Are Coaching Competencies Truly Universal?

Are Coaching Competencies Truly Universal?

On the final day of a recent coach training programme, I was assessing participants against the competencies defined by the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and the International Coaching Federation (ICF) coaching competencies on the final day of a foundation skills program .

Most demonstrated clear evidence of the required standards. One participant did not.

A few years ago, I might have delivered a straightforward verdict: “I’m sorry, you did not meet the standard. I did not observe sufficient evidence of the competencies.”

This time, I paused and didn’t feel right about doing this.

Over the last decade I’ve trained and supervised coaches across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. I’ve seen a pattern emerging — one that challenges the assumption that competency frameworks are culturally neutral.

The Conversation That Changed the Assessment

The participant in question was an African man with deep professional credibility and strong relational presence. Yet in the assessed session, he struggled to demonstrate what the frameworks call “powerful questioning” and “maintaining a coaching mindset.”

Afterwards, he said:

“In my culture, it is hard to speak about personal matters with someone you don’t know well. And if someone presents a problem, they are expecting advice and action. I struggle to understand why I would only ask questions.”

This wasn’t a lack of intelligence.
It wasn’t a lack of effort.
It wasn’t even a lack of skill.

It was a clash of paradigms.

Is This About Skill — or Culture?

Coaching as defined by EMCC and ICF is rooted in Western philosophical traditions:

• Individualism

• Self-discovery

• Psychological safety through verbal exploration

• Non-directive practice

• The belief that the client holds the answers

In many cultures, however:

• Authority carries responsibility to guide.

• Advice is a sign of care.

• Personal disclosure is earned over time.

• Problem-solving is expected from someone positioned as an expert.

In those contexts, the idea of “just asking questions” can feel incomplete — even irresponsible.

So when a coach does not demonstrate non-directiveness in the prescribed way, is that:

• A skills deficit?

• A mindset issue?

• Or a cultural mismatch with the framework itself?

Can Western Competency Frameworks Be Universal?

Both EMCC and ICF describe their standards as global. And they have made important strides toward inclusivity. Yet the core model remains heavily influenced by European and North American psychological traditions.

Competencies such as:

• Evoking awareness through questioning

• Partnering as equals

• Refraining from advice

• Maintaining coach neutrality

These are not culturally neutral behaviours. They are culturally situated ideals.

When we assess coaches globally against one dominant model, we risk unintentionally:

• Privileging Western communication norms

• Framing culturally different practice as “less competent”

• Conflating cultural difference with professional inadequacy

A Different Response

Rather than failing this coach, we explored:

• What kind of coaching felt authentic to him?

• How might he describe his style?

• Where could he contract explicitly about offering guidance?

• What contexts would value his more directive presence?

We talked about transparent contracting:

“In my coaching, I may offer suggestions or share experience. If that happens, you are free to accept, reject or explore it.”

We explored culturally congruent coaching — not as a lesser form, but as a different expression of developmental dialogue.

And importantly, we asked:

• Who decides what “good coaching” looks like?

• Are we assessing competence — or conformity?

The Tension We Must Address

There are real risks in abandoning standards. Coaching needs credibility. Professional bodies protect quality and clients. But there is also risk in assuming universality. If coaching is about expanding awareness, then surely our profession must expand its own awareness — especially about culture and power.

The question is not whether standards are needed. The question is whether they are sufficiently adaptive across cultures.

Managing the Challenge as Faculty

For those of us who train and assess coaches internationally, this tension shows up regularly. Some approaches I’ve found helpful:

1. Separate ethics from style.
   Ethical clarity and client safety are non-negotiable. Stylistic expression may be culturally influenced.

2. Assess impact, not just method.
   Is the client thinking more clearly? Taking responsibility? Experiencing insight? There may be multiple routes to that outcome.

3. Use explicit cultural dialogue.
   Invite trainees to articulate how coaching aligns — or conflicts — with their cultural norms.

4. Encourage transparent contracting.
   Cultural differences can be surfaced rather than hidden.

5. Challenge the bodies respectfully.
   Professional associations evolve when practitioners feed back lived experience.

An Invitation to the Profession

I am certain I am not the first to wrestle with this. If coaching is to be genuinely global, we must ask:

• Are we teaching a universal discipline — or exporting a Western model?

• How might competency frameworks evolve to recognise culturally diverse expressions of coaching?

• Can we distinguish between poor practice and different practice?

Perhaps the real developmental edge for our profession is not in refining questioning techniques — but in examining the cultural assumptions beneath them. I would love to hear how others navigate this tension when assessing coaches across cultures. Because if coaching is about inclusion, growth and awareness, our standards must reflect that too.

Leadership for a Complex World: Reflections from the WYSE International Leadership Programme in Brazil

I’ve just returned from an incredible start to my year — serving on the faculty of the WYSE International Leadership Programme in Brazil. It was 12 days of deep connection, courageous inquiry, and cross-cultural leadership learning with 24 emerging leaders from around the world. What struck me most wasn’t just the richness of the programme itself — but how urgently this kind of leadership development is needed in today’s world. 

WYSE International is a global educational charity, affiliated with the United Nations, that has been supporting young people to develop leadership grounded in human values for over 30 years. Its flagship International Leadership Programme brings together people from many cultures, religions, and socio-economic backgrounds in an intensive 12-day journey of exploration — into self, into leadership, and into the systems that shape our shared future. 

Why this matters now

We live in a time of paradox: remarkable innovation and connection, but also widening inequality, social fragmentation, and environmental uncertainty. Leaders are being expected not just to manage change, but to shape it with courage, clarity, and compassion. However, often we are seeing the opposite leading to a rise in conflict and more inequality.  The ILP’s intentional design — diverse perspectives held in community, structured reflection, and embodied learning — cultivates exactly the kind of leadership required to address the global context we are in.

Participants come not merely to learn skills, but to reimagine leadership itself:

• What does it mean to lead from a place of purpose rather than ego?

• How do you hold complexity without shutting down?

• How do you co-create solutions when the problems we face are systemic, not isolated?

These are not theoretical questions. They are lived realities for a generation inheriting unprecedented global challenges — from climate breakdown to fractured democracies — as well as unparalleled possibilities to mobilise collective intelligence across borders.

A community, not just a classroom

What makes WYSE’s approach remarkable is the human dimension. The programme weaves experiential learning, personal reflection, and dialogue across difference into a fabric that fosters trust, curiosity and adaptive thinking. Participants don’t just absorb frameworks — they live them. 

And it doesn’t end when the 12 days are over. WYSE offers a six-month alumni coaching programme designed to help graduates apply their insights back home — working with personal objectives, project goals and real-world challenges. This post-programme coaching is not an add-on: it’s a bridge from inspiration to impact. 

Leadership that starts from within

At the heart of WYSE’s philosophy is a simple but profound insight: before you can lead others, you must learn how to lead yourself. That means understanding your values, knowing your strengths and limitations, and holding a clear sense of purpose — even when answers aren’t obvious. This is exactly the kind of leadership the world urgently needs.

What I brought back — and what we all can take forward

From Brazil, I came home reminded that leadership isn’t a title, a position or a checklist. It’s a practice of presence, grounded in curiosity, courage and care. It’s about creating spaces where people can show up as their best selves and contribute to the collective good — wherever they live and work.

As leaders — whether in health systems, communities, organisations or networks — we face daily complexity. What if we held that complexity not as a burden, but as an invitation to listen deeper, act with intention, and lead with both head and heart?

The ILP reminded us that leadership is not a destination — it’s a lifelong journey. And when we walk that journey together, the potential for positive change becomes exponentially greater.

If you would like to find out more about the program or explore coaching on how to lead yourself in a complex system – please contact me.

The Invisible Weight of Leadership for Women in Healthcare

Most women leaders in the NHS carry a weight that isn’t written in any job description. It’s not listed on the organisational chart, it’s not counted in workforce data, and it’s rarely acknowledged in performance conversations — yet it shapes every part of their working lives.

It’s the invisible weight of being the person everyone turns to.
The one who keeps the team steady.
The one who absorbs tension, listens deeply, steps in, smooths things over, and holds everything together so patient care doesn’t unravel.

While men also carry pressure, studies from The King’s Fund, NHS England and the Health Foundation show that women in healthcare leadership disproportionately take on emotional labour, team coordination, pastoral care, and the “glue work” that keeps services functioning. This labour is essential — but it’s often unseen, unmeasured and unrewarded.

Over time, this invisibility becomes its own burden.
Women leaders describe feeling responsible not just for their own workload, but for the morale, wellbeing and stability of everyone around them. They step in because they care deeply — and because their teams trust them. But the system rarely creates space for those who carry this emotional load to rest, reset or replenish. Instead, their ability to cope becomes the expectation.

The weight grows heavier in environments where staffing gaps are normal, change is constant, and demand always outstrips capacity. While official roles focus on targets, performance and service delivery, the day-to-day reality often requires balancing difficult conversations, supporting distressed colleagues, navigating organisational politics, and absorbing the emotional fallout of clinical pressure.

None of this appears in leadership frameworks.
But it shapes how women leaders feel every single day.

One senior woman I worked with described it perfectly:
“My job title says ‘manager’. But most days, it feels like I’m holding up the emotional architecture of the department.”

That invisible architecture is vital — but without recognition, it becomes exhausting.

The impact isn’t only emotional.
Research shows that when invisible labour goes unacknowledged, leaders begin to doubt their influence and question their effectiveness. They feel tired without understanding why. They wonder why others seem to cope “better,” not realising they are carrying more than their peers — often because they are the trusted, steady presence the team relies on.

The solution isn’t to harden, suppress or “toughen up.” Women leaders don’t need to become less caring. The real shift comes from naming the weight, recognising its value, and redistributing leadership so responsibility doesn’t sit silently on one pair of shoulders.

In coaching conversations, this begins with permission — permission to acknowledge what you carry, to value the emotional labour you provide, and to explore where boundaries, capability and shared ownership can be strengthened within your team.

Because the truth is this:
You are not exhausted because you’re not good enough.
You are exhausted because you have been carrying more than anyone sees.

When women leaders begin naming this weight, something powerful happens. Their confidence returns. Their voice strengthens. Their boundaries become clearer. They start leading from a place of grounded authority rather than relentless emotional strain.

And, importantly, they stop confusing being overwhelmed with being inadequate.

Naming the invisible weight doesn’t make it disappear — but it does make it manageable, shareable and no longer silently carried.

Firefighting vs. Leading: Why NHS Leaders Feel Stuck in Survival Mode

Most NHS leaders don’t set out to firefight. They start with vision, purpose and commitment. But somewhere along the line, the spark fades. Days become a blur of meetings, rota gaps, operational pressures, and urgent crises that leave little space for strategic thought. You end the week exhausted and oddly unsatisfied — as though all that effort hasn’t really changed anything.

This sense of “stuckness” is not a personal failing. It’s a symptom of a system in flux.

The NHS Long Term Plan and the subsequent NHS England Workforce Plan (2023) have set in motion one of the biggest structural shifts in decades — moving care from hospitals to communities, digitising services, and focusing on prevention rather than treatment. These are bold, necessary ambitions. But structural reform on this scale takes time, clarity, and leadership bandwidth — three things in short supply when most leaders are simply trying to get through the week.

At the same time, financial pressure is tightening. In 2024, the Health Foundation reported that NHS budgets, when adjusted for inflation, have effectively fallen by around 2% in real terms, while demand continues to rise. In practical terms, this means fewer resources, frozen posts, and an expectation that “efficiency” will fill the gap. It’s no surprise, then, that 44% of NHS staff report feeling unwell from work-related stress (NHS Staff Survey, 2023) — the highest figure since records began.

When the system runs on thin margins, firefighting becomes the default mode. It feels necessary, even noble: responding quickly, fixing problems, keeping the show on the road. But firefighting, by its nature, is reactive. It doesn’t create space for learning, innovation or culture-building — all the things that actually make services sustainable.

A BMJ Leader study in 2022 found that NHS managers spend nearly 70% of their time on meetings and operational problem-solving, leaving little scope for reflection or team development. Yet the King’s Fund (2023) found a strong correlation between leadership cultures that prioritise coaching and reflection and those with better staff retention and patient outcomes. In short, the more time you spend leading — rather than reacting — the better your team and your service perform.

But creating that space takes courage. The NHS has long equated visible busyness with dedication. The leader who blocks thinking time, cancels unnecessary meetings, or takes time for their team’s development can be misunderstood as “not pulling their weight.” In reality, they’re doing the hardest thing of all: protecting capacity to think and lead.

If you want to break the cycle, start small. Block one hour a week for strategic reflection — and defend it fiercely. Review your diary: which meetings truly need your presence? Which could be shortened, delegated, or replaced with a written update? Invest time in coaching your team so they can take on more responsibility and stop every issue bouncing back to you.

Firefighting might keep things afloat, but it won’t move them forward. The NHS needs leaders who can lift their gaze above the flames — who can step back long enough to shape the systems, culture and strategy that stop the fires starting in the first place.

Because in a time of structural reform and shrinking budgets, what the NHS needs most isn’t more urgency — it’s more leadership.

Why Working Harder Isn’t Getting You Further

Why Working Harder Isn’t Getting You Further in the NHS

Most NHS women leaders I coach tell me the same story. They’re working harder than ever, racing from one meeting to the next, firefighting problems, replying to emails late into the night. Yet despite this relentless effort, they end each week wondering what difference they’ve actually made.

It’s a paradox many recognise: the harder you work, the less progress you feel. And it isn’t simply about personal time management or motivation—it’s about the system you’re operating in.

Research consistently shows that NHS staff are at higher risk of burnout than the general population. A survey by NHS Employers found staff were 50% more likely to suffer from chronic stress than people in other sectors. Burnout doesn’t just drain energy, it also reduces effectiveness. In fact, psychologists call this the “diminishing returns of effort.” Push harder, and each extra hour produces less value than the one before.

This is compounded by the way the NHS measures and rewards its leaders. According to The Broken Ladder report (Investors in People, 2025), 80% of NHS managers are promoted for technical expertise, not leadership ability. The result is a culture where “doing more” is valued over “leading better.” In practice, that means leaders are buried in tasks rather than developing people, shaping strategy, or creating space to think.

To make matters worse, many leaders never receive formal training in how to lead people in such a complex system. A Financial Times analysis recently revealed that only one in five NHS leaders has had senior management training in the last five years. Without support, leaders default to what feels safe: working harder, putting in extra hours, and saying yes to everything. But those behaviours rarely lead to recognition or promotion.

And yet, the women I work with also carry another set of unspoken pressures: the need to prove themselves, the fear of being judged, the discomfort of taking up space. These internal voices combine with systemic pressures to keep women trapped in a cycle of overwork, invisibility, and exhaustion.

So if harder isn’t working, what will?

The answer lies in shifting from effort to impact. That doesn’t mean slacking off. It means recognising that the best leaders aren’t the ones who carry the most, but those who create the conditions for others to succeed. It means being brave enough to delegate, to prioritise, and to protect time for thinking.

A few simple practices can help start the shift. Try ending each day with five minutes of reflection: what went well, what drained me, and what will I do differently tomorrow? Map your team’s strengths, and delegate tasks that play to those abilities—this not only lightens your load, but helps your staff grow. And most importantly, protect your energy. Boundaries around rest and family time aren’t indulgent; they are essential for effective leadership.

The truth is, the NHS doesn’t just need women who work harder. It needs women who lead with clarity, influence, and purpose. And that starts when you stop equating effort with impact, and begin working in ways that truly move the needle.