The Difference Between Depth and Stagnation (And How to Tell Which One You’re In)

The Difference Between Depth and Stagnation (And How to Tell Which One You’re In)

There's a particular kind of discomfort that shows up in experienced coaches.

Not the discomfort of being new — that one is well documented and widely discussed.

This is quieter and more confusing, because it arrives after competence.

After the wobbliness of early practice has settled.

After sessions have started to feel manageable rather than terrifying.

It's the discomfort of not knowing whether what you're experiencing is growth or its absence.

Familiarity and stagnation feel similar from the inside.

Both involve a reduction in novelty.

Both involve doing things you've done before.

Both can produce a low-grade sense that something is missing.

Though what's missing is different in each case.

Getting this wrong is costly in both directions.

Mistaking depth for stagnation leads coaches to abandon things that are working and restart cycles they've already been through.

Mistaking stagnation for depth leads to years of practice that plateau early and stay there.

So how do you tell the difference?

What deepening actually feels like

"An opportunity came up."

"People seemed excited about this other thing."

"Speaking was getting more traction than coaching."

And now, having tried everything, she was back at the beginning — except more exhausted and less certain.

None of those pivots were wrong, exactly.

Exploration is part of building a practice.

But there's a difference between exploration that generates useful data and movement that's driven by something else — and it's worth knowing which one you're doing.

What deepening actually feels like

Deepening doesn't feel like progress in the way that learning something new does. It's subtler than that, and easier to miss.

When a practice is deepening, sessions still surprise you.

Not constantly, and not dramatically — but the work remains alive in a way that keeps you genuinely present.

A client says something you didn't anticipate.

A conversation goes somewhere unexpected.

You notice something you wouldn't have noticed a year ago, and you're not entirely sure how you noticed it.

That quality of surprise — quiet, not alarming — is one of the clearest signals that depth is still developing.

Deepening also tends to produce a growing sense of what to leave out.

Early in practice, coaches often do too much.

They ask too many questions, offer too many reflections, fill silences that would have been more useful empty.

As depth develops, the work becomes more selective.

Less feels like more.

Restraint starts to feel like skill rather than withholding.

And deepening tends to make you more honest about what you don't know.

Paradoxically, the more genuinely skilled coaches become, the more comfortable they are with uncertainty in session.

They've learned that not knowing is often more useful than knowing — and that sitting with a client in uncertainty is sometimes the most skilled thing they can do.

What stagnation actually feels like

Stagnation has a different texture.

Sessions feel predictable in a way that has stopped being useful.

You know roughly how things will go before they start. You're moving through familiar patterns — not because those patterns are serving the client particularly well, but because they're the ones you know.

Feedback — when you seek it — stops being surprising.

You hear the same things you've heard before.

Not because you've integrated them, but because you've stopped looking for anything new.

And perhaps most tellingly: you find yourself explaining your approach more than you're examining it.

When someone asks about your coaching, you have a fluent answer — but the fluency has become a barrier rather than a bridge.

You're describing a practice rather than inhabiting one.

None of this is permanent or irreversible. But it is worth recognising.

A Practice: The Depth Audit

This isn't a test. There are no right answers — only useful ones.

Set aside fifteen minutes, preferably after a session while it's still fresh. Work through these questions honestly.

When did I last feel genuinely surprised in a session?

Not alarmed, not thrown — surprised. If you can't remember, that's worth noticing.

What did I leave out today that I might have included a year ago?

If the answer is nothing — if sessions feel about the same in scope and movement as they always have — restraint may not be developing.

What did I not know in today's session, and how did I work with that?

If you find yourself filling uncertainty rather than working with it, something is worth examining.

If I had to identify one thing I'm still learning from my client work, what would it be?

A specific thing — not a general orientation toward growth. If nothing specific comes, it's worth asking whether the work is still teaching you.

When did I last receive feedback that surprised me?

Feedback that only confirms what you already believe isn't feedback — it's reassurance. They're useful for different things.

The question underneath all of this

The coaches I've worked with who develop the deepest practice over time share one quality that I've come to think of as essential: they remain genuinely curious about their own work.

Not anxious about it. Not endlessly self-critical. Curious.

They treat their own sessions as data.

They notice patterns without immediately explaining them away.

They stay interested in what's happening in the room rather than what's supposed to be happening.

That curiosity is what keeps familiarity from becoming stagnation.

It's also, I think, what makes the quieter kind of mastery possible — the kind that doesn't look like much from the outside, but that clients feel immediately.

It can't be performed. It can only be cultivated.

And the place it gets cultivated is in the work itself — session by session, over time, with enough honest attention to notice what's changing and what isn't.

If this way of thinking resonates with how you want to build your practice, the SWITCH Coaching Collective might be worth exploring.

It's where I work with coaches who want to develop the kind of professional judgement that comes from going deep rather than wide. 

Staying or Leaving — How to Tell the Difference

Staying or Leaving — How to Tell the Difference

A coach I know has been working hard for two and a half years.

She's been in rooms, having conversations, showing up consistently.

By any reasonable measure, she's been doing the work. And yet, when we sat down to look at where she actually was, something became clear that hadn't been visible from inside the effort.

The two and a half years hadn't been two and a half years of building one thing.

They'd been six months of this, then a pivot to that, then a return, then a new direction that seemed more promising, then back again. Each move made sense at the time. Each one was reasonable. Together, they added up to a lot of motion and very little momentum.

When I asked her what had driven each pivot, the answers were revealing...

"An opportunity came up."

"People seemed excited about this other thing."

"Speaking was getting more traction than coaching."

And now, having tried everything, she was back at the beginning — except more exhausted and less certain.

None of those pivots were wrong, exactly.

Exploration is part of building a practice.

But there's a difference between exploration that generates useful data and movement that's driven by something else — and it's worth knowing which one you're doing.

The question underneath the pivot

When you find yourself ready to change direction, there are two questions worth asking before you do.

The first: are you moving away from something, or towards something?

The second question: have you given it enough runs to generate real data?

Let's look at each in turn

Moving towards something looks like: I've gathered enough information to believe this direction has more potential for me, and I want to test that.

It's oriented, even if uncertain.

There's a reason that goes beyond discomfort.

Moving away from something looks like: this isn't working, and something else might.

It's driven by wanting relief from the current situation rather than genuine evidence that the new direction is better.

The pivot feels like progress, but it's actually escape.

Neither is a moral failing. But they're different, and conflating them is expensive.

Most things in a coaching practice don't work the first time.

Not because they're wrong, but because the first attempt is always rough — the messaging isn't sharp, the offer isn't quite right, the confidence isn't fully behind it.

The second attempt is better.

The third is where you start to learn something real.

If you're drawing conclusions after one attempt, you're not working with data.

You're working with a single data point, which is a different thing entirely.

The coach I mentioned had, in most cases, tried things once or twice before moving on.

She'd never given any single direction enough consistent attention to find out whether it actually worked.

The pivot always came just before the point where real learning would have begun.

Discernment isn't staying forever

None of this is an argument for stubbornness.

There are genuine signals that something isn't working — and learning to read them is part of developing professional judgement.

If the people you're reaching consistently aren't the people you want to work with, that's information.

If the work itself feels fundamentally misaligned with who you are, that's information.

If you've run something enough times to have real data and the data is clear, that's information.

The difference between discernment and restlessness is evidence.

Discernment is a decision made from information gathered through genuine commitment.

Restlessness is a decision made from discomfort, dressed up as strategy.

One leads somewhere. The other leads to two and a half years of effort that can't quite be joined into a line.

A practice: the pivot audit

Before you change direction on anything significant, sit with these questions. Not quickly — properly.

What am I moving away from, and what am I moving towards?

Be honest about which one is doing the driving.

How many genuine attempts have I made?

One launch, one workshop, one campaign is not a test. Three is the minimum before you have anything worth evaluating.

What would I need to see to know this is working?

Define it before you look at the results, not after. Post-hoc rationalisation is easy and convincing.

Is the problem the direction, or the execution?

Often what feels like the wrong path is actually the right path with underdeveloped skills, unclear messaging, or insufficient consistency.

Before you change the direction, check whether you've actually walked it.

If I stay with this for six more months and it doesn't work, what will I have lost?

Sometimes the honest answer is: not much. In which case, staying long enough to find out is lower risk than it feels.

The coach I mentioned at the start of this piece didn't need a new direction.

She needed to commit to one and run it enough times to find out whether it worked.

That's a different problem — and a more solvable one.

Discernment is knowing the difference.

If this way of thinking resonates with how you want to build your practice, the SWITCH Coaching Collective might be worth exploring.

It's where I work with coaches who want to develop the kind of professional judgement that comes from going deep rather than wide. 

Choosing the Work (Again)

Choosing the Work (Again)

How to structure your practice so client work remains central

 

There's a version of business building that assumes the goal is to need clients less.

To automate. To leverage. To create systems so efficient that your presence becomes optional.

And for some businesses, that makes sense.But coaching isn't a product.

It's a relational practice.

And if you're building a coaching business, the question isn't how to remove yourself from the work.

It's how to structure things so you can stay close to the work sustainably.

That's a different design challenge entirely.

What "protecting proximity" actually means

When I talk about protecting proximity to client work, I'm not talking about working more hours.

Or taking on more clients than you can sustain.

Or neglecting systems and business development.

I'm talking about making deliberate structural choices that keep coaching central rather than peripheral.

That ensure your systems serve the work instead of replacing it.

That build a business around the craft, not despite it.

This requires thinking about three things simultaneously:

 

Your coaching craft—the actual work with clients.

Your systems—the infrastructure that supports that work.

Your business—the practices that make it financially sustainable.

All three matter.

But they don't all matter equally.

The hierarchy that makes it work

Coaching craft is primary.

It's the centre of gravity. The thing everything else revolves around. The reason the business exists.

Systems are supportive.

They exist to protect your capacity to coach well. To reduce friction. To create breathing room. To handle the repeatable parts so you can stay present for the parts that require you.

Business development is sustaining.

It ensures you can keep doing the work without financial pressure distorting it. It builds the conditions for longevity. It makes the practice viable.

When these three are in right relationship, you can build a robust business without drifting away from client work.

When they're out of balance, one of two things tends to happen:

Either you're doing beautiful coaching but constantly stressed about money and drowning in admin.

Or you've built impressive infrastructure but realised you're barely coaching anymore.

Practical choices that protect proximity

So what does this actually look like in practice?

Here are some structural choices I've seen work:

Capacity design, not endless availability.

Instead of: "I'll take as many clients as book in."

Try: "I work with X clients at a time, and new clients join when a space opens."

This protects the quality of your attention. It prevents the kind of overload that makes you start looking for ways to escape the sessions.

Systems that reduce friction, not intimacy.

Instead of: "I need to automate everything so I'm hands-off."

Try: "What are the repeatable, administrative parts I can systematise so I have more energy for the actual coaching?"

Good systems handle scheduling, invoicing, onboarding logistics. They don't replace the relational parts of your work.

Business practices that sustain without performing.

Instead of: "I need to be visible everywhere to get clients."

Try: "I need a small number of high-trust relationships and a referral-rich reputation."

This means follow-up matters more than content volume. Depth matters more than reach. Quality of connection matters more than size of audience.

Boundaries that create sustainability, not isolation.

Instead of: "I need to protect myself from clients."

Try: "I need to protect my capacity to be present with clients."

This might mean: fewer sessions per day so you're not depleted. Proper breaks between clients. Time blocked for integration and reflection, not just delivery.

Pricing that values the work, not just what the market will bear.

Instead of: "I'll charge what I think people will pay."

Try: "I'll charge what makes this work sustainable for me to do well."

If your pricing requires you to take on so many clients that the work suffers, you're underpricing. If your pricing makes you avoid sessions because the pressure to deliver is too high, something's misaligned.

The Re-centering Checklist

Here's a simple set of practices—some weekly, some monthly—that help keep client work central:

Weekly:

  • How many hours this week were spent in client sessions vs. everything else?
  • Did my systems support the work, or did they become the work?
  • What did I learn from clients this week that I wouldn't have learnt any other way?

Monthly:

  • Is my business development bringing me closer to clients or further away?
  • Are my systems still serving their purpose, or have they accumulated without usefulness?
  • If I could only keep three parts of my current business structure, what would they be? (This reveals what actually matters.)

Quarterly:

  • Am I building the practice I actually want, or the one I think I'm supposed to want?
  • What would need to change for client work to feel more central, not less?
  • Where am I protecting proximity, and where am I accidentally creating distance?

These aren't meant to generate guilt.

They're invitations to notice what's actually happening, so you can make deliberate choices about what to shift.

What this isn't

Let me be clear about what protecting proximity doesn't mean:

  • It doesn't mean neglecting your business.
  • It doesn't mean refusing to build systems.
  • It doesn't mean working yourself into the ground.
  • It doesn't mean staying small out of fear of growth.
  • It does mean being intentional about what you're growing toward.
  • It does mean ensuring that the infrastructure you build serves the work, rather than replacing it.
  • It does mean choosing sustainability that keeps you close to what matters, not success that requires you to leave it behind.

The integration

The coaches I trust most—the ones who've built practices that last—aren't the ones who've chosen between craft, systems, and business.

They're the ones who've figured out how to hold all three in right relationship.

They coach well because they've protected their capacity to do so.

They've built systems that reduce cognitive load without reducing intimacy.

They've developed their business in ways that sustain the work, not eclipse it.

And they've done it by keeping one thing clear:

The coaching is the point.

Everything else exists to support that.

If you're building a coaching practice, the question isn't whether you need systems or business development.

You do.

The question is: are they serving your proximity to the work, or creating distance from it?

Because very often, the difference between a sustainable practice and an exhausting one isn't how much you've built.

It's whether what you've built keeps you close to what matters.

The Beautiful Coaching Practice That Never Got Built

The Beautiful Coaching Practice That Never Got Built

Over the last while, I've been noticing a pattern that breaks my heart a little.

 

It looks like this:   

Once upon a time...

A new coach invests in their training. They're excited, they're capable, and they have something genuinely valuable to offer. Then before they've coached more than a handful of people, they disappear down a rabbit hole that has very little to do with coaching.

  • They build a website.
  • Then rebuild it.
  • They buy tools they don't yet need.
  • They learn funnels.
  • They follow marketing advice from people who have never run a coaching practice in their lives.
  • They pick a niche — not because they know their work yet, but because someone told them they had to.
  • They start to feel like they're failing, even though they've barely started.

And underneath all of it is a financial pressure that nobody warned them about honestly — because the people selling coaching business advice have a vested interest in making it sound easier and faster than it is.

The distorted picture

Here's something I think deserves to be said plainly: a lot of new coaches have been sold a distorted picture of what it takes to build a financially stable coaching practice.

Not by accident. By marketers who understand marketing but don't understand coaching — who apply the same principles they'd use to sell any product or service to a profession that is fundamentally relational, trust-based, and slow to build.

They promise quick returns. They sell systems before coaches have anything to systematise. They teach tactics before principles. And when reality doesn't match the promise — and it won't, not quickly — coaches feel like they've made a misstep. Like the investment they made in their training was a mistake. Like they need to force a return before they've had time to actually become good at what they do.

That's a really difficult place from which to build something beautiful.

The expensive website that says nothing

I've met more coaches than I can count who have spent north of $5,000 on a website that looks stunning and says absolutely nothing. Not because the designer failed them. But because the coach didn't yet know their client, their work, or the connection point between the two — and no amount of beautiful design can manufacture that clarity.

You can't outsource knowing yourself as a coach. And yet that's exactly what the "build it and they will come" approach asks coaches to attempt.

The website isn't the problem. The timing is. A beautiful website built before a coach knows what they're actually doing is just expensive decoration.

The niche spiral

Then comes the niche conversation. Pick a narrow niche. Solve one specific problem for one specific person. Make it simple. Make it searchable.

And for some coaches, at some stages, this is useful advice.

But for many new coaches, niching too early sends them in entirely the wrong direction. They end up in one of two places: working with clients who will pay them to solve a specific problem, but doing work that doesn't excite them — acting more like a consultant than a coach. Or they get so caught up in the business-building that they pivot into business coaching, without having successfully built their own business first.

Neither of these is the beautiful coaching practice they imagined.

What actually builds a coaching practice

Here's what I've observed after over 20 years:

Most coaching practices — the sustainable ones, the ones coaches are still running a decade later — are built primarily through referrals and reputation. Not funnels. Not ad campaigns. Not perfectly optimised websites.

They're built through coaching well. Through clients who feel genuinely understood. Through conversations that linger. Through someone saying "you should speak to her" without needing to explain why.

That kind of reputation doesn't come from a marketing strategy. It forms through consistency, through staying close to the work, and through actually becoming a very good coach.

Everything else — the website, the tools, the systems, the content — is only useful once it solves a real problem you actually have. Not a problem someone told you that you should have.

So if you're a new coach reading this, here's what you actually need...

  • You need a clear client agreement.
  • A way to take payment.
  • A private space to meet people.
  • And actual coaching skill.

Start there.

Coach people. Get better at coaching. Let the rest follow the work, rather than leading it.

The business will reflect the coaching.

It always does.

Asking for referrals

(the conversation most coaches avoid)

Referrals don't just happen. Well, sometimes they do — but you can also create the conditions for them, and most coaches don't because it feels uncomfortable to ask.

Here's what I've found works.  You don't ask for referrals in the abstract.

You make it specific and you make it easy.

At a natural moment near the end of a coaching engagement — when a client has just expressed that something shifted, or when you're wrapping up a series of sessions — you can say something like:

"I'm really glad this has been useful. I work primarily through referrals, so if you know someone who might benefit from this kind of conversation, I'd love an introduction."

That's it. No pressure. No follow-up script. Just a simple, honest ask from a place of genuine confidence in your work.

The coaches who ask rarely find it awkward for long. The coaches who never ask often wonder why their practice isn't growing, despite doing good work.

The graphic below is something I share with coaches when we talk about where to put their energy.

Notice where direct contact and referral building sit on the scale vs impact spectrum — high impact, lower scale. That's not a bug.

For most coaching practices, especially early on, it's exactly the right place to be putting your energy.

Infographic showing the relationship between marketing activities, their impact and the scale of people they reach.
When ‘Growth’ Becomes Distance

When ‘Growth’ Becomes Distance

How to tell if you're expanding your practice or avoiding the work

 

There's a version of professional growth that gets celebrated widely in coaching circles.

It looks like this:

You start coaching. You get a few clients. Then you scale. You build courses. You create content. You develop a methodology. Eventually, you stop doing as much one-to-one work because you've "graduated" to something bigger.

This narrative is so common it's almost invisible.

And for some people, it's exactly right.

But for many others, it's a polished way of describing drift.

A socially acceptable way of moving away from the thing they trained to do.

The avoidance paths we don't call avoidance

I've seen coaches move away from client work in a few predictable patterns:

Content creation.

Suddenly they're spending more time writing about coaching than doing it. Every session becomes material. Every insight becomes a post. The work itself becomes secondary to the content it generates.

Credential collecting.

Another certification. Another training. Another model to learn. All in service of feeling more qualified — but somehow never quite ready to just sit with clients and do the work.

Scaling obsession.

The belief that one-to-one work is inherently limited. That real success means leverage. That if you're still coaching individuals, you haven't figured it out yet.

Endless learning.

Books, courses, masterminds. All valuable in theory. But when learning becomes the primary activity and coaching becomes the thing you'll get back to once you know enough, something has shifted.

None of these are inherently problematic.

Content can be useful. Credentials matter in some contexts. Scale can be strategic. Learning is essential.

But very often, these things become a way of staying busy without staying present. A way of feeling productive while avoiding the discomfort that comes with the actual work.

Why avoidance gets rewarded

 

The coaching industry actively rewards moving away from client work.

You get more visible when you're creating content than when you're in sessions.

You get more credibility when you're teaching than when you're practising.

You get more status when you've built a programme than when you've worked with someone for three years.

The market signal is clear: escape velocity is success.

And that signal is hard to resist.

Especially when staying close to client work is quiet. Ordinary. Harder to point to.

There's no Instagram post for "I held space for someone's uncertainty today and nothing resolved."

There's no applause for "I've been working with the same client for two years and the progress is subtle."

So it makes sense that coaches would start to believe that growth means distance.

That maturity means moving beyond the sessions.

That real professionals don't stay in the room — they scale out of it.

When avoidance starts as protection

I want to be careful here. Because I don't think most coaches are being strategic about avoiding client work.

I think they're often protecting themselves from something that feels increasingly difficult.

The uncertainty of not knowing if you're helping. The vulnerability of being seen in your practice. The discomfort of sitting with someone else's stuck place when you can't fix it.

The fear that maybe you're not as good at this as you thought you'd be.

Those feelings are real.

And reaching for something more controllable — a system, a framework, a content plan — is a completely understandable response.

Avoidance doesn't always mean you're lazy or uncommitted.

Sometimes it just means you're human.

But it's still worth naming.

Because when avoidance becomes the organising principle of your business, something essential gets lost.

The decision filter: Expansion or escape?

So how do you tell the difference?

How do you know if you're genuinely expanding your work or just finding sophisticated ways to avoid it?

Here are three questions I use:

1. Is this taking me closer to clients, or further away?

Not in terms of how many clients you have.

In terms of where your attention lives.

If you're building something, does it require you to stay in regular contact with the people you're serving? Or does it create distance between you and the actual work?

2. Am I building this because it serves the work, or because it feels safer than the work?

There's a difference between "this system will help me serve clients better" and "this system means I don't have to sit with as much uncertainty."

One is strategic. The other is avoidance wearing a professional costume.

3. Would I still want this if no one could see it?

If the thing you're building had no external visibility — no posts, no recognition, no proof that you're "levelling up" — would you still want it?

Or is part of the appeal that it looks like progress?

These aren't gotcha questions.

They're invitations to get honest with yourself about what's actually driving your choices.

What gets lost

When coaches drift too far from client work, a few things tend to happen.

Their thinking becomes more theoretical and less grounded. Their frameworks get tidier but less responsive to actual human complexity. They start talking about coaching more than they're doing it.

And over time, the gap between what they teach and what they practise starts to widen.

I've mentored hundreds of coaches over the past decade, and I've never stopped working with non-coach clients.

Not because I think everyone should do the same, but because I know what proximity gives me.

It keeps my thinking honest.

It reminds me what actually helps versus what just sounds good.

It grounds my teaching in lived practice, not theory.

And when I notice myself drifting — when systems or content start to feel more important than sessions — I treat that as a signal worth paying attention to.

The question worth asking

If you've been moving away from client work, I'm not suggesting you immediately course-correct.

But I do think it's worth asking:

  1. Is this expansion? Or is this escape?
  2. Am I growing toward something I genuinely want?
  3. Or am I growing away from something that's become uncomfortable?

Because very often, the thing that makes a coaching practice sustainable over decades isn't the scaling.

It's the willingness to stay close to the work.

Even when it's hard.

Even when it's ordinary.

Even when no one's watching.