July 10, 2025
FEEDBACK/RESULTS
With strikingly impressive consistency, our work yields impressively successful results. Illustratively, for training on a wide variety of topics, our modal rating is 5 (when using a 1- 5 rating scale)--for the session, and its facilitator. For interventions, comparable feedback also has been provided for our work at the individual, group/team, work unit, and organization levels--including when pre-post statistical analyses are used. (Upon request, perspective clients can receive detailed descriptions of the results of each of these types of our work.)
Further, evaluative client feedback comments have highlighted our attributes as including the following: broad-based knowledge and experience, thoroughness, integrity, professionalism, efficiency, energy, enthusiasm, motivational, communication skills, ability to manage individual and group dynamics in exceedingly difficult contexts, efficacious tools, and facility at understanding complex situations--and ostensibly insurmountable problems--and providing analyses and potential solutions in simple and practical terms. Below are three representative examples of client feedback regarding our training.
1. Via an unsolicited memo to a federal government agency’s management from a group of approximately 21 supervisors (diverse regarding race/ethnicity, gender, age and seniority) who participated in a communication skills workshop. The memo was signed by each participant and sent approximately a month after they had completed the standard training evaluation form (where each participant had given a “5” rating to the workshop and its facilitator).
“We all agree that this was singularly the most positive, constructive, and relevant training we have experienced in all our years with the Service. In fact, we have never witnessed a more gifted instructor or skilled communicator…. The three-day workshop was tightly scheduled and information packed, yet every minute was interesting, inspirational, and exciting. Dr. Ridley’s ability to penetrate communication barriers, unveil biases, and motivate behavioral change while preserving human dignity and promoting mutual respect, is nothing short of incredible.”
2. From the newsletter of a successful organization development firm (in Washington, DC); the section was entitled A Fresh Look at Performance Appraisal:
“[The facilitator] … brings a unique, enthusiastic approach to … training [that] serves to energize participants with a renewed sense of commitment and a positive attitude toward helping improve employee performance. Comments after a recent session … included: ‘The instructor has vast knowledge of the subject.’ ‘All managers and senior executives should have this course.’ ‘Before any decision maker tries to establish a new system, they [sic] should have this training.’ ‘Best training I’ve had in the field.” (All participants were supervisors/managers, most with about 10-25 years of experience.)
3. From participants’ evaluation forms regarding a workshop for an agency’s staff/personnel entitled Maximizing Your Professional Development and Performance in the Ever-Changing Workplace. Workshop was provided to multiple branches of that agency. The results were the same for each branch: modal evaluative ratings of “5” (on 1 to 5 scale) for the session and the facilitator. To further illuminate, representative quotes from participants are organized below.
(i) Agency Benefit: This was the best workshop [the agency] has ever provided its staff. On the right track as an agency. All employees and managers should take this course. [I]f managers used this information to make changes in the workplace and make appropriate people accountable, then [this agency] would be a better place to work.
(ii) Management/Managers Benefit: I highly recommend this workshop for managers. All managers in National office should take this workshop. Please schedule a similar meeting for managers. Please teach managers. [T]o identify employees problems regarding management issues, some of the issues should be discussed with them so they can be aware of the[ir] problems.
(iii) Content and Usefulness: Excellent workshop! [Cited numerous times.] I will use techniques I learned today. This class will help me in my position as well as my career. The concepts, principles, and information … was extremely helpful. Information was interesting/fun. I really enjoyed this workshop!! I learned a lot form this workshop. Very useful not only on the job, but in life situations. Very uplifting and encouraging. Extremely motivational.
(iv) Facilitator: Stan’s great. Please schedule him to come back. Extremely insightful and provided excellent illustrations. He ‘hit’ situations on the head and how to effectively deal with them. [His] instruction was informative, energetic, articulate, forceful. He is/ was very excellent.[Cited numerous times.] Instructor is very knowledgeable. Presented the material very well. [A]n excellent speaker. He brought out beneficial points to maximizing my goals professionally.
(v) Other: I have a [colleague] in DC government. Hopefully [Dr. Ridley] will do a session for DC government [employees].
TRAINING
1. From an unsolicited memo to a federal government agency’s management from a group of approximately 21 supervisors (diverse regarding race/ethnicity, gender, age and seniority) who participated in a communication skills workshop. The memo was signed by each participant and sent approximately a month after they had completed the standard training evaluation form (where each participant gave a “5” rating to the workshop and its facilitator).
“We all agree that this was singularly the most positive, constructive, and relevant training we have experienced in all our years with the Service. In fact, we have never witnessed a more gifted instructor or skilled communicator…. The three-day workshop was tightly scheduled and information packed, yet every minute was interesting, inspirational, and exciting. [The presenter’s] ability to penetrate communication barriers, unveil biases, and motivate behavioral change while preserving human dignity and promoting mutual respect, is nothing short of incredible.”
2. From the newsletter of a successful organization development firm (in Washington, DC); the section was entitled A Fresh Look at Performance Appraisal:
“[The facilitator] … brings a unique, enthusiastic approach to … training [that] serves to energize participants with a renewed sense of commitment and a positive attitude toward helping improve employee performance. Comments after a recent session … included: ‘The instructor has vast knowledge of the subject.’ ‘All managers and senior executives should have this course.’ ‘Before any decision maker tries to establish a new system, they [sic] should have this training.’ ‘Best training I’ve had in the field.” (All participants were supervisors/managers, most with about 10-25 years of experience.)
3. From participants’ evaluation forms regarding our workshop for an agency’s staff/personnel entitled Maximizing Your Professional Development and Performance in the Ever-Changing Workplace. Workshop was provided to multiple branches of that agency. The results were the same for each branch: modal evaluative ratings of “5” (on 1 to 5 scale) for the session and the facilitator. To further illuminate, representative quotes from participants are organized below.
(i) Agency Benefit: This was the best workshop [the agency] has ever provided its staff. This is the best session offered. On the right track as an agency. All employees and managers should take this course. [I]f managers used this information to make changes in the workplace and make appropriate people accountable, then [this agency] would be a better place to work.
(ii) Management/Managers Benefit: I highly recommend this workshop for managers. All managers in National office should take this workshop. Please schedule a similar meeting for managers. Please teach managers. [T]o identify employees problems regarding management issues, some of the issues should be discussed with them so they can be aware of the[ir] problems.
(iii) Content and Usefulness: Excellent workshop! [Cited numerous times.] I will use techniques I learned today. This class will help me in my position as well as my career. The concepts, principles, and information … was extremely helpful. Information was interesting/fun. I really enjoyed this workshop!! I learned a lot form this workshop. Very useful not only on the job, but in life situations. Very uplifting and encouraging. Extremely motivational.
(iv) Facilitator: Stan’s great. Please schedule him to come back. Extremely insightful and provided excellent illustrations. He ‘hit’ situations on the head and how to effectively deal with them. [His] instruction was informative, energetic, articulate, forceful. He is/ was very excellent.[Cited numerous times.] Instructor is very knowledgeable. Presented the material very well. [A]n excellent speaker. He brought out beneficial points to maximizing my goals professionally.
Successful results comparable to the preceding have occurred for all our varied professional work. Upon request, we can proudly provide any prospective client representative examples of the results for our work of these types: retreats, surveys, and interventions at the individual, group/team, work unit, and organization levels.
SURVEY/RESEARCH
1. 100%: Times the targeted participants’ return rate for a survey we did for a client
exceeded the survey field’s acceptable return rate (cf., __________________).
2. 100%: Times the targeted participants’ return rate for a survey we did for a client
exceeded the return rate for any previous survey done for that entity.
3. 100%: Times preselected minimum of 65% met regarding participants’ return rate for
a survey we did for an entity. The criterion was met for each of these preselected
categories: all employees, males, females, managers, supervisors, grade levels, each
of the entities five branches, and race/ethnicity (i.e., African American, Asian, European,
Hispanic, and Middle-Eastern). Dr. Ridley had proposed the 65% rate across the cited
categories because he staunchly believed it would enhance the validity and reliability
of the survey’s results by ensuring high representativeness of survey respondents.
INTERVENTION: INDIVIDUAL
1. Staff Member X was a well-regarded federal government GS13 employee who had been highly rated for years, including earning raises and promotions. Nonetheless, that person had never received a rating of Outstanding on an important job performance element (JPE). “X” signed-up for our course entitled Individual Professional Development in the Workplace, which included prominent use of our CARE 3-Step Performance Facilitation System TM. That tool played a central role in assuring the employee would earn, and be appropriately assigned, the targeted JPE rating.
Result: The employee earned both an “A” in the course and an Outstanding on the targeted JPE.
2. Staff Member Y was a long-term federal government employee who staunchly wanted to be promoted from a GS7 to a GS9. In contrast, the employee’s supervisor, and others with whom the employee had worked, were concerned about the employee’s markedly poor performance. The CARE 3-Step System Performance Facilitation System TM was a key tool used by our consultant. He did an assessment of the employee’s professional development, and his/her cited performance issues. That was followed by separate and combined recommendations to the employee and the supervisor for which our consultant was allowed to facilitate each professional’s accountability (per our CARE 3-Step Performance Facilitation SystemTM.)
Result: Within weeks, users of the employee’s professional services reported positive experiences. Our consultant left the agency months later. About a year and a half later, our consultant received a call from the employee. “Y” enthusiastically noted not being a GS9--but, instead, had become a GS11.
3. Manager Z was a federal government GS14 or 15 who reported having received a subpar performance appraisal which he/she characterized as inaccurate/unfair. “Z” despairingly added there was nothing that could be done about it. That was because it was well-known in that agency that no questioned appraisal had ever been changed. Some of our key performance intervention tools had been shared with the client, three of which were focused on and practiced with our consultant: communication techniques, the CARE 3-Step Performance Facilitation System™, and interest-based problem solving.
Result: “Z” happily, but also incredulously, shared that the agency had awarded him/her a much higher and readily acceptable performance appraisal.
INTERVENTION: ORGANIZATIONAL
1. Supervisors’ Team Development and Functioning
This intervention was sought by work unit’s relatively new manager. Our CARE 3-Step Performance Facilitation SystemTM was a major tool used. Also, our consultant markedly modified a team assessment instrument he had effectively used previously. That revised instrument had _____ components, whose respective ratings on each could range from 1 to 5. Our consultant administered it, evaluated its results, and made improvement/enhancement recommendations with team’s input. Consultant transformed those recommendations into ones all team members understood, including how to word them so they could be monitored and measured per our VRP technique. Guided by our consultant, the supervisors had to honestly rate the team assessment components using our “verified evidence-based” technique. Work on implementing the intervention recommendations lasted about ___ months, because their performance ratings were due at the end of the entity’s fiscal year. The overall mean rating for the team assessment instrument’s components had to average > 4.5 (on a 1 to 5 scale). If met, each individual team member’s performance appraisal rating to be the highest possible (i.e., Outstanding). Only our consultant knew when each supervisor’s ratings were submitted.
Result: Each supervisor submitted his/her ratings on time. But one supervisor’s ratings were not submitted until the afternoon of the last day. Our consultant had already calculated the other supervisors’ ratings. Thus, only he knew that the team’s > 4.5 overall ratings criterion would be just slightly missed unless the last supervisor’s ratings submitted were at a certain numerical level. Our consultant calculated the final ratings three times to ensure accuracy. Each time the > 4.5 criterion was just barely achieved.
2. Major Agency Work Unit Under New Leadership
The work unit’s director had worked successfully with our consultant approximately 10 years earlier. Back then, the director was a first-line supervisor at the agency. There were three types of separate and related interventions we did for the work unit: (i) Director and Assistant Director Relationship; (ii) Work Unit “Progress Targets”; and (iii) Team Assessment and Development.
(i) Directors’ Relationship. Both noted being greatly appreciative about being so aligned on their work unit goals, but also acknowledged their behavioral interactions sometimes were not aligning as well as needed/desired. The principal tool our consultant used was a standardized style assessment instrument and Dr. Ridley’s style flexibility enhancement technique.
Result: Both directors noticed and reported a significant positive change in their relationship. They reported that change to our consultant, separately and together. Moreover, they and our consultant had independently received unsolicited positive feedback from the work unit’s personnel—including, incredulous queries of “what happened?”
(ii) “Progress Targets”: Our consultant (a meeting facilitation expert) conducted group and individual meetings with management and staff. Then he shared the organized information, succinctly, with the work unit in a meeting during which participants reinforced and extended a draft list of performance progress targets, which ultimately totaled 17. Consensus emerged about the 17 targets importance; but several personnel expressed staunch concerns about whether the targets could be achieved. (Some concerns were accompanied by possible achievement incredulity, laughter and snide remarks.) The concerns were heightened when our consultant emphasized that the targets would need to be met within the few months remaining in the agency’s fiscal year.
Result: Each of the 17 progress targets was met—and on time! Further, the consultant shared with the work unit members that he had added five additional progress targets he detected while working on the other 17. Yes, those five progress targets were also met—and within the same cited time frame!
(iii) Team Assessment and Development: Our consultant developed and used the VRP-O Team Assessment and Development System™ . The system has four components. They are cited below in the pre-post intervention assessment table, along with their respective means and statistical differences.
Result: Each mean rating pre-post intervention difference cited is statistically significant (at p <.05)*. N.B. Post-intervention ratings had to be based on verifiable evidence (to avoid/curtail subjective and/or biased ratings.)
3. Nonprofit Entity’s Retreat
Recipient of a McArthur (“genius”) award knew there were major problems within his/her national nonprofit. That CEO had a high-level manager enlist us to design and facilitate a retreat to address this matter. Our consultant met individually with each of the entity’s personnel and had them to complete a brief questionnaire that included what they perceived as the requested retreat’s benefit. Almost every person, approximately 86%, said the retreat had no chance of being successful. That information was used to help in the design, execution, and facilitation of the 2.5-day retreat.
Result: “Masterful” was the post-retreat evaluative summary comment from the entity’s CEO, and approximately 90% of the participants indicated the retreat was clearly successful. (That’s in contrast to the approximately 86% whose pre-retreat assessment that the retreat had no chance of being successful.)
4. Agency Level
When federal agencies had been evaluated by the U.S. government, this particular agency was assigned a less than desirable rating. Our work included three major interventions, (i) developing and facilitating a managing diversity initiative (MDI), (ii) developing a leadership development program whose components included application, measurement, and selection; and (iii) making major changes to the agency’s performance appraisal process—including customizing Dr. Ridley’s innovative job performance element (JPE) method across the agency’s professional groups, and upper management allowing him to develop a managing diversity JPE for upper management. Prior to those interventions, we had provided training for management and/or staff on various topics such as small group dynamics, merit staffing, supervising human resources, performance appraisal, measuring and monitoring resource needs and performance, and assessing performance. Important tools we used included our VRP criterion, CARE 3-Step Performance Facilitation SystemTM, interest-based problem solving, team charter, and establishing and applying appropriate organizational values.
(i) MDI: We selected managing diversity panel from the agency’s employees. That was done via our consultant’s stratified random sample technique. The panel was charged with sharing their individual and collective perspectives about key issues, acquiring input from other agency management and staff about issues and possible solutions, analyzing and integrating the preceding, and making a set of impactful recommendations. Though not a requirement or expectation, our consultant also decided to invite a union representative to participate on the panel. That rep’s input was treated like that of every other panel member.
Result. The panel’s recommendations were given to management and the union president. We were thanked for our work, and neither management nor the union president cited a concern about the appropriateness and/or implementability of any specific recommendation.
(ii) Leadership Potential Program: No program had existed. Both management and staff expressed concerns about the fairness/reliability of its existing leadership development/selection process, related to it being noncomprehensive, non-standardized, and significantly subjective. Key tools included our VRP criterion and CARE 3-Step Performance Facilitation System™.
Result. Both management and staff expressed appreciation for the leadership program’s development, especially its systematically formalized fairness. A major reason for that outcome that hthe agency’s management gave our consultant the authority to help ensure that the program was executed as we designed it.
(iii) Performance Appraisal (PA): Our consultant had generated a list of each notable concern management and staff provided about the agency’s PA process.
Result. Our consultant used our “VRP” method to help address each PA concern. The resultant solutions included training, coaching, and using some of Dr. Ridley’s innovative performance appraisal methods. Later, we found out some that some of our PA methods had become “best practices” in the federal government.
Overall Result: Within about two years after our interventions, our consultant was contacted by that agency’s upper management diversity professional to thank him for our contribution to the agency (having gone from an undesirable government ranking to) having earned the status of being one of the “best places to work” in the federal government.
