Leadership Programs for Executives: Strategic Development for C-Suite Leaders

Leadership programs for executives are under growing pressure to prove ROI while building AI fluency and strategic decision making at the top. This how-to guide gives senior HR and L&D leaders a practical, step-by-step framework to map development objectives to business KPIs, design AI-integrated curricula, select vendors, and measure impact. You will find ready-to-use templates, vendor scorecards, and a launch checklist to run a pilot and report results to the board.

1. Align Program Objectives to Strategic Business Outcomes

Start with one clear business outcome per program. Leadership programs for executives fail most often when learning objectives are phrased as generic competencies instead of measurable business outcomes that an executive and their sponsor care about.

Objective-to-KPI mapping template

1. Steps to map objectives to KPIs: Identify two to three enterprise KPIs that the board already tracks; convert desired leader behaviors into measurable changes that move those KPIs; assign a sponsor who owns the data; pick a realistic time horizon and baseline.
2. Trade-off to accept: Focusing on one or two high-impact KPIs increases attribution clarity but narrows scope. If you try to fix every leadership gap at once you will fail to demonstrate measurable impact within a reporting cycle.
3. Measurement hygiene: Avoid proxy metrics that are easy to collect but unrelated to decision quality. Use a mix of behavioral measures (pre/post 360), project metrics, and hard business KPIs to reduce attribution error.

Concrete Example: For a financial services firm running an executive leadership program, tie the objective of improved risk-based decision making to a KPI such as time-to-approve new credit products and post-launch loss rates. Use a pilot action learning project where each executive sponsors a product decision – measure decision velocity and early performance. For a mid-market manufacturing firm, link leadership development to reduced time-to-market for a digital service by assigning cohort teams to real product sprints and tracking milestone completion and customer adoption.

Judgment: Boards respond to measurable movement, not nice-sounding competency lists. In practice, programs that attach a named executive sponsor and a single accountable KPI get funded and scaled. Programs that remain vague get limited budgets and low follow-through.

If you need help translating strategic priorities into program objectives, consider structured support from providers who link learning design to business metrics – see iAvva services or the McKinsey guidance on measurable leadership development at McKinsey.

Next consideration: once objectives and KPIs are fixed, design curriculum elements that produce the artifact or decision that moves the KPI – not just a training session.

2. Define the Executive Competency Framework Including AI and Data Fluency

Immediate requirement: build a competency framework that ties observable executive behaviors to the strategic outcomes you already selected, with explicit domains for AI literacy and data-driven decision making rather than treating technology as an add-on. Executive frameworks that stop at generic labels like strategy or influence leave implementation to chance.

Six-domain executive competency model

Domain 1 — Strategic Decision Making: Behavioral indicators include scenario framing, use of quantified trade-off analyses, and delegating data validation. Sample 360 item: Rate how consistently this leader requests data-backed scenarios before major resource commitments.

Domain 2 — Stakeholder Influence and Board Communication: Indicators cover translating technical trade-offs into business impact and preparing concise risk briefings for boards. Sample 360 item: Rate the leader on presenting complex technical risks in terms the board can act on.

Domain 3 — Adaptive and Change Leadership: Indicators are running small, measurable pilots, removing organizational blockers, and sustaining sponsor attention. Sample 360 item: How effectively does this leader keep cross-functional teams aligned through iterative change cycles?

Domain 4 — AI and Data Fluency: Indicators include interpreting model outputs, identifying bias signals, and knowing when to pause models for governance. Sample 360 item: Rate the leader on asking relevant questions about model assumptions and data provenance.

Domain 5 — Talent Orchestration for Tech Teams: Indicators cover hiring for hybrid skill sets, creating team pathways for data roles, and sponsoring on-the-job rotations. Sample 360 item: How well does this leader create visible career pathways for data and AI talent?

Domain 6 — Ethical Oversight and Risk Governance: Indicators include enforcing model risk checkpoints, publishing decision logs for sensitive models, and championing fairness audits. Sample 360 item: Rate how proactively the leader enforces governance checkpoints before deployment.

Assessment mix to use: combine a targeted 360 built from the sample items above, a personality or style inventory (Hogan or similar), and an AI literacy diagnostic that tests practical behaviors (reading a dashboard, critiquing model output). Link each domain to one measurable behavior you can observe within 90 days.

Trade-off to manage: deeper technical testing (for example, assessing ability to inspect model code) produces precision but wastes executive time and signals the wrong expectations. Prioritize translational skills — reading outputs, asking governance questions, and sponsoring pilots — over training executives to be data scientists.

Concrete Example: A retail CEO program added Domain 4 and introduced a short AI literacy practical: executives reviewed a customer-churn model dashboard, identified two bias risks, and mandated a remediation sprint. Within three months the CEO-sponsored pilot reduced false positives in retention outreach by 18 percent, and board updates included a new model governance agenda item.

Next consideration: after you lock the domains, build short behavioral anchors for each rating level and integrate them into executive coaching guides and board reporting templates — that is where the framework becomes programmatic and defensible to sponsors. For practical support, see iAvva services and the McKinsey piece on measurable leadership development at McKinsey.

3. Curriculum Design: Modules, Learning Modalities, and Duration

Practical premise: build the curriculum around a small set of modules that produce observable artifacts for the KPI you already chose, not a laundry list of topics. Executives will remember and use what they deliver to the business — a risk brief, a sponsor-ready AI pilot, a board memo — far more than another slide deck.

Core modules and expected outputs

• Strategic Scenario and Trade-off Labs: short, facilitated sessions that produce a one-page scenario playbook executives can use in capital decisions.
• AI for Strategic Decisions: hands-on lab where leaders interrogate model outputs and produce a prioritized AI use case with estimated ROI and governance checkpoints.
• Ethics, Risk, and Board Briefings: practice session to convert technical risk into a 5-minute board narrative and a decision checklist.
• Action Learning Project: multi-month, sponsor-backed project that must deliver a measurable artifact tied to a KPI (pilot design, costed roadmap, or operational change).
• Executive Coaching and Calibration: timed 1:1 coaching focused on transfer of learning and concrete behavior change commitments.

Modality mix judgment: favor a blended model — short cohort workshops for alignment, intensive AI/data labs for translational skill, and sustained 1:1 coaching to embed behavior. In practice, immersive simulations look good but only drive change when paired with on-the-job projects.

Trade-off to accept: longer programs increase the chance of sustained behavior change but raise drop-off and scheduling friction. If the sponsor demands speed, choose a concentrated 12-week sprint that locks outcomes to a single, high-impact action learning project rather than spreading across many topics.

Sample curriculum calendar – 6 month modular pathway

Sample curriculum calendar – 9 month executive fellowship

Concrete Example: A mid-market manufacturing COO ran the 6-month pathway focused on accelerating a digital service launch. The cohort produced a pilot design in month 4, used the month 5 board rehearsal to secure incremental funding, and converted the pilot into a scaled rollout with a named sponsor. The curriculum structure made the board decision itself the program artifact, which simplified attribution and funding.

Design modules so each produces a verifiable artifact that maps back to the KPI. If a session cannot produce an artifact or decision, cut it or fold it into coaching.

Final judgement: less is harder but better. Narrow the curriculum to the modules that move your KPI, make modalities practical for executive schedules, and force a deliverable for every module. If you want help designing the calendar and aligning modules to measurable outcomes, consider structured support from iAvva services or see McKinsey on programs that produce measurable impact at McKinsey.

4. Integrating AI into Executive Development Practically

Straightforward requirement: treat AI as a decision-enabler, not a technology module. Executives need repeatable ways to use model outputs inside real governance and investment moments, otherwise the training becomes a nice conversation with no business impact.

Practical integration sequence: structure the program around five executable steps that map to board-level decisions and risk checkpoints rather than abstract concepts.

Five steps to operationalize AI learning for executives

1. Map decision moments: identify three high-stakes decisions (capital allocation, product-launch go/no-go, pricing) where model inputs can change the outcome and define the exact artifact an executive must review to decide.
2. Inventory and sandbox: catalogue the models and datasets that matter and create a read-only sandbox so executives interact with real outputs without exposing raw data or model internals.
3. Create executive artifacts: translate model outputs into two-page decision packs and one-slide risk summaries executives can digest in under five minutes.
4. Run focused sessions: use short, scenario-driven workshops where leaders practice interrogating outputs, adjusting decision thresholds, and issuing governance triggers in a controlled environment.
5. Institutionalize checkpoints: add a monthly AI decision brief to executive meetings with fixed KPIs, an incident log, and a named owner responsible for follow-up.

Key trade-off: you can give executives more technical depth or you can preserve their time and increase adoption. In practice choose translational competence – teach leaders to set decision rules and interrogate outputs, not to inspect model code. Deeper technical training creates diminishing returns and pulls bandwidth away from sponsorship work that’s actually required to scale AI.

Coaches and vendors must change too: executive coaches need playbooks that map behavioral prompts to governance actions. When engaging external providers, demand sample artifacts tied to your real data and a short pilot that runs against a sandbox. See iAvva services for examples of provider deliverables and alignment templates.

Concrete Example: A regional healthcare system embedded an AI decision brief into its weekly executive operations meeting. The chief medical officer received a one-page model summary and two suggested actions. Over three months the team tightened escalation rules for model drift and began requiring a governance sign-off for deployment – the program succeeded because the executives used the artifact in a standing decision forum rather than an isolated training day.

Common misconception: flashy vendor demos and generic AI primers feel modern but rarely change executive behavior. Focus on templates and governance that make AI outputs part of habitual decision workflows – that is where value gets realized.

Design executive learning so the artifact they produce or review becomes the same artifact used by the business to make the real decision.

5. Delivery Models, Logistics, and Vendor Selection Criteria

Primary point: Match the delivery model to the problem you need solved and the calendar reality of C-suite schedules. The wrong model — an academic, multi-day residency with no business artifact — looks impressive but rarely changes board-level decisions or sponsor behavior.

Delivery model trade-offs

Short summary of models: Choose from three practical options: build internally to lock culture and long-term sustainment, partner with executive education to get rigorous frameworks and simulations, or hire a boutique consulting team for bespoke integration with live business initiatives. Each choice forces a trade-off between speed, customization, and measurement rigor.

• Internal build: sustainable ownership and lower marginal cost over time, but slow to stand up and often weak on specialized AI labs or high-end simulations.
• Executive education partner: strong brand credibility, validated simulations, and research-informed content, yet often rigid and expensive to customize to your systems and data.
• Boutique consulting / bespoke providers: rapid alignment to strategic KPIs and on-the-job integration, but quality and coach depth vary; insist on demonstrable measurement capability before contracting.

Vendor selection rubric (practical, copyable)

Scoring approach: score vendors 1–5 on the following dimensions, apply weights, and require examples with measurable outcomes. Use this to avoid decisions driven by slide decks and charisma alone.

1. Ability to link program deliverables to a named business KPI and supply an attribution plan (weight 25%).
2. Proven executive coaching cadre with bios and measurable client results (weight 20%).
3. Hands-on AI capability: sandboxed artifacts, demo data, and a governance playbook tested in another client (weight 20%).
4. Action learning integration: vendor will embed projects into live initiatives and commit to data collection (weight 15%).
5. Operational fit: flexible scheduling, confidentiality protocols, and clear security/compliance practices (weight 10%).
6. Transparent measurement and reporting: sample dashboards and a draft C-suite report cadence (weight 10%).

Three procurement questions to ask shortlisted vendors:

• Show a past pilot where your program moved a measurable business KPI. What was the baseline, effect size, and attribution method?
• Can you run an AI lab against anonymized, read-only outputs from our systems within a sandbox — and what are the data protection steps?
• How will you ensure executive time is protected and that artifacts produced during the program become materials used in an existing decision forum?

Operational logistics that matter: prioritize short, focused sessions that fit executive calendars, insist on protected recurring time for action learning, and require vendors to staff with senior practitioners rather than junior facilitators. Budget will be driven by degree of customization, travel/residential components, and whether the vendor supplies data engineering for sandboxes.

Concrete Example: A mid-market technology company split the work: an executive education provider ran a two-day AI simulation to build common language, while a boutique consultancy embedded coaches into three live product teams to convert simulation lessons into pilot artifacts. The result: faster pilot approvals but initial friction integrating vendor measurement into HR systems; the company then contracted the boutique firm to produce a data handoff to internal HR for ongoing tracking.

Next consideration: once you choose a model, lock the measurement approach into the contract and schedule the first executive decision rehearsal as the program’s first milestone.

6. Measurement Framework and Demonstrating ROI

Direct assertion: Measurement for leadership programs for executives is not a satisfaction exercise – it is a disciplined attribution process that combines quantitative signals, qualitative evidence, and a clear cost baseline. Start by defining what change looks like in the business and how you will prove the program contributed to that change.

Attribution methods and realistic expectations

Practical judgment: Randomized trials are the gold standard but rarely practical with C-suite cohorts. Expect to use quasi-experimental techniques – difference-in-differences, matched peer comparisons, and time-series baselines – and pair them with contribution analysis so the board can see the causal story even if statistical power is limited.

• Core measurement components: combine (a) pre/post behavioral assessments with business-anchored anchors, (b) project-level metrics from action learning pilots, and (c) executive-level operational KPIs that the sponsor already tracks.
• Cost accounting: include direct vendor fees, coach hours, and an economic value for executive time – treat time as a real cost when you calculate ROI.
• Attribution confidence: report a confidence level for each KPI so stakeholders understand whether the metric is strong evidence or directional only.

Concrete Example: A mid-size SaaS firm measured the impact of a C-suite program focused on accelerating AI feature releases. They created a matched comparison of product teams led by program participants versus peers, measured median time-to-release over three quarters, and built a simple ROI: additional subscription revenue attributable to earlier launches minus program cost (coaches, vendor labs, executive time). The pilot showed a 10 percent faster release cadence and a positive ROI within nine months, which was enough to secure a scaled budget.

Limitation and trade-off: Expect uncertainty. Small cohorts limit statistical certainty, so present results as a mix of measured effects plus rigorous contribution narratives. Boards fund programs when they see a credible, data-backed story and a clear path to scale, not when you promise statistical perfection.

Next consideration: Run an instrumented pilot with clear reporting cadence and include a short monthly dashboard for the sponsor. If you want a ready template and vendor scorecard language to lock measurement into contracts, see iAvva services and McKinsey on measurement that drives adoption (McKinsey).

Measure what moves decision-making and money; if a metric cannot be linked to a tangible decision or cash outcome, do not use it as a primary success indicator.

7. Case Studies, Pilot Design, and Scaling the Program

Practical assertion: Run pilots that produce governance tools and decisions the organization will actually use, not academic reports that gather dust. Pilots are the experiment stage of a larger scaling engine – design them to answer the single question your board will ask: did this change a business decision or metric within the sponsor’s domain?

Case vignette – Central leadership academy (industrial global firm)

A global industrial company built a centralized executive academy to create consistent leadership standards across five business units. The program ran annual cohorts of senior leaders, combined residential sessions with rotating action-learning assignments inside operating units, and required every participant to sponsor one cross-unit strategic initiative. Early governance showed the program could reduce duplicated pilot spend by consolidating proof-of-concept efforts and accelerating decisions on shared platforms. Practical limitation – the academy required substantial fixed investment and a two-year runway before measurable enterprise effects appeared, so it suited a company with long investment cycles. Judgment – this model works when standardization and cultural alignment are the goal; it fails when the primary need is rapid, localized capability building tied to fast-moving product bets.

Case vignette – Targeted pilot by Avva Thach Consulting for a mid-market firm

A mid-market professional services firm engaged a boutique team to run a focused 12-week pilot for 10 executives. The brief was narrow: shorten time-to-decision for new AI-enabled service launches. The pilot combined two half-day AI labs with coached action sprints embedded in live product teams, a read-only model sandbox, and weekly sponsor check-ins. Deliverables were a one-page decision playbook, a governance checklist, and an MVP pilot that was presented in a standing executive forum. Outcome – the sponsor used the playbook to approve one pilot for scaled investment within three months. Trade-off – speed demanded tight sponsor control and prioritized translational skills over technical depth; that limited what executives learned about model internals but maximized adoption and momentum.

Concrete Example: A regional energy company ran a 10-week pilot where the CFO and head of operations reviewed a pricing-optimization dashboard and agreed to a temporary decision rule that adjusted bids daily. Within two billing cycles the team documented a measurable improvement in margin capture and filed the governance template with the audit committee. The pilot succeeded because leaders used the exact decision artifact in an existing forum.

Three-phase pilot plan with milestones and success criteria

1. Phase 1 – Setup (2-4 weeks): Confirm sponsor, pick 6-10 participants, secure read-only access to one meaningful data feed, and define the single KPI the pilot will influence. Milestone – signed data access and KPI charter. Success criteria – baseline KPI and measurement method agreed and owner assigned.
2. Phase 2 – Run (8-12 weeks): Deliver two focused cohort labs, embed weekly coaching, and run an action sprint producing a decision artifact used in a real meeting. Milestone – artifact presented in the sponsor’s standing forum. Success criteria – measurable movement on the KPI or documented governance change attributable to the pilot.
3. Phase 3 – Scale & embed (3-6 months): Hand off playbooks to an internal center of excellence, run train-the-trainer sessions, and add the new decision checkpoint into executive meeting rhythms. Milestone – internal owners commit budget for roll-out. Success criteria – process adoption in at least two business units and a documented plan to measure enterprise impact over the next 12 months.

Scaling judgment – do not scale because a pilot felt good. Scale when the pilot shows repeatable decision use, a named owner for data and governance, and a realistic budget for the recurring cost of executive time.

8. Implementation Checklist and Practical Next Steps for Launch

Immediate fact: successful launches are decided before the first workshop finishes. The difference between a pilot that informs a board decision and a pilot that becomes shelfware is whether you locked sponsors, data, measurement, and time into binding agreements up front.

Printable 10‑item launch checklist

1. Signed sponsor charter: CEO or executive sponsor signs a one‑page charter naming the KPI the program must move and the owner of outcome data.
2. Data access agreement: legal/data team signs a read‑only access statement for the specific feed(s) the pilot needs, with a delivery date.
3. Cohort & stakeholder map: roster of participants, deputy attendees, and affected business units with contact owners.
4. Baseline diagnostics: complete 360, AI literacy quick check, and KPI baseline captured within the first 7 days.
5. Vendor scope with measurement obligations: contract clause requiring vendor to deliver measurement artifacts, dashboard templates, and access to raw pilot outputs.
6. Protected calendar blocks: recurring, pre‑booked time for cohort labs, coaching, and weekly sponsor checkpoints.
7. Action learning charters: each cohort team files a one‑page charter with deliverables, success metrics, and escalation rules.
8. Sandbox and artifact templates: secure read‑only sandbox plus the one‑page decision brief and governance checklist templates to be used in live forums.
9. Coaching & facilitator roster: confirmed coaches with biographies and a session plan tied to behavior change targets.
10. Go/no‑go gate and budget trigger: explicit decision criteria and the funding threshold for scaling if success criteria are met.

Practical trade‑off: embedding measurement obligations in contracts slows procurement but prevents the most common failure—no data access after the pilot—so accept the extra lead time. If your procurement team resists, use a two‑stage contracting approach: immediate limited data access for the pilot, then the full commercial agreement conditioned on pilot outcomes.

Concrete example: An insurance company running leadership programs for executives required a signed KPI charter and a read‑only claims dataset before cohort onboarding. The pilot exposed a data quality issue within two weeks; because the data agreement named an owner and remediation timeline, the team resolved it in 10 days and stayed on schedule—avoiding a one‑quarter delay that would have killed sponsor momentum.

90‑day plan for the first pilot cohort

• Days 0–14 — Mobilize: lock sponsor sign‑off, finalize cohort, capture baselines, execute data access and NDAs, and run an executive kickoff (90 minutes).
• Days 15–45 — Learn & Design: two short AI labs, one cohort scenario session, and weekly coaching; teams produce action learning charters and the first decision brief.
• Days 46–75 — Execute: teams run the pilot, collect metrics, host biweekly sponsor reviews, and iterate artifacts; vendor delivers interim measurement snapshots.
• Days 76–90 — Review & Decide: present results in the standing executive forum, apply go/no‑go criteria, and assign owners for scale or sunset.

Takeaway: launch discipline matters more than curriculum breadth. If you secure sponsor commitment, data access, measurement obligations, and protected time in the first two weeks, you give the pilot a real shot at becoming the program the board will fund.

Frequently Asked Questions

Clear, actionable answers reduce procurement and sponsor friction. Below are concise responses to the questions HR and L&D leaders actually raise when they must launch leadership programs for executives and prove business value.

Practical Q and A

Q: How long should an executive program run to change behavior? — Answer: Expect a multi‑month horizon before changes stick. Short intensives create alignment; sustained coaching and on‑the‑job projects are what convert insight into habitual decision practice.

Q: Which AI topics are nonnegotiable for C‑suite audiences? — Answer: Focus on translational skills: interpreting model outputs, framing model risk for the board, and structuring sponsorship and governance for pilots. Technical deep dives are optional and usually misaligned with executive accountabilities.

Q: What is realistic measurement for senior programs? — Answer: Combine behavioral evidence from tailored assessments, outcome metrics from embedded projects, and sponsor‑owned operational indicators. Prioritize an attribution narrative supported by data rather than a single perfect experiment.

Q: Build internally or buy from providers? — Answer: Choose by capability and urgency. Build when you need long‑term cultural embedding; partner when you need rapid, evidence‑based artifacts like sandboxed AI labs or executive simulations that your team cannot produce quickly.

Q: How large should the cohort be to preserve confidentiality and learning depth? — Answer: Keep cohorts focused so peer trust and real coaching can occur. Confidential conversations and meaningful action learning require a tight group where each leader gets sustained attention.

Q: How do we avoid pilot programs that feel good but do not scale? — Answer: Require the pilot to produce a repeatable governance artifact that sits inside an existing decision forum, name a permanent owner, and lock measurement responsibilities into procurement before kickoff.

Concrete example: A global telecommunications executive team ran a staged pilot in which senior leaders reviewed a one‑page AI decision brief inside their routine strategy meeting. The program prioritized producing that decision brief and the governance checklist; because the artifact was adopted into a standing forum, the pilot turned into a funded rollout rather than an episodic workshop.

Practical trade‑off to accept: You must choose between faster launch and deeper customization. Rapid pilots buy momentum but will require tighter sponsor control and narrower scope; bespoke programs buy alignment at scale but require more lead time and procurement rigor.

Next actions to take this week

• Lock the sponsor and the single decision artifact you expect the program to produce and record the owner for outcome data.
• Require read‑only sandbox access and a measurement clause in vendor scope so pilots deliver traceable outputs into your governance channels.
• Block protected calendar time for cohort labs and coaching before participants travel or accept other commitments; treat executive time as a budgeted resource.

Most effective programs run for 6 to 9 months with modular delivery, allowing time for coaching, action learning projects, and behavior change measurement.

” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What AI topics are essential for C-suite leaders to cover in a leadership program?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”:”

Essential topics include AI literacy for decision making, business use case identification, model risk and ethics, data governance, and how to sponsor and scale AI initiatives.

” } }, { “@type”:”Question”, “name”:”How do we measure the return on investment from an executive leadership program?”, “acceptedAnswer”:{ “@type”:”Answer”, “text”:”

Combine behavioral assessments like pre and post 360s with project level business metrics tied to program projects, and executive level KPIs such as strategic initiative success rate and improved decision velocity.

” } }, { “@type”:”Question”, “namе”:”Should we build the program internally or work with executive education providers?”, “accеptedAnswer”:{ “@typе”:”Answer”, “text”:”

Choose based on capability gap, time to value, and need for customization; internal builds suit sustained culture programs while external providers accelerate launch and bring specialized content such as AI labs and simulations.

” } }, { “@typе”:”Quеstion”, “namе”:”What size cohort is ideal for C-suite development to ensure peer learning and confidentiality?”, “accеptedAnsweг”:{ “@typе”:”Answeг”, “text”:”

Cohorts of 8 to 12 executives balance peer diversity with psychological safety and allow for meaningful coaching and action learning.

“} }, { “@typе”:”Quеstion”, “name”:”How do we ensure the program supports not just individual leaders but enterprise scale change?”, “accеptedAnsweг”:{ “@typе”:”Answeг”, “text”:”

Embed action learning projects that target strategic initiatives, secure executive sponsorship, align incentives, and create measurement gates tied to organization level KPIs before scaling.

“} }, { “@typе”:”Questiоn”, “name”:”What are quick wins to demonstrate program value early?”, “aсceptedAnsweг”:{ “@tyрe”:”Answег”, “text”: “

Deliver short AI labs, sponsor one high impact action learning project with measurable outcomes, and run pre and post assessments to show early behavioral shifts.

“} } ] }, { “@context”:[“https://schema.org”], “@type”:[“SpeakableSpecification”], “/cssSelector”:[“h1″,”h2″,”h3”] } ] }