I prefer assessments that highlight strengths. The current literature on leadership development indicates developing one’s strengths is a more effective path than spending time and energy in developing weaker areas. I encourage my clients to work with those professionals who complement their strengths, rather than working with those who are similar. It provides another route to reducing the possible impact of their weaknesses and it reduces the homogeneity of perspective that can lead to group think.

My preference is for interview 360 assessments rather than online assessments. I get richer, more nuanced information and interviewing others kickstarts the change process for my clients. Later, I can check back with the folks I’ve interviewed to see how my coaching client is doing. I write a straightforward, bulleted report that contains examples of behavior either supportive or critical (if unidentifiable as to source) with interviewees’ comments from observing or experiencing the coaching client’s actions.

In addition, I recommend my clients tell their colleagues they are being coached, and ask for feedback. There are at least two reasons for this. First, it engages others in the process. Second, coaching in medicine has often been for “problem children,” or “disruptive physicians.” We’ve moving to coaching as something for high potentials and for those at the top who would like a trusted advisor.