The Coaching Session I Didn't Expect

I sat in a circle with four people asking me questions...and I couldn't respond.

That was the rule: just listen, just sit with it. My only job was to receive.

Time moved so slowly it legit felt broken.

And that's when I realized something I hadn't expected to learn that day: slow-moving time is an indicator of transformation happening.

The Session Itself

The format was deceptively simple.

A day-long training, roughly forty people, two coaches, three admin assistants. The day was structured as a progression: one-on-one conversations first, then small group work, then larger collective sessions. The whole thing was deliberately paced. You couldn't skip to the deep work. The trust had to be built first.

The first thing that surprised me was alignment. Their organizational values — how they said they served clients — matched exactly how they ran the session. Most organizations preach one thing and operate another.

Most training programs talk about psychological safety while running sessions that feel like performance reviews. This was different. The structure itself was the message.

Five people. One person in the middle is describing a challenge. The other four ask questions. The person in the middle cannot respond — only listen.

When it was my turn, I talked about a challenge I've been dreading. Something coming up in six months. I framed it as a future problem. Not urgent. Something to deal with later.

The four people asked their questions. I sat there and received them.

Then someone asked: "Why are you putting it at six months? What can you do right now that would address that?"

Boom. Nailed it. That one broke through my defenses.

I'd been giving myself permission to ignore the problem by putting it in the future. I was deferring action with a calendar. And the reality, which I saw clearly only in that forced silence, was that I could do something about it today. Something that would make the problem I was anticipating not even exist by the time it arrived.

I didn't get that insight from the words. I got it from the space around them.

What I Learned About Timing in Conversation

Most people assume a gap in conversation is a problem. Something went wrong. Fill the space. Keep it moving.

That instinct is almost always wrong.

Michael Bungay Stanier, who wrote The Coaching Habit, frames it as a discipline:

"Stay curious a little longer, rush to action and advice-giving a little more slowly."

He's specific about what that means in practice: after you ask a question, ask just one question, and then be quiet while you wait for the answer. Not two questions. Not a follow-up. One, and then silence.

That silence is where the work happens. Not in the asking. In the waiting.

Edgar Schein, who spent his career studying organizational psychology and developed the concept of humble inquiry, put it more precisely:

"Everything you do next will be an intervention, even if you just stay in a silent observer mode, and will convey some aspect of your purpose to the other."

The point is that silence is not inaction. Silence is a move. Choosing to hold back is the to the other person, that you trust them to find the answer, that you're not rushing them, that you believe the answer exists if they sit with the question long enough.

A well-placed pause doesn't fill the air. It opens the space. It shifts the balance of power from the coach to the person being coached.

Here's the principle I've been working on: the faster a conversation goes, the lighter it is.

If you're jamming on something topical, surface stuff, news, small talk, you can talk for a long time. Nothing changes. You're not growing. You're just talking.

Transformation requires a different kind of conversation. Slower. More challenging. The kind where time moves strangely.

You build that by finding the right people, prompting the right topic, establishing enough trust that someone will say what they actually mean, and then getting out of the way and letting silence do the work.

We've all had the experience of leaving a difficult conversation and thinking the next day: I should have said that. You always have the answer afterward, when you're detached from the situation. The challenge isn't having the answer. It's having it at the right moment, in the room, when it counts.

The solution isn't to think faster. It's to slow the conversation down so that the right time extends long enough for the answer to surface.

I'm still learning how to do this. In that session, I asked questions at the wrong moments. I was sometimes too quick to offer an observation when I should have waited. I asked binding questions, the kind that narrowed the space instead of opening it. You don't know until you try (I tried!). But I noticed it, which means I'll do it differently next time.

Business Applications

I've sat through a lot of early stage founder presentations that fail for timing reasons that have nothing to do with the business.

Someone opens a fundraising conversation by leading with the ask, numbers, terms, round size, before they've established why the product exists. They haven't given the investor time to understand the problem. They've jumped to the solution before the foundation was in place. The investor isn't ready to care about the ask yet. The pitch fails not because the business is bad but because the conversation moved in the wrong sequence.

The same thing happens with TAM slides. A founder presents a total addressable market that's effectively "everyone on Earth" before they've shown a single real customer or piece of feedback. The ambition isn't wrong. The placement is. You've asked me to believe in scale before I believe in the idea.

The feedback version of this is just as common in management. A leader says to a team member: "That was bad, don't do it again." That's feedback, technically. But there's no space in it for the other person. No invitation to engage with the critique, to own the diagnosis, to build a better version. The timing of that delivery, without context, without discovery, without letting the person breathe, means the feedback lands as a verdict, not a conversation.

Better framing: "That was less than optimal. How would you make it better?" You're still critiquing. But you've created room. You've shifted the posture from "I'm evaluating you" to "we're solving this together." The insight that comes from that space is one they own, which means it actually changes behavior.

The "six months" trap shows up everywhere in startups.

• "We'll fix the technical debt next quarter."
• "We'll have the hard co-founder conversation after this fundraise."
• "We'll hire a real CFO when we hit ten million ARR."

Every one of those statements is a decision to defer what you could address today by framing it as someone else's problem, a future version of you who will somehow have more capacity, more time, more courage.

Meanwhile, the debt compounds. The co-founder relationship fractures. The financials are a mess exactly when you're trying to raise on them.

This isn't about being relentless or urgency theater. It's about recognizing the difference between a problem you've genuinely scheduled and a problem you've given yourself permission to ignore.

The question someone asked me in that circle cut through all of it: why are you putting it at six months?

The Pause is The Strategy

In racing, you don't attack every moment. You wait for the right one.

Exploding too early wastes your legs. Filling every kilometer with maximum effort means you have nothing left when the decisive moment comes. The discipline is knowing when to push and when to sit in, when to accelerate and when to let the gap do the work.

Conversation works the same way. You don't fill every silence. You let some of them breathe.

Slow-moving time is an indicator of transformation happening. When a conversation feels heavy and slow and like it's taking genuine effort, that's not a sign something is wrong. That's a sign you've gotten somewhere real.

The faster it goes, the lighter it is.

Timing isn't just about when to act. It's about refusing to defer what you can do today. But it's also about not moving so fast that you skip the space where understanding lives.

The person who asked me "why are you putting it at six months?" gave me no information. They just created a question I had to sit with. That was enough.

--

PS - What are you putting at six months that you could address today?