Reflections: the stoic way!

 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...

  “Breaking Free from Stone-Age ATS: Why AI-Powered Recruiting Platforms Are the Future” Recruiting has evolved, but many organizations are still shackled to outdated Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) that function as glorified data-entry platforms. Tools like SuccessFactors, Taleo, or Workday were built for compliance and pipeline management—not for delivering insights or enhancing candidate experience. They often feel like black holes where data goes in but actionable intelligence never comes out. Enter AI-enabled recruiting platforms like Uniphore’s Q for Recruiting , which redefine hiring excellence. These platforms don’t just store data—they transform it into insights and actions that matter. Why Q for Recruiting Stands Out: Smart Summarization: Automatically condenses resumes and job descriptions, suggesting interview questions to reduce manual effort. Automated Interview Prep: Creates structured questions, summaries, and notes, ensuring consistency and saving time. Context...

Recruiting for technology roles has always been a high-stakes game. If sourcing and screening go well, recruiting wins; if not, it’s a black hole. These two functions are the backbone of hiring—everything else is communication. But in the age of Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) , the rules have changed. The Old Way: Conventional Tech Recruiting For decades, recruiters relied on: Boolean searches on job boards and LinkedIn. ATS keyword matching for skills and experience. Hygiene checks like education, years of experience , and past employers. While these methods worked, they were rigid and often failed to capture the nuances of evolving tech roles. Recruiters were constantly playing catch-up with new stacks, frameworks, and delivery models. The Modern Way: AI-Powered Recruiting Enter LLMs and AI-driven platforms —game-changers for sourcing and screening. These tools don’t just match keywords; they understand context , generate structured outputs , and scale personalizati...