Why We Care About Defining “Coach”

October 21, 2024

When we kick off a coaching engagement with an organization, we always set expectations in a workshop about what coaching actually is and what to expect. It may seem self explanatory on the surface, but the term “coaching” is used in so many different ways and people have had personal experiences with many types of coaches. The result is that everyone comes to the table with different expectations


Athletic coaches direct their athletes’ training by providing very specific guidance and routines.


Managers or employees as coaches often listen to their coachee vent, and then offer ways to solve the issue.


Life coaches, career coaches and executive coaches self-identifying as coaches come with a variety of training and approaches.


Even at Wolf & Heron, when we offer presentation coaching, we mean something entirely different than executive coaching.


The definition of the term “coaching” matters because it’s the substance of the engagement. Inherent in the definition is an understanding of the desired outcome, and a notion of why an executive coach is the right partner to get you there.


At Wolf & Heron, we think of coaching the same way The International Coaching Federation (ICF) does. The ICF defines coaching as partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential.


There are a few things hidden in that definition that are critical to its value…


Thought-provoking - Coaching conversations should help the coachee move their thinking forward. These conversations are thinking time for the coachee. Coaching is not used to rehash the past or vent. Venting may feel good, but it doesn’t give the coachee any new insights. For the coachee to make progress, they have to process their experiences. To encourage this, a coach asks powerful open-ended questions.


Creativity - Coaches are trained to lean into intuition, curiosity, and open-mindedness. These skills are all designed to give coaching conversations a certain amount of creativity and play. So much of what a coachee needs to maximize their personal and professional potential is the ability to stretch their thinking into new spaces. Coaches help them with that.


Inspires [the client] - The person doing the heavy thinking in a coaching relationship is actually the coachee. The coach helps the coachee explore within themselves and come to their own conclusions. Coaches are trained to focus the conversation on the coachee in this way rather than provide advice or direction—an action that would center the coach in the conversation instead.


Maximize their potential - A coaching conversation does not begin and end with reflection and processing. Coaching is focused on driving  action and moving forward. Every coaching conversation begins by identifying a topic and then turning that into a goal. As the goal is identified and then clarified by the coachee, they are driving their development forward.


Personal and professional - Often we get the question, “What can we talk about during a coaching call? Is this strictly professional?” In general, it depends on the goals of the coachee. That said, we have found that even “professional goals” steer into the personal via conversations about work-life balance, boundaries, career goals and more. Human beings are inherently whole. Compartmentalizing the human into different parts is often counterproductive.


To sum up, a Wolf & Heron coach is not going to give you the answers or a regime to train you. They’re not going to (just) cheer you on. They’re not going to be a space to rehash the past and vent about everything and just feel worse. 


A coach is a partner who will help you think deeply, come up with new ideas, and take action toward your goals. If that’s what would be helpful for you, let’s talk.

Share this article

Recent Posts

By Kara Davidson • October 5, 2026
It's never been more important to be yourself. Kara's brother learned this while hiring for his company. He was eight interviews into a search for a new position at this company, and every one of them wasn’t who they said they were on their resume. Some invented their experience. Others leaned so hard on AI that he couldn't find the actual person behind the answers. He was aggravated trying to figure out what was real and what wasn’t. All he knew for sure was that he couldn’t trust his own read, so he handed the search to a recruiter. That's what happens when people can't tell what's real. They get suspicious of everyone. And when one thing about someone seems off, we doubt the whole person: the experience, the credentials, the firm handshake.
By Stephanie Judd • September 21, 2026
Stephanie had a mentor who went straight to ‘here’s what I would do’ the moment Stepanie asked for advice. Although this mentor was extremely well-meaning, the advice she gave was irrelevant and outside of Stephanie’s reality. “Take your clients to the ballet,” she said. But Stephanie lived nowhere near a ballet company, and her clients weren’t local to her. If this mentor had just paused to ask Stephanie a few questions, her insights would have been a lot better formulated.  Most people leading a discussion default to questions that inform them rather than explore possibilities. The difference is subtle, but the impact is huge.
By Stephanie Judd • September 8, 2026
Leaders have to have all the answers, right?  Kara had a coaching client who was facing a big org change and needed to keep her people motivated. She was hyper focused on what she should say and how she’d provide her people with answers. She knew this was a critical moment for building and maintaining trust and engagement on the team. But when Kara asked, “What would you be looking for from your leader in a moment like this?” the client said, “For them to listen to me.” Then why do we try to have all the answers? Why don’t we listen?
By Stephanie Judd • August 3, 2026
Letitia came to Stephanie stressed. She ran a monthly working group and every month felt the same: low attendance, low engagement, and a Q&A section that was mostly just awkward silence. She spent hours preparing a presentation nobody seemed to care about and couldn't figure out what she was doing wrong. When Stephanie asked her to walk through the format, Letitia said they do forty minutes of presentation followed by twenty minutes of Q&A. She selected the topic each month, recruited a presenter (often herself by default because no one ever volunteered), and carried the entire session on her back. Stephanie pointed out something that surprised Letitia, even though it felt obvious to her in retrospect: the format was inadvertently creating a group of observers, not active collaborators. The meeting was designed in a way that encouraged passivity.
Show More