The death of Sir Edmund Hillary gave a number of leader writers in the papers pause for reflection. The Times was magisterial as ever. One quote stands out from an article well worth reading in it's entirety.

In the final episode of David Attenborough's seminal Life on Earth series, which he devoted to homo sapiens, he called us “compulsive communicators”. We are. But we are also compulsively inquisitive, and restless. When humans lose the urge to roam they will have lost a large part of their humanity.

As coaches surely our role is to help our clients find the time and space to be inquisitive and restless?

Each individual has to identify and tackle their personal 'Everest' at work or at home or at play. When we stand on the peak we might often see further challenges ahead but we are confident in the knowledge that having made this first successful ascent we are equipped with the capability and capacity to make the next ascent. And as Hillary and Tenzing's example shows we are very rarely alone when we do.

Working with a senior executive or chief executive? As he/she talks about themselves and their business listen for how they use the first person singular (I) and first person plural (we) in the conversation. They are like signposts in a coaching session – but you need to explore where those signposts are actually pointing and then help the individual as they seek to find the best balance between the two.

If the individual is relatively new into post then you might expect ‘I’ to be the predominant personal pronoun. It is very much about the personal journey of exploration and discovery as they enter a new environment and culture and begin to seek to make sense of it and impose their own mark within it. Challenge them to begin to use ‘we’ within the coaching conversation. What does ‘we’ mean in this context? What does it take to move from ‘I’ to ‘we’? What are the respective impacts of the use ‘I’ and ‘we’ on colleagues and subordinates?  What will be the right balance between ‘we’ and ‘I’ and how will they know?

If they are using ‘we’ already then what does this mean? Who are ‘we’ – describe or map them explicitly? Are these representative of the organisation and culture of the organisation or are there people missing from ‘we’?

A more experienced executive might well be using ‘we’ more often than ‘I’. They will have an established team and the culture and values will have permeated and embedded the individual – the process of cultural acclimatisation and alignment is complete. They will often be subordinating ‘I’ to ‘we’. Challenge them to test whether their colleagues and subordinates have the same perception of ‘we’. Is this just the ‘royal we’ – ‘I’ in disguise? Who is ‘we’- get them to be specific? You might find the individual hiding behind ‘we’ – this is what ‘we’ think; this is what ‘we’ do; this is ‘our’ approach to development. Make them use the ‘I’ in the conversation. How does this feel? What do ‘I’ need to do rather than what do ‘we’ need to do? At the extremes the ‘we’ executive may have subordinated him/herself entirely to the perceived greater good and be missing the opportunity for personal development and growth by allowing themselves to use ‘I’ from time to time.

Of course you may find that the experienced executive is actually using ‘I’ more often – in which case test what this means. How do they feel when using ‘we’? What lies beneath? Are they feeling isolated or out of alignment with the organisation? Have they reached a point where they realise that they need to be a little bit ‘selfish’ in terms of personal development and space if they are to continue to perform effectively? Or do they regard their peers and subordinates with some degree of paternalism or even contempt.

Sometimes ‘we’ is an excuse for inaction and powerlessness in the face of adversity. As the team huddles together like penguins in the chill Antarctic winds the helplessness of ‘we’ masks the personal responsibility for action that can be generated by ‘I’.

Do not overlook the power of the personal pronoun!