To ensure alignment, Matt Spielman's coaching process starts with senior leadership. When managing partners define and share their "game plans," their goals become the organization's goals. This creates a natural cascading effect, as direct reports align their own objectives to support the firm's primary mission.

Effective delegation of decision-making authority is impossible without first ensuring leaders are deeply aligned on organizational objectives. When individuals are empowered to make choices but pull in different directions, the result is a quagmire, not progress. Alignment must precede autonomy.

To avoid becoming a permanent fixture in a failing engagement, a coach must establish a 'product strategy' for their work. This involves setting an explicit timeframe and success criteria with their sponsor upfront. If goals aren't met, it provides a clear, blameless path to walking away.

Resistance is critical information, not just a barrier. It often reveals a team's fear of losing something valuable, such as autonomy, their established identity, or a sense of expertise. Understanding what they're protecting is key to making change less threatening.

When management assigns a coach without team consent, the team perceives it as surveillance, not support. This immediately creates resistance and undermines the trust necessary for effective coaching, starting the relationship from a deficit.

A coach's impact is limited if they only focus on the team. To create lasting change, they must transition into an advocate who identifies organizational impediments and holds leadership accountable for solving problems that are outside the team's control.

Giving teams full autonomy to select their coach can be counterproductive. They might choose someone who makes them feel comfortable and validates their existing habits, rather than a coach who will challenge their dysfunctions and push for necessary, but difficult, transformation.

Unlike a functional manager who can develop junior talent, a CEO lacks the domain expertise to coach their entire executive team (e.g., CFO, VP of HR). A CEO's time is better spent hiring world-class leaders who provide 'managerial leverage' by bringing new ideas and driving their function forward, rather than trying to fix people in roles they've never done.

Unlike a line manager who can train direct reports in a specific function, a CEO hires experts for roles they themselves cannot perform (e.g., CFO). A CEO's time spent trying to 'develop' an underperforming executive is a misallocation of their unique responsibilities, which are setting direction and making top-level decisions.