For years I've described myself, slightly imprecisely, as a consultant. The work has been varied (strategy, transformation, leadership advisory), but what I’ve been paid for is roughly the same: I think alongside leaders about hard problems, and I help them choose well.
This year, I'm adding a second discipline to that practice. I'm training as an Executive Coach, working toward formal accreditation through the International Coaching Federation (ICF). My consulting continues. What's changing is the addition of something deliberately different next to it.
The decision wasn't a casual one. I also think the distinction between consulting and coaching is one more leaders deserve to understand.
The consultancy is staying
The consulting work continues, with the same clients and the same focus. Nothing about the move into coaching is a step back from that work. If anything, the discipline I'm taking on now is one I expect to make me a better consultant, especially about whose problem I’m actually solving.
The case for a parallel discipline
Consulting asks what should we do. Coaching asks what kind of leader the client wants to be. Senior leaders often carry both questions at once. They want a clear strategic answer, and they want a private space to think honestly about themselves in relation to it.
The two requests ask for very different things from the person on the other side of the table. Consulting brings expertise, frameworks, and a willingness to recommend. Coaching is mostly listening. The questions are open. The aim is for the client to land on the answer themselves.
Over time, I've found that I want to be able to offer both, and to be honest with clients about which mode we're in.
Why the ICF route, specifically
I chose the ICF because it is, in my view, the most rigorous and most accountable.
ICF accreditation is structured around documented training hours, supervised coaching practice, and examined competencies grouped into four domains: foundation, co-creating the relationship, communicating effectively, and cultivating learning and growth. From January 2026 the standards have been updated, so the bar at each level (Associate, Professional, and Master Certified Coach) is clearer than before.
It is also has a Code of Ethics that covers confidentiality, conflicts of interest, professional integrity, and the obligations a coach takes on the moment a client opens up to them. That last part matters to me. The privilege of being trusted with a leader's quieter doubts isn't trivial, and I want the practice that surrounds it to take that seriously too.
What this means in practice
I'm in training and working with clients under supervision. The uncomfortable bit is learning where my consulting habits get in the way. The work itself is quiet, and I want the framing of it to be too.
Over time, I expect coaching to become a meaningful part of how I work with senior leaders, alongside the consultancy. Some clients will keep working with me on advisory engagements; others will come specifically for coaching; a few will do both, with clear contracting about which is which. That clarity is part of the discipline.
Who this might be for
Coaching is most useful for senior leaders or founders who are doing the private work of deciding who they want to be in the role. It's most useful at moments of change: a new role, a bigger scope, an inherited team, or a strategy that needs you to lead differently.
If you're earlier in your own coach training and weighing it up, I'd be glad to compare notes. The community around the ICF has been generous with me, and I'd like to be the same to others.
A final note
I've spent a career around leaders who are better than they think they are, and who quietly want to be better still. What most senior leaders want is a careful, well-trained partner who can help them see themselves more clearly.
That's the work I'm training to do well, alongside the consultancy.
If any of this is useful to you, I'd welcome a conversation.