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!

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?

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?

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?

What does it take to be “coachable“? This is the essential question Seth Godin explores in his blog posting of the same name. Follow the link to find out more, including the role that coachability used to play – maybe still plays – in auditions at the Bolshoi Ballet.

For whom is the answer to this question important? As I ponder I imagine that this is an important question for us all. For the coach, it is a question we need to be able to answer when we meet people who want us to support them, so that we can best serve our clients and ourselves by knowing when to say yes and when to say no. For the people who come to us as potential clients it is a question worth being able to answer, for who would want to pay for coaching if they are not also open to the learning that might come with it?

Godin highlights the many roles and relationships in which coaching takes place and as I write I find myself pondering the family as the “advanced school of human relationships”. For the family highlights one aspect of coaching – perhaps above all other: that it is a mutually consensual relationship. Consent in coaching is given based on perceptions of trust, skill, wisdom, insight – the list goes on. Family relationships also depend on mutual consent. No doubt I am drawn to reflect on this at a time when I am recognising the challenges I find in my relationship with my sister.

What then, if you find that your potential client is not coachable? And what if you find that no amount of dialogue with your sibling or other family member opens up trust and mutual consent? I find it worth remembering that we cannot change the others, we can only change ourselves. If the client is not coachable without radical change, if the relationship with a family member is far from working, then it helps to recognise the limits of our power and influence.

As a coach, this might mean saying “no, I’m not here to ‘sell’ you something you don’t want”. In the family this might mean saying “no, I’m not here to force you relate in ways that don’t work for you”. It might also mean saying, “given I’m offering you something that doesn’t work for you and you want something that doesn’t work for me, I’m choosing to invest my energy elsewhere”. As harsh as this may seem, it can also be the ultimate act of love for self and for other.

As International Coaching Week draws to a close I take one last look at the recent research by DBM in partnership with the Human Capital Institute (copy available via inquiries@dbm.com). This time, I look at the survey’s prediction of future trends.

The survey’s 472 respondents highlight three areas in which they plan to increase their investment:

• Grooming high potential employees;
• Helping capable executives achieve higher performance; and
• Enhancing team effectiveness.

Respondents expect to decrease their use of coaching for:

• Addressing derailing behaviours; and
• Guiding career decisions.

I wonder, as I look at these categories, if one of the implications of these findings is that organisations will fund Executive Coaching when it serves the needs of the organisation, whilst individual Executives will fund coaching in support of their own needs. It has certainly been my experience that my executive clients come to me privately as well as via their organisation.

There is one implication of these findings which may well be worth teasing out and examining – is it seen to be true that the ‘derailing behaviours’ referred to are not those of high potential employees or capable executives? Over the years, I have often encountered senior executives who demonstrate behaviours that are tolerated because of their otherwise high levels of performance. Where do these sit in this picture?

International Coaching Week continues and today I take a look at the ‘Top Success Factors’ reported by DBM in their recent research study, conducted in partnership with the Human Capital Institute (full copy available at inquiries@dbm.com).

The first area they identify is ‘making the match’. The survey offers a number of factors including ensuring the coach has a sound coaching methodology, identifying coaches with business experience and industry/company knowledge, ensuring the right chemistry between coach and client (including organisational culture), managing the expectations of coach and client and allowing the interview to take place in person.

The second area is one they describe as ‘time and touch’: allowing 4 – 6 months for the client to develop new behaviours and emphasizing primarily face-to-face coaching with a blend of over-the-phone.

The third area is measurement (‘measure, measure, measure’), including assessing progress against initial objectives, soliciting an evaluation from the coach (or do they mean the ‘coachee’?) and seeking out anecdotal evidence of changes and the impact of changes.

I might have some questions about the detail. (In my own practice, for example, I have some senior clients with whom I speak for half an hour on a weekly basis and others I meet, face to face, on a fortnightly or monthly basis for 90 minutes. I can’t say that I have found face-to-face coaching to have been more successful than coaching by phone). At the same time, it seems to me that it helps to start coaching with a clear idea of what you want coaching to achieve, to match coaches and clients with care, to allow time for clients to make changes and to monitor results along the way.