“Coaching Works, We Have Proof”
By Mary Wayne Bush
Hi, everyone! I’m Mary Wayne Bush, and I work in Coaching Research under the moniker ‘The Foundation of Coaching.’
True to our name, we believe that research is important ‚Äì foundational, actually Рin building a body of knowledge to support the claims that we make as coaches.
What are these claims? For one, that coaching works. For another, that coaching works as well as, or better than other forms of “helping” (training, mentoring, therapy (in some cases). Or that coaching ‚Äö√Ñ√¨ and coaches ‚Äö√Ñ√¨ comes from a theoretical framework that shows up in how we coach, and what we aim for in coaching.
There are also questions to be answered, for our own information to further our development as coaches and to continually improve our field. These kinds of questions are wide-ranging, like: “Is coaching different in different cultures?”“Is one method or school of coaching more effective in certain cases than others?”
“What is the impact of using telephone coaching as compared to ‘in person’ coaching?”
“What happens 6 weeks/6 months/6 years after a successful coaching engagement – is success maintained over time or do the results taper off after a while?”
The answer to these broad questions can inform the whole field and help us all to become better coaches by sharing the results and best practices.
The questions that we ask about the field of coaching are not just for academics or scientists. We believe that it is important for coaches to be savvy about research so they can examine their own practices and add valuable data to marketing and training ‚Äö√Ñ√¨ and their own development! This is the model of the “scholar-practitioner”: a coach who regularly reflects and examines his or her own practice using short research projects.
So ‚Äö√Ѭ∂ what are the kinds of questions that YOU are interested in asking about your practice (or about coaching in general)? What would help take your practice to the next level of excellence, or help you reach more people, or feel more confident about what you are offering? Let us know ‚Äö√Ñ√¨ post a comment and we’ll be sure to consider it!
Comment by we coach on 18 April 2008:
What blissful post-modern complexity is coaching and if, where, how, and why it works! Shades of gray abound in our coaching practices (in no matter what field or domain we practice) and we acknowledge and even embrace this “blurriness” yet spend (and many students of the field) oodles of time considering if there is a “right” black or white answer to those questions. I suspect we all know that sometimes coaching doesn’t “work”‚Äö√Ѭ∂ and sometimes there isn’t a “right” way to define it. We love it because, more than not, it does do something very positive, very inspiring, and very new for those who have discovered and so-named it. We are afraid of linking it to an existing (process/relationship/profession) definition perhaps because it may mean – or be – criticism. We are desperate to build definition to help us explain, market and legitimize the concept.
Based on my gleaning of this thread so far and your thoughts therein, I have this resulting definition: ‚Äö√Ñ√∫Coaching is an informative, thought-provoking and creative process or relationship that inspires alignment, effectiveness and implementation of (client’s) personal and professional potential‚Äö√Ѭ∂‚Äö√Ñ√π (a definition which certainly won’t be “right”, but I’m provoked into sharing and joining the conversation).
Based on that definition (as a case in point) are we not “coaching” each other in some form in this forum? We cannot really provide advice here and are egoless even as we spout opinion, hunches and options… we are engaged in informative, thought-provoking and creative process. Delightful! Coaching is, as I see it, related to many parts of current social phenomena where dynamic relationships and processes provide opportunity for information, thought-provocation and creation.
Thanks to you for providing pieces of these above definitions.
On the verb/noun front, my preferred term is “coaching”: it is an “ing” word, and therefore a very comfortable “action noun” (gerund). Thus, it is, in this form, partly noun and/or verb… and I like it that way. Coaching is so named, and so works <> when it is “informed” through theory and practice, and <> it is enough that it just is a relationship or a process that works for people in a “coaching” way (that is aligning, effective implementation). This is very broad – but some of us can be (and are) paid handsomely for providing it.
In my professional case… I am well-experienced, well-educated, well-liked and certainly successful _______ (I typically fill in the blank with one of about 20 terms that fit the niche in which I work). I sometimes say we coach, sometimes call myself a coach, but I am <> coaching (using the above definition). Like most successful people involved in coaching, I am very well respected for my own unique and diverse set of experiences, interests and credentials (none of which is specific to coaching). Given that, I have had no idea which “profession” “conference” “association” “community” or “certification” to link myself to – I pay no fees, have no cards, and yet I feel and am identified as connected to these communities anyway. I wish I could link them all together, and maybe that is a calling emerging for those involved in coaching and these discussions…
Comment by Mary Wayne Bush on 13 April 2008:
Hi, Vikki – while I haven’t personally seen as much evidence that coaches talk “disparagingly about othe professions”, your post reminded me of Esra Ozkan’s comment that coaches spend more time distinguishing what coaching IS NOT than what it IS (i.e. “Coaching is not therapy” “Coaching is not mentoring” “Coaching is not consulting”, etc.) Could it be this focus on “distinguishing” that is coming across as “disparaging” to some?
Comment by Rey Carr on 2 April 2008:
Hi, Linda:
I like the idea you have about examining the relationship between executive coaching and coaching in sports. Since you are seeking possible participants for your study, we might be able to help you find qualified people in our Peer Resources Network and coaching mailing list.
In order to determine whether your study qualifies for distributing a request, we have established criteria on our website at http://www.peer.ca/researchguides.html
If you’d like to review them and let us know your answers to those questions, we can start the process of considering letting our members know. To be clear, we receive more requests than we accept as many graduate students (and other researchers) have not done enough pre-work to make it worth our members time to participate.
Best wishes
Rey Carr
Comment by Linda Melnick on 2 April 2008:
Good afternoon to all,
As indicated earlier, I am conducting research on executive coaching for my master’s which explores how a sport background fits within this profession.
The title of my research is “From Playing Surface to Workplace: Exploring the Impact of Sport Coaching on Executive Coaching effectiveness and approach.
I am sending out this posting to enquire if there is anyone who would be willing to be part of my research. Participants must have previous elite coaching experience and have been an executive coach for no less than 6 months.
I am conducting qualitative research that consists of an hour long interview and some follow up.
If anyone is interested please email me at the following email address. Linda.Melnick@guelphleadership.com
Comment by Linda Melnick on 31 March 2008:
Hi,
Thank you for the above replies.
In response to your comment John – there is no doubt that having business expertise is important to the effectivenss of an executive coach. In fact Berman & Bradt (2006) believe that “training or experience in the upper levels of the business world is essential to developing the capability to help corporate leaders with a broad range of needs and situations in which they find themselves” (p. 244). Just because I know how to coach volleyball, doesn’t mean that technically I can coach football…..but I would argue that credible and authentic sport coaches can motivate, goal set, capitalize on strengths, collaborate, problem-solve, enhance teamwork….which regardless of the sport are essential ingredients for performance improvements.
I have found, as indicated by Vikki that different professional disciplines in an attempt to determine effectiveness “talk disparingly about other professions” e.g. Found in an article in Harvard Business review “many executive coaches especially those who draw their inspiration from sport, sell themselves as purveyors of simple answers and quick results (2007). That was one of the nicer ones!
Most of the literature consistly repeats that there is no true definition of what makes for an effective executive coach – yes there are characteristics and skills that appear to be more valuable than others. Really in many cases it is about fit in addition to expertise.
Although I am not currently an executive coach I have coached in sport for many years and have spent the last 6 years working as a business manager and am thinking this may be a career change for me. True to the literature on executive coaching regarding psychology – I am not educated in ways to deal with an executive who many have an underlying psychological issues – but as stated by Kilburg, (2004) if the “focus of executive coaching nearly always remains on how to help people who have already demonstrated a great deal of competence and success get better at what they do” (p. 202). Then maybe the fit for me does exist. Hence – the reason for my research.
Thanks
Linda
Comment by Stacey Basting on 31 March 2008:
David,
I’m intrigued by the idea of coaches as artisans. Having come to coaching from the field of education, I have witnessed the negative consequences (No Child Left Behind) of what may have begun as a well intentioned call for standardization and quantification. I being to wonder…Does the pursuit of quantification truly serve us our efforts in the field of coaching? What needs might it not be meeting? How might a non-scientific metaphor enhance our research efforts?
I can’t seem to pull up the COACHING journal on the web. Can you provide more info on how to find your article?
Comment by John Agno on 29 March 2008:
Linda,
Successful sports coaches have been good team leaders on the court or field but that does not translate directly to excellence in executive coaching and mentoring…probably because they lack the corporate experience of being a general management leader in a business climate.
For the desired characteristics of an executive coach, go to: http://www.MENTORINGandCOACHING.com and click on “personal coaching” at the top left of the home page.
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 28 March 2008:
Hi Linda,
I am completing my dissertation research on the history of coaching and have seen sports coaches portrayed as teachers and instructors rather than coaches as they are defined in business or personal coaching. In my research I found that Tim Gallwey, author of The Inner Game of Tennis (1974) merged performance coaching with humanistic and transpersonal psychology principles. It is his approach that has been brought into business and personal coaching.
In 1986, Werner Erhard, with Jim Selman, brought together sports coaches Tim Gallwey, “Red” Auerbach, John Wooden, and George Allen to identify the uniform distinctions of coaching regardless of the subject being coached. I actually saw the video of this discussion. They were talking about coaching as a paradigm for interpersonal communication.
What I find in executive, leadership, business and personal coaching is that we have tended to talk disparagingly about other professions in an effort to legitimize what we are doing as different and somehow better. What this does is diminish our credibility as human beings and coaches. This may be what you have seen in the literature of executive coaching.
Comment by Mary Wayne Bush on 28 March 2008:
Hi, Linda – can you say more or cite some sources where, as you say, “how negatively the sport coach is portrayed within the executive coaching domain.”? I am aware that there is not a lot of cross-over or reference to sports coaching in the executive coaching literature (outside of some notable exceptions by Tim Gallwey and Sir John Whitmore), but I wasn’t aware that there was a NEGATIVE spin…
Comment by Linda Melnick on 28 March 2008:
Hi,
I am currently completing my MA Leadership and working on my major research project. The purpose of the research is to explore how one’s sport background and earlier career coaching high performance athletes is believed to impact one’s approach and effectiveness in a later career as a Executive Coach. I have completed a fairly extensive literature review and having been an elite women’s volleyball coach I was quite astounded how negatively the sport coach is portrayed within the executive coaching domain. I am interested in any perspectives that people may have as I move forward with my research.
Thanks
Linda
Comment by Mary Wayne on 19 March 2008:
Jonathan – good point about the need for clarifying boundaries as the coaching field (or perhaps just the label) grows. I think this goes back to the need for a definition as well.
Comment by David Drake on 17 March 2008:
In time we may see increased distinctions between the noun of coaches and the verb of coaching, between form and function. As such, I join with Francine and Mary Wayne in exploring markers on a spectrum. As I shared in a response to one of Linda’s posts,
“One option for coaching is to borrow from the distinctions (and continuum) that have emerged in psychology between psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed therapists, unlicensed but trained therapists, therapeutic professionals, therapeutic volunteers, peer support, and self-help resources.
I foresee that as the field of coaching matures, it will eventually yield similar categories that formally distinguish among various levels and types of coaching providers. As a result, new forms of professional communities will arise across the SPECTRUM of people who identify with coaching.”
Comment by jsibley on 17 March 2008:
Two thoughts:
First, might it be time to break this thread off of “Coaching works, we have proof” and let it stand by itself with a new heading?
Second, I just reviewed a thread on a discussion board of psychotherapists that was entitled “Coaching is dangerous.” Essentially, a rather long discussion revolved around how much (or little) training coaches receive compared to other, regulated helping professions and how well-trained coaches are (or aren’t) to recognize when a client has more serious issues that should be addressed in therapy.
I bring this up because, it seems to me, the more we allow for naturally gifted, but untrained coaches, the more important it seems to me to be clear about the boundaries within which they operate – both for the sake of clients and for the way the profession is viewed by other key stakeholders in the wellness arena.
Comment by Mary Wayne on 17 March 2008:
Francine – I like your idea of a continuum. What it makes me wonder is: where is the line of “professionalism” drawn? For instance, would one end of this continuum be “professional coaches/helpers” and the other end be “good friends” or even “good listeners”?
This sparks so many questions for me about the essential empowereing aspect (or “offer”) of coaching: is it the orientation toward action and accountability? Or the supportive relationship between coach and coachee? Or the deep listening and presence for the coachee’s concerns? Or – all of the above?
Comment by jsibley on 12 March 2008:
Yes, let’s add in the category of people who coach and have no formal training in coaching, as I have certainly heard that there are people who say they are coaches and do not have specific training in coaching (there is also the process of coaching, which we all do in certain settings, without thinking to call ourselves coaches).
Yet, in many places (but not all), we can’t just call ourselves psychotherapists without proper training; and, even if we talk to people and help them, it wouldn’t usually be called psychotherapy unless there was a foundation of specific training.
So, what does it say about coaching as a field and/or profession if we consider “lay” coaches to be just another type of coach, or are we making some sort of distinction? [This is not a rhetorical question]
Comment by Francine on 10 March 2008:
Permit me to play with Jonathan’s typology idea and Rey, Linda and Gail’s comments on “lay” people. What about the possibility of a continuum of helpers that transcends a particular theoretical field and is based more on the underpinnings of an individual coach’s approach? e.g.
coaches who intuitively draw on their own life lessons and experiences to help others
coaches who combine life lessons and familiar practices from their professional training (in any non-coaching field) to help others
coaches who have internalized relevant principles and theories from coaching-related fields (e.g. therapy, adult education, organization development, etc.) and intentionally apply these in combination with life experiences to help others.
coaches who have studied empirically-based coaching theories and models and intentionally apply these in combination with life and other professional experiences to help others.
There’s no hierarchy implied here- only a continuum from intuitive to evidence-based. This admittedly side-steps the issue of how people can make informed decisions about the best fit coach. It also doesn’t get to a critical unknown about coaching, which is what aspects of coaching most likely have the greatest positive impact on facilitating change? Re: the best fit question though, I am often asked by potential clients about what my philosophy of coaching is. If I were to place myself along the above proposec continum, I could formulate an answer based on my beliefs about the human change process, the knowledge base and types of practices I bring to coaching and what I believe to be the areas where I may be of greatest assistance to an individual.
Comment by Gail Blesch on 7 March 2008:
Rey Carr, I’m so glad you stepped in and added to the helper categories by including ‘lay’ people. I’ve often believed that the reason the ‘life coaching profession’ has grown so large, so quickly is that in our current society people are feeling more disconnected while needing connections more than ever. As family and social networks have become strained due to time and physical constraints, the need to find a safe place to discuss experiences, define problems and cultivate solutions, express ideas, goals and dreams, has grown. A hunger that pervasive will push to be satisfied in one form or another. Social media sites are another emerging ‘industry’ born of the same need. I often wonder if this is why coaching struggles with its identity and why many coaches struggle in the marketplace when what they provide is in some ways a replacement for what friends, family, and social networks have historically provided.
Comment by Linda Ballew on 7 March 2008:
Great point, Rey! I guess I assumed Jonathan was referring to types of coaches or other professionals when he referred to three “types of helpers.”
Your comment jogged my memory, thanks. I had a ballet instructor who had a major “coaching” impact on me as a child/ adolescent – she was the first person who saw potential in me and said so almost every time I was with her. She was a mentor, coach and teacher who really believed in me before I knew how to believe in myself. I think we all have times in our lives that we have the opportunity to coach, and times when we have the opportunirty to receive coaching. And there are many different ways that coaching comes to us. Thank goodness!
Comment by Rey Carr on 6 March 2008:
I’m not sure I really understand the point of jsibley’s comment about types of helpers. I think where I have trouble is in the idea presented that there are three types of helpers available to people who want to make progress in their lives. Missing from the list is the type that is the most prevalent and widely-used around the world, and responsible for helping with probably 90% of the kinds of dilemmas people experience: friends, family and social networks. The majority of “psychological issues” experienced by people are dealt with by “lay” people, not by therapists or coaches with or without therapy training. In addition, most coaches have no training, and I’m surprised that category wasn’t included.
Pingback by ‚Äö√Ñ√∫Coaching Works, We Have Proof‚Äö√Ñ√π « Econom‚àö‚â†a, management y coaching on 6 March 2008:
[...] We Have Proof” Publicado el Marzo 6, 2008 por Leonardo Esteban Ravier Comentario a “Coaching Works, We Have Proof”, de Mary Wayne Bush, Ed.D. The Coaching [...]
Comment by jsibley on 6 March 2008:
Francine, there are at least three types of “helpers” available to people who want to make progress of some kind (from being less depressed or getting over trauma or grief to being more successful at what they do or finding more meaning in an apparently successful life):
- therapists without coaching training
- coaches with therapy training
- coaches without therapy training
In addition to what each of these is capable of doing, there is also the issue of what they want to be doing (e.g., some in the middle category may still enjoy therapy and others may want to stay as far away from it as possible).
So, my current thinking (still evolving) is that something like the client-centered criteria I mentioned might suggest which of the three categories of helper would be the best fit (in terms of helping the most, and in extreme cases of avoiding harm). One of the issues that I find interesting, is how coaches without clinical training can best understand when they are close to or past the boundaries of where they can be most helpful. Psychological issues, despite the DSM-IV (the “bible” of psychiatric diagnoses), are not black and white (sick vs. healthy) and there are still a lot of disagreements about which dimensions to use. So, I think we are probably stuck with a lot of “fuzzy logic” when making decisions and, at least in some cases, some form of supervision with (even peer supervision) or consultation with colleagues who understand both coaching and clinical issues.
If one adds in not just where people are using something like those categories, but how far they want to go, that could further direct the choice of what type of coach (e.g., developmental or more behavioral) and, using Laske’s approach, how developed the coach should be.
Does that make sense? Additions, modifications?
Comment by Leonardo Ravier on 6 March 2008:
Coaching still needs to demonstrate its autonomy and separate identity in relation to all professions or disciplines around it (philosophy, psychology, therapy, consulting, etc.).
The key to the success of coaching as a discipline is in the presentation of a coherent and integrated THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK with its own distinct identity from any other discipline (not only a mix of its).
This is the quest we have to do for the profession. And I think that the key is in the NO DIRECTIVE essence and/or NO INTERVENTION aid (very close to the non-directive therapy of Carl Roger, but most developed)
Comment by Mary Wayne on 5 March 2008:
Gail – what a great way to look at it! Perhaps what we offer overall in coaching is “perspective”, “synthesis”, “integration”…! I know that’s what I get in the relationship I have with my own coach. VERY thought-provoking!
You ask: “who are we trying not to offend by making a solid claim?” (about a definition of coaching?)… My experience is actually the opposite – I think that there are many, many claims being made by professional coach organizations, training schools, companies and individual coaches…and most of them differ!
In fact, in research studies on coaching, one of the first tasks to be done is to identify the study’s operational definition of coaching!
Comment by Francine on 5 March 2008:
Jonathan, I’m intrigued by your exploration of client-centric criteria. How (if at all) would you see the coach’s skills/background playing into the decision?
Comment by gail on 2 March 2008:
Re: The definition of coaching thread in this discussion
Call me crazy but one of the best, most fundamental tools found universally in every coaching toolbox is to state what you want in the affirmative and not in terms of what you don’t want. Why is it then that coaches are not using this tool as they attempt to describe how they want to be identified professionally?
I’m going to suggest that an underlying fear of being rejected may be at the heart of this struggle for self-identification. Who are we trying misguidedly to please, and/or who are we trying not to offend by making a solid claim? Or is it a fear of forever being misunderstood because what we offer doesn’t fit neatly into a known box? Is it the marketplace that demands categorization or is it us?
It seems to me that the field of coaching is an amalgamation of the best of many fields. What makes coaching so incredibly valuable is the integration of many disciplines to a solution oriented approach that maintains a holistic, archetypal perspective. Coaches worth their weight in gold can see both the details of a situation and the whole picture at the SAME time. This is what is so valuable! They are able to extract from a client the mouse’s view and the eagle’s view of the forest and keep it accessible for the client to stand outside of their life as you will, while choosing options within it. This skill/talent/innate ability that we bring to the table as coaches is something worth claiming.
Again, call me crazy but if we as coaches get stuck on our identity professionally, where is our credibility in being able to facilitate others in their efforts to move beyond their self-imposed limits? In making a claim, we don’t have to be ‘right’ in everyone’s eyes, just authentically aligned and consistent in relation to our claim.
Comment by jsibley on 2 March 2008:
One version of this I’ve been toying with recently, when thinking about the appropriateness of psychotherapy, coaching, or a combination is looking at something like the following criteria:
- Client level of distress (or degree of being overwhelmed)
- Client resilience and resources
- Degree of transformation wanted by client
These criteria might suggest not just whether psychotherapy or coaching, but what type and best fit between helper and client (e.g., someone wanting transformation but appropriate for coaching might be better served by some styles of coaching than by others).
This is very much work in progress, so I’m interested in other ideas or questions.
Comment by Francine on 2 March 2008:
Jonathan’s comment and the follow up replies re: coaching overlapping with other fields got me working if we might want to parse this out a little further. David Orlinsky’s presentation at the 2007 ICF conference nicely introduced several elements of coaching which may be placed on a continuum with psychotherapy: the purpose of the engagement, the coach role, the client role, and- to some extent- the knowledge base and intervention processes. It might be interesting to look at coaching along a continuum with other relevant disciplines (e.g. organizational development, adult education) with respect to these dimensions as well.
Comment by Terrence E. Maltbia on 1 March 2008:
Andrea, thanks for your response. I found your “paraphrase” to be quite a useful reframe… “It’s one thing to maintain ‘100% confidentiality’ of the corporate client – not disclose individual coaching issues to the paying corporation. But to do so often has a detrimental effect on the long-term relationship with the corporation…”
Your response gets to the core of the point I was trying to make. I’m not at all challenging the value of confidentiality in the client and coach relationship, it is the often times absolute nature in which this ideal is framed, and in an organizational context, the potential unintended, often dynamic tension between long and short aims, and individual and organizational aims that are embedded in the work of coaching in organizations that makes this a complex coaching task to performance well in a sustainable manner.
Andrea, you pose an important question that has caused me to continue to reflect critically on the premise, content, as well as, process of the confidentiality dimension of executive and organizational coaching. Thanks for raising an important question to guide this inquiry.
John,
I have to admit that the comparsion between the role of confidentiality and pregnacy got my attention, while I’m stil having trouble holding the two in the same space. I also think your statement “That’s why internal coaches can’t be trusted by those they are assigned to coach. No executive would allow his or her weaknesses to be known by the Human Resource Dept‚Äö√Ѭ∂.and‚Äö√Ѭ∂.they know that internal coaches can be pressured to pass on confidential coaching discussions/information to HR or directly to the sponsor” posing a real challenge given that the emerging data on the growth of the so-called industry clearly indicates that internal coaching is a large, and fast growing segment.
Again, its the rather absolute nature of this comment that catches my attention, while I recognize the real challenge internal coaches face regarding the boundary of who they are ultimately accountable, to say the “internal coaches can’t be trusted,” in my opinion is extreme, and could potentially create a devide between the strong partnership I believe is needed between internal and externals resources to help create coaching cultures in organizations. So, I would like to explore ways to help those who find themselves doing this work inside of organization meet the challenge of confidentiality.
What I found really helpful about your post is the level of clarity you provide in what you mean by confidentality in the coaching relationship and your process for making this clear to the parties involved, very useful!
John you make the point that “Coaching is partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential…” I really like the comprehensive manner in which you define “what is coaching?” My attention goes to the word “clients” and I think in an organizational context, there are multiple stakeholders that need to be involved in the process for us as coaching to help our clients realize sustaintable gains… clients, customers (if the organization pays the bill), managers, peers, sponsors, can all play a role in the coaching process, and part of the agreement process is really to discuss confidentiality in this context.
Again, I found your description of how you approach the confidentiality discussion helpful. I also have found it useful in the context of executive and organizational coaching, to inquiry about and review the firm’s conduct of business, or other such documents, and make explicit potential alignment and tension points. This allows the coach, client, and key sponsors to get clear alignment prior to engaging in the coaching process. In short, I don’t see confidentiality as an absolute, in today’s global, fast pace, changing, and complex business environment the meaning of “confidentiality” is contextual and must be explicitly negotiated in each situation.
I look forward to this stimulating discovery process.
Comment by Angela Spaxman on 1 March 2008:
Oh, I also want to add that like John, I also use 3-way meetings with the coach, coachee and boss to allow communications that I can witness and facilitate. But I’ve found in practice several difficulties with that: time constraints, difficulties in direct communications between the parties, other important parties where 3-way meetings have not been planned.
Again, anyone have any suggestions?
Comment by Angela Spaxman on 29 February 2008:
I’d like to continue the discussion raised by Terry and Andrea about keeping coaching confidentiality in organizations. Do we need a new thread for this? I’m not sure how to do that.
Since I coach both within and outside organizations, I’m fascinated by the differences and keen to understand all the implications of different confidentiality paradigms within corporate coaching.
With individual coaching, I love the fact that the client is often very committed to change and we have complete freedom to share and act between us. But organizational coaching has a huge advantage in the potential for feedback and much greater understanding of the impacts an individual is actually having (vs. thinks they are having) on others.
At times in corporate coaching I’ve found myself swept up in a complicated web of perceptions when I hear the same story from different people and they do not match at all! So this becomes very challenging to handle within the bounds of confidentiality, especially when several of those people are your clients. Internal coaches must face this challenge all the time!
Some corporate coaching organizations use the confidentiality rule that the client’s key desired behavioural change is known to all the stakeholders. But all coaching conversations remain confidential. I would love to have other’s opinions on this option, and also to hear of other boundaries that can be used to maximize the use of information while preserving the safety of the coaching relationship.
Comment by jsibley on 29 February 2008:
Mary Wayne, I think the implications are significant. I think that part of our research should involve looking at what coaches do when we coach and, when possible, how it relates to positive outcomes.
There are a lot of ways to do this research, but I think that it will be most helpful to either use pan-theoretical frameworks that are not limited to coaching or to build new frameworks for analysis from the bottom up, based on micro-analysis of what happens during actual coaching. Unfortunately, this is labor-intensive, but it would make some great (in my opinion) dissertations.
One reason it matters how unique coaching is, is that the more it overlaps with other fields, the greater the likelihood that we can borrow from research that has already been done.
Comment by David Drake on 28 February 2008:
I see coaching as kaleidoscopic — each moment in our work draws on a different combination of foundational, professional, contextual and self knowledge as needed. I think that, in time, we will come to reach more definitional clarity but it may not be a monolithic definition for all of coaching.
As I shared in my forthcoming article in the new COACHING journal, we are entering an era when it may serve us well to think of coaches as artisans. In this way, I think of coaching as a verb rather than a noun. It’s the finger pointing at the proverbial moon…it’s not the moon.
Comment by Mary Wayne on 27 February 2008:
Jonathan – you raise a good point about coaching overlapping with other fields. Of course it does! Coaching comes from many different sources – it is the essence of “multi-disciplinary”. That’s one of the exciting things about the field, from my perspective! And it makes a lot of sense to look at coaching as one point along a continuum. Perhaps we need to get more comfortable with ambiguity.
But what are the implications of this for research? Can we really look scientifically at our field when we haven’t yet defined it?
Comment by Mary Wayne on 27 February 2008:
Hi John – I like your idea about using this forum to engineer agreement about what coaching is, and is not. Many of the professional coaching organizations have their own definitions, and I’d like to see a discussion of the differences and similarities. If we could contribute an agreed-upon, consistent definition of coaching – it would be a real addition to the field!
Comment by jsibley on 27 February 2008:
Hi Mary Wayne,
I think the issue of “definitional ambiguity” is quite important and something that we will probably struggle with for a while.
One probably I see with trying to define coaching by what it is and by what it is not, is that if coaching overlaps with other fields (as I believe it does to some degree), trying to be binary about it is not likely to succeed. The more we are able to look at coaching and other fields along a continuum (or several of them), and make statements that allow for overlaps, the more confusing but more accurate the picture.
Here, in my opinion, is an example of a blurry boundary. It is taken from Richard Schwartz’s Internal Family Systems Therapy:
The IFS model also produces a form of psychotherapy that is collaborative, nonpathologizing, and enjoyable…people are viewed as having all the resources they need, rather than having a disease or deficit…People are seen as being constrained from using innate strengths…The model is designed to help people release these constraints, thereby releasing their resources.
To me, although taken from an approach to psychotherapy, that doesn’t sound like an unambiguous differentiation from coaching. Are there other dimensions that might differentiate even his approach from coaching? Perhaps. Unambiguously? Perhaps not.
Comment by John Agno on 26 February 2008:
Mary Wayne, many organizations and those new to the personal and business coaching industry are unclear about coaching; what it is and how it should be integrated into their organizational processes.
Rey Carr, some time ago, created a one page comparison between coaching, mentoring and therapy to explain the differences between these practices. Perhaps, this could be a starting point to begin to engineer agreement, through this forum, as to what coaching is and isn’t.
Of course, those entering the coaching field coming from different educational and professional experiences (i.e. psychologists, social workers, educators, medical doctors, management consultants, trainers, organizational development specialists, general corporate management, etc.) will put their own ’spin’ on their individual coaching practices. However, we should be able to come up with an umbrella description to cover all these coaching niches. Here is an example:
What is Coaching?
Coaching is partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential. The coaching relationship is a strong, resilient, dependable and safe vehicle in which change can take place for the person being coached.
Professional coaches provide an ongoing partnership designed to help clients produce fulfilling results in their personal and professional lives. Coaches help people improve their performances and enhance the quality of their lives.
A coach is not a problem solver, teacher, advisor, instructor or expert. A coach is a listener, sounding board and awareness-raiser. Coaches are trained to listen, to observe and to customize their approach to individual client needs. They seek to elicit solutions and strategies from the client; they believe the client is naturally creative and resourceful. The coach’s job is to provide support to enhance the skills, resources, and creativity that the client already has.
All areas of coaching are most often characterized by one-to-one interactions that often are provided through face-to-face or telephone conversations. These interactions share three essential core competencies: connection, clarification and commitment.
“When a person faces a challenge and becomes stuck, he or she may seek the services of a personal coach. Once this commitment is made, the person begins to experience a different, more hopeful, world as his or her perceptions evolve in meeting the personal challenge.” John G. Agno, certified executive & business coach
Comment by Mary Wayne on 26 February 2008:
Hi all – John’s point is well made about “coaching is NOT consulting”. One of our newest coaching-related researchers (and a grant recipient from The Foundation of Coaching) notes that coaching is often defined by what it is NOT: i.e. “not training, not consulting, not mentoring, not counseling”.
Which begs the question “what IS coaching?” since there’s currently no one agree-on definition in common use.
How big of an issue do you think this “definitional ambiguity” is for us as coaches? As researchers?
Comment by John Agno on 25 February 2008:
Mary Wayne,
As an experienced and certified executive and business coach (after careers in general management and management consulting), I conclude that all coaching is “life” coaching. Coaching is all about the person being coached in both their personal and work lives; coaching is not about the coach and not his or her employer…who may or may not be paying the coaching services bill.
The corporation agrees to pay for personal executive/business coaching because it recognizes that the person being coached has to allow his or her perceptions to evolve in order to be a more productive person–both in their work and personal lives. The company benefits in many ways as the person being coached becomes more self-aware and socially aware. Company associates, vendors and customers observe positive behaviorial changes in their day-to-day relationship with the person being coached.
Coaching is NOT consulting (although consultants are beginning to use coaching practices in delivering their consulting services because coaching works best in certain situations). Coaching is not training, nor mentoring, nor organizational development (although all organization change happens one person at a time).
Coaches who aren’t experienced in on-the-job leadership and management roles within an organization may not have a good feel for where and how coaching is to be properly applied….and….may even unprofessionally overstep their capabilities (and the organization’s cultural boundaries) by attempting to ‘facilitate the organization’s development.’
Comment by Mary Wayne on 25 February 2008:
HI John and Terry – we may be getting into some important distinctions here executive/business coaching and life coaching here. I agree with the importance of including others in the coaching process in organizations – while being specific and explicit about agreeing on what “confidentiality” means. It makes a lot of sense to include others (stakeholders, managers, HR) in this context since one of the goals of executive or business coaching is to facilitate the organization’s (as well as the person’s) development.
I’m curious if this is done in life/personal/career coaching situations as well. Or is this a practice that’s solely used in business coaching?
Comment by John Agno on 17 February 2008:
Andrea & Terry,
It is my belief and practice that confidentiality with the person being coached be maintained by the coach at all costs. Confidentiality is like “pregnacy”…..you can’t be a little pregnant. That’s why “internal coaches” can’t be trusted by those they are assigned to coach. No executive would allow his or her weaknesses to be known by the Human Resource Dept….and….they know that internal coaches can be pressured to pass on confidential coaching discussions/information to HR or directly to the sponsor.
The way I work is to make it clear upfront that there will be no “parking lot” or “off line” conversations between the coach and the corporate sponsor (including the HR representative or any other internal influential person). However, the person being coached, myself (the coach) and the sponsor will hold conference calls/onsite meetings every three months to allow the sponsor to be updated on the progress being made by the person being coached. The coach works simply as a facilitator in these ‘update meetings’ to grease the skids of communication between the person being coached and the corporate sponsor and/or his or her representative.
Also, it should be mentioned here that, as the coaching engagement moves forward, those people who interact with the person being coached will individually and corporately recognize the executive’s behavioral changes on the job.
Here is how I define confidentially to both the person being coached and the sponsor (including the HR representative):
Confidentiality: The Coach recognizes that the Client may share future plans, business affairs, customer lists, financial information, job information, goals, personal information, and other private information. The Coach will not at any time, either directly or indirectly, voluntarily use any information for the Coach’s own benefit, or disclose, or communicate this information to a third party. While the Coach will do everything in his power to keep communication confidential, the Client is aware that there are certain exceptions. For example, communication by email can potentially be intercepted or email archives can be subpoenaed from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or other parties in the event of a lawsuit.
Comment by Andrea Lee on 17 February 2008:
Terry writes: “I have found that the claim of full ‚Äö√Ñ√∫confidentiality‚Äö√Ñ√π is not realistic for the growing number of internal coaches, and even for external coaches if they are to maintain a systemic, long term relationship with organizations.”
Terry, this is at once a startling and very true-sounding statement for me. The inherent ’surface tension’ in the three-way dynamic of organizational coaching has always been there, but I haven’t heard this additional element described quite like this.
Could I paraphrase by saying this do you think?
It’s one thing to maintain ‘100% confidentiality’ of the corporate client – not disclose individual coaching issues to the paying corporation. But to do so often has a detrimental effect on the long-term relationship with the corporation. The individual client may win in the short-term, but the coaching relationship may be truncated as a result. This constitutes a loss to all parties in the long term.
What then, might be processes, structures, tools that could help create the ’safe’ environment for real coaching to happen with the client, while satisfying the corporation’s desires such that the contract is renewed again and again?
I’m new-ish and probably naive when it comes to corporate coaching, as you may surmise. Is this a line of dialog worth pursuing further for those of you with more experience?
Comment by Terry Maltbia on 17 February 2008:
Hi Mary Wayne,
Terry Maltbia here, very cool site, thanks for providing this opportunity. John Agno shared a number quesitions for exploring a potential client’s “coachablity.” The topic of “coachability” has been a topic of great interests during our group “coach supervision” sessions as participants shared their experiences with working with new clients.
I believe that in the context of executive and organizational coaching, it is important to build on John’s questions from a systems perspective, that is, we promote assessing “coachability” from the client’s point of view (i.e., the person receiving the coaching), the customer (i.e., the person paying the bill, if not the same of the client), and other key stakeholders who are part of the client’s work system (i.e., HR executives, Sponsors, Client’s Boss, etc.). Many of the questions John suggested could and should be posed to other key stakeholders to ensure alignment of expectations are such that our work with clients is transferrable and sustainable.
For example, I have found that client’s are often committed to the time and effort required of coaching, yet there are times when keeping appointments is a challenge because their boss calls a meeting at the last minute. This is a short example of the need to align expectations beyond the client within an organizational context.
Even if the “timing is “right” for the client (i.e., willingness to be candid, engage in straight talk and self work, etc.), it is also important to assess the conditions for coaching in the organization – are others willing to provide candid feedback, share useful information, and be explicit about which insights gained from the coaching will be shared as input to other talent management processes, and which will be maintained within the boundary of the coaching relationship. I have found that the claim of full “confidentiality” is not realistic for the growing number of internal coaches, and even for external coaches if they are to maintain a systemic, long term relationship with organizations.
I am increasingly interested in setting up coaching processes in organizations that include clarifying key roles: the client, coach, organizational sponsor(s), HR executives, client’s boss, direct reports, peers and the like. This is important work in the growing area of executive and organizational coaching.
Comment by Mary Wayne on 17 February 2008:
Good point, John – and a lot of use pre-coaching assessment questions to ensure that the coaching relationship will start off with aligned expectations.
I’m curious about what our other readers do to see if a prospective client is open to coaching.
Let us know!
Comment by John Agno on 14 February 2008:
Mary Wayne,
Here are some tips on answering your question regarding “How do we know someone is open to coaching?”
First of all, we know that when people make decisions, their decisions are not just about rational data weighing of the pros and cons. Emotion is always there below the surface and the person to be coached doesn’t recognize how important those feelings are at the time of the decision.
Everyone’s decision making is emotional (read: not rational) subconsciously under the control of the limbic or emotional brain not the analytical or neocortical brain. Buying a car, choosing a mate, selecting a new home, being attracted to a coach or mentor, following a career path, perceiving how the world works is all decided emotionally.
It is important to note that people seeking coaching are self-selecting. Therefore, it is best to maintain a guarded edge during the coach selection process to make a good match between what the prospective client wants out of the coaching experience and the coach who can best guide the person being coached throughout the coaching process.
When a person faces a challenge and becomes stuck, he or she may seek the services of a personal coach. Once this commitment is made, the person begins to experience a different, more hopeful, world as his or her perceptions evolve in meeting the personal challenge.
You can determine if the prospective client is “coachable” by asking the following questions during your first exploratory conversation:
What do you hope will come out of working with me?
What is the biggest challenge you have today?
What’s holding you back the most?
What interests you most about coaching?
What are you looking for in a coach?
Once you have answers to these questions and have come to the conclusion that the person may be coachable, it is recommended that you do a little coaching during the conversation to test out your conclusion.
Comment by Mary Wayne on 13 February 2008:
Hi John – thanks for your comment! You are highlighting an important research issues, too: what makes coaches “credible”? And how do we assess/know/ensure that someone is open to coaching?
Comment by John Agno on 13 February 2008:
Yes, coaching does work….and….is appearing in different applications and within progressive organizations throughout the globe. Steve Mitten,MCC, Past ICF President and Marketing Guru (www.acoach4u.com), says there is no end to coaching niches. Coaching is such a young profession that new applications are being invented all the time.
What is important is that coaches choose to focus on groups that they are attracted to, that can afford their services, where the coach has credibility and where people who are open to experience the benefits of coaching.
For the rest of this commentary, go to: http://www.WhatCanItBe.com
Comment by Mary Wayne on 12 February 2008:
Hi, Rey – thanks for your comments! I know what a proponent you are of coaching-related research, and it’s good to have you on The Commons!
You are right about research being only ONE of the foundational pillars – AND that all kinds of research are included.
My examples were an attempt to make the point that research benefits coaches as well as clients and other stakeholders. For instance, the
statement about “coaching works as well as, or better than other forms of ‚Äö√Ñ√∫helping‚Äö√Ñ√π (training, mentoring, therapy (in some cases)” was to illustrate a claim that (some of us) make as coaches. I was using this as an example of a claim that could/should be substantiated by research.
This kind of outcome or comparative study would benefit clients as well as other coaches. I was not implying that this research had been done.
I was also saying that there are other kinds of questions that would be more reflective, that some research could be used for our own information, to further our development as coaches and to continually improve our field. These kinds of questions are wide-ranging, like: ”Is coaching different in different cultures?”“Is one method or school of coaching more effective in certain cases than others?”
I appreciate your adding to our list of questions that we want answered about coaching! Creating a list of topics like this may help influence the studies that are done in the future – there may well be future coaching researchers reading the Coaching Commons right now that will work on these areas!
Comment by Rey Carr on 10 February 2008:
I like your idea about the importance of research as a foundation for coaching. But it is only one of the foundation pillars (unless you are including intuitive, anecdotal, narrative, storytelling, and constructivist as part of the research foundation).
I wasn’t sure what you meant though about the claim that “coaching works as well as or better than other forms of ‘helping’” such as training, mentoring and therapy. Are you saying someone is actually making this claim? Or are you saying that there is research currently available to back up this claim? Or are you saying that IF someone were to make this claim they ought to have research to back it up?
The reason I was puzzled was that your next paragraph begins with “there are ALSO questions to be answered” and I thought you meant that the “works as well or better” claim was already answered. Plus the question about telephone versus in person has received some research attention and does already have some answers; and while more research would be worthwhile, it doesn’t really qualify as a question “to be answered” since there have been contributions to this good question.
Your idea, though, of asking people to post ideas about the kinds of questions they want answered is a great way to stimulate research, exploration and discovery. Here are three I wonder about: Do you have any data about the relationship between ICF coaching certification and effectiveness of a coaching engagement, for example? Or, what is the relationship between coach certification and income as a coach? What is the influence of standards of practice on coaching outcomes?