This is spot on, based on my experience with an exec coach. And I got lucky because I didn't have this type of rubric! Two comments:
- When evaluating options, I thought "technical skills" mattered most (she was an ex-Founder/CEO), but the "adaptive skills" turned out to be WAY more important. I frankly didn't even consider the difference.
- "Presence" stood out with my coach. She exuded more wise-sage-vibe than any executive I've ever met. Like she was in touch with people and the world on a whole other level. I've met many CEOs/Exec types... and 99% of them DON'T have this skill -- they're too wrapped up in their own experience and skill set to transport themselves to your situation.
I think being a great coach is a rare skill, despite how accessible it may seem.
This feels that a helpful way to consider the differences between hard skills and relational skills, the former always being easier to judge and measure than the latter!!
For most professionals, I believe this tracks and clarifies their definition of a coach. To this coach, I read this as describing a mentor.
To be fair, the long tradition of coaching is more steeped in teaching and mentorship so there's no real problem with it. This is the orthodoxy. I would take the point even farther to lobby that the tradition of coaching goes much farther back than the word, as far back as two people talking, but the more formal usage of coaching has about 450 years of usage.
More modern forms of coaching, "third wave" as some would call it, drop the subject-matter expertise as a prerequisite to coach. Many experts in the field argue that a coach who know less about the subject will be more curious, ask more obvious and simple questions (often overlooked by experts), which can be oddly penetrating. Think how a child can knock you off your feet with silly questions. It's a perspective.
Frankly, I'm agnostic as to which is the better form, and I blame organizations like the ICF for complicating the matter. Hot take, but I argue that they should have rebranded coaching in 2000, when they shifted the protocols. To what, I don't know, but anything else. I offer into evidence that Luther didn't label his reformation (second wave) Catholicism.
Anyway. Please pardon my coach-geekery. Most of this will be boring to most folks. But if you'l begrudge me the question, I'm curious about how you draw the distinction.
What's the difference between coaching and mentoring by your outline?
The difference between coaching and mentoring? They’re entirely different disciplines in my view.
A mentor has technical skills, and can hopefully explain them in a way that transfers. A coach has adaptive skills and presence, which the vast majority of mentors do not even realize is desirable.
But human change is more complex than any one discipline, so if the only tool in the coach’s tool box is inquiry (as an example, or advice/exercises/gestalt/NLP/whatever), those tools will be the right ones for some scenarios but not all. So in my opinion it’s best to get someone who can put on the coach hat when appropriate, or the mentor hat, the challenger hat, the psychologist hat, or the cheerleader hat (etc etc) as needed.
Circling back around to your question, the best CEO coaches I’ve worked with were top notch coaches AND top notch mentors, and could toggle or merge the two as needed. That’s what I look for.
This is spot on, based on my experience with an exec coach. And I got lucky because I didn't have this type of rubric! Two comments:
- When evaluating options, I thought "technical skills" mattered most (she was an ex-Founder/CEO), but the "adaptive skills" turned out to be WAY more important. I frankly didn't even consider the difference.
- "Presence" stood out with my coach. She exuded more wise-sage-vibe than any executive I've ever met. Like she was in touch with people and the world on a whole other level. I've met many CEOs/Exec types... and 99% of them DON'T have this skill -- they're too wrapped up in their own experience and skill set to transport themselves to your situation.
I think being a great coach is a rare skill, despite how accessible it may seem.
Yeah really well said. Adaptive skills are more rare, but even those aren’t enough on their own (in my view).
Either way, the presence is the foundation of all. And perhaps the rarest.
This feels that a helpful way to consider the differences between hard skills and relational skills, the former always being easier to judge and measure than the latter!!
For sure, Dr Thomas.
For most professionals, I believe this tracks and clarifies their definition of a coach. To this coach, I read this as describing a mentor.
To be fair, the long tradition of coaching is more steeped in teaching and mentorship so there's no real problem with it. This is the orthodoxy. I would take the point even farther to lobby that the tradition of coaching goes much farther back than the word, as far back as two people talking, but the more formal usage of coaching has about 450 years of usage.
More modern forms of coaching, "third wave" as some would call it, drop the subject-matter expertise as a prerequisite to coach. Many experts in the field argue that a coach who know less about the subject will be more curious, ask more obvious and simple questions (often overlooked by experts), which can be oddly penetrating. Think how a child can knock you off your feet with silly questions. It's a perspective.
Frankly, I'm agnostic as to which is the better form, and I blame organizations like the ICF for complicating the matter. Hot take, but I argue that they should have rebranded coaching in 2000, when they shifted the protocols. To what, I don't know, but anything else. I offer into evidence that Luther didn't label his reformation (second wave) Catholicism.
Anyway. Please pardon my coach-geekery. Most of this will be boring to most folks. But if you'l begrudge me the question, I'm curious about how you draw the distinction.
What's the difference between coaching and mentoring by your outline?
The difference between coaching and mentoring? They’re entirely different disciplines in my view.
A mentor has technical skills, and can hopefully explain them in a way that transfers. A coach has adaptive skills and presence, which the vast majority of mentors do not even realize is desirable.
But human change is more complex than any one discipline, so if the only tool in the coach’s tool box is inquiry (as an example, or advice/exercises/gestalt/NLP/whatever), those tools will be the right ones for some scenarios but not all. So in my opinion it’s best to get someone who can put on the coach hat when appropriate, or the mentor hat, the challenger hat, the psychologist hat, or the cheerleader hat (etc etc) as needed.
Circling back around to your question, the best CEO coaches I’ve worked with were top notch coaches AND top notch mentors, and could toggle or merge the two as needed. That’s what I look for.
Cheers for that clarification.
Sadly, I don’t think there’s enough clarity around these roles, certainly not in an broadly accepted way that makes using them simple.
The coaching profession has sectarianized, but with no real clarity or admission on the part of any one camp to admit this fact.
They all just claim to be the true coaching school. This is all confusing to everyone who wants to talk about it as if it’s one thing.
To your point, it really isn’t.