AI and Coaching — the 2025 NYU Coaching and Technology Summit in a Nutshell

This year’s NYU Coaching and Technology Summit was all about coaching and AI. Plenty of big coaching kahunas were present from top coaching behemoths such as BetterUp but also exciting start-ups and researchers such as Dr. Nicky Terblanche.

I was able to discern three big themes:

• AI will enable us to democratize coaching

• While everyone needs coaching, in the context of organizations executive coaching will have the biggest impact on companies

• Health and well-being will just get bigger for coaching

What is Coaching?

During one of the sessions, Emma Barker-Goldie, global senior trainer and coach at Amazon was asked about her hopes for coaching: “Imagine a world where we know what coaching is?” She continued wondering how it would look like if we introduced coaching to school age children. 
How do we explain what coaching is? This topic still seems to challenge even the combined brain power I encountered here in New York City. I asked one prominent coach and researcher who actually did not want to get into that kind of debate. Perhaps I am a horrible would-be journalist, but I guess this also highlights how difficult that question remains.
I decided to try my luck elsewhere and asked Laura Rees-Davies, CEO of GlobalForward Consulting who has worked with schools in the United Kingdom. How would she explain what coaching is to a 10-year-old kid. She responded: “Someone will ask questions and not tell you what to do.” She further emphasized the importance of playfulness for children. That made me curious about how to translate this back to the adult world. How would “play” help us explain coaching to adults? In response, Rees-Davies laid out the importance of creativity. Adults need to shed several layers of mentalized frameworks and structures before they can approach coaching with creativity to find answers to the coach’s questions.

So far nothing new. Also not new is that our trade is exposed to the same disruptive forces posed by AI like any other industry. Many coaches and obviously entrepreneurs fully embrace this and only see opportunities. Several researchers are doing what researchers should do and ask the tough questions. For example, Dr. Terblance pointed out currently there are only about 150 peer reviewed articles about AI and coaching published in academic journals - and many of these are not good. Then there are the sceptics and not surprisingly coaches are among them. It seems sometimes even more so than among our clients. 

When the Market outruns Coaches

NYU professor of entrepreneurship Arun Sundararajan explained the number one use of AI is as a personal therapist. Alex Haitoglou, founder of Ovida added “We will all have an AI to speak to.” That means the “consumer” already embraces AI. Coaches need to adapt to it, too. One way many panelists see this play out is in their desire to democratize coaching. It cannot remain a service whose availability is limited by how much people are able to pay. That is primarily a problem of scale – and that is where AI steps in. The technology is placed to make that possible. 

AI as an Opportunity and Risk

That means we coaches perhaps more so than others need to act on what we like to preach, reamin curious about this new thing and think about it creatively. In fact, adapting intentionally to AI is all about curiosity, as Tim Harrison, founder of EPOG Academy explained on how to use AI tools: “It is all human interaction: you need to be curious, communicate well [to the tool] and provide feedback [for the tool to do what you need it to do].”
This mindset shift is not just hard for “older” people. Again, Sundararajan highlighted how for the first time in his 25 years of teaching young graduates are fearful on leaving college. The concern and frustration many express can be summarized in one statement: “If AI can do all this then what is left for us to do?” He went on to provide some perspective, explaining “AI like all innovations helps us meet unfulfilled aspirations”. AI will be a scaling of a combination of human and technological action. To illustrate this, he pointed out that healthcare did not even exist 200 years ago. Now it contributes to GDPs in double digit numbers.
The opportunity is we will be able to offer coaching to a much larger market. How that looks like is currently being addressed by an entire industry segment. What they are up against is the technology itself and our willingness to adapt it. For example, our clients already use AI as a personal therapist. The danger is that “AI can put up a great front”, according to Sundararajan. The current risk of AI in coaching/therapy is inadequate design of the human/technological mix.
He pointedly asked, “What are the pedagogically grounded and science-based templates we use?” The danger is people will not believe in the technology’s potential if it is not designed well. We need to be proactive - intentional (!) - about how we design the tools and the mix of technology and humans.

For our approach to AI’s impact on the workforce in general that means, in the future people will need to be much more entrepreneurial about their work environment. Having the right person in that environment to figure out how to make these transitions and improve our performance and learning who we are at the different stages of our lives will become increasingly important. 

For example, the current labor market includes an unprecedented cohort of five generations (Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z). As a result, we need to manage a lot of mid- to end-of-career transition. The United States, specifically, is great about early career transition - from high-school to college and first jobs – often managed by educational institutions. It lacks the ability to facilitate mid-career transitions. Up until a few decades ago, jobs were for life, the job trajectory was clear and company and pension plans took care of retirement. 

Transitions with Dignity

Today, companies are the only institutions which can manage mid-career transitions, both for the talent they keep and the one they won’t keep. In this context, Sundararajan made a statement that resonated with me a lot. He said, the increasing number of mid-career transitions needs to be managed “with dignity”. There will be people who have done an excellent job throughout their careers. Over time, their jobs have changed. It is too simplistic to always blame employees whose jobs have outgrown their capabilities. Take AI. Today’s experts themselves do not know what will come in six months. As Alex Haitoglo said: “The crystal ball is broken.”

So what are we to learn from all this? There seems to be consensus on AI’s ability to help coaches to scale their business across the entire range. For example, BetterUp shared research results proving how AI can increase bookings for a second session by about 10%. As Woody Woodward, BetterUp’s chief coaching officer said, the first session often “does not feel like a coaching session” because it is all about contracting, managing expectations, goal setting, etc. Coaches who implemented a pre-first session contracting tool reported 92% of clients were satisfied with the tool. With all the “admin” stuff out of the way for the first session, the experience of that first session was better. As a result, 10% more clients booked a second session.

The real scaling though will be on a much bigger level. One hoped for outcome is access to coaching for the “most vulnerable” as Sarah Sheehan, CEO of Braverly said. This is crucial because many underfunded organizations try their best to offer coaching to their staff. They hire well-meaning people but do not have the required resources to afford experienced coaches who also undergo supervision which led Laura Rees-Davies to ask: “Is coaching actually happening” in these places? 

None of this means the end of in person coaching. In fact, there seems to be wide agreement on a hybrid model becoming the norm. But there will be a shift which Levi Goertz, founder of Valence referred to a distinction between lower case “c” coaching and upper case “C” coaching. AI scaled coaching to a mass consumer market is on the way to solve coaching problems for many people in their early career stages. Liz Lowry, VP of talent development and learning at Hearst reported how junior staff utilized Valence’s AI coach Nadia to prepare for review meetings asking very practical questions such as “how do I get a raise”. Christine Nollen, global head of coaching for VML agrees. She believes, AI coaching works extremely well for mid-level and junior staff. 

Coaching for Leaders and Employees

The difference is in coaching for “executives who need to know how they show up with all their emotions, etc.” She argues, coaching is being present with a human including the mirroring and reflecting. “I point out what I see and feel. You have the answers yourself. It is about asking the next provocative question.” That is where non-sentient AI is presumably lacking. The upper case “C” coaching is targeted to the leadership because of the cascading effect. “Leaders make the weather”, Nollen said underscoring the importance of leading by example. No corporate coaching program or corporate transformation program will fully succeed unless the leadership is willing to undergo a transformation themselves. Danny Shea, founder of Thrive Global added to that “[the leaders’] example and sharing their story provides permission and makes them accountable, too”. 
 
The concept of upper and lower “c” coaching does not imply leaders deserve better. Rather, Shea views this in the context of what helps corporate clients. Organizational change is exponentially more impacted by the leaders. The community and peer aspect is essential because of adaptations. Leaders leading by example is the key. That is why it is crucially important for them to be aware of how they show up from an organizational perspective. 

 
However, for an organizational transformation to trickle down throughout the entire organization including the front workers, the most powerful motivator is to see your peers take steps. What are some of the most important areas for sustainable personal transformation? Thrive Global highlights five core areas for micro-steps, including 
 
The emphasize is on micro-steps which is something every professional athlete will tell you. In fact, Holly Benner who is associate director for global talent management at Merck USA said just that. When she is not coaching, developing talent, etc. she runs marathons, triathlons and used to be an elite rower. My memory is a but hazy on that because as a no-sports person I nearly fainted a triathlon, but this quote stuck with me: “We get offered radical change. That is not sustainable. Pick that 1%.” Sustained incremental steps are the way forward through a transformation.

• Healthy nutrition
• Sufficient sleep
• Exercise
• Stress management 
• Community

That Well-Being Thing

That brings me to the last theme I was able to identify at the NYU Coaching and Technology Summit. Where is this all going to play out the most? What is the big area where coaching will take place? If the AI as the new technology impacts how we do coaching not just in terms of methodology but simply in scale, leaders remain the prime target due their pivotal roles in their organizations. They lead in an increasingly volatile environment where the one constant is leadership. As a result, we need leaders who function well in a fast-paced high-pressure environment. That level of performance will only be possible if leaders are mentally and physically fit. So the big trend is, you guessed it: Well-being. 
 
It turns out everyone I spoke with at the NYU Coaching Summit seems to agree they don’t like the term nor much of what the market is including into that. Diego Salinas, founder of Vibly brought his neuroscientific training to bear when he criticized the much-touted concept of work-life balance. “You bring the same molecules to work and elsewhere.” In the end, any well-being program, regardless of what you call it and what you throw into the mix (from bean bags to DEI) has one goal only: performance increase. There is the scientific proof of its health benefits to the people in the organizations. Hardcore management consulting companies have brought the numbers to show how much money companies can safe and how they can improve the bottom line by implementing such programs to boost performance.

 
Like many programs, corporate well-being initiatives can go either way and the one determining factor is corporate culture or as Salinas called it “organizational citizenship behavior”. Unless leaders put their money where their mouth is and walk the talk by actually joining the corporate transformation project as someone who transforms his or her own behavior, the trickle-down effect will be much less impactful and sustainable. Boasting about how you just need four hours of sleep to run your organization is misguided and will only achieve one thing, the failure of any well-being initiative in your organization. Perhaps therein lies the leader’s responsibility for the performance of the organization: lead by example. Use the most powerful tool in the toolbox, i.e. soft power, be present and learn to be aware of how you show up. So, from a coaching perspective nothing new, only this time you can use AI to do it. 

Disclaimer

I conclude this with the statement this article was entirely written by a human, so don’t blame AI for any bad writing.

Dying Can Change Your Life — If You Stop Sleepwalking

Is it life changing when you almost die? For me it was an important starting point of a much longer process of transformation — NOT “improvement”. I am not a better person now. I’d like to believe I am better equipped to deal with life. That does not mean, I am the finished product. 

Dying Can Change Your Life — If You Stop Sleepwalking

So, is it life changing when you almost die? You’d think so but it entirely depends on how you react. I know because I (almost) died — five times to be exact. Four of these times would have been quick affairs: two near misses involving a car and I really mean “near” and instant death. Twice I almost drowned. That was different because you have the time to get scared and fight back — especially when you are on your own in the ocean.
Note to self: don’t go ocean swimming in stormy weather when the red flags are out and the lifeguards aren’t. Unfortunately, the subsequent thrill and gratitude of having survived didn’t last very long and the day-to-day quickly took over. The threat of a sudden death apparently did not cut it for me. It was different when I received my leukemia diagnosis followed by nine months of treatment which could have gone either way. Eleven years on I remain in remission. 

When Your Horizon Shrinks

Back then, it was sobering that my own shelf life (about six months without a bone-marrow transplant) could be shorter than some of the products I grabbed in the supermarket. As my horizon shrank, I started looking for at the past and even more so at the presence. 
That is what has changed: trying to be truly present. I am not talking about an esoteric experience but intentionally taking in what is happening around me. It starts with awareness, trying to let go of assumptions/judgment and subsequently to explore with curiosity how events or people impact me instead of just sleepwalking onwards.
My leukemia treatment was an important starting point of a much longer process of transformation. Please note, I am not saying “improvement”. I am not a better person now. I’d like to believe I am better equipped to deal with life. That does not mean, I am the finished product. And to be honest, I don’t want to have to go through that level of deconstruction again. It was raw, scary, painful and humiliating.

Transformation Is No Fun

I was utterly naked and felt emotionally flayed. Death was not even the scary bit. Sure, I wanted to live but I wasn’t scared as much. In my case, it was my faith in Christ. It may be something else for others. What was scary was the loss of control and a crippling fear of invasive procedures in hospital. But there was also my own biography and things creeping up on me. Cumulatively it brought me to a point where my existence was reduced to just me, no job, title, possessions, no energy for delusions of grandeur. But also no energy for self-doubt, self-judgment or even regrets. Perhaps that’s how I can best describe what I mean by “presence”.
The closest analogy I can come up with is Moses’s encounter with God. In order to survive God walking by, Moses had to cover his faith because no man would see God and live. That’s how it felt to me: nothing left between me and my God and that was terrifying. 
Over the next years, I have thought more about the following: Can there be purpose and deeper meaning in our lives when we remove everything that can be taken from us? This is not a rhetorical question. Every day people lose their possessions and loved ones, their jobs and other things which gave meaning to their lives. How do we go on when it’s all gone? I continue to explore that.
If you are curious, feel free to follow this space. I’ll post more.

The Death of DEI — Good Riddance

Organizations are rolling back DEI and I say (a strongly qualified) “good riddance. Why? Because it the cat is out the bag and we now know which leaders truly supported such initiates and which ones only paid lip-service. As a result, many employees express fears over what this development means for them. I am curious to know which opportunities actually present themselves to entire organizations and the individuals who work in them now that the truth is out. How can the problem (retreat of DEI) become part of the solution (improve your organization’s culture)?
The list of corporate awareness programs has grown significantly over the last decades. They address societal and demographic changes. Fueled by the publicity around the brave actions of whistle-blowers and/or movements which become viral - #metoo for example – they force a reckoning on organizations and governments. The “newsworthy” cases are just the tip of the iceberg or the straw that broke the camel’s neck and opened the floodgates for others to finally come forward. 

The Tip of the Iceberg

It is not that there was a sudden rise in sexual assault or bias against different groups of people. On the contrary, more and more people finally felt safe or encouraged to talk about their own suffering not the least because they realized they were unfortunately not the exception.

To raise awareness of such issues, corporations launched various programs. A quick and dirty Google search returns a plethora of such initiatives, including:

• Diversity and Inclusion Training
• Unconscious Bias Training
• Inclusive Leadership Training
• Cultural Competency Training
• Mental Health and Well-being
• Sustainability and ESG Training

And that list does not even address programs such as or emergency preparedness programs and compliance training. 

The Backlash

Like any powerful idea they also face a backlash. This backlash is not recent. For example, no sooner had Black Lives Matters gained traction in the wake of police killings, Blue Lives Matters sprung up (blue referring to the color of most police uniforms in the United States). The #metoo movement started discussing toxic masculinity and now we have prominent figures like Meta’s boss Mark Zuckerberg bemoaning the lack of “masculine energy” and expressing fears about corporate culture being “neutered”. In some countries, the political environment appears to play into this counter-movement and that scares many people. 

While still in opposition, Germany’s new ruling party started a campaign against NGOs. IN April, the Hungarian parliament voted to restrict Pride March. The U.S. administration is picking a fight against educational institutions. Not surprisingly, a quick check of UN press releases reads like a laundry list of things switching into reverse: Women fear the loss of equality gains they have made over decades. Ethnic minorities with different work permits are exposed to measurably more xenophobic attacks. 

The reasons for the backlash probably range from active opposition from out of touch holdouts, ignorance and just sheer “awareness fatigue”. What I want to discuss is how to handle the rollback of these programs in your organization. Because in the to and fro of this, organizational culture remains an issue. The phrase “toxic work culture” has been entered into search engines more so than ever.

DEI Was Never About Employees

One thing to keep in mind why any of these programs have been launched. While the language chosen appears to address basic human needs such as physical and psychological safety, fairness and equality the actual focus is not employees. What is often and inaccurately lumped together under the label “DEI” needs to be placed in the larger discourse about improved corporate performance. When we do that, an entirely different picture emerges. The focus of these programs is not employee well-being but corporate well-being and by that I mean better business performance.

To illustrate, let me highlight a point made by Michel Foucault, the French philosopher and godfather of discourse theory. In Discipline and Punishment he writes the abolishment of torture and the parallel increase in the construction of prisons did not occur because punishment was to become more human. Quite the contrary, that transformation had only one goal, make punishment more efficient. The concept of punishment was never questioned.

Neither is the concept of improved corporate performance and consequently profits. A more cynical view is that corporations will do anything to improve the bottom line and if that means mental health, DEI, anti-burnout initiatives and raising the LGTBQ+ flag during Pride Month, they will do it. It is not to make employees more satisfied. That factor only plays a role because it can show up in improved individual performance which improves corporate performance.

Does DEI Work?

But does it? It appears the verdict is still out there as the results are mixed. The list of potential benefits supported by research is impressive. For example, such programs lead to increased employee engagement, satisfaction, and a sense of belonging. What is more, a diverse workforce can bring a wider range of perspectives and experiences, potentially leading to more innovative solutions and ideas, attract and retain diverse talent, which can help them access new markets and customers. Some research also suggests that companies with diverse leadership teams and boards of directors may outperform those with less diversity. 

If that applied across the board, why would any organization push back on these programs? For starters, it can be difficult to measure the true impact of DEI programs, making it challenging to determine their effectiveness. Sometimes the reasons for the pushback are simple. For instance, some DEI initiatives can face resistance from employees who feel threatened or perceive them as reverse discrimination. Think the proverbial old white man who fears for his next promotion because the job will go to a “diversity candidate” just because that person is non-male, none-white and not old. 

Also concerning is that certain DEI training methods can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or increase prejudice. Just have a room full of executives from different European countries discuss their approach to time. IF the trainer/coach gets it wrong, you will easily see a German-Swiss alliance emerge or even fortify against colleagues with a different cultural approach. Some argue that focusing solely on representation (e.g., increasing the number of women or minorities in leadership positions) without addressing issues of inclusion can be counterproductive. The unintended consequences can include increased turnover or decreased job satisfaction among certain groups.

One big question is whether these programs are implemented properly or if they lack strong leadership support. A Pew Research study from 2023 seems to summarize the paradox around DEI programs very well.

“A majority of U.S. workers say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, but relatively small shares place great importance on diversity in their own workplace.”[1]

What Does it Mean on the Individual Level

But what does all this mean for you? Let’s assume the organization you work for decided to stop these programs. How is this really to going to impact you? One way to answer the question is to reflect on how you personally benefitted from any of these programs. 

For instance, if you are part of an ethnic or sexual minority in your workplace, has your career truly benefitted from DEI and similar programs? If it has, then what are the chances for your career to falter now? Obviously, there is a legitimate fear of any pent up misogynism or racism to resurface. What do you believe is the likelihood of that happening in your environment? The hard part about answering that question is to take a rational approach to a highly emotional topic. 

This requires a critical review of the organization and your own position in that organization. It requires what psychologists refer to as “radical acceptance” of the situation. That means complaining about it or telling yourself “it should not be that way” is not helping. Wherever there are people there is politics and conflict. Just recall the 2019 report into widespread bullying and toxic culture at Amnesty International. 

If your career never benefitted from any such programs in your organization and your performance is comparable to people who did advance, then what is going to change for you if the leadership basically makes it official they never really cared about these programs in the first place? That is a foundational question because you know whether your organization had these programs in place for window dressing purposes only

What we change is our own approach. Can openly share your fears about your place as a transgender person in your organization? If not, what or who exactly makes it difficult and how can you address this particular situation or person to engage rather than walk away?

Hard Lessons

I will share a truly embarrassing story in order to highlight the importance of engaging for the benefit of the “majority” in your organization. This takes us back to the mid-90s, a time before DEI or a wider discussion of things such as unconscious bias. I was at a bachelor party in the United States and got talking to a person who was ethnically Asian. As a white German who was raised at a time when German citizenship was defined by blood rather than birth, I asked the killer question: “Where are you from?” He responded: “I am American.” That should have been the end of it because it was already bad enough but I proceeded to dig an even deeper hole, adding: “You don’t look American.”

To this man’s credit he remained engaged, smiled and simply said: “Well, I am.” That’s when it started to sink in. Apart from my wish for the ground to just open and swallow me, the man’s reaction to the entire encounter transformed my own sensitivity for these situations. I am still curious about people’s backgrounds and since I live in New York City remain exposed to a lot more diversity than in many other cities. That also means, I have learned to express this curiosity differently. 

We all are part of the corporate culture and if that includes vigilance, we need to continue to be vigilant. Coaching can help identify your part, support you in the challenges you face and help you develop strategies that fit your particular situation and role in the organization you work for.

The original blogpost appeared in German on crimalin on April 22, 2025.

---

[1] R. Minkin, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace, Pew Research Center Report, May 2023.

Santa Fe — A Missed Opportunity

My recent experience with Santa Fe’s insurance arm highlighted a sector ripe for disruption. Current regulations make it hard for new entrants to differentiate themselves from their competitor, nor is there much need for them to do so. But when you have a customer obsessed company like Amazon rubbing shoulders with a U.S. administration bent on deregulation, I’d take a close look as an insurer. 

Values Have Consequences

Personally, I also took a look at Santa Fe as a systemic coach and I found a company which has not yet understood the difference between just posting a value statement online and the actual consequences it would have for customer interactions, product design and operations if they actually thought it through. 

On that front, I am prepared to give Santa Fe one out of three. The way they communicated with me was quick, polite and to the point. The trouble was “the point” which went directly against the idea that stated values should also reflect and organization’s product and operations. 

Straight forward Insurance Claim

By way of background, during our recent move, some of our stuff had minor damage. The process to submit claims was relatively straight forward and easy. However, I made a mistake by submitting a claim before making sure I had included every single item which was damaged during our recent move.

I asked Santa Fe to either amend the existing claim or to open up a second claim under the same file. And, full disclosure, I did hit the button asking me whether I was really sure I wanted to submit as there wouldn’t be any way to make changes to my claim.

About ten emails later involving four people as I went up the pecking order from director level to the c-suite, I finally received this response to my question whether there was no way for them to take into consideration human error. After all, one of their value statements includes the phrase “human and digital”.

“We understand that mistakes can happen, but […] there is no rooms (sp.) for errors unfortunately,.(sp.)” Director level employee of Santa Fe.

Contrast this with Santa Fe’s claim to “have a passionate focus on our client’s […] relocating […] experience, which goes way beyond the practical aspects of relocating.”

Never mind the irony (two typos, or errors, in that sentence), this is inherently contradictory. You cannot understand mistakes happen and then leave no room for errors, except for maybe your own typos. More importantly, it goes against their own stated values, is geared towards internal processes, not the client and lets Santa Fe become a cliché insurance organization.

Missing an Opportunity

It deprives them of an opportunity to distinguish themselves from their competition by making their processes follow their stated values. It also deprived them from having me tell a very different story about how they solved my problem even though I made a mistake. But perhaps they don’t need to. Sante Fe is a moving company and on the front of it looks like they also offer the insurance for the goods you want shipped across continents. I was part of a captured audience.

And that brings me to my last point, the threat of a competitor who disrupts the market. Santa Fe saw no need to fight for me an admittedly lowly customer. But a company like Amazon does. That’s why “customer obsession” not the generic “customer focus” is the first of the four principles on which the company is built. 

Your Competitor Could be Around the Corner

Say what you want about their dominant position but as a normal consumer I can only sing their praises when it comes to staying true to being obsessed about their customers. When a recent package was not delivered even though it had been marked as delivered, I was able to sort the entire situation within two minutes by texting with a bot. At the end of that, I had an email with new delivery information and instructions for how to return the original package for free in case it should still show up. Keep in mind, they deliver over 16 million packages a day in the United States alone. Now, just imagine Amazon decided to go into insurance. Santa Fe and the likes would be toast. 

So, Santa Fe, if you want to make it up to me, I can do a couple of coaching sessions with you, although that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.

Organizations Need a CCJ — Chief Court Jester

The best decisions leaders make are based on reliable information, sound advice and counsel from their boards. That is the theory. Getting reliable information in the form of good data is often surprisingly easy. In addition, many organizations have access to internal and external experts for good counsel. The problem is when ego and politics clash with what the data and the experts say. This is why companies should have a CCJ — a Chief Court Jester. But as this position does not exist in organizational charts there is another solution: A coach is the perfect reincarnation of the medieval clown. Let me explain.

The corporate landscape is littered with examples of bad decisions driven by egos and politics. For instance, the reason why many have not heard of Blockbuster anymore is that in 2000, the former king of video rentals was so confident about its dominant market position that it declined an offer by the then fledging newcomer Netflix to collaborate. The graphic illustrates what happened next.

The Daimler Chrysler merger of 1998 has become a textbook case for how a failure of cultural compatibility and lack of flexibility can ruin a potentially powerful consolidation. The Germans thought they knew better. The Americans were frustrated about how hierarchies paralyzed the decision-making process and grew impatient.

In many cases, bad decisions are the result of group think, the fear of speaking truth to power, denial and other human failure as opposed to lack of information or expertise. Board members do not want to rock the boat. Direct reports may be too scared for their careers and many a whistle blower’s fate proves their fears right. This creates a toxic dynamic in which outward agreement with everything the CEO says is being rewarded while critical voices are being silenced and pushed into the margins of corporate Siberia. So, how do you get powerful executives to become open to real input? 

Enter the Clowns 
Historically speaking, the job of the court jester was to entertain the ruler. In her book “Fools Are Everywhere. The Court Jester Around the World”, B. Otto describes how jesters could come from a wide range of backgrounds: university dropouts, a monk who had been thrown out of a priory, exceptional jongleurs, or just funny people who happened to meet the right nobleman at the right time. Recruitment was informal and meritocratic. Even more crucially, jesters had the right to sit at table with their master and say whatever came into their heads.
How far they went is still a matter of historical debate. There is agreement that in most cases, the desire to remain employed — and stay alive — placed limits on how much truth they did speak to power. Overall, the jester did poke fun at the ruling elite and to variying degrees could put the finger on the real issue at hand. What then makes a modern-day coach a suitable replacement for a court jester or clown?

Reveal Instead of Expose
For starters, let’s face the elephant in the room: some cynics do think of our guild as a bunch of clowns. However, an underestimated trait of clowns is they are a non-threat. Coaches ask questions and help their clients to get to the bottom of things and to uncover the truth. Our job is not to expose but to hold a safe space and help reveal what is going on below the surface. Exposure comes with judgment. Jesters with a wish to live were at their best when they stepped in to reveal. When coaches help clients reveal things, they do so not to judge but to enable people to undergo a transformation. That work is future- and solutions-oriented. Exposure remains stuck in the past. 

Bring to the Surface what is Mostly Known 
Interestingly, the journey of discovery and revelation often makes people accept things about themselves which their environment has known for a long time but did not dare say. Essentially, we get to know ourselves. A Chief Corporate Jester/coach supports us in getting to know ourselves, which according to Thales of Miletus is one of the hardest things for human beings. 

The Denial of Our Humanity
That basic truth is often a surprise revelation for some. Even the most powerful executives and leaders are only human. Part of the truth about our humanity is our imperfection. On the contrary, a toxic environment often denies leaders their humanity. The temptation for the top executives is to buy into the lie of perfection. 

What good and qualified coaching does is speak truth to power without judgment and self-serving agenda. That also means, a good coach is no threat to other people in the organization. Even more so than a court jester, coaches can only be effective if they follow the cardinal rule of engagement with a client — do not become part of the system. Only outside the system can coaches really speak truth to power. Luckily for us, no one can order a quick beheading. The worst that can happen to us is dismissal.

The Advantage of Corporate Misfits
What else do coaches and court jesters have in common? Just as the court jesters of lore, coaches come from a variety of backgrounds. While many of us are not necessarily university dropouts or social misfits, we are to some extent the equivalent of the monk or nun who left his/her monastery because they realized it wasn’t their thing after all — or it was strongly suggested they’d leave. In today’s corporate speech, we would refer to this as a career change. That means, we use our broad experience from our coaching training and certification process including our careers which can span from corporate to the military, NGO to craftsmanship etc. 

The point is, there is a misunderstanding only coaches with the same industry background or experience as CEO can properly coach a CEO of a bank. The role of the coachee and the industry of the organization are only two factors on a much longer list of equally important variables systemic coaching takes into consideration. In fact, insisting on the same background and industry knowledge puts limitations on the coaching experience exactly because too much familiarity can potentially limit the coach’s questions, associations and ways of probing ideas.

The Power Combination
I cannot relate the same way to the experience of a CFO of a struggling sports company as perhaps the CFO of another sports company could. I am crap at numbers, and I am not much into sports. But I have faced existential threats, I am an immigrant, the son of a refugee, married to a spouse from a different ethnic background, have managed people, moved from continent to continent, raised three kids, provided consulting services to small businesses and Fortune 50 companies, worked in academia, journalism, etc., etc. As result, I can do change and ambiguity. I live diversity in my own house. I am used to feedback. Still, I cannot tell the CFO of our struggling sport company how to avoid a financial free fall. But that is not my job as a coach. That is what a financial consultant or a mentor would do. 

But as coach, I can come along to support the CFO and the organization to handle the challenges for the organization, the repercussions for the roles people have and the impact on the individual persons who fulfill these roles. Coaches merge the totality of their experiences with their training and utilize this powerful combination to facilitate the transformation of organizations and the people who are part of these organizations. This goes far beyond the balance sheet and cashflow problems our imaginary sports company has. The tangible financial impact of coaching can be to make the organizational transformation sustainable which will be required to ensure the continued success of the venture.

Following a Proud Tradition
Organizations and their leaders benefit immensely from insights, feedback and perspectives shared by someone from outside their system and thought processes. Revealing truth is hard but the potential upswing can make or break a leader and the organization. Against this background, I don’t mind being thought of as a clown. The reality is, as a certified systemic coach I follow a proud tradition — as long as you don’t expect me to don a red nose.

This blogpost was also published in German on crimalin.com on September 10, 2024.

Is Coaching Worth It — Literally WORTH IT?

What is the return on investment (ROI) of coaching? This is an important question for managers who consider opening their doors to the ever-increasing breed of coaches.

 

To quote Goethe’s Faust, “Two souls, alas, are housed within my breast […]” — because I am writing this as an MBA and business analyst but also as a coach. The coach in me will of course say the value of coaching is priceless and I will come armed with stats and graphs to prove it. For example, one study says the ROI for coaching is 529%, meaning for every $1,000 invested in coaching you get over $5,000 in return. The International Coaching Federation (ICF) reports an even better ROI of some 600%. 

 

Too Good to Be True?

So, the coach in me is happy and can feel smug. But then I get this funny feeling I always get when I look at spreadsheets with 10,000 rows, calculate an average and subsequently launch into my highly sophisticated process of analyzing the numbers, i.e. sorting, eye-balling, guessing and basically applying my very own bullshit radar. Here is why I find the 600% ROI claims worth investigating further (to put it kindly). In the world of stock markets, an ROI of 10% is considered good and it can range up to just under 30% for technology as of 2023. On the other end of the spectrum, the average ROI for a fast-food restaurant was 5% in 2022.

 

Whatever Google search terms I apply — and I am eager to learn where I got it wrong purely for personal financial gain — I don’t find any sector, industry, stock index, etc. with an ROI much above 30%. That means I cannot see myself taking that 600% ROI seriously for the simple reason that a CFO/CEO worth his or her metal will simply laugh me out of his or her office. Then there is the other thing: the 529% ROI is from a 2001 study. The 600% ROI quoted in the ICF study is more recent but from 2009. Either one is still being used, no wonder, by coaching companies. Such eye watering results are hard to kill. Dig a little deeper and you will find problems.

 

The Math Is Correct But the Methodology?

The formular to calculate the ROI of coaching is easy enough: Coaching ROI = (Benefit attained by coaching) / (Cost of coaching) x 100. That bit about “benefit” is the tricky part providing ample opportunity to misunderstand numbers and let’s be frank to fudge numbers. I am not a statistician but smarter people than me have mentioned the words sample bias, lack of control samples, independence of assessors, etc. when reviewing these studies.

 

Personally, I find it easier to check for additional factors. The study published in 2001 was the result of research that took presumably place in 2000 and earlier. Ditto for the ICF study published in 2009. If the data collection and analysis took about a year, the data were probably based on outcomes which occurred before 2000 and 2007, respectively. What did the economy do just before and after these studies were published? Between 1995 and 2000 it grew, a lot. Same for the years 2003 to 2008. The S&P500 more than doubled between 1995 and 2000. It grew much slower at around the time the ICF study was conducted but it grew.

 

Why all this history? Because the ROI formular takes the benefits of coaching including for example increased productivity comparing them against the investment costs of coaching. However, coaching is only one line item under investment costs. I am having a hard time believing coaching alone resulted in productivity improvements for example. 

 

Refocusing on What Organizations Call their Biggest Asset

Writing as a coach now, I argue improved efficiency and/or productivity numbers are a byproduct. The main product is the preceding transformation of people if coaching is done well. That’s the fuzzy bit in the formular to calculate the ROI of coaching, the real “benefits attained by coaching”. But most organizations should not have a problem with that because they say people are their most important asset anyway, right?

 

Let me try and change the perspective a little when I reiterate my earlier statement the value of coaching is priceless — under the right circumstances. As executive manager, you play a crucial part in ensuring coaching takes place under the best possible circumstances. You can argue with better byproducts, but your focus needs to be the people in your organization which is a significant part of your job description anyway — people. How then to create the right circumstances? Let’s take the challenges organizations face regarding diversity, equality, and inclusion (DE&I), the latest variables that have been identified as high impact factors for efficiency and productivity gains. There is one easy way to create the right environment — the top brass needs to seriously want the transformation and must be willing to be coached to transform themselves first. 

 

Bottlenecks Are at the Top

I would not be surprised if 90% of executive management teams would agree DE&I is important and a transformation is needed. Based on “what I hear in the market” a big chunk of these executives really mean everyone else but them needs to undergo a transformation. This is not unusual. The running joke among coaches is that when our clients say they want to change, what many of them really mean is they want everyone else to change. Change is hard because it brings uncertainty and we don’t like uncertainty. 

 

What about the coaching “targets”, the employees? A large share will have one question in mind, namely “what does this transformation mean for me”. They won’t speak the language of efficiency gains, increased productivity nor will many of them speak “DE&I” and their organizational benefits unless inclusion, equality and diversity relate to their own day-to-day work. Your female workforce may develop hopes for promotions for management positions while the post-modern whipping boy (i.e. white middle-aged male) will fear losing out because to make it look good, the next VP of Marketing better be a non-white woman.

 

To help your organization handle the uncertainty let them see the executive team walk the talk. If you don’t believe in the necessity of your own transformation as a manager — and your organization lets you get away with it — it might be better for everyone to forget about transformation. Here is why. Transformations are expensive and above all exhausting. The assumption coaching can serve as a band aid to get your people over the hump while you or your managers carry on as the always have will only cause frustration and headaches. 

 

People Power

The truth is successful transformations also mean change for the executive management. Examples for that are Google’s restructuring into Alphabet, Microsoft’s re-focus on a common purpose after Satya Nadella took over from Steve Ballmer, Amazon’s continued outward focus on the customer rather than a navel gazing profit focus, and Toyota’s efficiency drive that gave the world just in time delivery. What do all these companies have in common? They focus on people, the customer and/or or their employees and to really want change. For example, the focus on employees resulted in authorizing Toyota’s front-line workers (the ones who tighten the screws during assembly) to suggest local improvements and brought us just in time production. Google examined what teams work best based on the thousands of teams working for the company and published the results: the top factor? Psychological safety. And for all the hate Mr. Bezos received for getting even richer during the pandemic, all he did was pay attention to what we needed and wanted and then provided it.

 

Some organizations make it look like they focus on people but in praxis do what they can to avoid change. For instance, they reward high potential talent with executive management courses which can easily set the education budget back $45,000 per talent. The problem often is these high potentials come back with a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of ideas on how to change things. However, the organization is not ready for change. Doing that with one high potential may not cause any issues. If this turns out to be a pattern, you end up with an entire group of high potentials who take notes, get disgruntled — and may easily opt to leave. Some providers of executive training courses have taken notice and collect statistics on how many members of an average training cohort change jobs within four to six months after returning to their respective organizations. That’s $45,000 down the drain for the organization and that’s just for starters. 

 

Realizing that your organization requires change is one thing. Not getting lost in smokescreen activism because you subconsciously try to avoid change is the challenge. Therefore it is a good idea to seek coaching for the executive team first so that a real willingness to change can trickle down the organization. It starts at the top. Getting back to the concept of ROI of coaching perhaps it helps change perspectives. What if the primary objective of coaching is not more efficiency, productivity, etc.? What if it is to help people transform themselves first and with them the organization resulting in efficiency and productivity gains? That kind of ROI is easier to calculate anyway.

This blog post was original published in German on September 19, 2023 on crimalin.com.

 

 

Empathy in the Business World Is Overrated

People demand empathy from their managers. An entire industry has sprung up promising to transform managers into empathetic leaders. What made me curious about the role of empathy in human behavior started with a little experiment I conducted a while ago. I consulted an authority on the topic — in this case religion — and ran a search for the word “empathy” in the bible. My hypothesis was, somewhere in the bible’s 66 chapters, the authors would capture something on “empathy”. Lo and behold, the book has very little to say about it. The NIV translation has one mention of the word in Hebrews 4: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.” 

Empathy Can only Get You So Far

The reason why I think empathy in leadership is overrated is my theory that it is often based on expectations that have nothing to do with what empathy means. I would not be surprised if a big chunk of employee respondents who say “empathy” is a crucial trait in a manager are actually looking for something else. For example, some really want a cuddle group. That is not what your team is about. The same goes for psychological safety, the holy grail of high performing teams. This safety refers to a safe space for you to get challenged and even uncomfortable. That is the opposite of a cuddle group which will not help anyone in their professional growth. 

In short, real empathy is not about having a friendly and ever affirming manager. It is simply the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Empathy is a valuable trait but I find it stops short of what you need if you are growth oriented. The first step is to understand and accept you yourself have the biggest role to play in your growth. I define growth in a broad sense and do not limit it to a career advancement plan. Growth encompasses personal development, too. Second, your desire to grow requires you to self-reflect. The Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus once said: “The most difficult thing in life is to get to know yourself.” This is not something you can delegate if you are serious about your personal development. But you can ask for help.

Asking for Help Is Your Job

Help is the operating word here. If you need help, I have a challenge for you: what type of leader or manager do you need if you are serious about professional and personal growth? Do you want a leader who is empathetic, i.e. who is aware of your feelings? Or do you want a leader who has a desire to take action and help? These are two different things because empathy is just the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Perhaps even more challenging, who is going to help you advance more, a friendly manager who is aware of your feelings and that’s it — or a manager who has his/her outbursts but understands where you want to go and helps you despite letting off steam? One way to figure out how to respond to that question is to ask yourself which leader will broaden your horizon. If your manager is focused on practical help AND empathic, all the better. But I invite you to consider what is more important for your growth, the feel good factor or practical help in broadening your horizon.

People with Scars Find Each Other

I wish I had come up with this profound statement but I overheard it at a dinner party years ago. It has stuck with me for several reasons. First, I get to see the truth in that every time I encounter people with scars. Second, it has shaped my opinion about empathy, especially empathy in the business world.

With “scars”, I mean significant negative events which cut your life into a before and after. These scars are the result of acute suffering. The wounds may have healed but the impact is so severe, that subsequent events will be evaluated differently than before. 

Here are some examples: I have friends who lost one of their sons to suicide. No family gathering will ever be the same for them as the ones before. Other friends have lost their businesses not of their own fault but due to criminal actions of competitors. They felt the loss of reputation so severely that they had suicidal thoughts. They, too, need to make a conscious decision about how they view competitors. Surviving a potentially terminal illness will make you view every medical checkup from a very different point of view afterwards. Of course, this is highly subjective but I hope you get the idea. 

From Scars to Compassion

War experiences are another thing. To illustrate, I was born 25 years after WWII ended. Among my elders were many veterans. My own father had been bombed out and shot at from all directions when he and his brother crossed a war-torn Germany. As teens, alone and on their own. When he entered the labor force, “empathy” was not a thing, certainly not something you talked about in the context of your career. But he said one thing I haven’t forgotten. The best bosses he ever had were the ones who had been serving in WWII. They were often focused on getting things done rather than politics. They were direct and sometimes tough but they were able to move on. They were “humane”.

That statement always made me curious especially as my father was not an admirer of military attitude and his parents had made it a point not to join the Nazi party. I would have expected the opposite and I am sure there were plenty of examples of embittered soldiers who returned and never learned how to deal with their experiences. 

However, those who were great managers may have taken important lessons from the horrors they had seen. 

• When you have faced death, what’s the big deal about a missed deadline or more minor mistakes? 
• Extreme situations can bring out the best in some people and that can bring out the best in others. 
• In suffering they have received compassion — help — and decided to give back. 
• With suffering comes authority that projects up and down the corporate ladder. 
• As stated before, people with scars find each other. There is an understanding about the impact of suffering that does not require words and shows primarily in action.

People with scars were forced into a gray area where the challenges were often so deep that black and white are not always helpful categories when we try to make sense of things. I wonder whether religious texts such as the bible have so little to say about empathy because the impact of compassion is much greater because it is action oriented. So, what is compassion? It is a sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others that is action oriented and comes with a desire to help.

From Compassion to Growth

Black and white are really comfort zones and, as British journalist Anita Anand once said, “we elbow our way into the gray zones” because it is often a forced entry for us. To do that, we leave the black/white of certainty and that is uncomfortable. Meeting compassion in that area is most helpful to be able to stay, explore and make sense. Compassionate people want to help you do that. A compassionate manager is willing to enter this space with you so that you can learn from your mistakes.

Some scars are visible because life can be tough. They may come across as a little edgy or rugged. In many cases, this is because they have no time for pretense. They may be direct, even blunt. They may not be your idea of empathetic. If you start digging deeper, they may have learned compassion with themselves and others more so than the empathetic leader down the hallway. And when you are young and have already developed your own scars, you will find each other.

So, what do you do as an employee who wants to learn and grow?

• Take action yourself. You cannot delegate personal growth to others. 
• Develop a curiosity about yourself: what is it you really want?
• Identify people with scars in your life.  
• Ask for concrete help.
• Test whether the person actually does provide help; if not, move on. Mere empathy from others won’t get you places if all you get is just someone who can relate. 

The last word goes to one of two friends of mine who was financially ruined by the criminal activities of a competitor. “I have not become bitter. If anything it has made me more compassionate.” And then he proceeded with the offer to connect me with someone who could be helpful for the next business venture.

The original article was first published in German on crimalin.com on May 31, 2024.