I want to be honest with you about something.

When I started my doctoral research, I had a plan. I was going to study leaders of diverse communities, identify what was working, and build a replicable coaching framework that other leaders could use. Clean, practical, exportable.

That’s not what happened.

The more time I spent with the leaders in my research — listening to them, watching them work, analyzing what actually made them effective — the clearer it became that a pre-packaged framework was exactly the wrong approach.

Here’s why.

Coaching is fundamentally client-centered. The coach doesn’t set the agenda — the person being coached does. A good coach doesn’t arrive with a predetermined map of where someone needs to go. They help the person in front of them figure out where they want to go, and then support them in getting there.

The moment I tried to build a fixed framework, I was working against that principle.

What my research revealed instead was more useful — and more honest. The leaders who were most effective weren’t following a program. They were doing deep relational work. Building trust slowly and deliberately. Staying curious about the people around them. Developing themselves continuously, even without formal support. And working according to their own skills and context.

The practices that actually work aren’t programmatic. They’re personal.
This has a direct implication for how organizations approach diversity and culture. We keep building frameworks and launching initiatives — and then wondering why the culture doesn’t change. The answer, more often than not, is that we invested in the program and underdeveloped the person running it.

A better framework won’t fix that. Better leaders will.