Managing Leadership^®

The institution of the “executive coach” has always seemed a little peculiar, marred both by the uses to which it is put and the promises made for it. Particularly objectionable has been a subtheme of the internecine warfare among coaches as to who is “qualified” to join their ranks. This debate in and of itself is not indicative of anything in particular, nor is it unseen in other fields, such as traditional consultants and even managers. The uniquely disturbing element in this one is the contention frequently and stridently made that only clinical or organizational/industrial psychologists should be allowed to perform this function.

The implication that professional academics – particularly psychologists, and especially clinical psychologists – have, as such, any particular insight into the challenges faced by individual practicing executives or into their intellectual, behavioral, or administrative approaches to those challenges is not merely objectionable, it is preposterous. But the worst part of this is the complicity of those executives in this suggestion. Do they honestly believe they need what amounts to psychotherapy? If they are really so lacking in perspective, self-confidence and, especially, resources that they have to obtain personal attention from doctors, then perhaps they should receive a thorough dose of it before being placed in responsible, decision-making positions.

This is not to say that the “business coach” – that is, someone who observes, measures, and provides an informed and objective assessment of your activities and effectiveness – isn’t of use. While such a specialist isn’t particularly necessary, and much of what they do can be done by yourself with the assistance of your own staff, their independence and experience can be helpful.

The presumed need for the ongoing attentions of an industrial/organizational/clinical psychologist, however, smacks of the self-absorption besetting the management field of late, as well as of a growing tendency to slough off responsibility for one’s duties onto the shoulders of presumed experts – particularly those whose credentials serve at least partially to shield themselves, and you, from unduly close scrutiny. We’ll take a look at that side of the issue tomorrow.