Why scepticism can be rational, why success can hide blind spots, and why the breakthrough often comes after trust is earned

I did not think I needed an executive coach.

I hear versions of that from people after they have experienced good coaching themselves. They are often successful, highly capable and used to relying on their own judgement. The question is understandable: if I have already built a career, led people, made difficult decisions and achieved a lot, what exactly is a coach going to add?

Around 2010, I worked with someone who, looking back, was closer to a mentor and accountability partner. It was useful and money well spent. So when executive coaching entered my world properly years later, I was not anti-coaching. I simply was not convinced I needed it.

Executive coaching also asks for money, time, trust and vulnerability. There is no qualification at the end and no guaranteed outcome. I remember thinking: what exactly am I buying?

That is not cynicism. It is a reasonable question.

I Went Looking for Help With Presentations

At the time, I had a significant international conference to chair. I wanted to do the best job I could, and I had already been on presentation courses, so I started looking for somebody who could help me become an even better presenter.

What I found was an executive coach.

I was sceptical, but another question kept nagging at me: why did so many successful senior people I knew have coaches? As I moved higher through organisations, coaching became more visible. A global director I worked with spoke about executive coaching as something entirely normal at that level. It was not remedial. It was part of continuing to perform.

So I went for it. What I got from it, was more than I had every imagined.

The coaching went far beyond presentation technique. Through behavioural work and challenge, I began to understand my strengths, weaknesses, adaptability, communication style and ability to connect with very different people.

For years I had been able to walk into different environments and communicate effectively without properly understanding why. Coaching helped me recognise the role emotional intelligence and behavioural adaptability played in my leadership.

I had gone looking for a better way to present. I ended up with a better understanding of myself. The years that followed included significant career progression, greater responsibility and eventually building my own business. I would never claim coaching caused all of that, but the original investment has repaid itself many times over.

Why Scepticism Makes Sense

Research gives us reasons to take coaching seriously. A 2023 meta-analysis of 37 randomised controlled studies involving 2,528 participants found a statistically significant positive effect across leadership and personal outcomes.[1] BMJ research has also linked coaching with doctors’ leadership development, communication, resilience, stress management and prioritisation.[2][3]

The profession is growing too. The 2025 ICF Global Coaching Study, conducted with PwC, reported 122,974 coach practitioners worldwide and estimated annual industry revenue of $5.34 billion.[4] Growth is not proof that every engagement works, but coaching is no longer a fringe idea.

Even so, I would never tell someone to stop being sceptical. Ask questions. Look at the coach’s qualifications, experience and credibility. Work out whether you trust them. If you are going to give somebody your time, money and a level of honesty you may not give many others, they should have to earn that trust.

That is why I wrote Not Everyone Wants to Work With Me, and That’s Fine. Coaching is too personal to be forced. Chemistry matters, but so do credibility, confidentiality and the feeling that the person opposite you can challenge you without trying to become the cleverest person in the room.

The Blind Spot Success Can Hide

The more interesting form of scepticism is not “Will coaching work?” It is “Why would I need it?”

My immediate thought is: how do you know?

We do not know what we do not know. In my experience, one of the biggest blind spots among successful high achievers is self-awareness. Another is seeing a situation properly from somebody else’s perspective. That does not mean they lack intelligence. Often their capability is exactly what has allowed the blind spot to survive.

I also find that highly analytical people can question coaching harder, and I do not see that as a bad thing. Curiosity, independent thought and scepticism can sit comfortably together. The risk comes when somebody is exceptionally good at questioning everybody else’s thinking but less able to turn that same scrutiny on themselves.

Imagine a founder with three employees operating below their potential. The founder is exceptional, so they compensate by working harder, making more decisions and solving more problems. Results still look good, which can hide the leadership problem underneath.

Forbes recently described a similar ceiling for highly capable operational leaders: the person who repeatedly steps in and fixes everything can become the constraint on the next stage of growth.[5] Harvard Business Review has also noted that high performers often receive lower-quality feedback despite continuing to need constructive challenge.[6]

Capability can conceal the cost of poor self-awareness for a surprisingly long time.

That connects directly with The Quiet Risk of Unchallenged Leadership. The higher somebody rises, the fewer people may be willing to tell them they are wrong. Success creates authority, and authority can reduce the honest friction around your thinking.

Sometimes Somebody Else Sees It First

I once coached a highly capable senior executive after their CEO suggested it. They were not failing. The CEO could simply see that somebody with substantial ability had plateaued and was no longer getting the same fulfilment from work.

The executive later gave me three pieces of feedback: “I didn’t think I needed a coach.” “You helped remove the fog.” And, “I now feel realigned, re-energised and will be going for some of those goals in my life that I put to one side.”

The interesting part was that the fog was not primarily about work. Life had become busy enough for bigger goals and purpose to drift into the background. They remained highly functional, which is important. High achievers can keep delivering long after clarity has started disappearing.

Sometimes a spouse sees it. Sometimes a colleague sees it. Sometimes a CEO sees it. The individual may still be saying, “I’m fine,” because the evidence around them appears to support that conclusion.

This is why challenge matters. In What High Performers Need Most Is Not More Advice: It’s Better Challenge, I explored why another piece of advice is rarely what an experienced doctor, lawyer, CEO or founder lacks. What becomes scarce is somebody they trust enough to question the thinking underneath their decisions.

“I Never Believed in Coaching Until I Was Coached”

Another client helped inspire this article. He was a self-made entrepreneur who had achieved significant financial success and retired at around 50. From the outside, he had many of the things people spend their careers working towards: freedom, travel and the rewards of what he had built.

He had also always been sceptical about coaching.

After reaching a flat spot in life, he eventually agreed to be coached. When I saw him again afterwards, he said something I have not forgotten:

“I never believed in coaching until I was coached.”

That captures the difficulty of explaining coaching to somebody who has never experienced good coaching. You can describe it, show evidence and explain the process, but the value often becomes tangible only when a question lands differently, an assumption is exposed or somebody suddenly sees themselves from another angle.

I call it the light-bulb moment. It is the point when the sceptical client stops wondering what they have paid for and starts to understand it.

Trust Comes Before the Light Bulb

Scepticism is not the enemy of coaching. Reluctance is more of a problem.

I am not interested in persuading somebody who thinks coaching is nonsense. They are entitled to that view. Equally, I do not want to twist the arm of somebody who does not genuinely want to be coached. The work asks too much of both people for that.

The people I often enjoy working with are those who question it but remain curious. They test me and may need reassurance around confidentiality, process or whether I can genuinely add value. That is fine.

The Financial Times has recently reported on senior executives seeking confidential relationships that provide candid, agenda-free challenge.[7] Forbes has similarly argued that executive coaching is more effective when it is framed as development and future readiness rather than punishment for a flaw.[8]

Trust is the bridge between scepticism and useful challenge.

Do Not Wait Until Something Breaks

Some of the best coaching outcomes I see come from people who are already performing extremely well. They are not trying to repair a crisis. They know they are capable of more and want someone to challenge them, push their thinking, hold them accountable and help them decide what the next stage should look like.

Entrepreneur UK has made a similar argument: many high-performing executives use coaching as a performance tool rather than a remedial fix.[9]

So if you are sceptical about coaching, I am not going to tell you that scepticism is wrong. I would ask you to stay curious.

And if you decide to do it, go all in.

If you are going to invest the money, the time, the vulnerability and the discomfort, why hold something back? The people who get the best results are not necessarily those who arrive believing in coaching most strongly. They are the people prepared to engage honestly, challenge themselves and commit fully once they are there.

Sometimes the person saying “I don’t think I need a coach” is right. Sometimes they simply cannot yet see the thing that coaching will help them see.

References and Further Reading

1. de Haan, E. & Nilsson, V.O. (2023), “What Can We Know about the Effectiveness of Coaching? A Meta-Analysis Based Only on Randomized Controlled Trials.” Academy of Management Learning & Education.
https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amle.2022.0107

2. Day, F.J. et al. (2025), “What is the evidence base for leadership coaching for postgraduate medical doctors? A scoping review.” BMJ Leader.
https://bmjleader.bmj.com/content/early/2025/12/15/leader-2025-001249

3. BMJ Open (2024), “Lifelong development in medicine: a thematic analysis of coaching goals throughout medical careers.”
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/5/e081139

4. International Coaching Federation & PwC (2025), Global Coaching Study.
https://coachingfederation.org/resources/research/global-coaching-study/

5. Forbes (2026), “This Is The Perfect Candidate For Executive Coaching.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy/2026/03/25/this-is-the-perfect-candidate-for-executive-coaching/

6. Harvard Business Review (2024), “High Performers Need Feedback, Too.”
https://hbr.org/2024/11/high-performers-need-feedback-too

7. Financial Times (2026), “The ‘Brutally Honest’ Feedback CEOs Cannot Get Enough Of.”
https://www.ft.com/content/1d00e81c-fc7a-4dd2-bebd-ddb077fb3fa0

8. Forbes (2026), “How To Recommend Executive Coaching Without It Sounding Like Punishment.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy/2026/06/02/how-to-recommend-executive-coaching-without-it-sounding-like-punishment/

9. Entrepreneur UK (2026), “What Is Executive Coaching? And Why the Highest Performing Execs Don’t Go Without It.”
https://uk.entrepreneur.com/entrepreneurs/executive-coaching-high-performers

About Laurence Loxam

I’m Laurence Loxam. I’ve climbed nine mountains and pushed limits in business and at the finish line.

Now I help high-achieving professionals do the same, pushing past the point most people stop. I coach doctors, lawyers, CEOs and founders who have achieved success, but still feel there is more.

Together, we unlock clarity, sharpen confidence and lead with conviction.

Ready for your next leadership breakthrough? Let’s connect.