Depending on the client’s objectives, I generally like to see them for at least two sessions, even if we make great progress in the first session. For some specific goals and challenges, change can happy quickly, but for other issues, progress may occur over two to four sessions on average, dependent on a number of factors.

I would strongly urge against being seduced by the promises of either quick-fix coaches, or those that think a coaching alliance should be spread out over several months (or even years).

Hopefully, even during our brief consultation, which should be able to agree on a plan of action and the maximum required sessions needed.

In short, both. I prefer to work in person, but with clients as far afield as the USA and Australia, this is not always the case. Therefore, for standard sessions I offer Zoom or in person appointments in Sidcup or when practical, the City of London. If client’s want me to travel to their place of work, if they are in the M25 they are usually required to book me for a minimum half-day, or will be billed for additional time and expense.

Sometimes, yes. As an integrative, solution focused coach, often I will incorporate a blended approach to my client work which may include asking clients to complete exercises, logs, questionnaires and so forth, to identify issues and measure and maintain progress. For the client who wants lasting change, rather than a temporary quick fix, this is never an issue.

I do not offer clients guarantees of success because some variables are out of my control. I do guarantee that I will always act in the interest of my client and use all my knowledge and experience to help them overcome challenges, achieve their goals, or find success in whatever it is they are coming to me to help them with.

Always try to be yourself. Sometimes, especially in times of insecurity or defensiveness, we project and hide behind an alternate version of ourselves. I want to get to know and help the real you. That is when real and often profound change happens.

If I am committing to helping a client, I expect them to commit fully to our work together. This means being open, engaged and prepared to undertake additional homework and exercises. Sometimes, the session work proves more than enough, but with a number of issues, that work will need to be continued in a client’s own time and work or home environment.

I am good at what I do and committed when I do it. Therefore, when we are working together, I expect a client to conduct themselves appropriately and with respect. I have no tolerance for unnecessary tardiness or for rudeness directed at myself or others. A continuously poor attitude in therapy is a strong precursor to failure.

This is more an issue in the therapy world, namely with cowboy hypnotists and hobbyist NLPers. There are situations where a coach needs little in terms of client background and history but, if a coach or therapist’s modus operandi is offering content-free changework I would certainly not recommend them. Often, these ‘agents of change’ will use a protocol they have been trained in (or made up themselves and train others in), may be selective in the subjects they choose to work ‘on’ and pass off socially compliant responses as fixes.

Again more focused on the snake-oil hypnotists and NLP practitioners, both professional modalities are awash with trainers and therapists offering panacea protocols they may claim to: resolve an issue in one session (sometimes seconds or minutes), work entirely content free, resolve virtually any issue, or have a 100% success rate (the protocol or the agent). My advice would be to give it some very serious thought before enlisting the help of any therapist or coach making such claims. I am not averse to protocols per se, or particular ways and processes of working, but the panacea, quick fix protocols are the commodity of the deluded or dishonest trainer and therapist and individuals that should be avoided like the plague.

Sometimes you will find someone who genuinely works with famous stars, sportsmen and sportswomen, public figures and so forth. I personally know a few fellow coaches and therapists who do work with well-known clients, and even I have helped the odd household name over the years. Unfortunately, I know lots more coaches and therapists who tell blatant lies, make false claims, or have stretched any semblance of truth regarding ‘celebrity work’ so far as it has no bearing. There are also those who disingenuously like to give the impression of moving in certain circles with daft statements such as ‘let’s just say it was a big garden and there were quite a few corgis running around’ or a selfie with a celeb combined with a not-so-cryptic comment. Client confidentiality is of paramount importance, but it is also the means by which dishonest people can make such bold statements unchallenged. If it seems too good to be true, it generally is, so be wary of any individuals trying to get as much mileage out of questionable statements that can’t be corroborated.

(*Or any very high percentile) Other claims that are very hard to corroborate are those statements boasting a near flawless success rate. Certainly, some coaches, especially those who niche or who have a background in their speciliased fields, are very good at what they do, but even genuine experts would struggle to fully demonstrate a consistently near perfect track record working with clients. There are just too many variables at play. Some just plain make it up and even those working with some semblance of truth, when making such claims have selective ways of establishing success and ones that are skewed in their favour (using socially compliant responses, flawed metrics, putting the blame on the client, no following up etc.). Some even count a successful client as a client who has just shown up, which when doing large groups, can subjectively skew favourable statistics through the roof. Do not be afraid to grill the person you may be investing time and money in, on any claims of success and how the numbers are established. A good coach or therapist will be honest and welcome the scrutiny.

Incredibly, in the snake-oil playgrounds that are social media and the less than scrupulous coaching bodies, hypnosis and NLP organisations and industry conferences, this sort of statement is not as rare as one would think.
Worryingly, as questionable as these claims would be even if we were focusing on total attendance numbers to group events and not being fast and loose with the definition of ‘helped’, there are actually loads of changeworkers attributing these numbers to individual client or session hours. Maybe someone could see 40,000 people over a twenty year period, with an average weekly group size of 38 attendees week in week out (and assuming they did not have any weeks off in that twenty years) it certainly seems unlikely, but it is doable, but even if the figure of 40,000 (or whatever s being claimed) how do they determine all those attendees were helped? For starters it is assuming a 100% success rate (see above) and almost certainly would prove a logistical pain in the arse following up those client numbers. But worse, there are a number of coaches, therapists (and trainers) claiming to have seen this volume of face to face, one on one clients. When you crunch those numbers, the story becomes pure fantasy. Anyone claiming to have helped 40,000 people or given 40,000 hours of one on one coaching or therapy over a twenty year career, would have to see 7 people a day, 6 days a week, week in week out (including 28 days annual leave). Yet people in the coaching, NLP and hypnosis community and prospective clients (especially through the skewed lense of social media) lap this nonsense up. If something sounds outlandish – do the maths and apply the data into a realistic real-world scenario. There are prolific coaches and therapists out there, but for a profession where the average life coach or hypnotherapist sees less than eight clients a week, if something sounds too good to be true it almost, always is.

Many NLPers and hypnotists (but primarily biased and uneducated trainers and their students) are unduly dismissive of Cognitive therapy, psychotherapy, solution focused and strategic coaching and other talk therapies. They like to conflate interventions such as SI or CBT with cliched notions of counselling and stories of fixing clients stuck in years of therapy. Firstly, CBT, CBC, SI, nor the practitioners using them are perfect, but no interventions or coaches are – but in the case of CBT, it does have the most evidence based studies to support it’s efficacy and is promoted by the NHS, charities and even big names in the hypnosis world.
Secondly, a coach or therapist (in this case usually hypnotherapists) will only ever see instances where other therapy has failed for a client and in my experience, poorly trained hypnotists have contributed to my client base far more than their CBT counterparts.
A CBT therapist, or a knowledgeable coach who uses cognitive behaviourable principles, can be incredibly effective in resolving a number of issues and will educate and teach clients how to continue to develop and move forward beyond their sessions together. This is the way I like to work.