I’ve found myself using this distinction more and more in coaching conversations:
Range, not change.
I’m seeing it as a far more productive lens for people who are struggling with development and growth, because the unspoken message that people often hear with “change” is:
“You were wrong. You failed to understand. The way you have been doing things is inadequate. Something about you needs correcting”
Once they hear this, survival kicks in and resistance follows.
Interestingly, this still seems to apply when it’s self-directed:
“I was wrong. I failed to understand. The way I have been doing things is inadequate. Something about me needs correcting”
What I’m seeing though is leading me to think that people may not be resisting development, as much as they are resisting the implied judgement that they hear.
Range, by contrast shifts the invitation from “you were wrong” to “that made sense then, what else is needed now”
and that is a significantly different conversational frame.
A belief may have been valid in the context in which it was formed.
A way of being may have protected you.
A habit may have helped you succeed.
A pattern may have given you belonging.
A strategy may have kept you safe.
It does not have to be stupid, broken, or false for it to become too small.
A decisive leader may not need to stop being decisive. They may need to add listening.
An expert may not need to become less competent. They may need to add the capacity to say, “I don’t know.”
A founder may not need to care less about the business. They may need to add delegation without feeling erased.
That is not change as replacement. That is range as expansion.
This sits right at the heart of the thinking behind my previous book Start with Who.
Rather than seeing behaviour as an isolated problem, let’s instead begin with the “who” for which that behaviour is coherent.
Who am I being? What am I taking care of?
What matters to me here? What do I believe is at stake?
What identity am I protecting? What context am I inside?
From this perspective, behaviour is not random.
The controlling leader may be protecting quality.
The pleasing manager may be protecting approval.
The detached executive may be protecting composure.
None of this means the behaviour is effective, but it does mean the behaviour makes sense. It is congruent for that observer, at that moment in time, in that context.
This is where the developmental conversation can begin without “making wrong”
It is not:
What is wrong with you?
It is:
How does this way of being and doing make sense?
and then, the key distinction:
Is it still enough?
What was this belief taking care of?
What did this behaviour make possible?
What did this pattern protect?
What did this identity organise?
Understanding why something made sense is not the same as excusing its current cost.
It simply gives us a better place to work from.
A strength becomes a prison when it becomes the only move you trust. Your life ends up on invisible railway tracks.
The reliable person becomes unable to ask for help.
The independent person becomes isolated.
The caring person becomes conflict-avoidant.
The intelligent person becomes over-analytical.
The resilient person becomes emotionally unavailable.
The principled person becomes rigid.
The issue is not that these qualities are bad, it is rather that without range, they become compulsory. They stop being choices and become identities.
The version of myself I am most practised at being, is not necessarily the whole of who I am.
It may simply be the safest version.
The most rewarded version.
The most familiar version.
The most defended version.
Range does not ask me to become fake, it does ask me to examine whether my concept of authenticity has become too small.
So perhaps the better coaching question is not simply:
What needs to change?
But:
What range is missing?
and underneath that:
what identity concern makes that range difficult?
People do not lack range because they lack technique, they lack range because a particular move threatens who they believe themselves to be.
The senior leader cannot ask for help because help feels like weakness.
The expert cannot say “I don’t know” because competence has become identity.
The coach cannot challenge because being liked has become safety.
Change matters, but it’s often range that more effectively produces the change that you are looking for
Range does not make the past stupid. Instead, it makes the past coherent but incomplete.
And maybe that is why this distinction matters to me.
People want to grow without having to despise who they have been.
Managing Partner: The Works Partnership, The Coach Partnership. Program Consultant: WEGVISOR Author: Start With Who. Co-author: Fit To Lead. Editor: The Purple Book of Coaching