How Long Should Coaching Last?

The length of a coaching relationship will depend on its purpose.  Coaching interventions can be episodic or developmental.  Each is described below.

Episodic coaching is usually brought on by a specific incident or event.  Episodic coaching involves a specific problem or challenge upon which a coach may work with a coachee for a relatively short period of time until the challenge is met.  This can be as brief as several weeks to a year.  Clarity of expected results and knowing when these results have been realized are important parts of any episodic coaching engagement.

Developmental coaching is a longer-term coaching relationship that is ongoing and without any particular time frame.  Many executives recognize the need for ongoing coaching to help them manage the complexity of their jobs.  They know that situations change, new challenges are always materializing, and ongoing coaching is essential to their success.  This relationship is open-ended and continues as long as there is perceived value.  Some executive coaches have been successfully coaching developmental clients for more than a decade

I will offer examples to illustrate both episodic and developmental coaching engagements.

George is the plant manager of a thriving manufacturing company.  His owner and CEO felt that George was caught up in conflicts between operations and sales, often leading to name calling and finger pointing.  His CEO hired a coach to help George manage this conflict.  Assessments revealed that George was a “pleaser” and avoided conflict.  By doing this, George allowed conflicts to fester and get out of control.  George had many assets; among them was the need for harmony.  Through coaching, George learned to leverage his harmony asset by bringing the conflicting parties together to air out their dispute.  The result was a successful resolution of the conflict and peace in the plant.  Rather than avoiding conflict, George learned to confront it in a non-threatening, harmonious way.  This was accomplished in five coaching sessions.

Peter is the CEO of a high-profile, family-owned-and-operated company created by his father.  The perception that he may have “inherited” his position often clouded his ability to demonstrate his own achievements.  He wanted recognition of his own contributions and often found his father’s domineering style destructive to his attempts to lead.  Over time, this issue abated and new challenges emerged about his team, growth of the business, restructuring sources of financing projects, coaching his executive team, breaking down barriers of departments that acted like silos, competition between executives, and working with siblings in the business.  He also learned how to manage his own liabilities by creating organizational support systems while leveraging his assets of networking and business development.  Today, he is recognized as one of the most powerful businessmen in his community.  Over the 20-year coaching relationship, many challenges were met, and both Peter and the company he leads have flourished.

This post concludes my blogging to amplify my recently published book, Executive Coaching and the Process of Change. But this is not the end of my blogging.  I will continue to post a weekly blog on executive coaching.  My plan is to transform this blog into an interactive dialogue by asking my readers to send me their coaching questions, challenges, and experiences.  I will respond to these requests in the context of my coaching model and process.  Future blog posts will be posted under the new domain name of “”.  Please send your thoughts about coaching to my new email address:

Thanks for your support. I look forward to hearing from you. I am certain your contributions will provide me with new opportunities for continued clarification and elaboration of the coaching process in this transformed format.

Coaching to Influence the Boss

One lesson I learned in writing is that case studies help to illuminate the point the author is trying to convey. This is why I use case studies as illustrations of the points I want to make about coaching. Each case is a real-life example of a coach, a coachee, and a situation that the coachee is trying to cope with.

This blog post will focus on how to influence the person to whom the coachee reports. I often hear executives ask, “How do I tell my boss something he or she may not want to hear?”  This can be a challenge because many organizations are hierarchical, and the coachee is often torn between giving honest feedback and taking the risk of upsetting the person(s) to whom he or she is accountable.

I will write about two “hired gun” CEOs who tried to influence their boss/business owners. The results were very different, and the reasons why will reveal important lessons to be learned. These lessons also can apply to boards of directors or anyone in the organization that an executive reports to.  From a coaching perspective, the success of the coachee will depend on the cooperation and alignment of the boss/business owner.  It is important to be able to communicate up the hierarchical ladder in order to be in a stronger position to succeed as an individual and as a company.  The two cases you are about to read will illustrate this point.

John is a “hired gun” of a $25 Million construction supply company. He was hired by his company’s owners to turn the company around after several years of financial losses.   John accepted the position with confidence and soon learned the reasons the company was failing; they were related to the ownership structure, heavy debt, and a culture of apathy.  Sales were flat. The company had not invested capital to replace aging equipment. The previous CEO was also an owner but had been ineffective in making the changes needed to turn the company around.  In coaching, it became apparent that John’s success depended on ownership restructuring, debt restructuring, culture change, and weeding out non-performers.  Investments in equipment and supply sources were also critical for success.  Although John was the CEO, he needed owner approval for these changes.

Much of the debt burden was attributable to monthly payments owed to two of the owners. It would not be easy to convince them to restructure this debt.  Many coaching sessions addressed this challenge.  One goal in coaching was to find a way to influence the owners to restructure the debt.  John needed to first demonstrate his ability to turn the sales and bottom line around so the company would be in a position to attract bank financing.  It took a full year, but John was able to show growth in sales and profits.  He established credibility with his company’s owners–enough to raise the challenge of restructuring debt. His coach worked with John to create a case for change with a compelling agenda for the owners.  His coach also helped John develop a plan that demonstrated how restructuring the debt would allow the company to prosper.  Next, his coach helped John to contrast the restructuring plan with what would happen if the company did not restructure the debt.  He demonstrated that the status quo would handicap the company and lead to an erosion of assets just to survive. Faced with these alternatives, the owners accepted John’s plan to restructure the debt.  John found a bank willing to offer long-term financing that would satisfy the owners and the capital needs of the company with terms that would allow the company to manage its debt.   The company is on its way to its most profitable year ever.

John was successful because he was able to lay out to the company’s owners what Jim Campbell in Good to Great called “the brutal facts.”  These facts demonstrated how the status quo would eventually bankrupt the company.  John also laid out a plan of action that would satisfy the owners and allow him to grow the business. The role of the coach was to help John organize his thoughts and present a plan that the owners would accept.  The brutal facts created tension with the goals of the owners; the debt and ownership restructuring plan reduced that tension. In my opinion, this was a major reason for John’s ability to influence his company’s owners.

The second case was not successful. In this case, Don was hired by the two owners who previously had run the company but were unable to grow it beyond its current state. The company manufactured products for the local market.  The products were high in quality, and the company brand was respected.  The owners wanted to grow the products into a regional and, ultimately, a national brand.  Don was well on the way of accomplishing his mission when conflicts arose between him and the owners.  The owners kept interfering with his leadership.  Although irritating, Don was able to manage.  The conflict heated up when the owners became upset with Don over a major change initiative. I believe the owners were threatened by his success and felt displaced by his leadership.  Don’s attempts to influence the owners failed.  In fact, these attempts created even more tension.  Finally, in frustration, Don and the owners reached a mutual agreement to part ways.

Why did I include this case? It is a warning to CEOs who take over entrepreneurial companies, because I have seen similar scenarios unfold many times in different industries.  The newly hired, highly competent CEO replaces the owner who had struggled to grow the company.  The culture the new CEO enters is often controlling and highly influenced by the personality of the entrepreneur/owner.  As much as these owners would like the company to succeed, they are haunted by the fear of losing their influence and the feeling of being displaced by the new CEO.  In reality, they are often more concerned about losing their influence than the success of their company.  I am aware of one owner who accused a CEO of “throwing him under the bus.”

To summarize, it is important to influence upstairs. I would add the warning that company politics can get ugly. Coaches need to be aware of this and help their coachees to navigate the perils of their leadership. A good principle to keep in mind is to create tension for the owner, boss, or board that is meaningful and relevant to their goals. Misreading their goals can spell disaster for the relationship and job security of the new leader.

Coaching Innovation

To gain and maintain a competitive edge in today’s fast-paced business environment, companies need to continuously improve products, services, and processes. Innovation has become an indispensable strategy toward these improvements. An executive coach needs to encourage coachees to engage in innovative thinking to be successful. I will present three cases to illustrate the role of a coach in encouraging innovation.

Company X is a manufacturer of parts for a major industry. They sold a patented product through distributors and directly to original equipment manufacturers. Anticipating their main product coming off patent protection, they were concerned about a flood of knock-off products, particularly from China. The coaching challenge was to help the CEO of this company solve the dilemma of maintaining a culture of innovation within the company while at the same time producing its products in a low-cost manufacturing environment. As a result of several sessions addressing this dilemma, the CEO realized he needed to protect innovation from being perceived as an unnecessary financial burden to manufacturing. He formed a “pioneer” team of his most creative people and protected them with a separate budget. Manufacturing had its own budget with the mandate of creating a low-cost, efficient operation. This strategy of separating the Pioneer team from the Manufacturing team turned out to be successful. The company continued to develop new products, improve its existing products, and remain cost-competitive.

Company Y made an engineered product that was designed to meet new government regulations for its customer. A competitor developed a new product that not only met specifications but had some additional advantages that were missing in Company Y’s product. The competitor’s product was also less expensive. Company Y was given six months to come up with a product to match the competitor’s product or lose the customer’s business. This challenge was raised and processed in coaching. The company already had a well-defined innovation strategy, but the challenge presented by its customer required a different approach. It was determined that this challenge was a top priority. This meant putting other projects on hold and adding more resources to this one. The result was a new product that outperformed the competitor’s product. Company Y kept the business, albeit at a higher cost. It is now dedicating resources to reduce its manufacturing costs and thereby regain its profit margin.

Company Z is a large service company that was trying to reduce its escalating health care costs. The coach introduced the company CEO to an individual who specialized in innovative solutions to reduce health care costs. As a result, the company changed is health care plan to a consumer-driven health plan (CDHP), which combines a high-deductible insurance plan with a health savings account (HSA). The CDHP was just the beginning. The company also wanted to promote a healthier lifestyle for its workforce. Employees were given the opportunity to engage in health-related programs, rewarding participation with additional money placed into their HSA. Programs included a covered annual physical, weight-management classes, exercise classes, and nutritional guidance. These programs helped employees make healthy lifestyle choices that should lead to better health, fewer doctor visits, and a more productive workforce. In fact, Company Z experienced lower health care costs, reduced out-of-pocket costs for employees, and a healthier workforce.

The role of the coach in each of these cases was threefold: first, to maintain innovation as one of the key topics of the coaching dialogue; second, to examine the process of innovation; and, third, to stay focused on results. Given all of the demands made of executives, it is easy for them to lose track of innovation. Many executives will complain about problems rather than innovate for solutions. Keeping the coachee focused on innovation as a critical contributor to the success of the company is central to the role of the coach.

Transitioning My Coaching Blog

First, I would like to thank my readers for following my blog about executive coaching.  Every blog post I write forces me to think deeply about how coaching should be practiced.  I undoubtedly get more out of writing my blog posts than the reader gets from reading them. As I have said many times, whoever does the heavy lifting gets the most benefit.  I believe I am a better coach as a result.

When I began blogging about my book, Executive Coaching and the Process of Change, my goal was to elaborate on its content for one year.  I am approaching the end of that year.  I will write three more blog posts related to my book:  one on coaching innovation, another on coaching to influence “upstairs,” and my final blog on how long a coaching assignment should last.

My plan going forward is to transform my blog into an interactive dialogue with my readers. I am asking my readers to send me their coaching questions, challenges, and experiences.  I will respond to these requests in the context of my coaching model and process, which are dedicated to behavioral change.  I will continue to write a weekly blog post under the new domain name of “”  You can begin sending me your coaching questions, challenges, and experiences to my new email address:

I look forward to hearing from you and taking on this new challenge of creating an interactive dialogue about executive coaching.

Ethical Conflicts in Coaching

In my last blog, I discussed core values and ethical standards for executive coaching.  In this blog, I will review several ethical conflicts that can arise in a coaching relationship.  I will also offer a way to manage these conflicts to either avoid or minimize their consequences.

A coach sometimes hears of or experiences behavior that is either unethical or illegal.  I once had a coachee who was paid as a professional to provide services to a medical facility.  He was considering the addition of a new service to his client and charging an additional fee.  The ethical problem was that he was already being paid by the medical facility, and the new service could be perceived as an enhancement to services for which he was already being compensated.  The new service enhancement would definitely benefit his client company, but as a service provider, was there a potential conflict?  He did not see this as a conflict of interest, but, as a result of the dialogue with me, his coach, he decided to be transparent with his proposal to his client.  In this case, coaching helped to make the coachee aware that there was another perspective that needed to be considered.  This led to the coachee being more open about his intentions rather than unilaterally changing the compensation arrangement.

One sticky situation I have found myself in is when I am coaching competitors or coaching parties on two different sides of a dispute.  When coaching competitors, I am always up front about who I am coaching.  If it is a problem for either party, I will not engage with the prospective coaching client. If it becomes a problem after both competitors are engaged, I will disengage from the most recent coaching relationship.  In this situation, trust is more important than continuing to coach both competitors. In one case, the cousin of one CEO went into a similar line of business to that of another CEO I was coaching.  The two CEOs knew each other, and when it became apparent that a relative of one CEO could be competing with the other CEO, I decided to end the coaching relationship with the CEO who had the least tenure.

Serving two coachees who are in a dispute is rare, but I have experienced this twice.  My decision was not to coach both individuals but instead to coach only the one who had seniority in my coaching.  I also referred the other coachee to another coach.  Could I have worked with both coachees?  Probably, and I may have been able to help them resolve their differences.  I know of coaches who would not see this as a conflict but rather as an opportunity to shift roles in order to help resolve a problem while maintaining both coachees as clients.  I believe this is an ethical conflict.   A coach is not a mediator or a consultant. In my opinion, mediation or consultation are not services that a coach should undertake. This is a situation where a referral to a qualified professional would be more appropriate.

There are situations where a coachee is having a problem with the sponsor.  If the coach is also coaching the sponsor, this may be an opportunity to explore the relationship and the openness between executives.  I often found myself asking questions that relate to an existing problem without revealing the source of the questions.  In one case, an executive I was coaching felt he was underpaid for his position as COO.  His CEO, whom I was also coaching, was aware of the disparity in compensation but was more concerned about cash flow than the feelings of his COO.   If the COO were to leave the company, it would have been a terrible event for the company. My role as a coach is to make sure the CEO is aware of the consequences of his actions.  In this case, it was a matter of how the CEO handled the compensation issue.

I had been involved in dialogue that had led to the hiring of the COO.  As part of my coaching with the CEO, we had ongoing conversations about the COO’s performance.  It was clear to the CEO that the COO had brought value to the company.  As a result, it was quite natural for me to raise questions about the COO’s retention without revealing specific conversations that I had with him.  After a very frank discussion about retention of the COO, the CEO opened the compensation dialogue with the COO, charting out an equitable compensation agreement.

I have provided several ethical conflicts that can arise from coaching.  It is important for the coach to always be aware of his or her role in these situations and to continue to provide an open and candid relationship while helping the coachee to accomplish meaningful goals.  Trust is clearly the main factor that gives the coach the latitude to engage the coachee in honest, forthright dialogue.