Coaching Resources

A coach assembling her first formal onboarding packet has included the coaching resources template but hasn't filled it in. She plans to populate it during or after the first session based on what comes up.

Redirect before the template goes out blank. 'A resource list you fill out in session is a different tool than one you send in advance. The advance version signals that you already have a curated starting point for this client - it demonstrates preparation. The in-session version is just a notepad.' Have her identify three to five resources she recommends so consistently they belong in every onboarding packet, then work from there.

Watch whether she gravitates toward comprehensive over curated - listing ten resources because she doesn't want to miss anything. The tool's guidance is explicit: four to six focused resources outperform twenty. If her list is growing past six, ask her to cut it to the five she would recommend if she could only send five.

After completing the list, ask her to read each 'Why this resource' line aloud. If any of them sound generic - 'good overview of the topic,' 'widely recommended' - those entries aren't earning their spot. The annotation should tell the client something she wouldn't find on a book jacket. Weak annotations are a sign the resource was added out of obligation rather than conviction.

A coach has a standard resources document she distributes at onboarding. It lists eight books she personally values. She sends it to every client. Clients rarely mention reading any of them.

Surface the curation gap without dismissing the effort she has put in. 'A reading list that doesn't get used is not a resources problem - it is a targeting problem. The same eight books can't be equally useful to a burned-out VP, a new entrepreneur, and a career-changer. What would a list look like if it was built for the specific person you are starting with?' Have her use the template to build one version for each of her two or three most common client types.

Watch whether she resists creating multiple versions because it feels like more work. The practical solution is a modular approach - a core section that doesn't change plus one or two swap-out resources specific to the client's context. If she can identify three to four consistent swap-out resources per client type, the list becomes nearly as efficient as a single version.

Ask her to identify her last three clients and name one resource from her list that was specifically useful to each one. If she can name it - good, that becomes the model for matching. If she can't, ask: 'What did that client ask about most in sessions?' The answer almost always points to a resource she has but didn't think to include.

A coach with four years of practice consistently recommends books and frameworks in sessions but has never formalized them. Clients have to remember what was mentioned, write it down themselves, or ask again later. She has been meaning to create a formal list but hasn't prioritized it.

Use the current state as the starting point: 'You already have a list - it just exists in your head and in session notes rather than in a document. This is a transcription exercise, not a design exercise.' Have her pull up notes from her last five sessions and list every resource she mentioned. Those are the first candidates for the formal list.

Watch whether she tries to write 'Why this resource' annotations from scratch rather than mining her own session language. Her natural explanation to clients in session is often more precise and more useful than anything she would write cold. Ask: 'How did you describe this book the last time you recommended it?' That answer usually becomes the annotation.

After completing the list, ask her to think about the last client who benefited most from a between-session resource. What did they say about it? What changed in the following session? That story is the argument for maintaining and distributing the list consistently - and it is usually more compelling to her than the infrastructure rationale alone.