Reflections: the stoic way!

 

 In a strong coach–coachee relationship , the relationship itself is part of the intervention. Before GROW, OSKAR, questioning techniques or action plans work, both people need clarity about what this relationship is, what it is not, and what each person owes the other . I would organise the foundations around eight principles . Principle Coach commits to Coachee commits to Why it matters 1. Contracting & clarity Define purpose, process, frequency, confidentiality and boundaries Clarify expectations and desired outcomes Prevents ambiguity 2. Confidentiality Protect what is discussed; explain exceptions beforehand Speak candidly while respecting others' privacy Creates trust 3. Psychological safety Be non-judgmental; allow vulnerability and disagreement Be willing to discuss difficult realities Enables honest exploration 4. Autonomy Don't impose answers or create dependency Own choices and consequences Coaching develops agency 5. Challenge + support Empathise but also confro...

 In fact, much of what we now call executive coaching, resilience, self-regulation, cognitive reframing and values-based leadership has striking parallels with Stoic practice —although modern coaching should not simply be relabeled Stoicism. Stoicism → modern coaching The central Stoic question was not "How do I control what happens?" but rather: "Given what has happened, what remains within my agency—and how should I respond?" That is remarkably close to the heart of good coaching. Stoic principle Coaching equivalent Corporate application Dichotomy of control — distinguish what you control from what you don't Circle of influence; locus of control Restructuring, difficult bosses, market changes, missed promotions Examine your judgments Cognitive reframing / CBT-style questioning "My boss rejected my idea" ≠ "My boss doesn't value me" Virtue over external reward Values-based coaching Integrity and purpose rather than title, bonus or appl...

Yes. There is actually a fairly well-established idea behind the phrase “manager factory” or, more recently, “leadership factory.” It is not simply that these companies conduct more training. The distinguishing feature is that developing other managers becomes part of how management itself is practiced . McKinsey uses the term “leadership factory” for organizations where colleagues deliberately invest in developing one another through apprenticeship, feedback, coaching, role-modeling, and real work—not primarily through classroom programs. McKinsey traces the phrase within its own history to former managing partner Ron Daniel in the 1980s. For the kind of work you are contemplating with NPCI, this distinction is extremely important. Why GE became the archetype GE is probably the classic corporate example. Its Crotonville management development center was established in 1956, initially because GE was decentralizing and needed a much larger population of capable general managers. It ...

In corporate leadership coaching, one distinction clears up a lot of confusion: ICF is primarily a professional competency and ethics framework for how coaching should be practised. GROW, CLEAR, OSKAR, solution-focused coaching, cognitive-behavioural coaching, systemic coaching, etc. are primarily models or schools for how change can be facilitated. So they are not really competitors. A strong executive coach can be ICF-aligned while using GROW in one session, CBT ideas in another, systemic thinking with a leadership team, and 360° feedback across the engagement. 1. What exactly does ICF propose? The does not prescribe one coaching methodology . Its current 2025 framework defines eight competencies within four domains. The update was based on a global job analysis involving nearly 3,000 coaches. ICF domain Competencies In simple language Foundation Ethical Practice; Coaching Mindset Be ethical, self-aware, reflective and genuinely coach-like Co-creating relationsh...

Navigating emotionally deep, personally challenging, and organizationally burdening situations through these lenses: the Kubler-Ross, Lewin, and ADKAR models. Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross,  her 1969 book On Death and Dying... On Death and Dying: What the Dying Have to Teach Doctors, Nurses, Clergy, and Their Own Families ... The Kübler-Ross model (also called the Five Stages of Grief ) is a psychological framework that explains how people typically emotionally respond to loss or major change . Originally introduced by Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book On Death and Dying , it is now widely used beyond bereavement — including organizational change, layoffs, illness, divorce, failure, and career transitions . Stages of Grief - The Loss Foundation 🌱 The Five Stages of the Kübler-Ross Model 1️⃣ Denial “This can’t be happening.” Shock or disbelief Avoiding facts or minimizing the situation A temporary defense mechanism 📌 In workplaces: Employees may ignore announc...