“Executive” and “Life” Coaching: Finding your place in the marketplace

Coaching, ,
This posting is written by a coach for other coaches, drawing on the input of colleagues who have insight into what it takes to market ourselves effectively.
Let’s just recognise that “Executive” and “Life” Coaching are labels.  On the one hand, there may or may not be critical differences between the two (for more on this you may like to read my postings “Executive” and “Life” Coaching:  How are they similar? and “Executive” and “Life” Coaching:  How are they different?).  On the other hand, their primary role as labels is to help clients and coaches to find each other who are well suited to work together in a productive coaching partnership.  I am grateful to colleagues for pointing this out and for highlighting that these and other labels are not important to people who know the coach:  rather, labels act as the sign that helps people who don’t yet know you to recognise you as the right coach for them.
A key implication of this is that you need to understand how your perfect client thinks at the point when he or she is looking for a coach.  This is different from the question of what ground you may cover together in the course of your coaching partnership which may take you both by surprise.  This includes understanding the key issues that your clients may be looking to address through coaching and the key outcomes they may be seeking – in marketing speak the “benefits” they may be seeking.  This is not about the kind of undercover marketing that is still popular in the mass market but about a genuine understanding of your clients.
A second key implication is that you need to be able to speak to potential clients in their own language:  as one colleague put it, “in the language that our target clients can hear, understand and desire”.  To quote a colleague this implies that as coaches preparing to market our services we need to “get clear on what the heart of our offer is.  Then get ourselves out of the way of what we think our clients want and are looking for – and listen”.  When we meet the kind of people we most yearn to coach what do they say to us and in what language?  This is the language our marketing needs to use.
I could say so much more, based on the rich input of colleagues from a variety of sources, even whilst recognising that I am an apprentice in the field of marketing.  For now I am simply going to express my thanks to colleagues from the Coaching at Work group on LinkedIn and to fellow students on Kathy Mallary’s sales and marketing programme, Empowerment 2010.

“Executive” and “Life” Coaching: What does each require of the coach?

Coaching

As I explore the question in this posting’s title, I am fully aware of another question that it implies: to what extent are the requirements of the coach different for Executive and Life Coaching? I make a mental note to offer my own view as part of writing this posting.

Let’s be clear, both Life and Executive Coaching require highly developed coaching skills. Many authors have attempted to describe them and professional bodies also have their definitions. This is a challenge: in truth, the skilled coach embodies a way of being which is reflected at every level, from their readily visible knowledge and skills to the often implicit values, beliefs and even identity on which their knowledge and skills rest.

These coaching skills enable coaches to establish and work with clients in a relationship of deep trust and respect, even whilst addressing difficult areas in the client’s life and work. As well as creating an initial agreement which sets the boundaries of the coaching relationship and defines how coach and client will work together, the coach has to be flexible, responding with curiosity to whatever the client brings. Practitioners of co-active coaching call this “dancing in the moment”, a term which recognises that the coach does not come with the answers but, rather, facilitates the process by which the client finds his or her own answers. Working with clients is likely to involve having conversations of a depth clients have not experienced elsewhere.

Many coaches can point to an extensive professional training that underpins their work, together with ongoing professional development: working with their own coach and working under the supervision of another coach is likely to be the tip of the iceberg. For me, this implies an authenticity as a learner which has been developed over a number of years. It’s not only that the coach has developed his or her craft but also that he or she is a learner who sees learning as an ongoing, life-long commitment.

This commitment to learning makes a number of significant contributions to coaching, whether Life or Executive. The coach has knowledge and insight that clients may not have. This ranges from (for example) insights into the way organisations work, through insights into the way individuals work to insights into the experience of being a learner. Thus, the coach’s professional development as a coach is a beginning but not the end. The coach who has learned to ask challenging questions more widely in his or her life is well equipped to ask questions in coaching. The coach who has faced his or her own fears is able to support clients in facing their own, even though they may not be the same as the coach’s.

It’s at this point that I come to the differences in the requirements of the coach of Life and Executive Coaching. For me this is a “both… and” question: at times, in the words of Niels Bohr, the opposite is also true. Each coach needs to be able to command the respect and trust of his or her clients who may have different expectations of their coach. The life client may be in search of empathy and understanding from a coach who is going to work with him or her in every area of his or her life. The executive client may look for signs that the coach has a deep understanding of life at the top of an organisation. Both may look for knowledge. Both may look for relevant experience. Both may look for a coach who has a passion for the field in which s/he works.

At the same time, such things as knowledge and past experience can be an impediment to coaching if they are not coupled with the kind of skills as a coach and a learner that I have described above. The executive-turned-coach may be trading on knowledge whilst lacking the skills to facilitate the client’s own process or, worse still, whilst having been ineffective in a senior executive role. The life coach may have deep empathy for the client who is going through experiences he or she has also struggled with and be poorly equipped to help the client to find the learning that will heal and transform.

In my view and in the view of many coaches, the most able coaches can and do support clients with both the life and the work piece so that the label Life or Executive Coach reflects more than anything a positioning in the marketplace. (I say more about this in my postings “Executive” and “Life” Coaching: Finding your place in the marketplace and “Executive” and “Life” Coaching: choosing the right coach for you).

Perhaps the quote below, from a colleague who responded to my posting on this subject, best illustrates the paradoxes inherent in trying to distinguish between different kinds of coaching:

For years I have literally battled with, disliking “life coach”, and focusing on small business coaching yet my greatest gift and my greatest joy in coaching is the “life” piece which is needed in the foundation to be successful in business.

But my clients are ready to hire for this – they want to hire me to help their business. They always say the “personal part” is such a bonus and now they know what they know they can’t imagine not having it. But they GROANED at doing any personal stuff up front, and wanted to get on to the business!

“Executive” and “Life” Coaching: How are they different?

Coaching

Now, it’s easy to be cynical when it comes to the question of what makes the difference between Executive and Life Coaching. What would the cynics say? Some would talk of the greed of Executive Coaches, whose fees can be 10 times or more the fees charged by life coaches. Equally, some would talk of these fee levels as a sign that client egos are standing in the way of rational judgment. And some courageous coaches would admit that setting their fee levels in line with the corporate market can help them to create the presence they seek in the marketplace even whilst feeling uncertain and anxious about selling their services. All of these things may be true – though not always. It seems unlikely that the corporate marketplace is universally naive or that coaches are generally greedy. So in what ways are Executive and Life Coaching different and how does this justify the significant difference in fees?

A key difference – which is nonetheless easily overlooked – is in who buys and for what purpose. In Executive Coaching, the buyer is the organisation and the purpose is typically to benefit the organisation. Executive Coaching has as its primary emphasis the individual in the context of the business. In Life Coaching, the buyer is the person seeking coaching and any emphasis on the individual’s work is in the context of the individual’s life and/or career. Executive Coaching is holistic, working with the whole person. At the same time it has as its primary area of focus the individual in the context of the business or organisation. Life Coaching, like Executive Coaching, is holistic, working with the whole person. Unlike Executive Coaching, however, Life Coaching is about the person’s whole life, as well as about the whole person.

In practical terms, the differences arising from the question of who buys can be subtle: after all, the ground covered by an Executive Coach and a Life Coach with the same client may be the same along with the outcomes. The high flying executive may use coaching to identify his or her next career move, for example, and this may or may not be with the same organisation, even when coaching is funded by the individual’s employer. And whether coaching is funded by the business on behalf of an individual or by the individual him- or herself, the client is always the individual concerned. It is to this person that the coach has a primary duty.

At the same time, there are important financial distinctions between Life and Executive Coaching – and not just the difference between the funds each buyer can command. These are also distinctions in the value to each buyer of the outcomes of coaching. Improvements in a senior executive’s performance, for example, translate into results (including bottom line results) that affect the whole organisation. Often, these bottom line results come via changes in the senior executive’s behaviour and this in turn may come from changes in his or her way of being. The driven executive may learn to engage staff and harness their motivation rather than to leave them two steps behind. The passionate and brilliant executive may learn that good ideas still need to be sold (and how). Over time, the return on investment can make the investment in coaching seem modest.

So far I have spoken in terms of the buyer and the value to each buyer of Life and Executive Coaching and this could suggest that there is no difference between the two. At the same time, many coaches have struggled to succeed as Executive Coaches whilst some Executive Coaches make poor other-than-business coaches. So what does it take to succeed in each discipline? If you’re interested to explore this question you might want to read “Executive” and “Life” Coaching: what does each require of the coach?

“Executive” and “Life” Coaching: How are they similar?

Coaching

The Association for Coaching offers definitions of various types of coaching beginning with “Personal/Life Coaching”. Using Anthony Grant’s words (University of Sydney, 2000) Personal/Life Coaching is defined as: A collaborative solution-focussed, results-oriented and systematic process in which the coach facilitates the enhancement of work performance, life experience, self-directed learning and personal growth of the coachee. The Association’s definition of Executive Coaching begins with the words As for personal coaching, but… It’s easy to see that coaching of all kinds has aspects in common.

Grant’s definition – like many others – points both to the “what” and to the “how” of coaching. Coaching is an outcome-oriented process which, potentially, addresses all areas of clients’ lives. In his definition of Personal/Life Coaching Grant identifies key areas of outcome as enhancement of work performance, life experience, self-directed learning and personal growth of the coachee. It’s easy to see that, whether coaching is funded by the employer for a senior executive (Executive Coaching) or funded by the individual for his or her own purposes (Personal or Life Coaching) these outcomes might apply. On the surface at least, there are similarities in the “what” of Executive and Life Coaching.

Grant’s definition also implies similarities in the “how” of coaching, describing coaching as a collaborative solution-focussed, results-oriented and systematic process in which the coach facilitates (…). This definition helps to differentiate coaching from other forms of intervention (advice, training, therapy…). At the same time, it suggests that the “how” of both Executive and Life Coaching have a great deal in common. Both require an ability on the part of the coach to facilitate their client’s learning process, supporting the client in identifying and moving towards desired outcomes. Coaching is a holistic activity which requires of the coach an ability to engage with the client in the round – to engage with the whole person.

It follows that whatever the coach is offering and however he or she labels his or her own work, Executive Coaches and Life Coaches have a skills set in common and both have to be highly developed in these skills. (I say more about this in my posting: “Executive” and “Life” Coaching: What does each require of the coach?). Equally, both are circumscribed by the coach’s code of ethics. These codes of ethics vary not because of the context in which a coach practices so much as because various supervisory bodies have different ethical codes.

So much for the ways in which Executive and Life Coaching are similar. What about their differences? If you are interested to read more, you can find some thoughts in my posting: “Executive” and “Life” Coaching: How are they different?

“Executive” and “Life” Coaching: A matter of prejudice?

Coaching,

Let’s be clear, the terms “Executive” and “Life” coaching can become laden with prejudice, amongst coaches as well as amongst their clients. In this posting I take a moment to identify some of the prejudices that exist and some of the reasons for their existence.

It’s easy to spot that the term “life coaching” has acquired negative connotations. In recent discussions, some of my coaching colleagues pointed to the fact that “life coaching” features in the media both in areas and in ways which define the way they are seen. Whilst Executive Coaching is the matter of discussion in the business press, Life Coaching features in women’s magazines and daytime TV so that coaching in turn becomes the object of any associations and even prejudices that go with their media host. In addition, the kind of “coaching” that is featured on TV is often several steps wide of any accepted definition of coaching. In the words of one colleague, this can give the impression that life coaches are “superficial and/or flaky”.

In the workplace, the term “executive coaching” can tend to benefit from positive associations. This can be a reflection of the way it is sold to potential coaching clients: as a sign of their importance and seniority. At one level this assertion is spot on: organisations tend to invest in people in senior posts where the return on investment in coaching can be significant across the organisation. At the same time, this assertion may reflect the need (as perceived by sponsors of coaching) to entice some of an organisation’s most wayward executives into the net of coaching in order to address areas in which some kind of adjustment is needed. It can be a paradox of coaching in organisations that whilst the people for whom coaching is made available are usually amongst the most talented in the organisation they may include both the highest performers and some whose performance is in some way problematic: the two are not mutually exclusive.

Amongst my colleagues in the coaching profession, some were honest enough to recognise that it’s easy to take shelter under the term “Executive Coach” and its associations. In situations in which they do not feel sure of themselves it can be used to try to project a certain image with potential clients and – yes – to justify the fees. I would add that I have seen some former Executives retire one day and adopt this label the next. Whilst this is far from universal I would counsel buyers to know what they want to buy and to lift up the label and look underneath before buying.

I wonder if the term “coaching” (and especially “life coaching”) suffers from prejudice because of a fear that is widely held and rarely acknowledged: the fear that one might be fundamentally flawed. Identified by Gay Hendricks in his book The Big Leap, this fear is familiar to many who have gone on to embrace their full potential and to achieve great success. For those who say no to coaching and other forms of learning, seeing coaching as something negative is a way to hold this fear at bay. For some of coaching’s most dedicated and most successful clients, facing this fear was a step they took before signing up to coaching.

“Executive Coach” and “Life Coach”: What do these terms mean to you?

Coaching

Currently, as I reflect on the niche I occupy (and want to occupy) as a coach I am pausing to reflect on the terms “Executive Coach” and “Life Coach”. Recently I took time to open up debate on a number of forums with the posting below and this week I am taking time to write about some of the issues that came up amongst the responses.

From time to time I am asked: “Are you an Executive Coach or a Life Coach?” It seems to me that this question implies that the two are mutually exclusive. At times I am told or infer that the term “Executive Coach “ commands more respect – maybe even a lot more respect amongst people asking this question, including fellow coaches. And because I do most of my coaching work with executives it could be easy for me to buy into this idea of “more than/less than” as part of my sales pitch.

At the same time, no matter how senior my clients, once we start to work together in coaching partnership I am working with a person and with the whole person. I work with them on issues that are central to their work progress, effectiveness and satisfaction. I work with them on some of their most intimate issues from their home lives. In this sense I could call myself a “Life Coach for Executives”. I have had some feedback that I am an “ontological coach”, coaching my clients in their chosen way of being in the world. I wonder, is this “Life Coaching for Executives” any less taxing than anything I might call “Executive Coaching”? I don’t think so: in working in this way I draw on everything that I am and all that I bring, if you like at all the “logical levels” identified by Robert Dilts.

As I work through all the questions (marketing and otherwise) that this brings up for me I would welcome your views, thoughts and insights. To start the ball rolling here are my top three questions:

· What do you see as the similarities and differences between “Life” and “Executive” coaching?
· What connotations do these terms have for you? And for your clients?
· What language do you use to do justice to “Life Coaching for Executives”?

One question that was in my mind was this: is the use of these terms subject to prejudice in the eyes of others? If you’re interested to know what I found you might want to read my next posting: “Executive” and “Life” Coaching: A Matter of Prejudice?

As a meta of fact

All articles, ,

Sometimes, the words and phrases which are so well understood in one sphere require translation in another. I was reminded of this last week when I shared with a coaching client the idea of taking a meta-position and was asked to explain this term. It seemed like a good opportunity to write a posting.

The prefix “meta-” from the Greek seems to refer to a change e.g. of position or form. Various definitions point to something that refers to itself or something that is one step removed. In the world of neurolinguistic programming (or NLP) this prefix has been used in a variety of ways and it is from this use in NLP that I borrow the term. One powerful process in NLP is called the “meta-mirror”, a process by which the individual steps fully into his or her emotions and the script that accompanies these emotions about another person (“first position”), then steps into the metaphorical shoes of the person about whom he or she is talking (“second position”), then steps into the position of observer of self and other (“third position”) before stepping into a “fourth” position to observe the initial self (in “first position”) and the second self (in “third position”) and to decide which version of the “self” is more resourceful in responding to the original stimulus.

In nonviolent communication (or NVC) the metaphor “jackal” is used to refer to the kind of things we say when we are in first position and without awareness of our self-talk and the term “giraffe” is used to describe the thoughts and speech that come when we have stepped back to observe our feelings and to connect with the needs that underpin our feelings. The point about our “jackals” (or gremlins as they are often called in wider circles) is that they guide our lives in certain directions whether we want them to or not. At the same time, when we develop the ability to stand back and observe them – well, frankly, they often don’t stand up to close inspection.

So why is the NLP “meta-mirror” process so powerful? Precisely because the ability to step out of one’s shoes and observe oneself at one step removed opens up choices and possibilities which are not there without this ability to self-reflect. In our own shoes for example, we might say “John is so irritating. He always arrives late at meetings and he is never prepared”. In saying this, our attention is on John and John alone. The minute we are able to take a meta-position and to become an observer of the self we add all sorts of information to the picture. We can learn for example, that we feel angry. And we can examine whether John’s behaviour is the cause of our emotion or simply a stimulus, recognising that the cause of our anger is actually the thoughts we have about John’s habitual lateness. With this comes the ability to reflect on our response to John’s lateness and to adopt a different approach – if we want to.

So much for the jargon, what does this mean in practice? The “jackal” or “gremlin” has an inbuilt belief (which he does not recognise as such) that his belief is the truth. If you like, in the absence of being able to step back and observe himself, the jackal can hold the most questionable beliefs and maintain a story as if it were a truth. This means that he acts as if his belief or story were true. This could be beneficial or not depending on the nature of the belief or story. Everyday examples include the person who believes he will never get far because he didn’t do well at school versus the person who believes anything is possible. Good stories or bad? You decide.

British politics and collaboration

All articles

Far from having any claim to insight into the British political system I consider myself an ordinary punter trying to make a responsible choice as I cast my vote in these extraordinary times. And having cast my vote on Thursday I am on tenterhooks (as, it seems, are the markets) as talks between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties take place to see if they can reach some kind of power-sharing agreement following our election.

It seems to me that there are two major questions on the agenda. One of these is the question of reform of the UK electoral system, a key aspiration of the Liberal Democrat Party – Britain’s third main party. Last time the Liberal Democrats had the chance to enter into a power-sharing arrangement (back in the 70s) they gave away the possibility of electoral reform in order to form a coalition government. Some commentators are suggesting that they are unlikely to let such a rare opportunity go past again. No matter what the outcome is from these post-electoral negotiations the government of the day will have to address another key question and decide how to manage Britain’s ailing economy.

I do wonder how these two questions are related. George Osborne, for example, Shadow Chancellor for the Conservative Party, made a speech in October 2009 in which he asked the electorate to accept the need for austerity. Michael Portillo, writing yesterday for the Daily Telegraph newspaper, suggested that this speech clearly frightened voters. It strikes me that the need to nurture the British economy back to good health was the unspoken “elephant in the room” in the recent televised debates between the three main party leaders. I wonder whether, under a representative system, it might have been more likely that all three leaders would have named this economic need. Is it possible that, under some kind of representative system (rather than our current “first past the post”) the question up for discussion amongst our politicians would not be whether or not we need to manage the economy right now but how?

It’s interesting to note that commentators (including Tim Montgomerie, writing for the ConservativeHome website and Lord Tebbit, former Conservative Party Chairman) have highlighted the need for a more collaborative approach within the Conservative Party. There is a mood of discontent amongst Conservative politicians that the party failed to win an overall majority in the election and some are pointing to Cameron’s failure to collaborate with colleagues in the party except for his tight inner circle. If nothing else, this lack of collaboration means that party members can easily point at Cameron and say “it’s your fault”. Gordon Brown has also been highlighted as someone who lacks skills in collaboration. Right now his hold on the leadership of the Labour Party is looking increasingly tenuous.

At the same time, there are concerns about the implications of power sharing. One immediate concern is that the time it is likely to take to form some kind of collaborative government may have significant effects on the markets. Commentators have also been voicing wider concerns, pointing to especially Germany’s system in which it can take months to form a government and Italy’s system in which corruption is put down to the governmental system. And that’s before you pick up the current edition of the New Scientist, the cover of which focuses on the maths, claiming: The Maths of Democracy: Why Fairness is Impossible.

So, as we await the outcome of last week’s election, I find myself pondering the potential benefits of far greater collaboration right the way across our political system. At the same time, I am acutely aware that successful collaboration takes a mindset that is not commonly visible in our Houses of Parliament. And I recognise that this in turn raises questions about the culture of our political system and about the wider culture it reflects. Perhaps this is an idea to explore on another day.

Shaping your leadership competencies

Developing as a leader, Developing leadership across your organisation, ,

What are the key issues that face organisations when they seek to put together competency models or frameworks in their organisations? This is a question that came up recently on the Training Journal Daily Digest.

I have masses of experience of shaping, implementing and using competency frameworks from the supplier side of the fence – anything from limited budget to £4bn research projects, anything from shaping the competencies based on research to using them to assess candidates for senior leadership roles. I took a moment to think about my top three issues and I thought I’d share them here:

  • The mother of all issues for me is this: if the behaviours described in your competency model do not predict the performance you require then why have one? Having a competency model which is not rooted in robust research could divert energy away from the behaviours that predict performance and even undermine performance;
  • In practice, a key issue for clients is about balancing their investment between shaping robust competency frameworks and implementing them. The best frameworks in the world are only of value when they are implemented effectively and a well-implemented framework is only of value if it predicts the performance you require (see first bullet). It helps to get clear up front about your reasons for creating a competency model or framework and also to think ahead to ways in which it might be used which are not currently on the agenda. This helps clients to shape an approach which best meets their current – and possible future – needs;
  • Practical experience also suggests that a key issue for clients is gaining buy-in. Whatever the size of a client’s investment in preparing a competency framework, it always helps to involve people who will ultimately be the end users in shaping the behaviours described. Buy-in also depends on the trust staff have in the accuracy and relevancy of the behaviours described (yes, back to bullet one) and in the ways they are used in practice (bullet two).

Of course, these bullets all imply the need to choose carefully the partner(s) with whom you work to research, design and implement your competency model or framework.

But then, I would say that, wouldn’t I.

Searching for my coaching “genius”

Coaching

Working with Kathy Mallary to explore my target market as a coach I am grappling with a number of questions including the question: what is my genius? This comes up, too, in my work with my coach, Lynne Fairchild. These are some of the thoughts arising following a conversation with Lynne:



Perhaps my genius lies in the area of alignment:

  • When my clients are at odds with themselves, in inner conflict, trying to reconcile needs that seem at odds;
  • When clients at work are in some way out of alignment: when they experience the expectations placed on them as out of alignment with some aspect of themselves – their values, sense of self etc.; when they are successful in their work and yet yearning for more joy or noticing something calling them in another direction; when their self image is two steps behind their latest promotion; when “what is” and “what should be” seem worlds apart…
  • When something is out of alignment at home: when the dream of happy-ever-after romance is out of synch with the reality of daily life with their partner; when the cost of spending time with old friends, family or, or, or… seems too high; when the dream home comes with a nightmare mortgage payment…

These are areas in which I am perceptive and engaged.

This is not about career coaching in the traditional sense but about clients’ alignment to and embodiment of their inner wisdom. It is an “inside out” coaching which takes in all of Robert Dilts’ “logical levels” – clients’ “who am I?” (identity), values and beliefs, capabilities, behaviour, environment – in the wider context of family and organisation.

I notice I am drawn to work with talented people who want to bring their genius to bear in the world. These are people who recognise and want to respond to some kind of inner calling that takes them beyond their current situation to answer the question: what is it that is calling me? These are people who, in treading this path, have to engage with and move beyond their inner and outer constraints. These include the constraints of culture – “the way we do things round here”. This is a path for the courageous few: what M. Scott Peck describes as the road less travelled.

Travelling this road often takes people beyond the confines of the paradigms in which they are raised or within which they work in order to find their own answers. For these people it is not enough to be successful within the paradigm assigned to them – these are the people who see the limitations of our current cultural norms and who reach out in search of their own path. In this sense alignment comes from within and spreads outward – these are people who begin by finding their inner sense of alignment and move on to seek out and create opportunities to which they are fully aligned – organisations to work with, leadership approaches which match their heartfelt values, a place in the world which reflects their sense of purpose. In this sense my clients are often leaders whether or not they have a recognised “line management” or leadership role. They lead by example. They create culture as much as they sit within a culture – they are the shifters and shapers.


These are people who are able both to live their lives and to step back and examine the lives they are living – to take a meta-perspective in life;

These are the people who, by making choices at a meta-level, can pursue a path with conviction and continue to pursue that path even when the terrain is rough and challenging;

These are the people who chose a way of being in the world and in this way bring greater meaning to their lives;

These are the people who, from their sense of conviction and by pursuing a path, develop a mastery in time of their chosen way of being in the world.

Having worked over the years with many people in leadership positions I wonder if my true clients are leaders who are on this journey, whether leadership is a subset of this area of alignment, if…, if…, if… This question remains open – at least for now.