight away after Phil had got everyone to join hands started to contribute with ideas which quickly became a common theme throughout the day. She was decisive in knowing what she thought was the best way to approach the task and not afraid to push her opinion onto others, this was done always in the right way with a smile which helped influence the outcome.

Development Areas:

Had a tendency to ignore others initially on this task but remained positive throughout.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Intelligent and came across well throughout the day, gave a number of creative suggestions in the secret answer and perfect square, including coming up with symbols for key words during SA/prevented the team making a big mistake on the perfect square by reminding them they weren’t starting with the rope in their hands.

Development Areas:

Generally one of the quieter members on these tasks and on the periphery

Rating: 6

Soundbites: 


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

encouraged others well. asked good questions of the group to achieve and improve the task. competitive – on the crate stack – immediately set a target of 20+ based on our challenge. very adaptable.often lead the tasks

Development Areas:

could be more positive in her language. i.e. we are not going to be able to cross each other.. On occasion showed a lack of awareness of others. during the low ropes, people were struggling to get across the ropes and she was laughing about getting a name wrong & was oblivious to what was going on.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: 


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Could be assertive in parts. When has ideas comes across very strong. Team player.

Development Areas:

Fairly quiet and didn’t really take the lead. Opportunity to listen to others and their ideas more. Can talk above others.

Rating: 5

Soundbites: Didn’t observe any.


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

lead the secret answer task – came up with the system used which worked well. articulate and read the instructions well to the team.

Development Areas:

Rating: 7

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Actively involved through the day.
Played a leading role throughout the day and was heavily involved in planning solutions. Generally positive and upbeat and was prepared to roll sleeves up and be a keen team player.
Enthusiastic, articulate and engaging – demonstrated good leadership.
Encouraged others at regular points and checked on teams welfare.
Made lots of suggestions – and was prepared to hurry the team on when procrastinating.

Development Areas:

Enthusiasm did mean that he talked over people at times – did have a clash with Russell during ‘Perfect Square” – but overcame well.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: “Should we just get on try this”.


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Resilient – pushed himself to do both the high rope tasks when it was clear he was outside his comfort zone, volunteered to go first twice.

Micromanaged the criss cross challenge really well, guided the team through and came across as a natural leader here – all the guys listened to him and let him take over from actual leader (Damien)

Lead by example frequently, particularly when he could use his physicality

Development Areas:

Lacked empathy and support for his team when they were going up the high ropes, a general lack of encouragement, although this wasn’t just him: the whole team were generally disjointed and there was a lack of camaraderie throughout the day

Rating: 6

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Lead one of the cycle tasks OK

Development Areas:

Never really knew who was leading throughout the day
Team went longer route when he lead the cycling task

Rating: 5

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Actively involved through the day.
Played a leading role throughout the day and was heavily involved in planning solutions. Generally positive and upbeat and was prepared to roll sleeves up and be a keen team player.
Enthusiastic, articulate and engaging – demonstrated good leadership.
Encouraged others at regular points and checked on teams welfare.
Made lots of suggestions – and was prepared to hurry the team on when procrastinating.

Development Areas:

N/A – great day

Rating: 8

Soundbites: 


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

supportive of the team during the tasks

Development Areas:

quite passive during the early tasks. could use more positive language – on secret answer he said “dont get it wrong” didnt display many leadership traits during the tasks..

Rating: 6

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Demonstrated clear leadership throughout the day – had good presence when leading – read briefs well and ensured others had good clarity on instructions.

Development Areas:

Be mindful of huntsmen and the impact on others.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: 


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

reassured the other team member who was struggling on the high ropes. took a very active role as the pivot guy in the low ropes task and performed very well. guided the other team well to complete this task. supportive of the team

Development Areas:

lack of general encouragement of others during the tasks . ability to understand and digest information & instructions quickly seemed to be lacking. often had to have the rules reiterated and explained.

Rating: 6

Soundbites: 


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Secret Answer – clear instructions, clarified with group the approach to be adopted.
‘War Gamed’ scenarios prior to task starting and had a clear plan.
Asked the question “are we clear about what we’re doing before we start” several times.
Realised had to be a game of charades because of the 100m distance.

Stepped up to drive the communication from her group via a series of letter shapes !

Development Areas:

Despite the good (and in some cases detailed) planning missed the fundamentals as despite asking the question to clarify peoples understanding it became obvious that the team in general didn’t.
Key in this case that complete understanding of technique & tactics was fully understood with the group being split into two with ongoing comm’s difficult.
On occasion became a bit part player in her group.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: 


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Jon lead the perfect square task but with a general lack of enthusiasm . the level of planning was good however this resulted in a lack of trail & error and making progress on the task.

Development Areas:

could be more decisive. a quietly spoken guy who is not naturally a big character or assertive leader. could be challenged if the team did not follow his lead.

Rating: 6

Soundbites: when it was commented on his lack of enthusiasm during the task he didnt seem to like the banter or being called out.


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Team player and actively takes part in tasks. Is confident when she is sure of what to do. Can be quite dominant when confident. Claire directed the team well in the warm up and had a calm disposition. Is methodical in her thought process.

Development Areas:

Could contribute more as a leader. Claire has some good suggestions but often in tasks that she likes. Claire sometimes goes quiet, maybe when she is unsure of the answer?
Could challenge more in an appropriate way.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: In the first bike ride that she lead she reflected and said to the team to check in on the person behind.


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Natural leader – often took the lead on tasks and was happy to contribute throughout the day

Humour – would use humour to his advantage when putting his point across and also keeping the spirits up within the team

Encouraging and empathy – Simon was probably the only person to frequently congratulate, check in and positively reinforce the team. After high ropes he got them all together for a group hug and would always praise the team after a task was completed

Perfect Square – he had the right idea for the perfect square and tried to keep it simple, unfortunately he couldn’t get the team to listen to him and they overcomplicated the task

Resilient – very out of his comfort zone on high ropes but didn’t make a big deal about it and succeeded in the task

Development Areas:

Seemed keen to give up on the human knot – ‘we’ve reached an impasse here’, ‘I don’t think we can do anymore’ despite the team continuing to try and find a solution

Needs to be aware of his state at times, he was generally very involved throughout the day but goes suddenly quiet when outside of his comfort zone so it’s more noticeable to the team

Seemed at times to seperate from the team, particularly when cycling and didn’t seem to engage with them during this time

A team criticism and not necessarily one just for Simon but at times they either procrastinated too much and got it wrong (perfect square) OR jumped straight in and got it wrong (Spiders Web), sometimes lacked camaraderie in the team

Rating: 7

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Lead the cycle well

Development Areas:

Didn’t seem to want to lead, in fact it was hard to know who the actual leader was throughout the day.

Rating: 5

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Actively involved throughout the day – was a key member of the team and was involved in planning solutions consistently throughout.
Demonstrated good leadership – had a very good style and has a likable manner. Was encouraging of others and often checked on other member’s welfare.
Prepared to challenge – did pull Dave up for talking over him – slightly sharp in his approach to this.
Master map reader – demonstrated excellent skills in this area – got the team to the right location

Development Areas:

Was slightly sharp in his challenge of Dave. Seemed to quite after clash with Dave – almost like he was reflecting on the incident and knocked his confidence – but soon overcame this after “Perfect Square”.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: “Can i just finish” – challenged Dave


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Rebecca always put herself first in all these tasks not afraid to try anything, plenty of energy with humour also. She demonstrated real encouragement and empathy on the High All Aboard task with Jo as she was the individual in the group most nervous due to the height. Actively involved in all tasks, continuous input of ideas, solutions and direction throughout with real structure, at the same time having real engagement and camaraderie with her Team members which was visibly appreciated also. Very confident and never afraid to challenge ideas of other team members but not in a confrontational way.

Development Areas:

In the field when trying to resolve the square rope task all the Team started to be agitated but Rebecca in solution mode didn’t take everyone with her and at one point was patronising to the rest of the group. However, at this point all Team members were visibly becoming frustrated.

Rating: 9

Soundbites: “Clayton, I mean Leighton…. you look like a Clayton!!”, ” Matt you are shaking the pole alot!” As Matt was climbing the double trap to join Rebecca at the top of the pole.


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Definitely pushed himself out of his comfort zone on the ropes – was not comfortable with heights – but perfromed very well and encouraged others.

Development Areas:

Rating: 8

Soundbites: 


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Demonstrated good leadership – has a good style and his engaging and assertive.

Development Areas:

Did show signs of frustration at times – not at others – but at not being able to complete the task (e.g. Spiders Web).

Rating: 8

Soundbites: 


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Claire came across as nervous on these tasks but was determined to see through for the benefit of the team so again a team player. Claire did on occasion encourage her teammates. Would be good to see more of this.
She organised the team in the secret answer. Clarified rules for the next round .

Development Areas:

Can sometimes talk over others. On the blind task, Claire went quiet. Could be seen to be looking for loop holes. How can we bend the rules? E.g use a mobile phone in the secret question task.

Rating: 6

Soundbites: Came up with suggestions in the secret answer such as using the X to finish a sentence and turnaround when completed a task. Made suggestions in this task “does anyone know sign language? On the blind task clairemade a comment when talking to John, I like your idea?”


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Human Knot – very robust in a gentle way expressing her PoV and participate in the plan

Blindfold – very participative; keen on measurement, establishment of fixed points and as was consistent throughout the day was able to give clear instructions.

Development Areas:

On occasion drifted into the background when more vocal members of the group became more forceful.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: 


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Human Knot and secret answer Matt stood back initially, unlike the rest of the Team. Then it was apparent he was analysing other people and thinking more deeply about the tasks. Had good ideas but often the rest of the Team had moved on, however, built good trust with his Team members throughout the tasks.

Development Areas:

Had a tendency to look disinterested but he wasn’t so needs to have more input earlier in the task to get his point across.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: 


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Telegraph Pole – very worried about the height based task but demonstrated genuine resilience in completing it as far as she did, ultimately I think this became a physical limitation rather than a mental barrier.
Loved the way she asked questions about things she didn’t understand without any embarrassment or qualms, demonstrated real self-belief / confidence.

Spiders Web – again played an active role in planning. Very willing to recognise her physical limitations and actively encourage others to fill that space.

Trapeze – as per Telegraph Pole, again demonstrated her mental toughness / resilience.

Overall Jo had a good day, she genuinely enjoyed being a member of the team, participated well in all tasks, challenged herself both physically & mentally and helped gel the team together.

Coaching / mentoring style was excellent.

Development Areas:

Needs to be more forceful in expressing her PoV.

Rating: 

Soundbites: 


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

This was Matts strongest part of the day. The task Rope in a square in the field Matt was heavily involved from the beginning, giving directions of how the task should be executed and who should do what. his lateral thinking came into his own here looking at the task differently to the other Team members. The other tasks he showed real encouragement to others such as when he was belaying on double trap, also pushed himself physically on the tasks with a can do attitude. Showed good humour during the day which helped him engage with his Team members.

Development Areas:

Involve in the team quicker to have more input as happy to not lead and be carried with limited input. However, input at times was excellent.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: 


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

willingness to participate
clarified & questioned approach
very collegiate style
calming influence
unemotional / not easily riled / slow to anger
physically brave & mentally resilient

Development Areas:

a bit disengaged on occasion, needs to step into the influencing / decision-making space more frequently to guide the conversation and the ultimate decisions made
can come across as lacking in energy
part of the audience rather than the show

Rating: 6

Soundbites: 


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 2:

Task: Non ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Damien is considered in his approach to the team and listens. Adds humour appropriately. Comes up with good suggestions and solutions but needs to ensure his voice his heard. On the criss cross exercise Damien used encouraging words to Jon, ‘Good balance’ ‘Good point’.

Development Areas:

Could be quiet in the group and stand back from taking the lead. Re-visits the question a lot, could be interpreted as not making timing decisions. Needs to work on his assertiveness when in a team environment.

Rating: 7

Soundbites: Cycled off at one point to ensure the team were on the right track.


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 2:

Task: Ropes based tasks
Strengths:

Strong and able to participate with ease. Checked in on the girls to see if they were ok. Damien did have some good suggestions and took the lead on Criss Cross.

Development Areas:

Was often quiet in these exercises and didn’t speak up very often. Could be more encouraging of his teammates especially when they are struggling (scared of heights etc). Damien needs to work on how he gets people to listen to his ideas – he has some good ones but they are not always heard.

Rating: 6

Soundbites: on the Criss Cross exercise Damien said ‘Don’t push it, use the other one’. Took the lead and was assertive.


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 2:

Task: Leadership Leg(s)
Strengths:

Made some good points during the day and came up with sound solutions. He has a good sense of humour which he uses appropriately. He is likable and has an obvious eye for Health and Safety. When comfortable with a particular task, uses his physical strength to help the team.

Development Areas:

Quite reserved in his persona and let’s others take the lead. Damien has some good ideas and needs to find a way to be heard. Damien would get people on board by encouraging his team more and using more empathy.

Rating: 6

Soundbites: 


Observer: Ian Prentice

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Jo was awesome – a real trooper and gave a good account of herself

Development Areas:

better dress sense required

Development Action: 

Fuel PWI course

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Contributed to the task really well, was active and took the lead role in capturing the outputs from the discussion and putting onto the flip chart. demonstrated good lateral thinking in terms of identifying the boat to be used to pull and transport other items.

Development Areas:

initially in the conversation she dismissed the idea of a few items without thinking through the possibilities. therefore maybe could have been a little more considered in her thinking.

Development Action: 

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Took control of the task and lead from the beginning.
Regularly checked in on timings.
Was key in helping form the strategy and approach with Damien.
Challenged others input in a positive manner.
Ensured that the team got all of the answers onto the flip-chart (wrote the flip-chart).

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

reflective in his approach rather than diving straight in and identified the positive elements of some of the items i.e. the use of the transmitter and articulated his thoughts to the group reasonable well.

Development Areas:

relatively a quieter member of the group during the discussion

Development Action: 

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Actively involved throughout and made some good suggestions, particularly about how strong the parachute silk was and how they could use it

Development Areas:

Team could have done with a leader but he didn’t step into this place (nobody did) which lead to everyone talking over everyone at some point.

Development Action: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Checked in on time.
Made some good contributions.
Grew into the task towards the end – prepared to challenge

Development Areas:

Was fairly quiet at the start – grew into the task.

Development Action: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

very logical and well thought through – first to say that the structure of the list should be based upon ‘life sustaining’ needs
very participative and acted as an ideas person for the group – albeit a little quiet !

Development Areas:

occasionally peripheral to the discussion, needs to be more confident in his own opinions and express it boldly

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Actively involved and was happy to challenge some of the team on their suggestions,

Development Areas:

Team lacked structure and a leader initially which Claire didn’t step into (nobody did)

Development Action: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

logical approach, orientation & survival, absorbed the list quickly and determined his own view of necessities quickly, thereafter clarified for the group the objectives of ranking the list
in addition injected some humour into the discussion which lightened the mood without being frivolous

Development Areas:

tendency to drift off to the periphery of the group and look a bit disengaged, may be a body language thing rather than ‘brain disengagement’ but needs to recognise importance of perception

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Contributed well as part of the team. Took an active role in the discussion coming up with a good rationale for his thinking and choice of things/order of items. Good arguments and not afraid to have a voice.

Development Areas:

Matt could take the lead more and challenge the group further to why they have made their suggestions.

Development Action: 

Lead a team and challenge appropriately.

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Unauthorised Strike
Calm throughout the call and didn’t rise to Ian’s bait
Listened well and let Ian speak, good open questions to ascertain situation
Empathy – ‘we can sort this, it’ll not be a problem’

Development Areas:

Lacked urgency, prepared to wait for tomorrow and wrote off the night’s activity
Didn’t take responsibility for H&S, Agency calls and wanted the shift manager to make the call
Didn’t come up with many creative solutions to get the employees warm
Closed call early – felt she was guided by Ian through conversation

Development Action: 

Could do with knowing legal requirements of allowed minimum/maximum temperatures to work

Rating: 5

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Used collaborative language throughout – ‘us’, ‘we’, ‘lets work together’

Remained calm throughout and didn’t get agitated

Keen to resolve situation and whilst he was very task focused he did speak openly about being honest immediately to the colleagues

Development Areas:

Lacked some urgency and any apology to the customer, if anything his lack of apology frustrated the customer

Didn’t defend XPO at any point

Interrupted Ian quite early on and didn’t gauge full situation

Didn’t pick up on any prompts to escalate the situation

Development Action: 

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Fork Lift Accident

Lead the conversation and micro managed Ian through the stages

Health and safety was fantastic, knew exactly what to do and lead Ian through the conversation

Remained calm and was assertive at times, clear instructions

Ended the conversation well – do you need anything else from me? Got a call back too

Prioritised the colleagues – keep them calm and comfortable

Excellent role play

Development Areas:

Didn’t reassure Ian when he was questioning whether he’d get fired

Could’ve let Ian speak more to begin with

Development Action: 

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Press peak – excellent role play from Claire

Kept urgency whilst remaining realistic on timings (it’s Sunday afternoon), challenged Ian on timings too, I can’t guarantee 12pm but I will call you at 10am

Very clear, assertive, concise, took lead of conversation

Used the XPO machine to her advantage – we’ll get the wider sites to us tomorrow, we’ll overstaff to protect service

First priority is our people, let’s get an action plan together

Great with the media piece – wrong to tell the media before we’ve spoken to our colleagues

Wasn’t prepared to be bullied by customer and was very clear and determined in her responses

‘Service is key, we need to protect your brand here’

Didn’t accept responsibility but promised a full investigation and ‘we will take necessary action’ should they find it was XPO

Great close – gave customer a list of what will happen next

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Took control form the start to give the task some structure. Very assertive Started suggesting items to list to the rest of the group. At one point the group went off piste and she controlled it really well by bringing order back to the task, reminding people of the time limit to get the task done. Also contributed when presenting back to the room at the end.

Development Areas:

Tendency to be patronising if she does not agree with someone else’s point of view, then moves on quickly.

Development Action: 

Slow down to allow clearer thinking and do not right peoples view point off to quickly.

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Showed interest in the task but did not contribute greatley, sat on the outside happy to be carried along and go with the majority in the group. Made some comments but these were not heard as over taken by stronger personalities in the group ie Simon

Development Areas:

Show more energy and force to be involved to gain respect from peer group.

Development Action: 

Rating: 5

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

very calm demeanour
allowed emotion to be downloaded / expressed without cutting across (in the main !)
gave reassurance ie. shared the problem immediately
suggested a containment plan & an accelerated project plan
clear distinct actions
volunteered to sit with customer team and explain the situation

Development Areas:

only slight critique; perhaps over volunteered severity of actions on individuals before a formal investigation + overly informal at the end of the call

Development Action: 

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Articulate, nice delivery style, concise, good eye contact, good prescence and engaging.

Intelligent and pushed herself to pick a presentation outside of her comfort zone

Well researched and a very positive personality

Development Areas:

Lacked some depth and some clear recommendations – good groundwork and lacked a bit of the ‘how’. perhaps too thereotical

Development Action: 

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

CAREER – Going to Iceland next, then after that very pragmatic and happy to look at anything, loves XPO and has identified that she wants a mentor

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Took control of the call immediately
Very supportive style
I’ll happily deal with the customer
Good solutions suggested: cordon off the area, use a spill kit, look after the injured person and do a brief to the rest of the team to reassure.
Strong focus on people aspect.

Development Areas:

Spoke very quickly
Could have focused a bit more on keeping the site operational by using an alternative area to work in safely.

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites: I can stay on the phone whilst I am travelling to support you, You are not looking stupid, I’m not looking for a blame culture


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Well researched and has a nice, articulate and likeable

Good analysis of market and competitors

Good creative ideas

Development Areas:

Sat down for the presentation, would’ve had more prescence standing

Development Action: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Good solutions: breaks, warm drinks, sending people home for warmer clothes, giving the heads up to the next shift
Offer incentives such as extra half day holiday or additional pay
Assertive style – you will need to speak to the Union
Offered to speak to the customer

Development Areas:

Talked over the supervisor on several occasions
Frustration was evident during parts of the call, such as sighing and tone of voice
Lacked empathy – ignored the comment about losing job

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

CAREER – Wants to be an FC in 12 months, would like a mentor, doesn’t want to be an FD, would like a mentor – someone like Lewis or Martin Haslam

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Good solutions: breaks, warm drinks, sending people home for warmer clothes, giving the heads up to the next shift
Offer incentives such as extra half day holiday or additional pay
Assertive style – you will need to speak to the Union
Offered to speak to the customer

Development Areas:

Talked over the supervisor on several occasions
Frustration was evident during parts of the call, such as sighing and tone of voice
Lacked empathy – ignored the comment about losing job

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Took control and arranged to travel to site to assist
Focused on the injured party

Development Areas:

Used the phrase “calm down” repeatedly
Tried to cut the call short to make another call to arrange support, which made the supervisor feel abandoned in the moment
Pace and tone came across as ‘panicky’ at times
Used closed questions rather than open questions which limited information gathering

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites: Priority is safety


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Took control and arranged to travel to site to assist
Focused on the injured party

Development Areas:

Used the phrase “calm down” repeatedly
Tried to cut the call short to make another call to arrange support, which made the supervisor feel abandoned in the moment
Pace and tone came across as ‘panicky’ at times
Used closed questions rather than open questions which limited information gathering

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites: Priority is safety


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Took control and arranged to travel to site to assist
Focused on the injured party

Development Areas:

Used the phrase “calm down” repeatedly
Tried to cut the call short to make another call to arrange support, which made the supervisor feel abandoned in the moment
Pace and tone came across as ‘panicky’ at times
Used closed questions rather than open questions which limited information gathering

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites: Priority is safety


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Stood up to present, good use of eye contact and hand coordination. Very good research on market sectors and XPO competition. Good use of PESTEL using live examples.

Development Areas:

Delivered too quick and gave the impression wanted to rush through and move on which took away from what was an overall good presentation.

Development Action: 

Rebecca would benefit from presentation course / personal impact course.

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Came across confident and very knowledgeable of the industry and XPO competitors showed plenty of energy.

Development Areas:

Started the presentation with his back to Patrick and sitting down not standing up so came across over familiar but not a major issue. Again spoke really so potential just to fine tune his delivery.

Development Action: 

SP would benefit forma presentation course.

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Very measured in his delivery but lack enthusiasm and energy. Sat down with legs crossed giving the impression he was not that interested even though he had UK Head of L&D and Global Head of L&D in the room. Only in the business 12 weeks so early days.

Development Areas:

Suggest a mentor outside of his business unit integrate him into XPO.

Development Action: 

Rating: 5

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Fork Lift Truck accident: Positive opening to the conversation, asking open questions and showing support for the caller on the other end who was distressed. Showed real operation knowledge of dealing with such situations and as such was calm and measured and well in control.

Development Areas:

Was very quick to deal with all the people areas and H&S was key, however, no mention of the commercial impact or any thought to minimising the exposure to XPO with downtime.

Development Action: 

6 months in role so will learn in role reporting to his AD

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Unofficial strike: With Alana background she demonstrated a robust plan and was quickly into action and showed she could think on her feet. Full of practical ideas to resolve and support.

Development Areas:

Did not show any empathy for the caller who was distressed and talked over the caller at key times missing what they were saying.

Development Action: 

Recommend personal impact course.

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Clarified the incident with the caller and asked some really good open questions. Was very reassuring to the caller in trying to calm them down, took responsibility to update the customer to take that worry away from the caller.

Development Areas:

Came across as patronising at one point when referred to the caller as a Junior which was irrelevant for the purposes of the task. Rebecca talked really quickly which heightened the panic levels of the incident throughout.

Development Action: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Press leak – Very reassuring to the Customer and spoke calm and measured ( Jon overall style). Confirmed the actions he would take and a timeframe he would come back to the customer.

Development Areas:

Came across too relaxed at times giving the impression it was not as serious as it was. Over committed on the call admitting XPO liability without being clear of all the facts or before any investigation and conclusion made.

Development Action: 

12 weeks into new role, already stated would benefit from a mentor.

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Lewis Rafferty

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Good introduction of herself to the audience, good delivery with eye contact and pace of delivery. Really good research and analysis on gender pay gap and was able to put forward recommendations and ideas of how to improve our workplace V the competition. Really good ideas of how to get the XPO message out to wider platforms ie linked in. Sports sponsorship to raise the profile of the UK business.

Development Areas:

This topic was perfect for Alana, she now needs to increase her commercial awareness fo the business and get an understanding of the numbers for her BU and wide UK business.

Development Action: 

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Articulate and confident presenter, very gesticulate and commanded the room. Good presence

Good research, good insight, good depth and some creative ideas, clearly knows this area well

Came across as very authentic and very caring about his site – like the ambition about his site being the best in class

Development Areas:

Some of his slides were a bit too busy, he knew his stuff so perhaps didn’t need as many words on the slides

Development Action: 

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

CAREER: Warrington GM and still new to XPO and establishing himself in the business and role, wants his site to be the best and wants to remain in his role for up to the next 18 months before he considers anything else – current in consolidation period. Aspirational and would like to do a bigger role but has some personal seeds of doubt.

Spend some time with another Account Director so he can understand what the next level looks like and where his gaps are

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Nice style, good eye contact and presence

Innovative in his thinking and some good entrepreneurial ideas, didn’t go down the easy path and certainly showed some out of the box thinking.

Very well researched

Development Areas:

Didn’t make clear how some of his ideas would translate into XPO reality

Development Action: 

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Downes

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

CAREER – New to organisation and wants to consolidate. Happy where he is and wants to be an Account Director, knows he lacks some of the commercial exposure needed – financial acumen and putting together tenders for new business.

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

Rating: 

Soundbites:


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Group Task

Strengths:

Dave was a team player in this task. He considered others opinions in an engaging way and contributed to the exercise in a positive way. He also put good arguments forward to challenges and kept the group on time. He took it open himself to feedback to the wider team and did this in a logical way with a clear rationale given.

Development Areas:

Dave could have challenged some of the rationale.

Development Action: 

The only other point I would say is that when presenting, engage with the whole room, not just one person, this helps to keep the whole group engaged with what you are saying.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: He praised the team following the presentation ‘well done everyone’.


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Matt has a calm tone to his voice and tried to use this to calm the caller down. He also understood that H&S is paramount in these situations and came up with suggestions to deal with this.

Development Areas:

This was clearly out of Matt’s comfort zone and not something he has had to deal with on a regular basis. He did appear to be a bit hesitant and non responsive to the situation, it came across as a little laid back. He didn’t take ownership for the situation stating “do what you need to do”.

Development Action: 

Matt did recognise that as a line manager he could have to deal with situations like this in the future, albeit different scenarios so I think he will go away and reflect on the task. It would be good to create a framework for such situations that means something to Matt as an individual ‘things to do in a difficult situation’ (people to contact, how to come across, giving re-assurance etc).

Rating: 5

Soundbites: The first thing Matt said was ‘your voice sounds familiar’ in a humorous way which was probably a little unprofessional in the circumstances., Matt told the caller to “keep calm, don’t panic, it won’t help the situation”


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Dave was very professional in his manner from answering the phone to trying to appease a very disgruntled colleague. He did demonstrate a sense of urgency in responding to the needs of the customer and was keen to put a plan in place to help resolve the situation as quickly as possible. He used empathy and was calm in his response. He gave confidence to the customer that action would be taken if the leak had come from an XPO colleague. He did come across as collaborative trying to create a shared sense of purpose. He did work swiftly to try to resolve the situation and appease the customer.

Development Areas:

Dave could be quite forceful at times but on the whole a good response to a difficult situation.

Development Action: 

Dave did speak over the caller on a couple of occasions. Understandably the customer was frustrated and this could have made them a little more anxious.

Rating: 8

Soundbites: “They won’t be with the business very long if found to be an XPO colleague that has leaked this”, “Does that help” when trying to put a plan in place and calm the caller down.


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

after being ‘shocked’ into taking the situation more seriously, body language did change, much more positive albeit under pressure, so reacted well to the cues from Zoe and although felt the pressure managed to remain calm
recognised the primary importance of safety in the workplace by putting the business on hold
Was led by Zoe to some extent but managed to produce an action plan of sorts

Development Areas:

completely thrown by this exercise initially – didn’t take it seriously, a bit too flippant
way outside of his comfort zone (which is freely admitted after the exercise finished)

Matt is a supreme example of a subject matter specialist, completely at home in his own environment, highly skilled professional BUT probably would benefit from greater direct operational exposure via Ops Review sessions and/or a late-career mini- re-induction !
Demonstrated a slight lack of empathy (but in difficult circumstances) by suggesting that Zoe should ‘calm down and not panic’

Development Action: 

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

The biggest strength for Damien here was his self reflection following this task. He knew it was out of his comfort zone but he came out committed to helping sites deal with situations in the future, through role play. Excellent result! He had a calming voice and did recognise the need for immediate consideration to H&S.

Development Areas:

Damien was quite methodical in his thinking but got thrown by negative answers and an irate, upset colleague. It felt hard for Damien to give a resolution for the colleague and help come up with solutions to the situation.

Development Action: 

Damien would benefit in having almost a framework in his head to help deal with these type of scenarios and focusing on the people element. “How are you?”, “Who am I speaking to?” and making the situation more personal and trying to give re-assurance to the colleague in these events.

Rating: 5

Soundbites: Damien’s first response was ‘who have you tried?’ when already been told – “I’ve tried everyone and no-one is answering”


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

Andrew has a real likable character and comes across very genuine. He was very professional in his approach, had a calming manor and talked to her as an individual by using her name which helped in this situation. He gave confidence immediately to the colleague. He was mindful of first aid and the well-being of colleagues. He was very encouraging to the colleague too.

Development Areas:

He showed a little uncertainty in dealing with the situation as he said “I’m thinking off the hoof here” but did recover. He needed a little prompting but over all a good task.

Development Action: 

Andrew needs to have more confidence in his own ability. He comes across very honest and genuine – I would buy from him!

Rating: 8

Soundbites: “I’ll start making my way down”. Excellent response and put the colleague at ease immediately.


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

very cool & calm – used his own name straightaway, asked who he was talking to, etc.
very empathetic
clear plan – emergency services, don’t move the injured party / keep warm, make sure driver comfortable and take initial statement
offered to come to the site immediately and effectively inherited the problem
asked how Zoe as the person on point at the site was doing
A genuinely nice guy and you can’t train or coach that

Development Areas:

Zoe did have to lead with Q’s around business / customer impact, rest of workforce, etc.
I think Andrew was so focused on the injured party, the driver & Zoe’s character he wasn’t concerned about anything else !

He’s a one man band, doesn’t have anyone working for him but occasionally could be the most senior person on a site so could possibly be involved in such a situation; could do with a very simple 6-point checklist in his head that could be used in any manner of situations

Development Action: 

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Matt pulled together a succinct, non fussy, easy to navigate presentation. He kept it simple and was easy to keep engaged. He gave good eye contact and body language. Matt clearly cares about his team and this came across well in his slides. He gave different view points and examples of how things are done well and not so well but in a very considered manner.

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

I’d like to see Matt put forward his plan to others and implement fully with his team to make us all feel even more engaged in XPO!

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Dave picked a subject that he has had some experience in and came up with some good initiatives that he should put forward as part of his development. The subject was interesting and Dave was engaging.

Development Areas:

Dave tends to focus on one person more in the room than others, if your not that person you can switch off.

Development Action: 

He should definitely explore this and perhaps do a more in-depth study into the world of 5PL.

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Mark Simmons

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Andrew relayed interesting stats as part of his presentation and I actually learned things about XPO that I didn’t know in relation to market share. He made it simple to understand and was very engaging. You felt like you could interact with this presentation, which worked really well and didn’t put Andrew off. He was very calm and genuine. He shows good business acumen and for a sales guy, he never comes over as ‘selling’.

Development Areas:

As I have said before, have confidence in his ability. He shows humility but don’t let it come across as not having the confidence or ability – he clearly has.

Development Action: 

I would like to see Andrew take his ideas forward and have a stronger voice to make things happen.

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Emergency Role Play

Strengths:

a real challenge for Damien, way outside of his comfort Zone
The greatest strength he demonstrated was resilience to keep going and not quit the task as he realised he was struggling badly
He was very honest at the end of the role play, no bluff & bluster, admitted very quickly that he’d struggled
As was true of all the people on this Dev. Centre a very genuine ‘guy’

Development Areas:

Given his SME role in QHSE he was obsessed with having a manual for every occasion (disaster recovery, PPE supplier, heating engineers, qulaity management system, etc.) which is all very laudable but in the middle of the night in an emergency situation need to rely on experience & instinct on occasion and without use of a reference document he was found wanting in this scenario
Damien cold end up being the most senior person on a site depn on time of day etc. so could do with a broader induction / experience of the Ops in general where he’s the QHSE lead
Ultimately Zoe had to take the lead and give suggestions as to what should happen next

Development Action: 

Rating: 4

Soundbites:


Observer: Cathy Earnshaw-Balding

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Damien came across as very passionate about the area that he had chosen to talk to us about. He has a clear passion for H&S and making improvements on the sites that he has in his remit. He demonstrated that he has worked with us, taking a collaborative approach to make things happen.

Development Areas:

The presentation could have been a little shorter in terms of slides – some were a little noisy. Less is more.

Development Action: 

To gain an understanding of other business areas such as HR to see things from a different perspective and understand in more depth the difference between people and process and the grey area that sometimes comes in between.

Rating: 7

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

very organised & structured presentation, full of facts & soundbites that brought the slides to life and gave interest, but he didn’t just talk to the slides, he talked around them and left it to the audience to reflect on the detail to add colour to what he was saying – I thought it was a very appealing style, very professional in an understated & engaging way
Matt’s presentational style was very relaxed and it was clear that he had given some real thought to the question and had a genuine passion for the workplace culture, impact on people and had a clear view (& good ideas) about the role he had to play in evolving the culture into something that had meaning for everyone.
Matt’s natural ability to think laterally about problems, demonstrably not just technical on the evidence here & slight ‘quirkiness’ of style was a genuine strength in this setting and I was very engaged with what he was saying and his understated passion for the subject matter

Development Areas:

I wouldn’t change his presentational style, it marks him out as being positively different, not just learned by rote.
A very very slight negative would be to draw more of a link between what he’s saying and some of the impactful stats on the slides – sometimes you can’t rely on the audience to draw the link

Development Action: 

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

very professional but relaxed style
managed to turn the presentation into a conversation – which can be very powerful
clear thoughts about the subject matter (business growth by creating a 5PL sector)
thought very well on his feet during the ‘conversation’ was never stuck for a response within the dialogue and remained confident about his views throughout

Development Areas:

not a great deal here – there’s always the usual about if you don’t know the audience try to read them and attempt to engage with a wide cross-section. It was obvious in a 2-person audience Dave’s attention swung to me, as he rightly determined that I might know a wee bit more about what he was saying, but that can be dangerous if the person with less direct knowledge is the decision maker and is more interested in personality and cultural fit !

Development Action: 

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

very relaxed presentational style but delivered with presence, was able to draw the audience into the theme & detail very easily as it was obvious Andrew knew what he was talking about and cared about it.
I can see how customers engage with him very easily.

Development Areas:

a very very small point; Andrew’s very relaxed style could occasionally lull some clients into believing there was a lack of energy & enthusiasm for the subject matter and/or their business – remaining (or giving the perception of being) energised is just something to be aware of

Development Action: 

Rating: 9

Soundbites:


Observer: Peter Fuller

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

organised / structured / detailed
Has a good presence and I can imagine within his QHSE comfort zone would always make a good fist of any presentation

Development Areas:

Damien was nervous, I think an element of this being a hangover from the role play experience so he was determined to perform.
Presentation had too much ‘listed’ detail for my personal preference (a direct contrast to Matt on the same subject) which led to Damien falling into the trap of looking at the screen too much and going through the lists nearly verbatim, although he did occasionally add further colour.
I think the more Damien integrates himself into the business the more confident he’ll become but does need to take the opportunity of exploring areas outside of his SME and he should then be able to deliver his QHSE message to the Ops audience with greater clarity & credibility.

Development Action: 

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Delivered presentation on Market Sectors.
Stood-up and provided good eye contact throughout.
Completed good research – although did not always develop/elaborate on some good research points.
Well delivered, enjoyable and engaging presentation.

Development Areas:

Seemed to skim over key areas.

Development Action: 

Would like to learn more about the wider XPO business.
Next role – is to be an FC. Loves working for XPO.

Rating: 8

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

XPO Workplace culture.
Carried out some good research and clearly understands the key components of engagement.
Some good content.

Development Areas:

Used slides from Bradford, rather than Thorncliffe.
Sat down for the presentation – was monotone at times and could have varied pace, pitch and tone.
The presentation lacked engagement and could have included more info info on the engagement/culture of his site.

Development Action: 

Relatively new in role and this is his first Site Manager position – would benefit from a mentor (outside of Retail).
Feels like he tried to be himself – but fully aware he does not always put himself forward and held back at times.

Rating: 6

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

Alana delivered a fantastic presentation on Market Conditions – focused on Diversity, Engagement and Inclusion. Made some excellent points about publishing good work done at sites externally.
Was well structure – very well researched, enjoyable and engaging.
She has an excellent presentation style and is a very natural public speaker. Gave good eye contact and confident, positive body language.

Development Areas:

Development Action: 

New in role – would like to progress to HRD by 40. Happy to continue developing in Transport as provides good experience and exposure for the next two years.

Rating: 10

Soundbites:


Observer: Chris Dolby

DAY 3:

Task: Presentation

Strengths:

How do we assess ourselves against competition – good knowledge and research – however lacked some detail.
Has a likable style and is very engaging.
Decent structure and provided good intro/contact and summary.

Development Areas:

Needs to be mindful of body language – sat and had back to Patrick (although did try and turn to make eye contact).
Very short presentation – to the point and succinct – only lasted 5 minutes.
Speaks very quickly and needs to be mindful of this and audience.

Development Action: 

Been with the business for 6 months – open to broader roles within the business using his experience.
Really enjoys role and likes culture at XPO.
Keen to use his experience as a mentor and knowledge of charity support.

Rating: 6

Soundbites:

 

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
Testimonials

This course has given me a clear understanding of how to focus on achieving a high performance standard and expect the same from my team.

Harry Rose
Manager, East Midlands Trains

I entered the first course thinking “what can I learn in 90 minutes” only to be bowled over with a fun, interesting and engaging session, totally relevant to the job I have to do as a manager. The booklet handout was perfect giving text and visual aids to support the subjects covered for us to use at a later date but without the boring task of working through it all word for word during the course. Ian and Steve were brilliant course facilitators who really seemed to know what they were talking about and the whole experience left me “buzzing” and keen to put into practise what I’d learnt. When are you here next Guys?

Vicki Rosik
Data Input Manager, Specsavers