While the Stakeholder Centered Coaching methodology is highly effective, it is not a panacea. There are specific technical and psychological factors that lead to coaching failure.
Identifying these barriers early is essential to preventing a waste of organisational resources.
Book a confidential 30-minute Zoom session
See our MGSCC Video playlist
Factors That Hinder Coaching Effectiveness
1. Lack of Willingness to Change
The most common failure point is a fundamental lack of interest in changing. Attempting to coach an executive who does not recognise the need for change is a futile exercise. The process requires an internal “yes” before any external progress can be made.
2. Strategic or Job Misalignment
Coaching focuses on behavioural optimisation, not strategic correction. If a leader is pursuing the wrong strategy for the organisation, or is in a role that fundamentally does not fit their skill set, coaching will only accelerate them in the wrong direction. We cannot coach our way out of a structural job-fit failure.
3. Externalising Blame
Accountability is a non-negotiable requirement. Individuals who consistently attribute problems to “the board,” “the market,” or “the team” without examining their own role are difficult to coach. Without a transition to self-responsibility, behavioural change cannot take root.
4. The Temptation of Backsliding
Success is not a permanent state. Without established accountability systems, leaders often revert to old habits once the formal coaching engagement concludes. Lasting change requires a commitment that extends beyond the 12-month cycle.
5. The Coach’s Ego
The limitation is not always the leader’s fault. As Marshall notes, coaches can sometimes fall into the trap of overconfidence—believing they can “save” someone who has no desire to change. Professional detachment and rigorous screening are required to maintain the methodology’s efficacy.
Your Next Step
A transparent audit of these failure points is what ensures our high success rate. If you are ready to conduct an honest assessment of your—or your team’s—readiness for a behavioural change initiative, let’s talk.
If you want to explore whether structured leadership follow-up would strengthen your effectiveness, if you are seriously considering CEO Leadership Coaching
→ Book a 30-minute Zoom call with Michael Beale, CEO coach and 1:1 NLP trainer
Or continue the series:
Next article: Summary of Marshall Goldsmith Coaching
Full Index: Marshall Goldsmith Coaching.
FAQ – Risk and Failure Mitigation
Q: Can a leader be “forced” into being coachable?
A: No. Mandated coaching for a resistant leader almost always results in technical failure. The leader must see a personal benefit in the change to sustain the discipline required by the MGSCC process.
Q: How do you distinguish between a behavioural issue and a strategy issue?
A: If a leader is technically competent and the strategy is sound, but the team is disengaged, or results are stalling due to poor collaboration, it is a behavioural issue. If the leader is well-liked but the business model is failing, it is a strategy issue that coaching cannot fix.
Q: What happens if a leader starts well but then begins externalising blame?
A: This is a “mid-cycle alert.” The coach must pause the process to re-evaluate the leader’s accountability. If the leader cannot return to self-responsibility, the engagement may need to be suspended.
Q: How do you prevent backsliding after the coaching ends?
A: We build “embedded accountability” by teaching the leader how to continue the feedforward process independently with their stakeholders. The goal is for the leader to become their own coach.
