Is Coaching Enough?
I was first trained as an executive coach in 1998 when coaching was still in its formative days. Since then, I have coach / mentored a large number of diverse senior leaders. Having been a business leader for many years (without the benefit of coaching), I am passionate about the value of coaching and continue to be a strong advocate.
But … I am concerned that coaching is becoming a panacea for all development and particularly leadership development. We hear of many large organisations implementing large coaching programmes for their management teams. The ones I know about have been launched with great fanfare but there has been much less published about the outcomes and benefits. All the ones where I or my colleagues have received anecdotal feedback, the results have been very mixed.
Some of the reasons for this can reasonably be claimed to be down to the method of implementation and procedure rather than because of the coaching intervention itself, such as:
- No consistency in the quality of coaches.
- Unclear objectives.
- Lack of rigorous procedures to ensure objectives are being met.
- Coaching managers that are not ready to be coached.
- Lack of support from top management.
Presumably, in the light of experience and learning, some of the more recently launched programmes will overcome these weaknesses.
But still I ask, is coaching enough? The reality is that coaching is a very expensive intervention (though I am not doubting its value) and in many situations a balanced approach of group facilitation (including knowledge transfer and action learning) combined with coaching and other interventions such as reflection, meditation, experiential learning, 360o assessments etc., can be much more effective within a certain budget.
One-to-one coaching is at its best in helping people work through specific sensitive individual issues in a very safe environment. It is not at its best when there is a need for knowledge transfer or where the input of peers or team members is valuable. A large part of development is the awareness of and relationship with others. This is usually best developed and tested in a group environment.
Our experience over ten years of running peer groups for non-competing CEOs and in-house leadership programmes is that people also need to learn new stuff. A highly competent leader needs to develop a high level of emotional intelligence, to be authentic, to develop beyond the ego. Information from research, surveys, theories and science (including neuroscience) can all help to enable each leader to have the insights that help them to progress. This knowledge can be obtained in various ways but we find that participative discussions in small groups are by far the most effective.
And finally, there is a current trend that a coaching culture within an organisation is another panacea. So I now ask, is a coaching culture enough? I don’t think so. I was responsible for implementing a programme 6 – 7 years ago where every manager (including factory supervisors) in the organisation learned to coach - and it was very successful. But it has to be put into context. As the research of Goleman & Boyatzis demonstrates, the coaching leadership style has the 2nd greatest impact on an organisation and is the least observed, beaten only by the Visionary style. And yes, a coaching leadership style can be used as the default style very effectively. But, if leaders have not developed the competencies to use the Visionary, Affiliative, Democratic, Pace-Setting and Commanding leadership styles when the circumstances and context requires it, then all the benefits of the coaching style in the world will come to nought.
So let’s continue to promote the unquestionable value of coaching but let’s also try to be honest enough to put the value of coaching in its true perspective.
Part of the problem is also that coaching has become so popular as a second or third career. So there are a plethora of coach/ mentors and coaching organisations that have a vested interest in the success of coaching as the major development intervention.
We don’t have anything like the same number of exponents and interest groups of “group facilitators” or “action-learning facilitators”.
My recommendation would be twofold:
- Organisations take a much more holistic approach to interventions and really look at how they can put together to get the best outcome and value for money.
- That coaches (executive coaches in particular) learn other related interventions so that you are selling a solution, not just a service.
Chairman, LeaderShape.
Back to leadership Library articles.
Is Coaching Enough?
I was first trained as an executive coach in 1998 when coaching was still in its formative days. Since then, I have coach / mentored a large number of diverse senior leaders. Having been a business leader for many years (without the benefit of coaching), I am passionate about the value of coaching and continue to be a strong advocate.
But … I am concerned that coaching is becoming a panacea for all development and particularly leadership development. We hear of many large organisations implementing large coaching programmes for their management teams. The ones I know about have been launched with great fanfare but there has been much less published about the outcomes and benefits. All the ones where I or my colleagues have received anecdotal feedback, the results have been very mixed.
Some of the reasons for this can reasonably be claimed to be down to the method of implementation and procedure rather than because of the coaching intervention itself, such as:
- No consistency in the quality of coaches.
- Unclear objectives.
- Lack of rigorous procedures to ensure objectives are being met.
- Coaching managers that are not ready to be coached.
- Lack of support from top management.
Presumably, in the light of experience and learning, some of the more recently launched programmes will overcome these weaknesses.
But still I ask, is coaching enough? The reality is that coaching is a very expensive intervention (though I am not doubting its value) and in many situations a balanced approach of group facilitation (including knowledge transfer and action learning) combined with coaching and other interventions such as reflection, meditation, experiential learning, 360o assessments etc., can be much more effective within a certain budget.
One-to-one coaching is at its best in helping people work through specific sensitive individual issues in a very safe environment. It is not at its best when there is a need for knowledge transfer or where the input of peers or team members is valuable. A large part of development is the awareness of and relationship with others. This is usually best developed and tested in a group environment.
Our experience over ten years of running peer groups for non-competing CEOs and in-house leadership programmes is that people also need to learn new stuff. A highly competent leader needs to develop a high level of emotional intelligence, to be authentic, to develop beyond the ego. Information from research, surveys, theories and science (including neuroscience) can all help to enable each leader to have the insights that help them to progress. This knowledge can be obtained in various ways but we find that participative discussions in small groups are by far the most effective.
And finally, there is a current trend that a coaching culture within an organisation is another panacea. So I now ask, is a coaching culture enough? I don’t think so. I was responsible for implementing a programme 6 – 7 years ago where every manager (including factory supervisors) in the organisation learned to coach - and it was very successful. But it has to be put into context. As the research of Goleman & Boyatzis demonstrates, the coaching leadership style has the 2nd greatest impact on an organisation and is the least observed, beaten only by the Visionary style. And yes, a coaching leadership style can be used as the default style very effectively. But, if leaders have not developed the competencies to use the Visionary, Affiliative, Democratic, Pace-Setting and Commanding leadership styles when the circumstances and context requires it, then all the benefits of the coaching style in the world will come to nought.
So let’s continue to promote the unquestionable value of coaching but let’s also try to be honest enough to put the value of coaching in its true perspective.
Part of the problem is also that coaching has become so popular as a second or third career. So there are a plethora of coach/ mentors and coaching organisations that have a vested interest in the success of coaching as the major development intervention.
We don’t have anything like the same number of exponents and interest groups of “group facilitators” or “action-learning facilitators”.
My recommendation would be twofold:
- Organisations take a much more holistic approach to interventions and really look at how they can put together to get the best outcome and value for money.
- That coaches (executive coaches in particular) learn other related interventions so that you are selling a solution, not just a service.
Chairman, LeaderShape.
Back to leadership Library articles.