To quote fellow C-suite consultant Mahan Tavakoli, “Many leaders aren’t even taking a six-week course or picking up a book. We’ve reached a point where time scarcity is used as a valid excuse for intellectual stagnation. We often promote people based on technical expertise and then expect them to lead by osmosis.”
In short, the current reality is that there’s a belief in a lack of time for leadership development, yet leaders are expected to have difficult conversations about performance, hold people accountable and execute seamlessly.
What leaders and organizations alike fail to account for: the time saved by avoiding development is repaid with interest in rework, course correction, finger-pointing, terminations and the replacement of talent.
When organizations invest in learning, exposure is mistaken for mastery. Leaders attend a half-day training, complete an online course and even earn a “certificate.” Then they move on, believing they have a skill, when what they actually have is awareness. Unfortunately, in the world of leadership, we haven’t connected the dots that competency takes time and practice.
No dancer takes one six-week class and says, “I’ve got it,” but leaders do this all the time. The reality is that learning to lead takes time and practice.
- You don’t get better at difficult conversations by watching a video.
- You don’t build clarity by hoping people “just get it.”
- You don’t develop conflict capacity by reading about it.
Awareness isn’t capability, and knowledge isn’t execution.
When leadership training initiatives don’t work (for many reasons), the organization eventually responds in only one way they know how: they double down on accountability, trying to close the execution gap by measuring, tracking and “holding people accountable” with consequences after the breakdown.
But accountability, as it’s currently practiced, is misunderstood. Accountability is used as pressure and framed as correction rather than a method for early alignment, and employees feel it. According to Gallup, Just 46% of employees clearly know what is expected of them at work, and only 39% feel that someone at work cares about them.
This is where execution breaks down. Managers are expected to have conversations about performance and behavior (clarity), yet they’ve rarely been trained to do it well. And even when managers are trained, their delivery is experienced by employees as unfair (a lack of caring) and punitive.
So even well-intentioned leaders fall into predictable patterns of avoiding or delaying conversations or delivering feedback in a punitive way.
A better identity: The Managing Coach (MC)
The real issue isn’t skill; it’s identity. For example, the identity of being a “manager” contributes to managing behavior, while the identity of a coach contributes to supporting behavior.
When a leader “sees themselves” as a manager, they monitor. They manage. They keep the peace. They hold others accountable, and they let policy lead. Unfortunately, the identity of being a “manager” doesn’t include the responsibility to develop people, build capability or intervene early enough to prevent breakdowns.
The result? Execution issues that appear operational — but are actually relational or conversational.
If organizations want different results, they need to consciously develop a new identity for what it means to lead, and it starts with considering the best of both: managing and coaching. Introducing, The Managing Coach (MC) for short.
When a leader or manager “sees themselves” as an MC, they have conversations, think like a consultant, are curious, are relationship-driven and coach behavioral issues in real time, not at the mandatory end-of-year performance review.
The shift in identity from manager to managing coach changes the role’s intention and objectives.
- Conversations happen earlier.
- Expectations become clearer.
- Accountability feels supported, not imposed.
Training adds skills, but identity determines whether and how those skills are used. (Perhaps this is why training works for those who have already made an internal shift, while training doesn’t work for those who have not.)
If I see myself as “the boss,” I default to telling and demanding. If, however, I see myself as a coach, I default to asking, guiding and aligning. Identity is the operating system. Skills are just the apps.
A simple diagnostic
To understand where your leaders are today, consider two variables:
- Managing (clarity, standards, metrics)
- Coaching (conversation, feedback, development)
High performance requires both. Without coaching, accountability feels like punishment.
Without managing, coaching feels vague and ineffective.
Most organizations don’t need more accountability systems; they need a shift in how leaders see themselves as leaders or manager. Execution doesn’t break at accountability, because accountability is a lagging measure. It’s evidence of the conversation that should have happened but didn’t. Execution breaks down at clarity and in conversation, and identity is rooted in clarity about how we see ourselves and how we communicate with others.
When leaders see themselves as both managers and coaches, as part of the success formula for an aligned team, they don’t just change how work gets done — they change how people grow.