Executive coaching & organizational diagnostics · Ogden, Utah

AI didn't create a technology problem. It created a leadership problem.

Executive coaching for leaders running organizations that are changing faster than the organizations were built to change — grounded in measurement rather than archetypes.

Book a 30-minute call Read The 6%
9 in 10
Of organizations use AI in at least one function
6%
Get more than 5% of operating profit from it — unchanged since 2025
75 : 25
Redesigned how work flows — leaders vs everyone else
1,719
Organizations surveyed across 97 countries

The separator is not the technology

McKinsey, The state of AI in 2026
August 2026 · 1,719 respondents · 97 nations
Read against the November 2025 survey, in which the 6% figure was also 6%

Every organization in that survey has access to substantially the same models at substantially the same price. The 6% did not buy better technology. Nearly three-quarters of them fundamentally redesigned how work flows through the organization. Among everyone else, one quarter did.

And that 6% is the same 6% McKinsey found a year earlier, in a survey it ran before the current generation of models shipped. Adoption rose over those twelve months. The share of organizations profiting from AI did not move by a point.

Redesigning how work flows is not a technical act. It means deciding who no longer approves something, which handoff disappears, what a role is now for, and who absorbs work that used to justify a headcount.

Those are leadership decisions. And they are made — or quietly refused — by leaders whose own authority is defined by the design they would have to change.

That is why this is a leadership problem, and why it does not get solved by another platform.

The work is developing leaders who can make those decisions, and measuring whether the organization around them can absorb the result. That is what this practice does.

What I do

Three ways in, one method underneath

01 — Individual

Executive Coaching

One-to-one work with senior leaders carrying a change larger than anything in their track record. Built on evidence about what actually moves follower commitment, not on personality archetypes or a franchise workbook.

How it works
02 — Team

Leadership Team Development

Most transformations fail in the layer between the executive decision and the people doing the work. That layer is a team, it has measurable properties, and it can be developed deliberately rather than hoped at.

How it works
03 — Organization

Organizational Diagnostics

Three tests: psychological capital, organizational network analysis, and a structural assessment of adaptive space. Two are validated instruments; the third is a disciplined way of looking, and is labelled as such. Find out whether the organization can carry a change before you finish paying for it.

See the instruments
Why this bench

Most coaches bring a certification. This brings doctoral research and seventeen years inside organizations built to resist change.

  • Original research, not a certificationDoctorate in Executive Leadership and Human and Organizational Learning, George Washington University. The dissertation surveyed 402 employees at two mid-cap companies and asked an unusual question: not what kind of leaders their bosses were, but what their bosses' leadership was doing to them. Follower-perceived servant leadership accounted for 44% of the variance in those employees' psychological capital. Tested against one another, the only dimension that predicted it over and above the rest was empowerment — not the mentoring-and-development dimension that almost every leadership programme is built around, which is the one I had predicted. The data disagreed, and that is what got published. The study, including its limitations.
  • Defense acquisition since 2009Budget and cost analysis on major programs — large, slow, high-consequence institutions where change is genuinely difficult and the consequences of getting it wrong are not theoretical. An analyst's vantage point rather than a command one, which is the honest description and also the more useful one.
  • Instruments where instruments exist, and plain speech where they don'tPsychological capital and organizational network analysis are established measures with peer-reviewed reliability data behind them. Complexity leadership theory is a diagnostic vocabulary, not a measure, and is described that way here rather than dressed up as one. Nothing on this site is a model I invented.
  • OtterBoxPresented to the OtterBox leadership team on site in June 2017, on servant leadership and psychological capital — the same two constructs the doctoral research went on to test against each other. Named with permission.
  • Ogden, UtahWorking with organizations across the Wasatch Front and the defense and aerospace corridor. In the room, not on a video call from another time zone.
What you are actually buying

Ask any coach what their method rests on.

Most will name a certification, a number of years, or a framework with their own name on it.

This practice rests on published research, some of it mine. Where the evidence is strong you will be shown it, with the numbers. Where it is thin — and in leadership research it is very often thin — you will be told that before you buy rather than after.

That is the whole difference. It is also why the diagnostics come first: if the measurement says the organization has nowhere for a new way of working to survive, no amount of coaching an individual leader will change it, and you should hear that in the first month rather than the sixth.

Free · No email required

The 6%

Ten pages on what separates the organizations that profit from AI from the 88% that only bought it — and the three diagnostics you can run on your own organization in thirty days without hiring anyone.

Read the report What's in it