Proof - Evidence Locator

& B1.1 — drive to achieve in all aspects of work.?

Say this (4 points)

1. As-Is Meetings Mapping: self-initiated project, not mandated
2. Director Shaw: "really clear next steps/quick wins"
3. Programme Manager Saywell: "truly identifies the issues we suspected"
4. Phase 2: designed to prevent Phase 1 failures; designed to exceed the brief

& B1.2 — demonstrates resilience and accountability.?

Say this (4 points)

1. Apprenticeship maintained: through £121m financial emergency and reorganisations
2. Anti-racism forum: chose to advocate proactively despite waning interest (Executive Summary)
3. SWANN: 31 unresolved referrals as of 27 May (no SLA); reduced to 13 outstanding for Shropshire Mental Health by 2 June followin
4. Steve Humphrey testimony: "strategic view, moving from operational viewpoint"

& B1.4 — seeks new opportunities.?

Say this (3 points)

1. Viva Insights proposal: identified digital solution to automate data gap
2. SWANN Phase 2: created new capabilities (dashboard, self-referral) not in Phase 1
3. HWBB adoption: methodology extended cross-organisationally by own initiative

& K1.3 — operational business planning; managing resources;?

Say this (5 points)

1. £770k to: £851k meeting costs identified across Children's Services
2. 20% reduction: target = 3 FTE returned to frontline
3. SWANN Phase 2: RAID log: 8 risks, 2 issues, 15 actions, 4 dependencies
4. Cost avoidance framework: illustrative (ADASS/PSSRU proxies)
5. DISTINCTION: Justify WHY: to make financial case visible and enable evidence-based decisions

& K1.6 — data security and management; effective use of tec?

Say this (4 points)

1. CRM encryption issue: original shared mailbox unencryptable; new SWAN mailbox created
2. Viva Insights proposal: anonymised calendar metadata, DPIA offer, privacy by design
3. Dynamics 365: portal chosen to preserve data tracking integrity (not standalone form)
4. Sensitive As-Is data: names anonymised below Service Manager level

& K4.3 — organisational cultures and diversity; impact on l?

Say this (4 points)

1. Root Cause: analysis identified asynchronous trust deficit as a cultural barrier
2. Phase 1 failure: governance built retrospectively. Cultural, not just technical, failure.
3. Six decisions: in As-Is Report flagged for Director sign-off (change management awareness)
4. Professional: referrer resistance in SWANN: addressed through design not mandate

& S1.4 — creation and delivery of operational plans; kpis; ?

Say this (4 points)

1. Recommendations table: named owners, deadlines, KPIs. Not just findings.
2. Now/Next/Later phased: roadmap with phased KPIs for SWANN Phase 2
3. SWANN 12-week: sprint timeline with defined deliverables per sprint
4. Success outcomes: defined (response time, referral volume, September 2026)

& S4.1 — communicate organisational vision and goals; apply?

Say this (4 points)

1. FFP: communicated £770k to £851k finding to Director, AD and Programme Manager
2. SWANN 27 May meeting: Phase 2 overview presented to full SWANN partnership
3. Now/Next/Later: visual tool to communicate change vision at pace
4. Connected project: to council's financial recovery mandate (£121m emergency)

& B2.1 — open, approachable, authentic; builds trust.?

Say this (4 points)

1. 360 Feedback: 100% accessible and approachable; 100% transparent and honest
2. Colleagues: "always available, friendly, and professional; seeks to gain perspectives"
3. Steve Humphrey: "asking for more feedback around the support we give teams"
4. Anti-racism forum: open about own uncertainty; sought line manager input before acting

& K4.1 — different leadership styles; leading multiple and ?

Say this (4 points)

1. Situational leadership: directing with Jim Ford (resistant), coaching with providers (incompatibility)
2. Adapted style: for each SWANN stakeholder; not a one-size approach
3. Managed upwards: (Director), sideways (AD, PM), and outwards (ICE Creates, providers)
4. Managing multiple: concurrent workstreams without line authority over most participants

& K4.2 — motivate and improve performance; coaching and men?

Say this (4 points)

1. 15 coachees: via West Midlands Coaching Pool (voluntary)
2. 2 returned: to work following burnout; 6 received promotions
3. Coaching Testimonials 2025: external validation with named outcomes
4. DISTINCTION: Analyse effectiveness: coaching enabled self-discovery vs directive instruction

& K4.4 — delegate effectively.?

Say this (3 points)

1. FFP: Charlie Saywell coordinated data population across team (Dave enabled, not did)
2. SWANN RACI matrix: delivery accountability mapped through named individuals
3. IMPACT Board observation: chose observation not ownership. Appropriate restraint.

& K5.1 — manage multiple teams; develop high performing tea?

Say this (4 points)

1. As-Is analysis: engaged 73+ staff across Early Help and Social Care
2. SWANN team: cross-functional. CRM, digital, customer services, dashboard, commissioners.
3. Concurrent workstreams: managed simultaneously (SWANN + EPA + deprioritised EHM)
4. DISTINCTION: Strategies used: sprint framework, RACI, weekly cadence, POAP. Lisa Middleton (Commissioning Officer) responded to the P

& K5.2 — performance management; talent management; recruit?

Say this (3 points)

1. Performance Review (Evidence 5): KSB scores documenting development trajectory
2. Coaching 15 people externally: direct talent management practice outside own team
3. 6 promotions: achieved by coachees; measurable performance improvement impact

& S4.2 — support development through coaching and mentoring?

Say this (4 points)

1. Coaching Testimonials 2025: specific individuals, specific outcomes documented
2. West Midlands Coaching Pool: voluntary commitment to coaching others (not required)
3. 2 returned: from burnout; coaching in high-stakes personal situations
4. DISTINCTION: Justify technique choice: coaching enabled ownership; directive would not have achieved same

& S5.1 — manage talent and performance.?

Say this (3 points)

1. Coaching: identified strengths in coachees and directed development accordingly
2. Performance Review: managed own performance against KSB standards
3. FFP team: enabled Charlotte Saywell to develop project coordination skills

& S5.2 — develop, build and motivate teams; identify streng?

Say this (3 points)

1. Identified individual: strengths in SWANN team and assigned workstreams accordingly
2. HWBB adoption: enabled Louisa Jones to apply methodology to wider sphere
3. Coaching Pool: built others' capability as a sustained practice, not ad hoc

& S5.3 — delegate and enable delivery through others.?

Say this (3 points)

1. FFP: delegated data collection to 73+ staff, coordinated via Charlie Saywell
2. SWANN: Kate Hobbs (CRM), Katie Done (Digital), Ness Hicken (referral form): each owns their workstream
3. Delivery through: others without line authority; influence not instruction

& B1.3 — determination when managing difficult situations.?

Say this (4 points)

1. As-Is: presented sensitive leadership capacity data to Director without softening the findings
2. Anti-racism forum: sustained advocacy for policy development despite waning institutional interest
3. SWANN: managed 31 outstanding referrals (27 May), no SLA, TBC strategic owner; reduced to 13 (Shropshire Mental Health) by 2 Ju
4. £121m financial emergency: maintained focus on project delivery under systemic pressure

& B2.2 — seeks views of others; values diversity.?

Say this (3 points)

1. 360 Feedback: Q1, Q6, Q14: seeking others' views and valuing diversity
2. SWANN requirements workshop: user stories confirmed with full team, not imposed
3. As-Is: crowd-sourced data from 73+ staff; incorporated AD's anomaly feedback before wider release

& B3.3 — positive and adaptable; responds well to feedback ?

Say this (4 points)

1. Deprioritised EHM: Mapping pragmatically when capacity required elsewhere; not defensive
2. Sprint: approach adapted to council context: phased delivery over rigid waterfall
3. Natasha's anomaly feedback: responded constructively, updated analysis before wider release
4. DISTINCTION: Justify adaptability: sprint chosen specifically because council context required visible early wins to maintain stakeho

& K6.1 — stakeholder and supplier relationship management; ?

Say this (5 points)

1. Model: Mendelow's power/interest matrix. Used to differentiate engagement by stakeholder
2. Influenced Director: Shaw to commit to reviewing his own meeting attendance
3. No line: authority over Director, AD (Natasha Moody) or Programme Manager (Charlotte Saywell)
4. HWBB adoption: influenced Louisa Jones cross-organisationally
5. DISTINCTION: Evaluate the theory: Mendelow useful but doesn't capture emotional resistance; supplemented with trust-building first

& K6.2 — collaborative working; delivery through others; sh?

Say this (4 points)

1. Four CLT: recommendations emerged from collaborative analysis with AD Natasha Moody
2. HWBB: As-Is methodology shared and applied cross-organisationally
3. SWANN requirements workshop (2 June): user stories confirmed collaboratively with team
4. Good practice: shared externally. HWBB, CLT. Not kept within PMO.

& K6.3 — manage conflict at all levels.?

Say this (4 points)

1. As-Is: six decisions with political sensitivity flagged for Director sign-off (not avoided)
2. As-Is: names anonymised below Service Manager level; ethical conflict prevention
3. SWANN: Jim Ford's Phase 1 concern addressed proactively in Phase 2 design
4. Provider response: format incompatibility resolved through engagement not mandate

& K7.1 — interpersonal skills; forms of communication; verb?

Say this (4 points)

1. Adapted communication for each audie: Director (strategic framing), operational staff (practical impact), providers (format compatibility)
2. Written: As-Is Report, SWANN proposal, cost avoidance model, ToR
3. Verbal: SWANN partnership presentation, requirements workshops, provider meetings
4. 360 Feedback: communication style rated positively across all modes

& S6.1 — build trust; effective negotiation and influencing?

Say this (4 points)

1. Director Shaw: publicly committed to reviewing own meeting attendance. Trust earned through evidence not authority
2. Jim Ford: Phase 1 concern (low referrer uptake) acknowledged and designed into Phase 2 solution
3. ICE Creates: provider format incompatibility resolved by adjusting Phase 2 portal design
4. Lisa Middleton "manage closely: trust built through regular check-ins and co-design

& S6.2 — identify and share good practice; collaborate insi?

Say this (4 points)

1. HWBB: As-Is methodology shared with Louisa Jones for cross-organisational application
2. West Midlands Coaching Pool: sharing coaching practice externally as volunteer
3. CLT recommendations: good practice findings escalated to Corporate Leadership Team
4. SWANN: requirements workshop outcomes shared across SWANN partnership

& S7.2 — chair meetings and present using a range of media.?

Say this (4 points)

1. 27 May: chaired SWANN partnership meeting, presented Phase 2 overview
2. 2 June: facilitated first Phase 2 requirements workshop (D_007 in decision log): user stories agreed, field list finalised, buil
3. FFP: presented As-Is findings to Director, AD and Programme Manager using infographic + report
4. EPA presentation: 20-minute structured delivery with slides, notes and RAID data

& S7.3 — active listening; challenge and give constructive ?

Say this (4 points)

1. 360 Feedback Q14, Q43: listening and feedback specifically cited
2. Coaching practice: active listening as core competency: 15 coachees, measurable outcomes
3. SWANN: provider concerns heard, incorporated into design (format incompatibility resolved)
4. Natasha: Moody's anomaly feedback (18 Feb): responded constructively, worked through points

& B4.1 — sets example; fair, consistent and impartial.?

Say this (3 points)

1. 360 Feedback Q5, Q9, Q10, Q11: leadership by example consistently rated
2. Anti-racism forum: modelled proactive advocacy when others stepped back
3. As-Is: applied consistent methodology across all teams; no favouritism in findings

& B4.2 — open and honest.?

Say this (3 points)

1. 360 Feedback: 100% operates with transparency and honesty (Q11, Q12)
2. Cost avoidance model: all assumptions explicitly labelled [ASSUMPTION: PROXY]; not hidden
3. Proposal Section 5: limitations of own methodology stated openly

& B4.3 — operates within organisational values.?

Say this (3 points)

1. Anti-racism forum: chose to uphold organisational values on inclusion when under no obligation to
2. SWANN: PSED and equalities considerations embedded in service design (self-referral pathway)
3. As-Is: GDPR-conscious data handling: anonymisation, DPIA offer for Viva Insights

& K8.1 — own impact and emotional intelligence.?

Say this (4 points)

1. 360 Feedback: consistent themes across all questions: approachability, transparency, impact awareness
2. Steve Humphrey: observed shift "from operational to strategic viewpoint": impact on how others perceive Dave
3. Anti-racism forum: recognised own emotional response and chose proactive advocacy over withdrawal
4. As-Is: aware that sensitive data could damage trust; proactively anonymised and framed sensitively

& K8.2 — different learning and behaviour styles.?

Say this (4 points)

1. PDP: structured reflection using learning styles framework
2. Coaching practice: adapted approach to each coachee's learning style
3. SWANN: varied communication method by stakeholder: visual (infographic), written (report), verbal (workshop)
4. DISTINCTION: Evaluate styles: knowing when to shift from coaching to directive based on situational readiness

& S8.1 — reflect on own performance, working style and impa?

Say this (4 points)

1. Executive Summary: articulates key learning from programme clearly and specifically
2. Steve: Humphrey confirms observable change: moved "from operational to strategic viewpoint"
3. Identified and: worked on perfectionism; balancing detail with on-time delivery
4. Anti-racism forum: reflected on own motivation and values before taking action

& S9.1 — create a personal development plan.?

Say this (3 points)

1. PDP (Evidence 3): complete personal development plan with goals, actions and timelines
2. Development Dashboard: ongoing reflection and forward planning across all modules
3. Executive Summary: future aspirations: CMI membership, more leadership roles, coaching continuation