What Biotech Gets Wrong About Culture When It Scales

A field guide for science-led companies making their first — and most expensive — people mistakes

You built something extraordinary. The science is solid, the funding is real, and the team that got you here is brilliant. Then you hit Series B or C, the headcount triples in eighteen months, and something starts to go quietly wrong.

It’s not the science. It’s not the market. It’s the humans.

In the Bay Area biotech and biopharma landscape of 2026 — one of the most competitive, AI-accelerated, talent-driven environments in the world — culture failure is the silent killer that rarely makes the post-mortem. Companies don’t usually die because their science was weak. They stall, fracture, or hemorrhage talent because the human architecture never caught up to the scientific ambition.

I’ve spent more than thirty years inside organizations across nearly every sector — including a decade embedded with military contractors in defense, nuclear, and aerospace environments, nonprofit leadership, and fifteen years building DILAN Consulting Group. What these breakdowns look like from the inside, in science-led companies, follows a distinctive and recognizable pattern.

The Science-First Trap

Biotech companies are founded by people who are, understandably, in love with their work. The science is the mission. Everything else — operations, people management, team dynamics, organizational culture — can feel like overhead. Something to deal with when there’s more time.

There is never more time.

Steve Morris, CEO of newmedia.com and a long-standing life sciences advisor, has watched this dynamic play out repeatedly. “The biotechs that do get funded seem to be prematurely building out senior teams with big pharma pedigrees,” he told Cure. magazine. The result: organizations that are top-heavy with expectations that the infrastructure cannot yet support, and a culture clash between startup scrappiness and enterprise formality that no one has the language to name.

Meanwhile, the scientists and researchers who joined because they believed in the mission start to feel managed rather than engaged. And the leadership — promoted for scientific excellence rather than people skills — is often operating well outside its comfort zone without realizing it.

“Organizations don’t stall because of bad science. They stall because brilliant scientists were handed people problems and no one told them that was a different kind of problem entirely.”

— DILAN Consulting Group

The Promotion Pipeline Problem

In virtually every science-led organization I’ve worked with, the same story repeats: a brilliant individual contributor gets promoted into people leadership because they were the best scientist on the team. Not because they demonstrated curiosity about human dynamics, not because they had any training in feedback or conflict, but because they were excellent at what the organization was built on.

That’s not a hiring mistake. It’s a structural one. The organization rewarded the behavior it knew how to see — scientific achievement — and hoped the rest would follow.

It rarely does. Delegation becomes micromanagement. Feedback becomes critique. People stop bringing problems forward because the last time someone did, it didn’t go well. And the leader — often a deeply conscientious person — has no idea.

Research from the field of adult developmental psychology, most notably the work of Harvard’s Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey in Immunity to Change, shows that leadership advancement often requires a fundamental shift in how a person makes meaning — from being driven by the expectations and frameworks of others, to developing what Kegan calls a self-authoring mind: an internal compass grounded in values, capable of holding complexity. Most technical leaders have never been invited into that developmental process.

Is Your Biotech Company Making These Culture Mistakes? Check What Applies:

  • Your best scientists are now managing people with no formal leadership development.
  • Team conflict is handled informally, inconsistently, or not at all.
  • You can’t articulate your culture in behavioral terms — only aspirational ones.
  • Onboarding focuses on technical orientation, not culture and values integration.
  • Senior leaders rarely ask for feedback, and teams rarely give it.
  • Key decisions are made in small groups, then announced rather than discussed.
  • Attrition among high performers is higher than you’d expected at this stage.
  • You’ve hired from pharma and the culture clash is visible but unnamed.

What Scaling Science-Led Culture Actually Requires

Culture in a biotech company cannot be an afterthought — a slide in an all-hands, a set of values on the website, or a ping-pong table in the break room. Culture is how people behave when they’re under pressure. And in a biotech company scaling through clinical trials, regulatory uncertainty, and investor scrutiny, pressure is the operating condition, not the exception.

What actually works is building the behavioral infrastructure of culture deliberately and early: making expectations explicit, building feedback into the rhythm of work rather than treating it as a special event, training leaders at every level in the actual skills of people leadership, and creating the psychological safety that allows problems to surface before they become crises.

Ron Heifetz of Harvard Kennedy School draws a critical distinction between technical problems and adaptive challenges. A technical problem has a known solution that experts can apply. An adaptive challenge requires people to change their values, beliefs, and behavior — and no authority figure can solve it for them. As Heifetz and Marty Linsky write in Leadership on the Line: “The single most common source of leadership failure we’ve been able to identify — in politics, community life, business, or the nonprofit sector — is that people, especially those in positions of authority, treat adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems.”

A culture problem in a scaling biotech company is always an adaptive challenge. Treating it like a technical one — by hiring a Chief People Officer, rolling out a new performance management system, or sending leaders to a weekend workshop — will produce compliance at best, cynicism at worst.

The Bay Area biotech companies that build enduring cultures share one characteristic: they treat the human system with the same rigor and investment they bring to the scientific one. People are not soft infrastructure. They are the infrastructure. Business is Human®.

References

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Harvard Business School Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.

Morris, S. (2025, October). Quoted in: 7 threats to the survival of biotech startups in 2025. Cure. magazine.

Lifescience Dynamics. (2025, December). How small biotech startups can scale effectively.

The Accountability Gap: Why Smart People Stop Delivering When Companies Scale

And why it’s almost never about the person

You hired brilliantly. Your team is full of smart, motivated, experienced people. And yet, somehow, things aren’t getting done. Deadlines slip. Commitments evaporate. Follow-through feels optional. You’re having the same conversations over and over, and you’re starting to wonder: what is wrong with these people?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth I’ve learned from more than thirty years of working inside organizations across nearly every industry imaginable — from leading nonprofits, to a decade consulting in defense, nuclear, and aerospace environments where I was embedded with military contractors in active war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, to building DILAN Consulting Group over the past fifteen years: when smart people stop delivering, it’s almost never about the people. It’s about the system they’re operating in.

And that system, in a scaling company, is usually broken in ways leadership can’t yet see.

“Accountability is not about compliance. It is about commitment — and commitment is a human response to clarity, trust, and meaning.”

— DILAN Consulting Group

The Data Is Telling You Something

This isn’t intuition — it’s a documented crisis. In 2026, Gallup surveyed leaders across seven core leadership competencies and found that creating accountability ranked dead last — rated as the lowest-performing competency by both leaders and their managers. This result emerged from three decades of research across 559 roles in 18 industries. Accountability isn’t failing in one sector. It’s failing everywhere, systemically.

Research from Lee Hecht Harrison’s global leadership study found that while 72% of HR professionals and business leaders say accountability is a critical business issue, only 31% report being satisfied with the level of accountability they actually see. That’s a staggering gap — and it exists in organizations where the people are good, the intentions are real, and the culture survey results look fine.

So what’s actually going on?

What the Accountability Gap Really Is

When organizations scale, they tend to add people faster than they add structure. Roles blur. Expectations that were once communicated informally — over lunch, in the flow of a small-team environment — never get codified into anything clear. The founder or senior leader who “just knew” what was expected carries that knowledge in their head, and forgets that no one else can read it.

Meanwhile, the team is operating in an environment where they’re not entirely sure what they own, who decides what, and what happens when they speak up about a problem. In that environment, playing it safe — waiting, deferring, hedging — becomes rational behavior. It’s not laziness. It’s self-protection.

Dr. Amy Edmondson, Professor of Leadership at Harvard Business School and author of The Fearless Organization, has spent decades documenting this exact dynamic. Her research identified what she calls the learning zone: the intersection of high accountability and high psychological safety. Her insight is counterintuitive: the highest-performing teams don’t just demand more from people — they create conditions where people feel safe enough to actually deliver.

“You no longer have the option of leading through fear or managing through fear. In an uncertain, interdependent world, it doesn’t work either as a motivator or as an enabler of high performance.”

— Dr. Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School

Fear-based accountability isn’t accountability at all. It’s compliance theater — people performing accountability in front of leadership while quietly covering, hedging, and checking out underneath the surface.

The Three Accountability Breakdowns in Scaling Companies

1. Clarity Collapse

As companies grow, the gap between what leadership intends and what teams understand becomes a chasm. Accountability requires knowing precisely what you own, what success looks like, and by when. Without that clarity, smart people fill the vacuum with assumptions — and those assumptions are almost never aligned.

2. Consequence Ambiguity

In small organizations, consequences — positive and negative — are felt immediately and personally. At scale, that feedback loop erodes. People begin to sense that it doesn’t actually matter whether they deliver or not, because nothing seems to change either way. This isn’t cynicism. It’s an accurate read of a system that has stopped reinforcing accountability.

3. Relationship Erosion

Accountability is ultimately a relational act. I deliver on my commitment to you because our relationship matters, because I respect you, and because I don’t want to let you down. When organizations scale and relationships become transactional or distant, that relational glue dissolves. The result is a team of individuals optimizing for their own survival rather than delivering together.

The Accountability Gap Diagnostic — Is This Your Organization?

  • Deadlines are treated as suggestions, not commitments.
  • Leadership ends up doing follow-up on work that was already “delegated.”
  • Meetings produce lots of agreement but little action.
  • People say yes in the room and nothing changes outside of it.
  • Conflict is avoided even when performance is at stake.
  • When something falls through the cracks, no one is sure who owns it.
  • High performers are quietly frustrated by a culture that tolerates low follow-through.
  • You’ve tried training, but behavior hasn’t changed.

If you checked three or more, you’re not dealing with a performance problem. You’re dealing with a systems and culture problem — one that individual feedback and coaching alone won’t fix.

What Actually Works

Rebuilding accountability at scale requires working at three levels simultaneously: the structural level, the relational level, and the cultural level. Most organizations try to fix accountability at the structural level alone — new OKRs, better project management tools, clearer job descriptions. Those things help, but they’re not sufficient.

What’s also required is the relational infrastructure that makes accountability feel meaningful rather than punitive: regular, honest conversations between leaders and teams; clear ownership with the authority to match; and a culture where surfacing problems early is rewarded rather than penalized.

Vince Molinaro, Ph.D., Global Managing Director of Leadership Transformation at Lee Hecht Harrison, puts it directly: “Accountable leadership is a requirement for building an organization that can thrive and remain agile. The highest-performing companies ensure that their leaders understand what matters to their customers and cascade the business strategy to create clarity of purpose.”

Purpose is not a soft concept. It is the architecture of commitment.

At DILAN Consulting Group, we believe accountability systems aren’t built in a training room. They’re built through sustained, honest work on the relationships, expectations, and cultural norms that either make delivering on commitments feel meaningful — or make hiding feel safer. Business is Human®. And humans only commit to what they believe in and belong to.

References

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Gallup. (2026, March). Accountability is leadership’s greatest weakness. Gallup Workplace.

Molinaro, V., & Lee Hecht Harrison. (2017). The leadership accountability gap: Global research report. LHH.

Conflict Management Is Self-Management

You Cannot Manage What Is Between You Until You Manage What Is Within You

The Myth of the Difficult Other Person

When conflict arises, our first instinct is almost always to look outward. We analyze the other person’s behavior, catalog their faults, rehearse the injustice of what they said or did. We construct a convincing case that the problem is them — their tone, their stubbornness, their lack of awareness. And the more we build that case, the more certain we become, and the further we drift from resolution.

This is one of the most seductive illusions in human relationships: that conflict is something that happens to us, rather than something we co-create. The research says otherwise. And so do the most respected voices in the field of conflict, negotiation, and emotional intelligence.

William Ury, co-founder of Harvard’s Program on Negotiation and co-author of the landmark text Getting to Yes, has spent decades mediating conflicts across the globe — from coal mine strikes to wars in the Middle East. After more than forty years of that work, he arrived at a striking conclusion:

Since I coauthored Getting to Yes more than 40 years ago, perhaps the greatest lesson I have learned is this. The biggest obstacle to getting what I want is not the difficult person on the other side of the table. It is the person on this side of the table. It is me. When I react without thinking, I become my own worst enemy. I am the one who keeps getting in my own way.

— William Ury, Getting to Yes with Yourself (HarperOne, 2015)

Ury’s insight is not merely personal wisdom. It is a conclusion shared by a growing body of research across psychology, neuroscience, and organizational behavior. Effective conflict management does not begin with strategy, scripts, or steps. It begins inside — with the awareness and regulation of our own inner world.

We Are the Chemistry in the Room

Think of interpersonal conflict as a chemical reaction. When two people come together, they each bring their own emotional compounds — their history, their triggers, their unmet needs, their assumptions. The outcome of the interaction is not determined solely by the “issue” at hand. It is determined by what each person brings into the room and how those internal states combine.

Daniel Goleman, the psychologist who brought emotional intelligence to the world’s attention with his landmark 1995 book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, articulated this dynamic plainly:

Emotions are contagious. We’ve all known it experientially. You know after you have a really fun coffee with a friend, you feel good. When you have a rude clerk in a store, you walk away feeling bad.

— Daniel Goleman, Social Intelligence (Random House, 2006)

Goleman’s research demonstrated that our emotional states are not contained within us — they radiate outward and shape the emotional states of those around us. He called this “emotional contagion,” and it operates below the level of conscious awareness. We do not choose to catch each other’s moods any more than we choose to catch a cold. It happens through tone of voice, facial micro-expressions, posture, and the subtle rhythms of interaction.

This means that how you show up in a conflict — your emotional temperature, your level of defensiveness, your degree of self-regulation — is not a private matter. It is the opening move that shapes every exchange that follows. Goleman put it directly:

If your emotional abilities aren’t in hand, if you don’t have self-awareness, if you are not able to manage your distressing emotions, if you can’t have empathy and have effective relationships, then no matter how smart you are, you are not going to get very far.

— Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books, 1995)

Self-awareness, in Goleman’s framework, is not one competency among many. It is the foundation on which all others rest. It is the prerequisite to empathy, to self-regulation, and to productive relationship management. Without it, even the most sophisticated interpersonal techniques will fail. As Goleman wrote:

Emotional self-awareness is the building block of the next fundamental emotional intelligence: being able to shake off a bad mood.

— Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books, 1995)

The Space Where Everything Changes

One of the most powerful concepts in self-management is the idea of a “pause” — a deliberate gap between what triggers us and how we respond. This idea has been popularized under a quote widely (and inaccurately) attributed to Viktor Frankl. The Viktor Frankl Institute has clarified that the quote was popularized by Stephen Covey, who encountered it in an unnamed library book and later connected its themes to Frankl’s ideas. Whatever its precise origin, the concept is authentic:

Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.

— Popularized by Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Simon & Schuster, 1989); exact authorship unattributed per Viktor Frankl Institute

In conflict, most of us shrink that space to nearly nothing. We react. We defend. We counter-attack. Neuroscience explains why: when we perceive a threat — even a social or emotional one — the brain’s amygdala activates the fight-or-flight response, flooding the body with stress hormones. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for rational thinking, empathy, and long-term judgment, becomes temporarily overwhelmed. We stop thinking clearly at precisely the moment we most need to.

William Ury, who has gone to negotiating tables with heads of state and labor leaders alike, developed a practical metaphor for recovering that space. He called it “going to the balcony”:

The balcony is a metaphor for a mental and emotional place of perspective, calm, and self-control. If life is a stage and we are all actors on that stage, then the balcony is a place from which we can see the entire play unfolding with greater clarity. To observe ourselves, it is valuable to go to the balcony at all times, and especially before, during, and after any problematic conversation or negotiation.

— William Ury, Getting to Yes with Yourself (HarperOne, 2015)

The balcony is not about emotional distance or suppression. It is about creating enough inner space to observe yourself with curiosity — to notice the anger, the fear, or the hurt, and to choose your response rather than be driven by it. Negotiation, Ury argues, begins not across the table but within yourself:

Negotiation is about influence. We’re trying to change someone else’s mind. How can we possibly expect to influence someone else if we can’t first influence ourselves? It all begins with self-mastery.

— William Ury, quoted in CreativeMornings Talk, New York

From Judgment to Connection: What Self-Awareness Makes Possible

When we lack self-awareness in conflict, we tend to externalize. We make the other person’s behavior the story. Marshall B. Rosenberg, the American psychologist who developed Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and spent decades facilitating peace processes in conflict zones around the world, identified a fundamental problem with this pattern:

Analyses of others are actually expressions of our own needs and values.

— Marshall B. Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (PuddleDancer Press, 2003)

When we say “You’re being unreasonable” or “You never listen,” we are not making an objective observation about the other person. We are expressing our own unmet need — to be heard, respected, or understood — in a way that is likely to trigger defensiveness rather than connection. Rosenberg’s research and clinical work consistently showed that moralistic judgments and labels escalate conflict, while transparent self-expression — grounded in awareness of one’s own feelings and needs — opens pathways to resolution.

His framework is built on four components: observation (what we see, without evaluation), feelings (what we feel in response), needs (the deeper values or requirements beneath the feelings), and requests (specific actions that might meet those needs). But the whole system depends on a prior step: knowing what you actually feel, and recognizing that your feelings are yours — not caused by the other person, but triggered by them in relation to your own internal landscape. As Rosenberg wrote:

We are dangerous when we are not conscious of our responsibility for how we behave, think, and feel.

— Marshall B. Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (PuddleDancer Press, 2003)

Brené Brown, research professor at the University of Houston and author of multiple best-selling books on vulnerability and connection, brings a related perspective. Her research on shame and vulnerability found that the quality of our relationships — and our capacity to navigate rupture and repair — is directly linked to our self-knowledge and willingness to be honest about our inner experience. Interpersonal courage, in Brown’s framework, begins with inner honesty:

I define connection as the energy that exists between people when they feel seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgment; and when they derive sustenance and strength from the relationship.

— Brené Brown, The Gifts of Imperfection (Hazelden Publishing, 2010)

Connection — the antidote to conflict — requires us to show up. And showing up authentically is only possible when we know ourselves well enough to bring our real experience into the room, rather than our defensive armor.

The Research Base: What the Evidence Shows

Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Style

A 2022 study published in the International Journal of Nursing and General Practices examined 400 participants and found a significant positive correlation between emotional intelligence — including self-awareness and self-regulation — and collaborative, accommodating, and compromising conflict management styles (Shah & co-author, 2022). Those with greater self-awareness were statistically less likely to default to avoidance or domination in conflict, and more likely to engage in problem-solving approaches.

This mirrors earlier findings by Jordan and Troth (2002), who found significant relationships between the self-awareness and self-regulation dimensions of emotional intelligence and effective conflict management behaviors. Together, this body of research suggests that self-awareness is not just a soft skill — it is a measurable predictor of how effectively people navigate disagreement.

The Neuroscience of Reactivity

Goleman, drawing on neuroscience research, described what he termed “amygdala hijack” — the rapid override of rational thinking by the brain’s emotional center during perceived threat. In conflict, this physiological process means that individuals who have not developed the capacity to self-regulate are functionally operating with diminished cognitive capacity at the moments that most require their best thinking. Training in emotional self-awareness has been shown to strengthen neural pathways between the emotional and rational brain regions, reducing the frequency and intensity of reactive responses over time.

Co-Creation and Interpersonal Systems

Research from the field of systems theory and family therapy supports the idea that interpersonal conflict is co-created. How one person enters an interaction — their affect, their expectations, their body language — shapes what is possible for the other person. Clinicians and organizational researchers have found that when even one party in a conflict increases their self-awareness and self-regulation, the dynamic of the entire interaction tends to shift. You do not need both people to change to change the chemistry of the room.

Techniques and Behaviors: What the Experts Recommend

Recommended Practices from the Research and Literature

The following techniques are drawn from the work of Goleman, Ury, Rosenberg, and Brown, as well as the broader research literature on emotional intelligence and conflict management. They represent evidence-informed practices for building the self-awareness and self-management that effective conflict engagement requires.

Build the Habit of Self-Observation

  • Practice naming your emotional state in real time, without judgment. Goleman’s research shows that labeling emotions reduces their neurological intensity.
  • Before entering a difficult conversation, pause and ask: What am I bringing into this room? What do I need to be aware of in myself right now?
  • Develop a regular mindfulness or reflection practice. Ury recommends sitting quietly and attending to fleeting thoughts and feelings — not to suppress them, but to know them.

Go to the Balcony

  • When you feel triggered during a conflict, create physical or mental distance before responding. Take a walk. Ask for a short break. Breathe.
  • Observe your reactions with curiosity rather than alarm. Ask yourself: What is this reaction telling me about what I need?
  • Avoid making important decisions “at the table.” Prepare your responses beforehand when possible, or request time before committing.

Know Your Triggers and Patterns

  • Identify the specific situations, words, or behaviors that reliably activate a strong reaction in you. These are data about your values and unmet needs — not evidence of the other person’s guilt.
  • Rosenberg recommends asking: What does this person do that triggers me to judge them? Then translate that judgment into a feeling and a need.
  • Explore your default conflict style (avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, or collaborating) and understand when and why you default to it.

Separate Observations from Evaluations

  • Practice describing what you observe (specific, factual, past-tense behaviors) before attaching meaning or judgment. “In the last two meetings, I was interrupted before I could finish” rather than “You never let me speak.”
  • Rosenberg’s NVC four-step process — Observation, Feeling, Need, Request — provides a structured way to move from reactivity to honest, non-blaming expression.
  • Ask yourself: Am I responding to what actually happened, or to my interpretation of what happened?

Regulate Before You Engage

  • Physical regulation (slow breath, walking, cold water) calms the physiological stress response before conversation.
  • Cognitive reframing — viewing the conflict as a shared problem to solve rather than a threat to survive — shifts brain state and increases access to collaborative thinking.
  • Brown encourages asking: What is the conversation actually about, and what is it really about? Getting to the real issue often requires getting honest with yourself first.

Examine Your Story

  • Ury notes that in conflict, we almost always have a narrative in which we are the wronged party. Examine that narrative: What part have you played? What are you leaving out?
  • Ask: What assumptions am I making about the other person’s intentions? Are those assumptions certain, or just comfortable?
  • Practice what Ury calls “going to the balcony” before a conversation to identify your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) — this reduces the desperation that makes people rigid and reactive.

Listen for Needs, Not Just Positions

  • Rosenberg teaches that behind every criticism or demand is an unmet need. Train yourself to hear the need rather than reacting to the surface message.
  • Ask the other person questions that invite them to articulate what they need, not just what they want you to do differently.
  • Extend the same generosity inward: What do I actually need from this situation? Not just what am I arguing for?

Conclusion: The Inner Work Is the Work

Conflict, at its core, is not a problem to be solved. It is an encounter to be navigated — and how it unfolds depends enormously on who you are when you arrive. Your emotional state, your level of self-awareness, your ability to regulate rather than react: these are not the backstory to the conflict. They are the conflict.

The research is clear. The practitioners who have spent lifetimes in the most difficult human negotiations agree. You cannot manage what is happening between you and another person until you have done the prior work of managing what is happening within you.

The good news is that this is learnable. The neural pathways of self-regulation can be developed. The capacity for self-awareness can be trained. And every conflict, every difficult conversation, every moment when you feel the familiar heat of reactivity rising — is an opportunity to practice.

The greatest conflict management tool available to you is not a framework or a script. It is you — self-aware, self-managed, and genuinely present.

Self-absorption in all its forms kills empathy, let alone compassion. When we focus on ourselves, our world contracts as our problems and preoccupations loom large. But when we focus on others, our world expands.

— Daniel Goleman, Social Intelligence (Random House, 2006)

And that expansion — that movement outward toward genuine contact with another human being — begins, always, from within.

References

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you’re supposed to be and embrace who you are. Hazelden Publishing.

Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Gotham Books.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. Simon & Schuster.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. Random House.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(1), 62–79.

Odame, C., & Pandey, M. (2025). The relationship between emotional intelligence and conflict management styles. SAGE Open, 15(1).

Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (2nd ed.). PuddleDancer Press.

Shah, P. (2022). Relationship between self-awareness and conflict management style: A correlation study. International Journal of Nursing and General Practices, 1(3).

Ury, W. (1991). Getting past no: Negotiating in difficult situations. Bantam Books.

Ury, W. (2015). Getting to yes with yourself (and other worthy opponents). HarperOne.

Ury, W. (2023). Possible: How we survive (and thrive) in an age of conflict. HarperOne.

Viktor Frankl Institute. (n.d.). Alleged quote.

How to Get the Most Out of Executive Coaching: What Great Leaders Do Differently

You’ve done the hard work of finding the right executive coach. Now what?

While choosing a coach is a critical step in your leadership journey, the real transformation begins after the contract is signed. Whether you’re working with a coach to elevate your leadership presence, navigate complexity, or shift deep-seated habits, how you show up matters just as much as who you choose.

This blog breaks down what high-performing leaders do to maximize their coaching investment—drawing on real research, expert insights, and decades of coaching science. If you want to make sure your coaching journey delivers exponential ROI—professionally and personally—read on.

Why This Blog Matters (And What It Answers)

Most-searched questions this blog answers:

  • “What should I expect from executive coaching?”
  • “How do I prepare for executive coaching sessions?”
  • “What makes someone coachable?”
  • “What are signs executive coaching is working?”
  • “How do I measure ROI from coaching?”

Coaching Is a Practice, Not a Product

Executive coaching isn’t a service you consume—it’s a practice you engage in.

As Sir John Whitmore, one of the pioneers of modern coaching, puts it:

“Coaching is unlocking a person’s potential to maximize their own performance. It is helping them to learn rather than teaching them.”
(Whitmore, 2017, p. 10)

So, if your goal is transformation—not just information—then the way you approach coaching will determine what you get from it.

The 7 Habits of Highly Coachable Leaders

Drawing on the work of global coaching experts, here are the top behaviors that set the most successful coaching clients apart:

  1. They Show Up with Real Challenges, Not Just Updates

Great coaching clients bring live, complex issues into the session—decisions they’re struggling with, relationships that feel stuck, or leadership patterns they can’t quite break.

“Effective coaching begins with an honest self-assessment and a commitment to real-time, relevant topics.”
— Noble & Kauffman, 2023

TIP: Start each session with: “Here’s what I’m really wrestling with right now…”

  1. They Reflect Between Sessions

The best coaching doesn’t happen in the session—it happens between them. Journaling, voice notes, and mental reflection help integrate insights.

“Change requires repeated focus on personal goals and values—not just feedback on performance.”
— Boyatzis, Smith, & Van Oosten, 2019

TIP: Keep a private coaching journal to track reflections, wins, and breakdowns.

  1. They Act—and Circle Back

Insight without action is entertainment. Highly coachable leaders experiment between sessions and bring results (or failures) back for review.

“Developmental coaching thrives on testing assumptions through action.”
— Berger, 2011

TIP: Choose 1–2 small behavioral experiments to try between each session.

  1. They Invite Feedback from Others

You don’t grow in a vacuum. Marshall Goldsmith’s stakeholder-centered coaching model shows the power of asking others, “How am I doing?”

“If you don’t measure it with stakeholders, you won’t change it.”
— Goldsmith, 2007

TIP: Ask 2–3 trusted colleagues, “What’s one thing I could do better as a leader?”

  1. They Lean into Discomfort

Growth and discomfort are correlated. If your coaching sessions feel cozy, you’re likely avoiding the work.

“Change is hard when you’re defending your self-image. Coaches must help leaders stay in the learning zone.”
— Kegan & Lahey, 2009

TIP: Notice when you feel defensive or exposed—those moments are gold.

  1. They Tie Coaching to Business Impact

It’s not just about feeling better—it’s about leading better. Great coaching clients connect their internal shifts to external outcomes: communication, culture, strategy.

“Coaching success is defined not just by insight, but by improved performance in complex systems.”
— Kauffman & Bachkirova, 2009

TIP: Ask yourself regularly, how is this coaching impacting my leadership outcomes?

  1. They Choose Long-Term Growth Over Quick Fixes

The goal of coaching isn’t to “solve” you—it’s to help you keep evolving as a leader and human. That takes time and practice.

“Adults develop through sustained engagement with disorienting dilemmas. Coaching can guide that process.”
— Berger, 2011

TIP: Focus on identity-level shifts, not just performance-level tweaks.

What’s Different About Working with Psychologist-Coaches?

While all effective coaches offer accountability and insight, psychologist-coaches bring rigorous training in human behavior, emotional development, and systems thinking. These professionals are often licensed, ethically bound, and trained in depth psychology—bringing safety, nuance, and trauma-informed insight to leadership development.

They’re not just helping you optimize—they’re helping you grow.

How to Track Your Progress

To know if your coaching is working, consider the following markers:

  • Behavioral Change: Are you acting differently in key moments?
  • Emotional Regulation: Are you more grounded in stressful interactions?
  • Feedback From Others: Are colleagues noticing a shift?
  • Clarity of Purpose: Are your decisions aligned with your values?
  • Business Impact: Are your results improving?

Many psychologist-coaches use 360° assessments, stakeholder interviews, or psychometrics (e.g., EQ-i 2.0, Hogan, LCP) to track change over time.

Final Word: Coaching Only Works If You Work It

Executive coaching isn’t about being fixed—it’s about being witnessed, challenged, and empowered. The most transformational outcomes happen when leaders step into the process fully ready to be honest, brave, and in it for the long game.

So, ask yourself:
Are you showing up for your growth—or just checking a box?

References (APA Style)

Berger, J. G. (2011). Changing on the job: Developing leaders for a complex world. Stanford University Press.

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Van Oosten, E. B. (2019). Helping people change: Coaching with compassion for lifelong learning and growth. Harvard Business Review Press.

Goldsmith, M. (2007). What got you here won’t get you there: How successful people become even more successful. Hyperion.

Kauffman, C., & Bachkirova, T. (2009). Spinning order from chaos: How do we know what coaching is? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 2(1), 1–9.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.

Noble, D., & Kauffman, C. (2023). Real-time leadership: Find your winning moves when the stakes are high. Harvard Business Review Press.

Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for performance: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership (5th ed.). Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Leadership Coaching Readiness Assessment

Are You Ready to Get the Most Out of Executive Coaching?

Before investing in executive coaching, it’s critical to know if you’re truly ready to do the deep, transformative work it requires.

This 10-question self-assessment is designed to help you evaluate your mindset, motivation, and environment for coaching success. It takes less than 5 minutes and will guide your next step—whether that’s hiring a coach, preparing for the journey, or starting with another form of development.

INSTRUCTIONS:

For each statement below, rate yourself from 1 to 5, where:

  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral / Unsure
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree

🔍 Coaching Readiness Questions:

  1. I am actively seeking feedback—even when it’s uncomfortable.
  2. I believe I have room to grow as a leader, no matter how successful I’ve been.
  3. I am willing to explore how my mindset and behavior affect others.
  4. I’m open to being challenged, not just supported.
  5. I can make time regularly for coaching, reflection, and action.
  6. I have goals that feel meaningful—but also difficult to reach alone.
  7. I’m ready to have honest, vulnerable conversations with a coach.
  8. I value growth that includes emotional intelligence—not just performance.
  9. I am motivated to apply what I learn between sessions.
  10. I want a coaching relationship that’s not just transactional—but transformational.

SCORING:

Add up your scores for a total out of 50.

YOUR RESULTS & WHAT TO DO NEXT:

41–50: Ready and Aligned

You’re highly coachable and ready to engage in a deep, transformational coaching process. You’re not just open to growth—you’re hungry for it. You have the emotional capacity, time, and self-awareness to make the most of a coaching partnership.

Next Step: Start interviewing coaches or reach out to trusted organizations that offer psychologist-led executive coaching. You’re in the right mindset for significant change and long-term leadership impact.

31–40: Open but Needs Support

You’re coachable but may benefit from clarifying your goals or building space in your schedule and mindset for deeper work. You’re likely to benefit from coaching—especially with a coach who can help you sharpen your focus and navigate ambivalence.

Next Step:

  • Spend time clarifying your “why” for coaching.
  • Consider a short consultation or exploratory session with a coach.
  • Explore leadership journaling or stakeholder feedback to increase self-awareness.

21–30: Growth Curious, Not Yet Committed

You’re interested in growth but may not be ready to engage fully in a coaching relationship. Time, mindset, or emotional bandwidth may be barriers right now.

Next Step:

  • Start with self-directed development (e.g., books, feedback conversations, leadership assessments).
  • Consider working with a mentor first.
  • Revisit coaching in 3–6 months after building more readiness.

Recommended reading:

Immunity to Change by Kegan & Lahey (2009)

10–20: Not Ready for Coaching

Coaching may not be the right investment at this time. You may be experiencing burnout, resistance to feedback, or external pressures that make deep development work difficult.

Next Step:

  • Prioritize recovery, reflection, or therapy (if appropriate).
  • Reconnect with your personal and professional values.
  • Reassess in 6–12 months with clearer capacity.

Final Thought:

Being coachable is not a fixed trait—it’s a choice and a practice.
Wherever you landed today, the fact that you’re curious about your growth is the beginning of something important.

Want to talk through your results with a licensed psychologist-coach? Contact us!

Or subscribe to our newsletter to receive more evidence-based insights on leadership, coaching, and culture.

How to Choose the Right Executive Coach: What Research and 15 Years of Leadership Consulting Show

In today’s leadership landscape, executive effectiveness is no longer just a personal differentiator. It is an organizational asset. How leaders think, decide, and relate shapes strategy, culture, and results. That is why executive coaching has moved from a discretionary benefit to a serious leadership investment.

Yet many leaders discover too late that not all executive coaching produces meaningful change. Choosing the wrong coach can reinforce blind spots, stall momentum, and consume valuable time without delivering lasting growth.

Selecting the right executive coach is not about credentials alone or finding someone with an impressive résumé. It is about choosing a coach who understands how leaders actually grow psychologically, emotionally, and developmentally, and who can challenge thinking patterns that limit effectiveness.

This research-backed guide reflects both the field’s leading voices and 15 years of leadership consulting and executive coaching experience at DILAN. It outlines how to choose an executive coach who fits your goals, your readiness, and the complexity of the challenges you are navigating.

For those of you who want just the top line, here is the quick answer to the question: how do you choose the right executive coach?

Quick Answer: How Do You Choose the Right Executive Coach?

The right executive coach combines psychological insight, evidence-based frameworks, and compassionate accountability, while aligning with your goals, readiness for growth, and leadership challenges. Look beyond titles and testimonials. Prioritize depth of training, clear coaching methodology, measurable progress, and a relationship that balances trust with challenge.

Now let’s start with the most important question most articles skip.

Are You Actually Ready for Executive Coaching?

Executive coaching is not advice-giving or performance management. It is a reflective, developmental process that requires curiosity, honesty, and sustained effort. Coaching works best when leaders are ready to look beneath behavior and examine how they think, interpret, and respond.

A Coachability Self-Check

Ask yourself honestly:

  1. Are you willing to examine uncomfortable feedback?
  2. Do you seek perspectives that challenge your assumptions?
  3. Can you hold confidence and growth at the same time?
  4. Will you commit time and emotional energy?
  5. Are you open to changing not just behaviors but ways of thinking?

If you answer yes to most of these, coaching is likely a good fit. If not, mentorship, targeted skill-building, or therapy may be better precursors.

As Marshall Goldsmith famously noted, coaching works only for people who want to change.

Clarify Your Coaching Objective Before You Search

Effective coaching begins with clarity. Vague goals like wanting to be a better leader make it difficult to evaluate fit or progress.

Ask yourself:

  • Is the focus strategic leadership, emotional regulation, or influence?
  • Are you navigating change, conflict, burnout, or a transition?
  • Do you want help with execution, or with identity-level challenges?

Leadership scholar David Clutterbuck emphasizes that the strongest coaching relationships begin with clarity about outcomes and expectations. Knowing your objective allows you to choose a coach whose approach aligns with what you actually need.

Prioritize Psychological Depth, Not Just Experience

Many executive coaches come from successful business careers. While experience matters, strong operators do not automatically make strong coaches.

The most effective coaches bring psychological insight, not just lived experience. They understand adult development, emotional intelligence, and how leaders make meaning under pressure.

As Carol Kauffman of the Harvard Institute of Coaching has noted, excellence in coaching comes from challenging leaders’ mental models, not reinforcing them.

This distinction is central to the perspective of DILAN CEO and founder Eugene Dilan, PsyD. In practice, most leaders already know what to do. The constraint is rarely intelligence or motivation. It is the set of assumptions shaping how they interpret situations.

“Effective executive coaching is not about giving leaders better answers. It is about helping them see the assumptions shaping their answers in the first place. Sustainable leadership growth happens when leaders learn to examine how they think, not just what they do.”
— Eugene Dilan

Depth matters because leadership challenges are rarely technical. They are adaptive, emotional, and systemic.

Ask About Frameworks and Methodology

High-quality coaching is intentional and grounded in theory. It is not improvised conversation.

When evaluating a coach, ask:

  • What frameworks guide your work?
  • How do you assess development needs?
  • How are sessions structured?
  • How is progress measured?

Effective coaches often draw from:

  • Adult development theory
  • Emotional regulation and neuroscience
  • Systems thinking
  • Behavioral psychology

Frameworks, however, are only as useful as the judgment behind them. As the DILAN team emphasizes in practice, good coaching is not about rigidly applying models. It is about knowing when to challenge thinking, when to create structure, and when to slow reflection so leaders can see their own patterns clearly.

Chemistry Matters, But So Does Challenge

Trust and safety are essential, but comfort alone does not drive growth. Effective coaching should create enough psychological safety for honesty and enough tension for change.

A strong coach:

  • Asks difficult, well-timed questions
  • Challenges assumptions respectfully
  • Holds accountability without judgment
  • Helps leaders tolerate ambiguity rather than rush to solutions

In Eugene’s experience, transformational coaching relationships are those where leaders feel respected but not indulged.

Look for Compassionate Accountability

Sustainable change requires more than pressure or performance metrics. Richard Boyatzis’ research on coaching with compassion shows that growth accelerates when leaders connect change efforts to a meaningful vision of their ideal self.

This principle is central to Eugene’s coaching philosophy as well. Accountability becomes sustainable when it is anchored in purpose, values, and identity, not just outcomes. Coaches who balance support and challenge help leaders build momentum that lasts beyond the engagement.

Evaluate Credentials with Discernment

The coaching field is unregulated, which makes discernment essential.

What to Look For

  • Formal education in psychology, organizational development, or leadership
  • Reputable coaching certifications such as ICF or EMCC
  • Ongoing supervision, peer consultation, and professional development

Licensed psychologists who also practice executive coaching offer a unique advantage. They bring deep training in behavior change, emotional regulation, and ethics, and can clearly distinguish between coaching and clinical care when needed.

Credentials alone do not guarantee quality, but lack of rigor should prompt caution.

Ask How Progress Is Measured

Without measurement, coaching risks becoming well-intentioned conversation.

Strong coaches:

  • Define success metrics early
  • Use feedback tools, assessments, or stakeholder input
  • Revisit goals and adjust focus over time

Goldsmith’s use of stakeholder feedback highlights a critical truth: real change is visible to others, not just felt internally.

Red Flags to Avoid

Be cautious of coaches who:

  • Guarantee specific business outcomes
  • Rely primarily on anecdotes
  • Talk more than they listen
  • Avoid explaining how their approach works
  • Sell before seeking to understand you

If the process feels more promotional than reflective, trust that signal.

Final Thoughts: Coaching as a Leadership Investment

Executive coaching is not a shortcut or a solution to be outsourced. It is an investment in how you think, relate, and lead.

After 15 years of leadership consulting and coaching, the DILAN coaching team has seen what Eugene often reminds leaders: meaningful growth begins when you examine not only your leadership style, but the assumptions guiding how you make sense of the world.

Choose carefully. The right coach does more than help you perform better. They help you become more capable of navigating complexity long after the engagement ends.

FAQs About Choosing an Executive Coach

Most engagements last six to twelve months. Shorter engagements may address specific skills, while longer engagements support deeper developmental change.
Rates vary widely, often ranging from $250 to over $1,000 per hour, depending on credentials, experience, and scope.
Not necessarily. Effective coaches specialize in human development, not industry expertise. External perspectives often enhance insight.
Coaching focuses on future-oriented growth and leadership effectiveness. Therapy addresses mental health and past experiences. They serve different purposes and can complement each other.
Yes. Psychologist-coaches bring deep expertise in behavior change and ethics, which can be especially valuable in complex leadership contexts. They also have access to assessment tools that are available only to licensed psychologists.
The relationship matters. If trust and challenge do not develop after several sessions, it is appropriate to reassess and explore other options.

The Escalating Responsibility on Pharma COOs – Why Coaching is Now Risk Management

The Hidden Weight of Leading Pharma Ops in a Post-Pandemic, Politically Charged, Supply-Strained World

In pharma and biotech, the COO role has quietly become one of the highest-risk, highest-visibility, and least-supported functions in the C-suite. 

After years of supporting senior executives in pharma and biotech, we’ve seen firsthand how the pressure on COOs has evolved into something much more intense — and much more invisible. 

Today’s pharma operations leaders aren’t just managing complexity inside the business. They’re navigating unprecedented external forces that add weight to every decision, delay, and dollar. We hear this most often from COOs leading commercial-stage companies, scaling manufacturing, or managing global supply networks.

If you’re a COO — or supporting one — ask yourself:

Do Any of These Sound Familiar?

  • You’re constantly adjusting operational strategy around policy shifts that move faster than regulators can explain them.
  • You’re juggling the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, PBM reform, or FDA staffing changes, but getting little internal air cover to do it.
  • Your supply chain is strained by tariffs, reshoring mandates, or BIOSECURE restrictions — while still expected to reduce COGS.
  • You’re expected to drive down costs while protecting R&D, ensuring regulatory compliance, and avoiding burnout across the org.
  • You’re dealing with a leadership team that’s been reshaped in the past 1–2 years — and trust hasn’t caught up to titles.
  • You wake up mentally solving problems you haven’t even told your team about.
  • You’re carrying the pressure of performance, people, and policy — often alone.

If you answered yes to even one of these, you’re not alone.

These aren’t just operational challenges. They’re psychological burdens being carried by high-performing leaders with no room to let them show.

🔍 The External Pressures No COO Can Ignore

Here’s what’s different about being a COO in pharma in 2025:

  1. Government Pricing Policies Are Squeezing Margins
    • IRA & MFN pricing rules are redefining how value is calculated — and who controls it
    • Pressure from Medicare negotiation creates forecasting chaos and investor tension
    • You’re trying to scale while being asked to innovate on tighter margins
  2. Supply Chain Is a Strategic Risk, Not Just an Ops Function
    • 25% tariffs on APIs from India and China are hitting margins and availability
    • You’re being pushed to reshore manufacturing, but the infrastructure isn’t ready
    • BIOSECURE concerns are causing partners to pause or pull out
  3. Regulatory Policy Shifts Are Constant
    • FDA turnover, layoffs, and clinical trial diversity rollbacks raise approval risks
    • Push for biosimilars increases market pressure — and shrinks launch runway
    • Compliance feels like a moving target, but it’s still your responsibility
  4. You’re Leading in a Fog of Uncertainty
    • R&D costs remain enormous, timelines remain long — but tolerance for delay is gone
    • Innovation is expected, but with less political and financial support
    • Cultural divide inside the org: legacy “survivors” vs. agile newcomers — no time to integrate

What Executive Coaching Offers COOs — Especially Now

Most executive coaching is positioned as a way to “improve leadership” — but for the leaders we work with, that’s not the ask.

Here’s what high-performing pharma COOs actually need from coaching right now:

  1. A Confidential Decision-Making Lab
    They need a space to think through trade-offs, regulatory nuance, political pressure, and team dynamics — with someone who understands the stakes.
  2. Strategic Pattern Recognition
    They need help identifying what’s a symptom vs. the system — and when to push, pause, or pivot.
  3. Pressure Release Without Performance Drop
    They need a partner who understands executive fatigue, leadership optics, and emotional regulation under high scrutiny.
  4. System-Level Framing, Not Just Personal Development
    Today’s coaching must go beyond mindset — it has to engage with real-world context: legislation, compliance, investor pressure, and operational reality.

Final Thought

If you’re a pharma COO or C-Suite executive, or someone who supports them, know this:

You’re not overwhelmed because you’re weak.
You’re overwhelmed because the system you lead in is more volatile, visible, and contradictory than ever before.

Coaching isn’t a soft skill anymore.
It’s executive risk management — for people who are expected to hold the entire weight of the business without losing clarity or capacity.

If this sounds familiar, let’s talk.

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

DILAN Delivers - Legal Disclaimer

By submitting a challenge or problem to DILANdelivers@dilanstg.wpengine.com, you grant DILAN Consulting Group permission to publish it on our websites, newsletter and social media platforms. Your full name and contact details will never be included or distributed. The advice received is expressing personal opinions and views and the advice offered is intended for informational purposes only. Use of this column is not intended to replace or substitute for any professional advice.

This column, its authors and DILAN Consulting Group are not responsible for the outcome or results of following any advice in any given situation. You, and only you, are completely responsible for your actions.

DILAN Consulting Group reserves the right to edit problems/questions for length and clarity and offers no guarantee that any particular question will be published.