Claus,

1. Some overlap is actually 90%. Being sort of “agile coach” is a managerial style suitable for knowledge and creative based companies. Those remaining 10% are typically differences in accountability — manager is accountable while coach is not. Once coach control everything else, there is no reason to keep also manager aboard.
2. I appreciate to learn about those good ones transformations, I would appreciate example. I have mentioned I seek actively for them for 10 years. As long as primary objective of the organization will be keeping share price high on the stock exchange, they will unlikely sucessful in agile. Greed, politics etc will remain as before only in more sophisticated manner. Or do you think that organization that plays with Scrum in R&D can be agile if its procurement department is cheating on suppliers? Or their product is designed to cheat on customers providing false sense of value?

This is the reason why I think initiatives like agile transformation are wrong from principle. Organization either choose deliberately it will be well managed and organized and it will treat stakeholders more less equally, which is the role of senior executives. Or it will focus on maximizing profits no matter what, involve politics, KPIs, budgets and “control mechanism” that prevents trust, transparency, … and in such environment no agile technique nor army of coaches will help. They will join the crowd to maximize their personal return. This is currently happening in most large organizations, where large consultancies established. The way out of this is having quality leaders/managers capable of undertanding higher purpose (green to teal). We have shortage of good people in management.