For example, I am hearing more people consider the importance of collaboration skills, such as this interview with Tim Brown at Ideo in the NY Times (http://tinyurl.com/yew5hfg). Collaboration applies to cross-function, cross-division, cross-company, and cross-border tasks and projects, and has become critical to the success of many enterprises.

I am sure there are other skills that were secondary a few years ago but are becoming critical in the coming years.

The fact that both positive AND negative feelings or attitudes towards the mere idea of coaching suggests that the underlying dynamics of power, ego and ethics are (but not always) overlooked or downplayed when people encounter coaching or are seeking to be coached.

I’ve often wondered: What is the REAL motivation behind a “leader” who agrees to be coached on their own? In other words, did an Executive Board or superior “strongly recommend” that the leader in question get coached? OR did the leader, in a self-reflective moment, seek out a coach on his own to “change” their behavior to be more effective? If it is the latter, than are the motivations of the leader important or not? (i.e., is the leader looking to be coached to simply be “better” cut throat performer and climb higher on the organizational ladder for personal reasons OR are they generally trying to be a more enlightened, collaborative leader for the good of the organization?)

I personally think that underlying motivation, moral values and overall ethics (personal and organizational) weigh heavily on this concept of coaching — both on actual coach him or herself and especially on the person being coached.

“What kind of “leader” do YOU want to be?” should be the first question a coach asks of a perspective client.

(If they answer, “I want to be a Bernie Madoff type of leader”… then, well… you see my point…)