Most coaching models weren’t designed for the complexity of C-suite leadership.
The models were built for individuals—often mid-level leaders—where coaching occurs in relative isolation.
But leadership at the top isn’t isolated. It’s interdependent, high-stakes, fast-moving, and deeply human.
To fully optimize coaching at the executive level, it’s time we rethink what executive coaching looks like and what needs to change to optimize it.
The Three Main Problems and What Needs to Change
1. From Coaching the individual to systems-based coaching
Problem #1: Coaching the individual unintentionally validates a narrow lens
In most coaching engagements, the coach works privately with a single individual. While this approach can be powerful, it is also incredibly limiting, particularly when coaching executives.
Why? Coaching one person in a system doesn’t change the system.
One of the greatest risks in traditional coaching models is it often reinforces a single narrow perspective—the coachee’s story about what’s true, what’s wrong, and what needs to change. It can lead to false clarity and missed opportunities for deeper transformation.
How this problem shows up:
Coaching only the individual reinforces a single narrow perspective because of the way the human brain works. Humans are story making machines. Cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner has shared: we tend to structure our understanding of reality through the stories we tell ourselves. While these narratives help us make meaning, they also shape how we interpret others’ behavior and our own role in it—often without realizing it.
Even 360s—while incredibly helpful—are a snapshot. They offer static feedback in a dynamic system. According to research from the Center for Creative Leadership, while 360s can improve self-awareness, they’re most powerful when paired with ongoing systemic interventions. Unfortunately, they are often used only as standalone tools.
When an executive coach doesn’t have insight into the whole system or understand the relationships around the client, the impact of the coaching engagement is limited. An extreme example is where every C-Suite member has an executive coach they found independently, spanning several different coaching firms. Each coach uses different methodologies and the coaches aren’t communicating with each other. This structure of an individual-focused coaching model typically results in less alignment within the executive team.
What needs to change: System based coaching
System based coaching means seeing the entire leadership system in motion. When coaches can observe the relationships, interdependencies and dynamics within an executive team—not simply one person’s interpretation—they gain insight into the real levers of change.
A C-Suite coaching approach that emphasizes coaches communicating with each other, all of whom use same language and methodologies, has a greater impact on the whole of the executive team, not only the individual. It results in greater transformation occurring.
This is never about sharing confidential information. Instead, a systems approach means having an understanding of the system as a whole, inclusive of broader team and organization trends. It’s also about all of the coaches working with the organization using common language and tools throughout.
2. From between the ears coaching to whole person coaching
Problem #2: Between the ears coaching
A between the ears coaching model is a term I’ve shared that means a focus on what is happening in our brains, with very little connection to the impact on our full body. It’s a coaching approach that focuses on the leader’s intellectual capacity. Unfortunately, many coaching models treat the whole person and their well-being as a sidebar or even an afterthought.
How the problem shows up:
Coaching focused solely on cognitive abilities ignores the physical, emotional and spiritual well-being components that are equally vital to the coachee’s success.
When leaders are operating with an energy deficiency, focusing solely on addressing perceived skill gaps won’t improve their performance.
Yet, that’s so often how leadership issues are addressed.
For an example, if an executive realizes their leadership isn’t as effective when they act closed off, they could be working towards a goal with their coach to improve their executive presence.
Unfortunately, focusing on improving this behavior in isolation does not address the potential energy deficiencies contributing to why the executive acts closed off. My research confirms this: acting closed off is the top way drained CEOs in my study showed up.
What needs to change: coach the whole person
Coaching must address the whole person to be transformational. Emotional regulation. Somatic awareness. Nervous system resilience. These aren’t fringe concepts—they’re essential leadership capacities. Leadership lives in the body as much as in the mind.
Wellbeing isn’t separate from performance; it’s foundational to leadership.
Research in social neuroscience, notably the work of Dr. Daniel Siegel and Dr. Stephen Porges, shows that our ability to stay calm, attuned, and connected under stress is deeply physiological. Leaders can develop this capacity—referred to as “interoceptive awareness”—which requires a whole person approach to leadership. Those who do are better able to manage complexity, build trust, and navigate conflict.
Leaders with higher baseline well-being are not only more effective—they’re more adaptive. Barbara Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions reinforces this: positive emotional states literally expand our cognitive and behavioral repertoires, making us more creative, more open, and more resilient.
Coaching the whole person begins by asking foundational questions to understand their baseline levels of physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual well-being. Examples include:
- How is the executive’s sleep, nutrition and movement?
- How connected are they to a sense of meaning and purpose?
- How are they recovering?
- How are they regulating their emotions?
- How are they maintaining a positive outlook?
- How are their relationships?
Coaching the whole person is about them shining in both leadership and life. As I often say: If I coach you to be a great leader at work, but you’re failing at home, I’ve failed as a coach.
3. From episodic coaching to rhythmic coaching
Problem #3: Episodic coaching
Many coaching engagements still follow the antiquated cadence of every other week, for one hour, with one person. It’s a model built for convenience, not impact. Unfortunately, it does not reflect the reality of executive leadership.
How this problem shows up:
The pace of leadership at the executive level is relentless. Decisions are made rapidly, sometimes in hours. Team dynamics shift quickly. Pressure is constant.
Episodic coaching often leads to sessions that resemble updates more than developmental conversations. Organizational learning research (Argyris & Schön’s double-loop learning) emphasizes the need for frequent reflection in real time—not just after-the-fact analysis. With every other week coaching, the reflection window closes before any deeper learning or pattern recognition can occur.
When the coaching frequency doesn’t meet the demands on executives, it falls short of helping executives reach their full leadership potential.
What needs to change: rhythmic coaching
What’s needed instead is a more embedded rhythm to meet the moment. This approach means executives have full access to their coach when they need it, even if it’s outside of scheduled coaching sessions. Weekly coaching, supported by real-time access, creates a higher-trust container where insight, accountability, and behavior change can compound over time. Executives having full access to their coach means the coach is there when they need them, particularly during tough moments.
This isn’t about more contact for the sake of it. It’s about honoring the actual pace of leadership so coaches help executives thrive and perform at their best.
The Future of Executive Coaching Is Systems-Based, Whole-Person, and Rhythmic
Coaching must evolve to be truly impactful at the executive level. That means letting go of the one-size-fits-all model, moving beyond individual narratives, to designing support that mirrors the complexity of modern leadership at the top.
- Coaching should be about expanding perspective—not narrowing it.
- It should address the whole person—not just their intellectual capacity.
- And it should move at the pace of leadership—not behind it.
Focusing on these three changes results in the executive team being more aligned, having support when conflicts occur, and having a common language for development. Coaches are able to help even deeper, with a broader perspective of what’s happening. Ultimately, it fully optimizes both the executive’s performance and the entire executive team.
Systems-Based, Whole-Person, and Rhythmic coaching aren’t simply nice-to-have upgrades. They are requirements for coaching to meet the moment.
