When Preparing For 2026

Introduction

As we come to the end of this roller coaster ride of a year, I again am asked the same question by multiple people: “So, what are the trends you are seeing and hearing these days as an executive coach?”. The other question I am being asked is “How should we prepare for 2026?” My response to both of these good questions has revolved around four specific areas of concern.  

Feeling Wildly Overwhelmed By Complexity

First, many leaders are feeling wildly overwhelmed by complexity. They are beyond just being busy. Now, they are consumed and overtaken by the volume, magnitude and scope of stuff flying at them, and all around them every day. These endless waves of details and unknowns are exhausting, mind-numbing, and unrelenting. 

When I listen to what they are experiencing, I am reminded of a quote by Julius Caesar describing how he handled an unexpected simultaneous attack by the Nervii at three different points on his flanks, while part of his troops were crossing a river and another part was setting up camp. As he wrote: “Omnia uno tempore agenda. [Everything had to be done at once]”. The outcome of this constant feeling of being overwhelmed is that all goals and priorities are lost in the tsunami of details, because everything has ended up in the important and urgent box, even if most of it is neither important or urgent. However, I think there is a bigger problem that is behind this feeling, and this response to accelerated complexity. 

Right now, too many leaders are defaulting to a form of leadership based on execution-as-efficiency rather than execution-as-learning. Amy Edmondson in her article called “The Competitive Imperative of Learning” (July-August 2008, Harvard Business Review) explains that the paradigm of execution-as-efficiency is based on leaders providing all the answers, employees following directions, and feedback being typically one-way (from the boss to employee) and corrective in nature (“You’re not doing it right.”). As Edmondson notes, “an execution-as-efficiency model results in employees who are exceedingly reluctant to offer ideas or voice questions or concerns. Placing value on getting things right the first time, organizations are unable to take the risks necessary to improve.” And, as we all know, and she points out, “ ... flawless execution cannot guarantee enduring success in a knowledge economy.” I would also add that flawless execution does not guarantee success in the midst of complexity either. 

On the other hand, the execution-as-learning paradigm is based on leaders setting direction and articulating the mission, employees (usually in teams) discovering answers, and feedback always being two-way, namely the leader gives feedback in the form of coaching and advice; team members give feedback about what they’re learning from doing the (ever-changing) work. While this form of leadership may seem unrealistic when one is wildly overwhelmed by complexity, I think it is the smarter choice, because when leaders are overwhelmed, they routinely default to three things, namely control, order, and predictability. As they seek to get everything and everyone around them under control, in order, and acting predictably, the cost of this choice is that psychological safety quickly declines, and silos are quickly created. 

Then, all involved, leaders and followers, end up in an anxiety zone where people fear offering ideas or trying new things. They also fear making a decision. Thus, they bring everything, all adaptive, technical, crisis level problems, to the leader to decide. When  this undercurrent of fear becomes the driver of all choices, the resulting decline in confidence, choice, connection, and clarity becomes a downward spiral to mediocrity over excellence, and chronically inconsistent levels of collaboration and customer service.

Missing Key Skill Sets

Second, many leaders are missing key skill sets that will assist them in handling these current issues and problems. In particular, I am hearing about many examples of inadequate coaching, and extremely poor delegation taking place at various levels within a diverse number of organizations. 

Now, when it comes to the subject of coaching, we need to remember that there are two different types. The first and most common is transactive coaching, which is the transferring of competencies, skills and/or techniques from one individual to another. In essence, this is the “I know something you don’t know and thus I will teach you how to do it,” i.e. a focus on skills and knowledge. The second is transformational coaching, which is focused on shifting someone's view about their work, their understanding of the larger picture, and/or their role or purpose within the company. In essence, this kind of coaching is focused on helping people see and understand the world around them, which, in time, will build a new level of willingness, commitment, and understanding.

However, when leaders are wildly overwhelmed by complexity, most coaching sessions are postponed or skipped in order to get more things done. If they do happen, the leader defaults to “tell me your problems and I will fix them, or solve them for you.” This results in an unhealthy and co-dependent relationship. 

Yet, there is a way to make coaching sessions better. In the beginning, the simplest way to do this is to define, and then utilize a framework. I often encourage young leaders to focus on four specific areas in their coaching, namely people, structure, systems, and culture. Next, I ask them to have their direct reports report to them on how these four areas are doing. If a problem in any one of these four areas surfaces, the coach needs to ask the person what they think is a possible solution to this problem. Then, depending on their recommendation, it will be clear whether this is a moment for transactive coaching or transformational coaching. But in the beginning, middle, and end, the goal is to prevent problem dumping or problem transference to the coach. Having a framework can make a major difference in coaching and problem solving. 

The other missing skill set is effective delegation. First, all involved need to understand that delegation is the transferring of authority and responsibility from one person to another in order to carry out a specific activity. However, in the midst of overwhelming complexity, most leaders default to dumping on their direct reports without creating any clarity about how much authority or responsibility they have to solve the problem. This results in action without clarity or commitment. 

But if we step back from the press of issues and problems, the act of delegation revolves around issues of control, choice, and results. Leaders always want results. Those who are being delegated to want to know how much control they have, and what are the parameters for action, i.e. what are the choices they can make. When these are discussed in advance, delegation is a powerful choice. But, if they are assumed or not discussed, then more often than not people will choose the path of least resistance, or assume they have complete authority and responsibility, causing possibly dangerous levels of impact, or even the setting of precedent. Given current events, we must help people become better at coaching and delegation. There is no way through complexity if we just focus on telling people what to do, and resolving every problem that is handed to us because of our position within the organization. 

The Difference Between Strategic Leadership And Operational Leadership 

Third, many leaders are confused about the difference between strategic leadership, and operational leadership. I think this is happening because leaders are overwhelmed with the endless amount of work that needs to get done. 

When I encounter this as an executive coach, I always turn to the work of Joel  Kurtzman and his book, Common Purpose: How Great Leaders Get Organizations to Achieve The Extraordinary (Jossey-Bass 2010). As he writes, “Strategic leaders are people within organizations who plot the course... Strategic leaders generally can think far into the future...The best of these people understand where the future is going and how to get there.” Then he explains, “The role of operational leaders is quite different from those of strategic leaders. Operational leaders make certain the trains run on time, the manufacturing processes are adequate, the logistics systems work, the technicians are well trained, and the the trucks are where they are supposed to be.... like strategic leaders, operational leaders are vital to an organization’s success.” Currently, we need both kinds of leadership, and we need people to be conscious of when they are engaging in each form of leadership, i.e. making the trains run on time, or thinking far into the future. 

But as we dive deeply into the two forms, we need to remember something that is essential to success. As James March and Thierry Weil point out, “There are two essential dimensions of leadership: ‘plumbing,’ i.e., the capacity to apply known techniques effectively, and ‘poetry,’ which draws on a leader’s great actions and identity and pushes him or her to explore unexpected avenues, discover interesting meanings, and approach life with enthusiasm.” 

Plumbing and poetry are wonderful metaphors to helping people become better at leading others, and better at working together as a team toward successful outcomes. From my vantage point, we need to thoughtfully prepare for the coming new year, and to recognize that a lot of people are experiencing cognitive overload and a great deal of decision-fatigue. When we help them with both plumbing and poetry, operationally and strategically, we will be helping people think more clearly before they engage in action. 

Struggling With What Is The Right Strategy And Vision For The Future

Fourth, many leaders are struggling with what is the right strategy and vision for the future. To understand this situation, we need to step back and look at two different things at the same time. First, we must recognize that what feels like a hot mess right now is actually a normal stage of change, i.e. a past order is moving through a period of  disorder, and then will ultimately move to a new level of order. I like to call this time of disorder the trough of chaos. Now some, at this time period, would call this a Grand Canyon of Chaos, but whatever the name, things are changing quickly, and are very complex, all at the same time. 

Second, we need to understand what is strategy, and what does the word vision mean. Strategy is defined as an extensively premeditated, carefully built, long term plan designed to achieve a particular goal. At the exact same time, it needs to be adaptable due to unforeseen variables rather than presenting a rigid set of instructions or tactics, which has the potential to create organizational vulnerability. Strategy also serves an important function in promoting ongoing evolutionary success of the company. In short, strategy is an adaptable and evolutionary plan. 

Vision, on the other hand, is often defined as a destination that inspires, orients, and aligns people. Warren Bennis in an article called “Leaders of Leaders” (Executive Excellence, September 1997) writes “Leaders create not just a vision, but a vision with meaning - one with significance, one which puts the players at the center of things rather than at the periphery.” In particular, this definition of vision focuses on a shared vision, namely one that holds meaning and significance to the people involved, and who will be executing the strategy that moves the organization toward this vision. 

Given current events, the challenge with the concept of vision is that people want to translate this into a specific picture, i.e. a visual image of what they want the company to become. However, given the continued acceleration of change and the dynamic turbulence that comes with it, I don’t think we can create a realistic picture of the future. Instead, I believe we need to redefine the concept of vision from an image or picture to a mindset, i.e. one of ownership, commitment, meaning, and understanding. 

As to the idea of vision being more a mindset than a destination, I believe we need to do this because the future is so highly unpredictable. As former US secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld pointed out: “There are known knowns, things we know we know; and there are known unknowns, things we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don’t know.” While many leaders are focusing on the next possible unknown unknown, which is typically called a “black swan” event, e.g. think about another COVID like event, I instead think we need to focus on the current known unknowns, e.g. the short and long term impact of AI. We may not have definitive answers or solutions to these known unknowns, but we can develop a collective mindset about how to approach them, and how to work through their potential impact. 

As Aiko Bethea noted, “There is no growth or transformation without expansiveness.” And right now, we need expansive mindsets that zoom out before zooming in order to figure out how to move forward. For in the end, we need to create adaptive strategies and adaptive mindsets that empower people to move forward with clarity and commitment. 

The Problem With The Future

“The problem with the future,” writes Arnold Glasow, “is that it usually arrives before we’re ready for it.” Given the roller coaster of a year that we experienced to date, I don’t know if we are completely ready for what is coming in the new year. However, I am certain that many leaders are feeling wildly overwhelmed by complexity, and many leaders are missing key skills sets to handle what is happening and what might be happening in the new year. I also believe many leaders do not understand the difference between strategic leadership and operational leadership. Finally, many leaders are struggling when it comes to figuring out what is the right strategy and vision for the future. 

Nevertheless, I am not feeling hopeless given the current state of affairs. For I know many leaders who are doing the right things to correct these problems. I also know many leaders who are actively engaged in productive, effective, and on-going planning. As Richard Farson Ph.D. reminds us, “Planning may not be effective at assessing the future, but it can be a good way to assess the present…. The process, not the product, is what is important. At its best, planning becomes a form of anticipatory, strategic thinking - the basis for organizational flexibility and readiness. That may be the most it can offer, but that’s a lot.” Creating a greater level of anticipatory, strategic level thinking along with greater levels of organizational flexibility and readiness is a solid foundation when we prepare for the near and long term future. 

There also is one more thing we need to do as we prepare for the new year. And that is to remember the wise counsel of the late Queen Elizabeth II when calling for national unity amid COVID-19 on April 25, 2022: “The pride in who we are is not a part of our past, it defines our present and our future.” We must remember and take solace in the understanding that we have risen to great challenges in the past, and that we have the capacity to do it again in the new year. For I have no doubt that given what I have lived through in my lifetime, we have the courage, the fortitude, and the capacity to do it again. As Melvin Evans wrote so many years ago, “The men [and women] who build the future are those who know that greater things are yet to come, and that they themselves will help bring them about. Their minds are illuminated by the blazing sun of hope. They never stop to doubt. They haven’t time.” While the future may be challenging, I hope all of us will let out minds and hearts be illuminated by the blazing sun of hope, and never doubt our commitment to make the world a better place place for all. 

© Geery Howe 2025

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Thoughts On Time

As I get older, I am often reminded of the saying, “The days are long but the years are short.” During our life journey, we can experience time moving in slow motion, especially when holding a sleeping grandchild in your arms. Yet, it also can feel like time has flown by when we look across the table and see our own child as the parent. 

Furthermore, as we get older, we have the opportunity to look at time from a much broader and more expansive perspective. Earlier this year, I reread the The Moral Imagination: The Art And Soul Of Building Peace (Oxford University Press, 2005) by John Paul Lederach. In it, he shares an African perspective about how someone isn’t truly dead until the last person who knew them has died. As he wrote, “Memory is a collective act by which people and the past are kept alive, present among us.”

This expansive perspective on time just stopped me in my tracks. I realized that when my older brother, my wife, and I have passed away, then my dear paternal grandmother will pass away, too. For, as best as I know, we are the last people who carry memories of her strong and indomitable spirit, her joy of living, and her loving kindness. 

This perspective also helped me think deeply about Lederach’s perspective on what he called the “expansive present” and the “meaning of the moment.” When we are willing to show up, pay attention, and be fully present, then time truly shifts from a clock based focus to something much bigger. As Lederach writes, “The past and future are not seen as dualistic, polar opposites. They are connected, like ends of a circle that meet and become seamless.” 

For me, this notion of time as a circle makes sense. In particular, when I think about long days and short years, I come to understand that life is one large circle, and that I am part of the circle. My past, my present, and my future are shaping the circle as much as the circle is shaping me. 

Then, during one of those precious moments, when I am holding a sleeping grandchild in my arms, I realize that my circle and my life are complete. For in that moment, we are connected, and time has become expansive and meaningful. And I am blessed to be present to the miracle of living in this moment with these loved ones all around me. 

© Geery Howe 2025

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Thoughts On Belonging

Many years ago, I read a book by Diane Tracy called The First Book of Common-Sense Management (William Morrow and Company, 1989). In this book, she asked the question, “Why do people join teams?”. To this day, her question and her answer continues to intrigue me. 

Tracy list the following five reasons for why people join teams. First, people join teams for security, because it is a place where members feel safe, and cared for. Second, people join teams for belonging because it provides identification. Next, people join teams for individuality, because the team recognizes and supports the valuable differences of its members. Fourth, people join teams for pride, because team members share in group achievements. Finally, people join teams for recognition, because the outside world respects the group as a more powerful entity than it would an individual.

When I reflect on all of the reasons people join teams, the one that seems particularly important to me is belonging. This is in part because I remembered something Mother Teresa wrote years ago: “The biggest disease today is not leprosy or tuberculosis, but rather the feeling of not belonging.” 

Right now, I believe many people are feeling like they do not belong. In a world filled with extreme polarities, people are choosing to disengage in order to stay safe. Yet, in their heart, they truly want to belong. They want to put down roots, and they want to be in a place where they can feel welcomed, safe, and able to make healthy connections with other people. In short, they want community. 

But, in order to achieve this desired experienced of belonging, we need to better understand what it means to belong. For this, I turn to the work of Brene’ Brown in her book, Braving The Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to Stand Alone (Random House, 2017). As she writes, “True belonging is the spiritual practice of believing in and belonging to yourself so deeply that you can share your most authentic self with the world and find sacredness in both being a part of something and standing alone in the wilderness. True belonging doesn’t require you to change who you are; it requires you to be who you are.”

This notion that belonging requires us to be who we are requires us to recognize an important truth. “Our connection with others,” writes Brown, “can only be as deep as our connection with ourselves.” For me, this is the missing piece of the puzzle. Executive coach Lindsay Leahy grasped this when she wrote, “We lead with who we are, so to be a good leader, whether in our families, workplaces, or communities, we have to do the deep exploration and healing work to become our best selves.” 

And becoming our best selves is a commitment to a profound level of inner work over time. It is not completed during one weekend workshop or a singular inservice on self-care. Instead, it is a commitment and a discipline that takes time, energy, and support in order to sustain the focus and the effort. 

One element of the journey to belonging is bridge building. We need to do this on two different levels. We need to build a bridge back to our true self and we need to build bridges that connects us with others. As to the former process, American journalist and author Elizabeth Gilbert wrote: “Never forget that once upon a time, in an unguarded moment, you recognized yourself as your friend.” I think many people have forgotten how to be their own best friend. They have lost this vital connection and are struggling to find it again. They do not know where to begin and how to do this work. 

At the same time, as many people are seeking safety and isolation over engagement and connection, the act of building a bridge that connects us with others is a huge and risky endeavor. It also requires great courage and patience. 

Upon reflection and personal experience, the beginning work that engages bridge building at both levels starts with finding safe and trust worthy relationship centered space. In the beginning, it may be only one person with whom you feel safe, with whom you can be friendly and a friend. But in time and with the support from experienced coaches, mentors, and counselors, we can rediscover a community of support, and a place where we belong. 

Still, in the beginning, we need to focus less on problem solving, the normal default solution that every leader turns to during times of challenge and difficulty, and instead focus on relationship building. For what we are seeking is to create a daily life experience that has a rich and vibrant social landscape. Then, when we find our people, we can create a fabric of social memory that we can turn to during tough times. 

What I have learned in my journey in life and during my work as an executive coach is that finding safe spaces takes time. We need to not assume that any space is going to be amazingly safe from the get-go. Instead, we we need to grow the space and take care of the space. 

Furthermore, as this space becomes safe, if not sacred, we also need to find our voice within it so we can share our story. The late Stephen Covey in his book, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (Free Press, 2004), writes that our voice” is the nexus of talent, passion, need and conscience (that still small voice within that assures you of what is right and that prompts you to actually do it).” I think this a great definition, because when we find our voice, we also inspire others to find their voice. This results in a feeling of belonging and kinship with fellow travelers in life’s great mysterious journey. 

For it is the combination of creating and maintaining safe spaces with a diversity of people, including ourself, plus the discovery of our voice, that yields one of the most amazing things, the sharing of our story and the gift of listening to the stories of others. Given all the travel, consulting, training and coaching I did around this country for 36 years, the most precious and amazingly impactful transformations took place, when we gathering around a table or in a circle of chairs and shared our stories, our questions, our frustrations, and our amazing moments of new insights, revelations and epiphanies. Through laughter, tears, and deep listening, we came to understand that we are all travelers and we are all trying our best to make a positive difference in the world. And in our finest moments, we realized that we were not alone. Instead, we are all in this together. We all belong. As Father Gregory Boyle wrote, “We don’t just walk each other home to wholeness; we are home to each other.” And this is the miracle of belonging. We truly are home to each other.

© Geery Howe 2025

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Thoughts on Capacity

The word capacity is used every day by leaders all over the globe. Some reference it in relation to planning while others reference it in relation to execution. Some even reference it in regards to someone having executive presence and capacity. After many decades of being an executive coach, the more people use the word the more I want them to define it. Then, I can comprehend the framework that is guiding their use of the word. 

Routinely, I have encountered people who use words with little or no understanding of what they mean. The problem with this choice is that it generates massive confusion, and limited buy-in. In particular, people, who use the word capacity, need to be more mindful of what it means, and when to use it. They need to unpack the word so they can use it better and more effectively. 

In the Merim Webster Dictionary, capacity is defined as “the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating.” It also is defined as “the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.” Now, right from the get go, both definitions mean very different things. And when someone uses the word capacity, are they talking about holding, storing and accommodating? Or are they talking about producing, performing or deploying? If I don’t know which definition is being referenced, I am going to be confused and frustrated. In truth, I probably will be both. 

American Professor of International Peacebuilding at the University of Norte Dame and concurrently Distinguished Scholar at Eastern Mennonite University, John Paul Lederach in his book, The Moral Imagination: The Art And Soul Of Building Peace (Oxford University Press, 2005), writes: “Capacity is understanding, ability, and discipline. It suggests skill and will, and involves both practice and attitude…. capacity is empowerment at its most primordial essence: ‘I am able and committed’.” 

I like this definition, because it lines up with something I have been coaching people about for a long time. The definition of capacity that results in someone being “able and committed” happens when we recognize that there are two levels of capacity. One level is focused on understanding something, i.e. being able to hold, store or accommodate an idea, referencing the earlier dictionary definition. An example of this is being clear and able to communicate the company’s strategic intent. The second level is focused on their ability to execute that understanding in a disciplined manner, i.e. having the power to produce, perform or deploy, again referencing the earlier dictionary definition. For it is the combination of the two that results in an individual or a team having capacity and being empowered to act on it. 

Upon great reflection, I think there is another element to people who have capacity. Brene’ Brown in her book, Dare To Lead: Brave Work, Tough Conversations, Whole Hearts (Random House, 2018), writes: “The opposite of living in a world of false binaries is practicing integration - the act of bringing together all the parts of ourselves…. We are all tough and tender, scared and brave, grace and grit.” She continues on this line of thought, and points out the importance of having a strong back, soft front, and a wild heart. As she explains, “For me, that strong back is grounded confidence and boundaries. The soft front is staying vulnerable and curious. The mark of a wild heart is living out these paradoxes in our lives and not giving into the either/or BS that reduces us.”

When I step back and ponder what she is saying, the word that jumps out to me today is integration. The people I have met who have capacity and show capacity are people who are integrated. They bring all the parts of themselves to the table and are willing to be grounded, vulnerable, and curious. This is a rare and wonderful mix which generates capacity to avoid false binaries based on either/or BS. Furthermore, when I meet leaders who embrace their integration, I also meet a form of leadership that I admire. 

Now, the typical choice of leadership during challenging times is to default to a command and control form of leadership. However, from my perspective, the actual default choice is a control and command form of leadership with heavy emphasis on control with a tiny touch of command. For me, this is rarely effective as a means of coping with constant and messy change. This form of leadership does not work, because it is based on fear, intimidation, and dominance, which does not generate anything more than forced movement forward. 

Given current events, we want people to be resilient, adaptive, aware, and creative. However, the use of control and command leadership only maintains status quo. It is focused on getting something done, and then returning to normal. It also is focused on lowering any level of disequilibrium or chaos within the organization.

Yet, as I continue rereading the aforementioned book by Brene’ Brown, I realized that many leaders are not defaulting to a control and command form of leadership. Instead they are focused on a compliance and control form of leadership. As Brown writes, “The armor of compliance and control is normally about fear and power…. We reduce work to tasks and to-dos, then spend our time ensuring that people are doing exactly what we want, how we want it - and then constantly calling them out when they’re doing it wrong. The armor of compliance and control leads us to strip work of its nuance, context, and larger purpose, then push it down for task completion, all while using the fear of ‘getting caught’ as motivation.” 

The moment I read this, I thought to myself: “Oh yes. I have seen this and I have experienced it, too.” This form of leadership undermines capacity on so many levels, and does not result in an individual being able or committed. As she continues, “When we operate from compliance and control, we also have a tendency to hold on to power and authority, and push responsibility down. This leads to huge alignment issues for people. They’ve been asked to do something that they don’t actually have the authority to accomplish. They’re not set up for success, so they fail.” 

And this is the challenge now, because we are not setting people up for success and, over time, they know it. The result is someone, who is able, but not ready or willing. It also is someone who is looking for a better place to work. 

But, every time I talk about the interrelationship between capacity and a command and control form of leadership, someone will say “But it works in the military.” And I agree with them. I also point out two interesting reasons why it works in the military and often does not work well in the civilian population. The initial reason can be found in the U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary which defines command and control leadership as “the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission.” Within the definition are two keys. First, a properly designated commander with authority is able to accomplish the mission because they are working with an effective bi-directional flow of timely and accurate information, and doing it with role clarity. Second, the military definition of mission is an action to be completed. In the civilian population, the term mission is defined as purpose of an organization.

But a deeper level of understanding about this can be found in the writing of Jim Mattis and Bing West in their book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning To Lead (Random House, 2019). As Mattis explains, “If you as the commander define the mission as your responsibility, you have already failed. It was our mission, never my mission.” He builds on this by explaining, “I was taught to use the concept of ‘command and feedback.’ You don’t control your subordinate commanders’ every move; you clearly state your intent and unleash their initiative.” Mattis and West are utilizing a form of leadership based on  clarity, commitment, and connection. Control, fear, and intimidation have no place in this form of leadership because it does not create capacity on any level what so ever.

The word capacity is an important word in the world of leadership. When used properly, it can make a difference, and it can help people move forward in a collective and unified manner. But in the beginning, more leaders need to unpack it’s meaning and communicate which definition is guiding them when they use it. For when this happens on a regular basis, the power of the word capacity will result in people being willing, able and empowered to make a difference at work, at home, and in the world at large. 

© Geery Howe 2025

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change