report coaching in the workplace

Coaching in the workplace Noble Manhattan Coaching Ltd (c)

Coaching in the workplace Noble Manhattan Coaching Ltd (c) 2

Contents

Page No.

1. Introduction 3

2. What is Coaching? 4

3. Coaching in the Workplace 6

4. Trigger Factors Responsible for Bringing Coaching into

Prominence in the Workplace

8

5. Why use Coaching? 10

6. Issues, Barriers and Potential Pitfalls to Effective Workplace

Coaching

12

7. Criteria to Consider in the Development of Successful Corporate

Coaching Programmes.

16

8. Summary 20

9. Bibliography 21


Coaching produced a 529% return on investment and significant intangible benefits to the

business. (Anderson & MetrixGlobal, 2001),

Safeway sends 900 on Coaching Programme

Safeway is rolling out a Coaching scheme for 900 middle managers after a development

programme for top management led to reduced staff turnover and increased profits.

The executive Coaching programme that was run in 2000 for its 100 most senior managers

has helped the company reduce turnover among the firm’s 92,000 staff – it has dropped by

15% to 30% a year.

The company has also reentered the FTSE 100, almost doubled its share price and added a

million new customers.

Jim White, HR Director at Safeway, said the Coaching programme has improved staff morale

and led to almost zero turnover among the senior leadership team.

“The business has got stronger because we have been able to retain and develop our senior

leaders”, he said. (Personnel Today Aug ‘02)

The examples above are typical of reports in management and training journals extolling the

value of Coaching within the workplace which has been referred to as:

“a process which closes the gap between an individual’s or team’s level of

performance and the desired one” (Ali et al, 2001).

This report sets out to demonstrate an understanding of what workbased Coaching is, how it

can be used, and in what contexts. It discusses what has bought about the recent explosive

development of Coaching in the workplace from the first Coaching focussed conference in

Europe in 1998, to its current status and considers why it is that Coaching is second only to IT

in terms of industry growth (Coaching Articles, Nov ‘03).

Some of the issues and barriers to providing high impact Coaching in the workplace are

detailed, and the report is concluded by the proposition of a number of recommendations of

how to maximise the likely success of workplace Coaching programmes.


2. What is Coaching?

Defining Coaching is plagued by problems of interchangeable terminology, and variance in

what skills and practices are viewed to be encompassed under the banner of Coaching. For

example, the distinction between mentoring and Coaching is frequently confused. Although

many similarities exist, Mentors are expected to act in an advisory capacity, imparting their

wisdom to the mentee (Personnel Today, May 02). This is quite dissimilar from the definition

used for ‘Coaching’ within this report as being:

‘the art of facilitating the performance, learning and development of another’

(Downey 2003, p15)

The value of clarifying this is not merely in linguistic semantics but it impacts on the

expectations, methods, processes and ultimately on the outcomes of these distinct

professional fields.

When Downey’s (2003) definition of Coaching is broken down it becomes evident that

facilitating describes the process of the Coach enabling the Coachee to explore, to gain a

better understanding, to become more aware, to make better decisions and change their

actions as a result. This facilitation yields outcomes or results in three areas:

• Performance – Coaching is results driven, it is not merely a ‘nice thing’ to do. Its goal

or purpose is to achieve success, for the Coachee to reach a heightened level of

effectiveness in the area he / she is being Coached in.

• Learning – speaks of the acquisition of new skills, knowledge or behaviour as a result

of the Coaching experience.

• Development – concerns the extent of personal growth and greater selfawareness

Coaching can produce.

There is little contention regarding the nature of results that Coaching brings about

(performance, learning and development), the confusion lies in the manner this is

accomplished, and the breadth and depth of activities, techniques, processes and skills that

are included within the ‘Coaching Arena’. As seen in Figure 1 Downey (2003) includes skills

as diverse as ‘directive telling’ to ‘nondirective – listening to understand’ as being

‘Coaching’. The fundamental assumptions behind these extremes are polar though, to ‘tell’

comes from a paradigm that ‘the teller knows best and has the answers’; to ‘listen’ however,

implies that ‘the listened to is the answer provider, the expert’.


Figure 1: The Spectrum of Coaching Skills Adapted from Downey, 2003

Listening to understand

Reflecting Paraphrasing

Summarising Solving issues for someone

Asking awareness raising questions

Helping someone solve own issues Making suggestions

Giving feedback Offering advice

Giving advice Instructing

Telling

Directive Non directive

With this in mind, it is questionable whether all of these are actually ‘Coaching skills’ in the

definition’s sense. The range from telling making suggestions, though they may be ways of

bringing about heightened performance and / or increased learning are arguably not means of

prompting selfdevelopment. Does an ‘instructor’ facilitate the growth of an individual’s self

awareness, or does he impart knowledge to that individual? In Figure 2, Smith (2003)

develops this unidimensional model into a two dimensional arena following axes of directive

– facilitative, and challenging supporting.

Figure 2 The Coaching Arena – Smith, 2003

Challenger Guide

Catalyst

Listener

Sounding board Bridge

Information provider

Collaborator

DIRECTIVE

Careers advisor

Organisation sponsor

Counsellor

Manager

Mentor HR Advisor

Role Model Goalsetter

FACILITATIVE

SUPPORTING CHALLENGING


It is the Coaches’ skill in facilitating the Coachee to enhance their own performance, learning

and development that mark the Coach as expert, and sets them aside from other professional

roles such as Mentor, Management Consultant, etc. A Coach therefore need not be an expert

in the field in which they are Coaching.

3. Coaching in the Workplace

Typically though not exclusively Coaching in the workplace has fitted within two categories:

• The Coaching of business executives and senior managers, often by external

Coaches

• The equipping of line managers with the skills and knowledge to Coach their staff

It has long been acknowledged that the professional position of a senior manager is an

isolated one. For many in these positions, working with an Executive Coach may be the only

way to gain important feedback on personal performance, management, leadership style and

the company culture (Smith, 2003). There are some circumstances 1 when only an individual

from outside the politics and dynamics of the organisation can provide the objective support

and uncompromising confidentiality senior managers may need.

However, for Coaching to maximise the realisation of potential of all employees, it naturally

cannot remain bedded solely within the higher management echelons (Coaching & Mentoring

Network, Jul 2003). Bill Lucas the Chief Executive of the Campaign for Learning (CMI 2002)

believes that there is a strong case for Coaching to be made available to all employees. 93%

of managers in a recent Chartered Management Institute (CMI) survey (CMI 2002) expressed

the view that Coaching should be made available to all employees regardless of seniority.

Hiring in Coaches external to the organisation may be an efficient way of bringing this about,

but for the majority of organisations this would not be viable from a financial viewpoint. To

date, the dominant way of providing inhouse Coaching capacity with maximum coverage has

been to train line managers and hold them responsible for the Coaching of their direct reports.

Some of the issues related with these two approaches are detailed in section six.

The two approaches are not an either / or , Sheena Mason of the HR consultancy Chiumento

(Personnel Today May 02) speaks of working with organisations in combining one to one

executive Coaching of top managers with an ‘upskilling programme’ for other managers

throughout the organisation to develop their ability as Coaches. Tescos have gone through a

similar process in developing ‘inhouse Coaching skills’ and now only rarely make use of

1 These circumstances may include: potential customers threatening to move business elsewhere, acquisition of another business where disclosure could affect share prices of both companies, corporate performance is less than expected and a profit warning is imminent, etc (Atkinson, 2001).


external Coaches for the company’s most senior managers or those whose role is in

transition.

Abbey National is developing a still broader approach to integrating Coaching within the

workplace, by removing it from being purely a managerial responsibility, they are aiming to

develop a culture within which everyone is able to Coach their colleagues as and when

necessary. “We now say that as an individual you have three responsibilities: your own

performance, your own development and Coaching others”, says Neville Pritchard (Personnel

Today, Sep 01). The CMI survey (2002) comments that 16% of participants reported

Coaching themselves, though further detail on how this was conducted is not reported. Table

1 details some of the benefits and costs of using both internal and external Coaches within

the workplace.

Table 1: The Benefits of Using Internal or External Coaches

Benefits of using an Internal (Line Manager) as Coach

Benefits of using External Coach

• Internal Coaches are familiar with company culture, strategy, vision, etc

• Develops ‘inhouse’ expertise minimising the need to ‘buyin’ external resources

• Felt to be more costeffective financially • Likely to be accessible on a more frequent

and longterm basis

• Boundaries such as confidentiality are easier to establish and maintain

• Dedicated purely to Coaching and have no other potentially conflicting agenda

• Likely to be able to train staff within the organisation to Coach – cascade effect

• Prestige and status of ‘bringing in an expert practitioner’

• The Coach would be experienced with a proven ability in Coaching

• The Coach may be better placed to come with an objective approach, as an outsider looking in

Difficulties of using an internal (Line Manager as) Coach

Difficulties of using an External Coach

• The organisation may be ‘too busy internally to Coach internally’

• Skill base may not exist within the organisation

• Internal Coaches may be devalued • Coaching is one of many management

responsibilities that may on occasion be conflicting

• Staff may see Coach as ‘management spy’ • Difficulty in establishing depth of rapport

and trust whilst ultimately being responsible for hiring, firing, etc

• Coaching may be ‘squeezed’ if Manager is pressurised in other areas

• Coach may be placed in a position that may threaten Coachee confidentiality

• Possible conflict of interest regarding staff performance and individual growth (eg learning through mistakes)

• Financial cost may be prohibitive and restrict scope, length, etc of programme

• Accessibility and availability of external Coach may be more limited

• Unless Coach equips others with Coaching skills, it will remain necessary to ‘buyin’ this resource in the future


Coaching has hugely diverse applications; it is not restricted to the acquisition of new skills, or

idea generation. Table 2 below details a number of the contexts within the workplace in which

Coaching can be applied.

Table 2: Contexts within which Workplace Coaching can be Applied

Context for Coaching Means of Applying Building skills Set up opportunities for new skills to be learnt and

practised Progressing Projects Oversee progress and monitor any problems on projects

Solving Problems Help staff to identify problems and possible routes to a solution

Staff Development Prepare staff for promotions establish career path

Overcoming Conflicts Defuse disagreements among team members

Motivating Staff Developing and maintaining enthusiasm and commitment within the team

Brainstorming and idea generation

Direct the creative input of the team to keep projects on track

Team building Facilitating the development of positive team morale and effectiveness

Appraisals and assessments Encouraging input, comment and feedback from staff

Planning and reviewing Developing time, space and freedom to effectively assess past success, future plans in context of current situation

Addressing issues of poor performance

Creating a mutually respectful results based environment

Adapted from: Ali et al, 2001; Whitmore 2003 and author’s own work

4. Trigger Factors Responsible for Bringing Coaching into Prominence in the Workplace

Historically, managers have had responsibility to divide work into discrete tasks, assign the

work to teams and individual workers, and closely monitoring the performance of the workers,

steering them towards accomplishment of the task on time and within budget (Nelson &

Economy, 1996). This ‘control and command’ style of management relied heavily upon the

‘manager knowing best’, asserting his / her power and authority, and the worker being very

much in the position of subordinate.

In the past decade the following factors in the global market place have bought about

revolutionary change in the working environment:

• A surge of global competition

• New technology and innovation

• The flattening of organisational hierarchies

• Widespread downsizing, reengineering and layoffs


• The rise of small business

• The changing values of today’s workers

• The increasing demands for everbetter customer service (Nelson & Economy, 1996)

Most Fortune 500 and 100 companies have had to significantly restructure, thousands of

employees have been laid off in recent years as managers are forced to meet increased

productivity demands with fewer resources and shorter planning cycles (Minor, 1995).

This restructuring has in many cases ‘flattened’ organisations, reducing and in some cases

eliminating the ranks of middle managers. Inevitably, the versatility and breadth of scope

demanded of remaining managers has increased dramatically (Personnel for Today, Apr ’01).

Significant management responsibility now lies on the shoulders of those who have not had

the luxury of developing their operational experience within the areas in which they now

manage staff (Atkinson, 2001). Career paths have developed away from predictable linear

progression, to a more complex and diverse creative choice of options.

Coupled with this, sociocultural expectations on managers demand that they move away

from traditional styles of control and command to a more facilitative or Coaching focussed

approach. Managers no longer are experts in all areas of the work they are responsible for

managing. They no longer hold tight reins and command an employee’s work, instead they

have to create an environment which fosters the employees’ desire to produce their best work

– this new reality is one of management partnership rather than dictatorship.

It is not only the domain of ‘management’ within the workplace that is shifting; ‘learning’ too

has radically changed. Classroom lessons are now experienced online. Instruction that once

took a day has been condensed into learning within an hour. In order to meet the demands of

the modern workplace, the previously distinct worlds of managers and training departments

have merged into a single resultsbased domain of continuous learning and improvement with

shared responsibility for success (CMI 2002).

Weaknesses in conventional instructive training workshops and courses have been identified,

such as lack of tailoring to meet individuals’ unique needs, the financial cost of buying in

‘expert trainers’, etc. Table 3, illustrates the recall of participants in a study carried out by IBM

and unequivocally demonstrates that traditional ‘tell’ based training is far inferior to more

interactive and experientially based learning opportunities.

Table 3: Learning Recall Following Varied Training Techniques (Whitmore, 2003)

Told Told and shown Told, shown and experienced

Recall after three weeks 70% 72% 85% Recall after three months 10% 32% 65%


Coaching has become recognised as an effective learning activity and process conducive to

the development of a working culture of continuous improvement, and as a management tool

effective in eliciting the attitude, behaviour and output demanded from employees in today’s

workplace.

5. Why use Coaching?

The characteristics of a high performance work environment include quality leadership

reflected in vision, shared purpose and values, strong teamwork, a work unit climate that

fosters autonomy and freedom, positive interpersonal relationships with appropriate feedback

and problem solving, and management attention and focus on requisite resources and unit

structure (Mink et al, 1993). Quinn et al (1996) believe that Coaching can be used as an

opportunity to create, contribute to, or reinforce one or more of these dimensions. Anecdotal

benefits of Coaching are well documented, Minor (1995) states that the profits of Coaching

impact the workplace at three levels:

What’s in it for business organisations?

• Enhances worker productivity and performance

• Increases retention of employees

• Ensures good labour pool because of superior reputation

• Boosts motivation and commitment to corporate values and vision

• Enables employees to respond quickly and more favourably to change

What’s in it for employees?

• Helps employees grow

• Keeps their skills current

• Increases involvement in decision making and managing

• Gives employees greater visibility and exposure to information

What’s in it for team leaders / managers?

• Supports shared leadership responsibilities

• Gives satisfaction of watching employees grow

• Enhances reputation for developing people

• Provides more opportunities for delegation

• Frees time to pursue visioning, team building and recognising employees

Standardised research into the effectiveness of Coaching in the workplace is limited;

however, the majority of studies conducted yield evidence that there is now a strong case for

Coaching to be more readily available in the workplace (CMI 2002). A study by the CMI


conducted in 2002 revealed the following results from the 280 institute members that

responded, 80% disagreed that ‘Coaching is just another fad’, and that ‘Coaching is too time

consuming, suggesting widespread acceptance of the principles behind Coaching. Coaching

was also recognised as significantly enhancing the responsibility of the learner within the

workplace and helping to retain staff.

Other authors comment on benefits such as development of people for the next level;

confidence raising, goal achievement, relationship improvements and retention (Coaching

Articles, Nov ‘03); helping to diagnose performance problems and correct unsatisfactory or

unacceptable performance and providing opportunities for conveying appreciation (Cook

1999).

These ‘soft gains’ are undoubtedly beneficial, but in the workplace is this evidence enough

that Coaching is of value? Paul Kearns (Director of PWL) states that ‘Coaching is about

improving job performance and as long as you have some indication that that’s happening,

you shouldn’t need to worry about the financial aspects' (Personnel Today, Jun ’03).

Coaching though as aforementioned is essentially about getting results (Downey, 2002), and

however desirable the plethora of benefits listed above are, they are largely intangible and

immeasurable. The bottom line in the competitive workplace is whether the Return of

Investment (ROI) from Coaching is demonstrable on the account sheets.

A difficultly is that companies don’t know how to assess the effectiveness of Coaching

(Coaching Articles, Nov ‘03). Rosinki (Personnel today Jun ’03) encourages development of a

global scorecard, including indicators such as financial measurements of growth, profitability

and share price to help demonstrate gains attributable to workplace Coaching. Results such

as those published by Safeway included in the introduction need to be interpreted with

caution, as a direct causal link between Coaching and the outcomes can not yet be proven

and therefore inferred.

A study by MetrixGlobal has provided powerful insights into both the ‘softer’ nature of the

value Coaching added to their business and also the ROI. The study population of 43 staff on

a leadership development programme completed an initial questionnaire assessing what they

had learned, how they applied their learning, and captured their initial assessment of business

impact; the second part was a telephone based interview probing each respondent more

deeply into aspects of the financial ROI (Anderson & MetrixGlobal, 2001).

Results from the initial questionnaire revealed that 77% of respondents reported that

Coaching had had significant impact on at least one of the nine business measures assessed.

The most significantly impacted of these measures were productivity and employee

satisfaction with 60% and 53% citing favourable enhancement. Customer satisfaction, work


output and work quality were also reported as having been positively impacted by more than

30%.

Supporting these more subjective findings was the quantitative figure that Coaching had

produced a staggering 788% ROI! (if employee retention is excluded from this, the ROI

diminishes to 529%). MetrixGlobal state that these financial benefits were demonstrated most

starkly in areas where Coachees had customer or people responsibilities, although the

benefits to the business were witnessed company wide.

Coaching Article (Nov ‘03) reports that an instrument manufacturer experiencing quality

problems invested in providing their staff with training and Coaching and achieved the

following results:

• Quality of output improved to 99%

• Ontime delivery to 95%

• Lead times reduced by 50%

Impressive figures, however the credibility of a report of this nature is diminished through the

exclusion of further information on the nature of the programme implemented, initial baseline

measures, longitudinal follow up, etc. The case for workplace Coaching will only be enhanced

by more systematic, standardised approaches to research that will form the basis for

evidence based practice.

6. Issues, Barriers and Potential Pitfalls to Effective Workplace Coaching

Research of subject literature has revealed a number of issues and barriers that have been

identified as potentially limiting the effectiveness of Coaching in the workplace.

General:

Many workplaces are attempting to foster benefits from the ‘cascade effect’, offering

Coaching to workers at CEO and Managing Director level in anticipation that they in turn will

act as Coaches to their direct reports.

“These guys are paying ‘big bucks’ for it too! The plan is then for these very same

CEOs and Managing Directors to cascade this Coaching down the organisational

hierarchy. The CEO will Coach the Senior Manager who will then Coach the Middle

Manager and so on. But it appears to be coming to a grinding halt after the CEO!

Why?” (Mackintosh, Coaching and Mentoring Network, Oct ‘03)

A senior manager explained that:


“I am totally bought into the concept of Coaching….. I have however a mentor in my

CEO’. ‘How well does he Coach you?’ I asked. There was silence for a while. ‘I get

great advice and I respect his experience”.

In this example the CEO pays out ‘big bucks’ for an external Coach, and then acts as a

mentor to his reports! Perhaps this is due to insufficient confidence or competence on behalf

of the CEO’s, but it also serves to highlight that for Coaching to become a respected,

plausible, integral part of workplace good practice, an element of authentically practicing what

is preached needs to be cultivated, even at CEO level – ‘change starts at the top’ (Miller,

2002).

Coachee’s perception of Coaching:

Coaching is perceived by some as a form of ‘remedial therapy’ (Smith, 2003) this invariably

diminishes potential Coachees desire to engage in programmes, as they believe them to be

instigated as a ‘catch up mechanism’ to bring poor performance up to speed. Conversely, in

other working cultures Coaching is used as a perk, for rewarding and encouraging the

achievement and effort of ‘highflyers’.

Similarly, there is a perception amongst some executives that Coaching is something that is

done by and too others at lower levels of the organisation, and is neither necessary nor

appropriate for themselves or their own direct reports, who ‘should know how to accomplish

their objectives’ (Miller 2002). On the contrary there is a belief amongst some employees

‘lower down’ in an organisation that Coaching is a phenomenon bought in only for the ‘big

cheeses’ and would and should not be made available to them, or be beneficial to them.

With these coexisting dichotomous perceptions existing of the place of Coaching within the

workplace, ground needs to be covered by both Coaches and programme sponsors within

organisations to portray the true merit of Coaching as a resultsbased and resultsachieving

phenomenon that all employees could benefit from (CMI 2002).

Over the years we have become pawns within a business model portraying that there is an

expert who knows best, and we need the expert to tell us what to do and how to do it. As a

result we have become lazy in developing our own answers, solutions and ideas. Coaching

may be seen as being inferior to ‘hard training’ for example, where a specialist is bought in to

impart his / her knowledge to workers, who will soak up their wisdom and experience. Though

training (and management) of this sort still have a role within the modern workplace,

demands, structures and resources dictate that they cannot be the sole mechanism for

bringing about performance, learning and development enhancement. A mentality shift needs

to occur that the ‘specialist’ – in this case the Coach / CoachManager – does not need to

possess the answers. This change in thought and attitude is paramount to a paradigm

reversal, and therefore will take time to permeate the workplace fully. For a Manager in


particular with responsibility for leading his / her team, this may pose as something of an ego

threat, if their esteem and perception of competence is tied to the more traditional ‘Manager

knows best’ mentality. If this is the case, it may prove difficult for them to accept that their

ultimate goal as a manager in the modern workplace is to bring the best out of their reports

(Personnel Today, Sep ‘01).

The selfled discovery that is at the core of Coaching will be severely compromised if

Coachees are not committed to the process. There is an element of taking the horse to the

water, but not being able to force them to drink. Not only the satisfaction within a Coaching

relationship will be compromised, but so too will the progress and ultimately the results

achieved.

Coaching even if focussed on workplace subject matter may on occasion be an emotional

process. Individuals ill at ease with experiencing and airing uncomfortable emotions may

choose to either limit the emotional depth that they are prepared to be Coached at, or entirely

avoid Coaching through fear of exposure to an emotionally charged experience. For

Coachees and managers alike it may simply be an easier or more convenient choice to avoid

Coaching than embrace it (Miller 2002).

If the Coachee does not trust their Coach whether they are appointed internally or externally

the relationship will be underproductive. Coaching often involves acknowledging the

Coachees fundamental beliefs and values, if the Coachee feels they may be compromised as

a result of doing this, they are likely to withdraw from the relationship. Coaching may be

perceived by some as a ‘management spy tool’, and the Coach will need to work hard at

establishing and maintaining the trust and respect of the client.

‘Coaching is just a nice thing to do’ Coaching is thought by some to be an ancillary, the jam

on the bread and butter of other management and learning methods, as part of the fluffy side

of human development but not directly related to the team’s success and output. Used

correctly and appropriately though, it is a real problemsolving strategy that resolves business

issues, as described in section five. Business results, not development per se are the goal of

workplace Coaching (Miller 2002).

A hesitation in some areas may be a fear that Coaching may be so inspiring that it acts as a

catalyst for highflying employees to move on and leave the organisation (Personnel Today,

Apr ’01). Founder of Intuition in Business, Claire Montanaro, says that this rarely is the case

and argues that ‘there must have been some underlying source of dissatisfaction. If it can’t be

alleviated, it is probably better they leave’.


Specific to line manager acting as Coach:

There is an assumption that every manager should be and can be, a good Coach. The reality

stares us in the face – despite all the Coaching skills courses it is often the case that a

minority of staff will say they receive good Coaching from their line manager (Miller, 2002).

One fear of Coaching that Managers hold is that it ‘just takes too long – it is faster to tell’. With

a short term perspective this mentality has some credence. Many Managers tend to find it

difficult though to consider the consequences of unoriginal thought, decreased employee

motivation, and rework due to unclear expectations, that an abdicating or dictating

management style can cause (Miller 2002). Managers often fail to see the long term time

savings, that ‘rework’ and lower than expected performances takes much more time than

taking a Coaching approach and ‘doing it right first time’, resorting back to ‘telling’ when

feeling pressurised to achieve results.

This potential ‘switchback’ to a different style can cause further complications in that the

‘ground rules’ of various roles or styles within management are at times opposing. Coaching

for example involves a depth of trust that allows the Coachee to expose vulnerability in

exploring particular issues, beliefs, values, etc and attitudes may come to light that would

normally remain hidden within the traditional bounds of a management relationship, eg career

aspirations, perceptions of colleagues, etc. This level of selfexposure and need for

confidentiality could be severely threatened and potentially damaging if the manager were

switching between a ‘Coaching’ role and a ‘hiring and firing’ role. Depending on the manner in

which the Coach and Coachee are able to handle issues of that nature will determine the

effectiveness and success of the Coaching relationship.

Similarly, it is possible that the agendas of managers acting as Coaches may clash at times. It

is acknowledged that Coaching individuals means at times allowing them to learn through

their mistakes. A manager who ultimately holds responsibility for the success of a project or

task may not always have the liberty to allow this. This possible conflict of interest may

compromise the performance, learning and development of the Coachee or that of the team

or organisation.

With internal Coach but not line manager:

An internal Coach with nonline management authority or seniority may lack the Coachees

respect. Individuals may find it difficult to be Coached by a subordinate or individual with a

position ‘lower down’ in the organisation, doubting the potential value of their service –

regardless of their actual ability as a Coach. Individuals may also find it difficult to be Coached

by a colleague who they view as for example a potential rival in a career development

situation. When equipping inhouse personnel with Coaching skills it may be prudent to follow


Tesco’s example (Personnel Today, Sep’01) example, and train a batch of individuals

representative of a crosssection of the breadth and depth of the organisation.

Information may be shared by the Coachee during the course of Coaching that may put the

Coach in a compromised position if others eg the Coachee’s line manager applies pressure to

extract this information. It is essential to be clear and absolute in terms of expectations,

reporting lines, issues of confidentiality, etc prior to commencing a Coaching relationship. If

these are not established the ethics of the Coach and the Coachees confidence in them may

be violated.

With external Coach:

The financial cost of external Coaches may be prohibitive to some workplaces. As previously

stated senior executives can pay up to £2,000 for one session (Personnel today, Sep ’01).

The company Ebedo offers virtual team Coaching at a cost of £400 monthly per participant;

Inspirations works on an hourly rate of £65 for telephone Coaching individuals. An

organisation offering Coaching to just ten employees working with Ebedo would be spending

a budget of £48,000 annually on this service. Even though results on ROI such as those

published by the GlobalMatrix study are compelling, many organisations will not choose or be

able to afford Coaching from external sources.

An external Coach inevitably will not be fully aware of the nuances of the workplace culture

alongside which they are hired to work. Though at times, this distance may provide an

objective clarity; it may also restrict their comprehension of the specific expectations, goals

and vision of individuals they are working with (Atkinson, 2001).

7. Criteria to Consider in the Development of Successful Corporate Coaching Programmes.

In spite of the issues and dangers shown in Section six, the majority of findings from reports

on the value of Coaching in the workplace are positive. With that in mind, this section details a

variety of recommendations to avoid these snares and produce successful, valued results

based Coaching in the workplace.

All Coaching programmes should start with a needs assessment, it is essential that

organisations are clear on whether it is Coaching they seek, or mentoring, management

consultants etc. Coaching can be most effective when customised at a corporate,

departmental, team and individual level. It is not a one size fits all approach. Each Coaching

relationship should follow its own path within a framework of previously agreed terms such as

expectations, reporting systems, evaluation and monitoring techniques. Even though there is

a call for standardising programmes with a view to establishing best practice (Anderson &


MetrixGlobal, 2001), this should not detract from the fact that Coaching is essentially a

process unique to the Coachee that drives it.

Ensuring understanding is secured between key stakeholders (Coach, Coachee, in

organisation sponsor) through means such as clarifying key terminology, ground rules,

expectations etc will minimise confusion and discord between parties. Assumptions of

knowledge should not be made, as mentioned in section one; discrepancies in interpretation

of phraseology and accompanying ‘jargon’ abound within the field. Any formalised relationship

of this sort should be clearly documented in terms of all parties responsibilities, which will also

serve to heighten accountability and provide basis for evaluation.

The inclusion of Coaching within a corporate environment should not be merely seen as a

‘bolton extra’, but to maximise effectiveness should be developed as an integral part of

organisational strategy, values, goals, etc. Treating Coaching as an isolated training option or

as an extra tool within a manager’s repertoire belittles the impact its application may have in

permeating the day to day thinking and subsequent actions and results of employees. A

rationale behind Coaching strategy should be worked on, including the raison d’etre for its

inclusion, parameters, availability to staff, etc.

Coaching can in some circumstances be used short term eg at times of significant change (Ali

et al, 2001). However, to become a part of company culture and reap most positive results,

Coaching needs to be acknowledged as a long term process. It is as much about developing

a way of working and being as finding short term solutions in times of crisis.

HR and Management staff need to be creative and pragmatic in finding solutions that are

effective to the specific situations they face. Consideration needs to be given to the concept

that Coaching skills need not necessarily follow hierarchical management structure; it is

possible that exceptionally junior employees may have the necessary skills to Coach their

colleagues effectively. There may be value in pursuing innovative new possibilities such as

buddyCoaching, or exploring the merits of selfCoaching. To facilitate heightened

commitment amongst Coachees, and recognition of the place that Coaching can hold, it

should be incorporated into other learning, development and results achieving mechanisms

(Anderson & MetrixGlobal, 2001 and CMI 2002), rather than stand alone, eg team and

individual objectives, personal development plans, etc.

Organisations should be encouraged to seek out employees who have potential to develop as

Coaches, not assuming that it should purely be a linemanager led activity only. An able

manager isn’t by default an able Coach, and it is not necessarily the Coachee’s manager who

should act as Coach. As Mayo (2001) writes:


“It may well be a colleague, a former job holder, or even a subordinate. To make a

rather mundane analogy, we have in place around the organisation trained first

aiders; these first aiders are people who want to take on this responsibility, who care

and have the personal skills needed. So why not have people designated and

recognised who are skilled in Coaching specific areas and make them available?”

Training employees as Coaches should not be limited to a one off hit, but should include

opportunities in the continuous development of Coaching skills, occasion to apply skills and

provision of support sessions to develop Coaches’ ability.

If a line manager is Coaching a member of his / her team, they must ensure that the

parameters of this relationship are clear and understood by all involved parties. Managers

need to be explicit in clarifying the domain and associated ground rules within which they are

speaking with employees, eg are they instructing, suggesting, Coaching, etc. It may be of use

to grade / classify issues acknowledging that Coaching isn’t the right tool for occasions.

Choose the moment, Coaching isn’t appropriate in all circumstances sometimes telling,

mentoring, etc, are more appropriate ways to operate. The relative value of learning,

development and results need to be considered and questions such as: Does Coaching best

fit the need of the team / the task / the individual at this moment? For example at times of

immediate time pressure, and / or high pressure regarding the quality of the outcome and

stake of the risk involved, this may be an inopportune moment to introduce Coaching. This

introduction may be more appropriate when the stress of time, risk, quality etc are somewhat

released.

To enhance the likelihood of success, Coachees should be encouraged to make and take

time to prepare for Coaching sessions, and review their progress in relation to agreed action

plans at regular times throughout the week. The perception that Coaching happens for just

the one hour a week when the Coachee is talking to the Coach needs to be dispelled.

Coaching is not a quick fix solution, but a way of working, thinking, and being that needs to be

habitualised into the workplace on a daily basis.

External Coaches may be of particular value when a fresh pair of eyes is required to facilitate

Coachees through issues in which they may have become bogged down in, perhaps when

traditional internal support mechanisms have become exhausted, and an extra impetus is

needed. Hiring external sources in this way will also be effective in minimising the likelihood of

Coachee confidentiality being compromised through either deliberate or accidental breaches.

The desired cascade effect of CEOs Coaching senior managers, Coaching junior managers,

Coaching staff is only likely to be realised if there is a committed buyin to Coaching from both

an internal sponsor of the Coaching process, eg senior HR team leader and staunch


authentic support from senior management, practising what is preached will have a far more

significant effect on the workforce than an attitude of ‘do as I say not as I do’ (Coaching

Articles, Nov ‘03). The rolemodelling of senior staff is essential in bringing about deep rooted

change within a workplace context.

Coaching only those who are committed to the process, relationship, its purpose and its

potential, is likely to yield the greatest productivity in terms of results. Taster sessions,

demonstrations and preparatory workshops are likely to be beneficial methods of positively

introducing the subject. Further to this, preparing literature including previous Coachees’

testimonies may be valuable in establishing the credibility of Coaching to a workforce

previously unfamiliar with it. Selecting interested individuals to use within a pilot study may

spur interest and increase potential Coachees desire to be included within the initial wave of

individuals. The pilot study will also allow an applied forum for Coach, sponsors and

Coachees to establish a framework that suits the programme needs, prior to a largerscale,

greater cost, risk, etc – launch. Coaching should not be forced upon anyone; the relationship

will not be successful if this occurs.

Offering the Coachee an element of choice in selecting their own Coach, may be beneficial in

acknowledging that the relationship of Coach – Coachee is more than a mechanical pairing,

and involves an element of ‘chemistry’ and rapport (Personnel Today, Apr ‘01). However, it’s

important to recognise and be prepared for the potential consequences of this eg, all

Coachees selecting just one or two Coaches within a batch, etc.

Coachees and inorganisation sponsors should be clear on the specific role it is that they

want the Coach to play, and in line with this, what competencies, qualifications, level of

experience, etc it is that they are seeking in and from a Coach. Organisations should be

familiar with training organisations, umbrella institutions, etc to avoid the likelihood of a

mismatch and dissatisfaction with the service provided.

Standardised means of assessing effectiveness both the more qualitative, subjective issues

(team morale, employee satisfaction, etc) and more quantitatively assessed aspects such as

ROI should be established. Performance measurement should be built into the Coaching

process and consist not only of baseline and ‘postintervention’ evaluation, but also involve an

element of monitoring proceedings during the programme. Longitudinal studies would yield

information on the longer term, ongoing impact of Coaching programmes on Coachees their

teams and organisations.

If the requirement to Coach were built into the measurable targets of all managers, (with

appropriate support provision) that would shift Coaching into the position of a nonnegotiable

work practice. Honey (2001) states that if managers were assessed on their Coaching


prowess and if their remuneration depended in part upon it, Coaching quality and provision in

the workplace would no doubt improve swiftly – he concedes that this is a

“distasteful means to a laudable end……based on the cynical assumption that people

do what you measure, not what you treasure”.

The workplace is a competitive environment, organisational and corporate purse strings need

to be convinced before they are relaxed to take on board new practices within the workplace.

As such, the Coaching profession –as service provider needs to be proactive in assimilating

and providing proof of the effectiveness of Coaching that it’s clients need. It may therefore fall

to Umbrella institutions such as European Coaching Institute and the International Coaching

Federation to coordinate research and applied studies that will form a strong basis of

evidence based Coaching practice, adding curability to the profession.

8. Summary

The modern workplace is a competitive, productive environment in which a broad diversity of

skills, knowledge and actions are demanded of employees. Traditional methods of

management and learning are now no longer so able to meet these demands and this has

created an opening for the discipline of Coaching to enter the workplace. Initial exploration of

the benefits of Coaching has been encouraging, and paybacks such as increased employee

motivation, satisfaction, heightened team morale etc, are well documented. As Coaching

fundamentally is a resultsfocussed area, it is the bottomline, tangible results eg Return of

Investment, decreased turnover, etc , that are now needed to demonstrate that Coaching is

not just a ‘nice thing to do’, but an effective means of enhancing quality and quantity of output

within the workplace. To date limited research of this nature exists, and this report calls for

Coaching practitioners to be more proactive in assimilating quality work of this sort to form the

basis of evidence based practice that potential clients can have confidence in. Many of the

obstacles that have limited the effectiveness of Coaching programmes have been identified

and means of minimising and countering these issues have been proposed.

Coaching is an effective and flexible means of meeting many of the managerial,

developmental and learning needs within the workplace, and over the next few years if built

on the foundation of applied research could become a significantly powerful force within the

workplace.

7,383 words.


9. Bibliography

Ali, M., Brookson, S., Bruce, A., Eatin, J., Heller, R., Johnson, R., Langdon, K. & Sleight, S. Managing for Excellence. London, Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 2001.

Anderson, M. & MetrixGlobal. Executive Briefing: Case Study on the Return of Investment of Executive Coaching. MetrixGlobal LLC. 2001

Atkinson, P. Top Team Coaching and Beyond: A safe Approach. Training Journal. Dec 2001.

Chartered Management Institute. The Coaching at Work Survey. CMI, Campaign for Learning, Lloyds Bank. 2002.

Cook, M. Effective Coaching. New York, McGraw Hill. 1999.

Downey, M. Is Coaching Being Abused? Training Magazine. May 2002

Downey, M. Effective Coaching. New York, TEXERE. 2003.

Honey, P. I’m on the Side of Coachees. Training Journal. Dec 2001.

Mackintosh, A. The Coaching Cascade – Myth or Reality? The Coaching and Mentoring Network. Oct 2003.

Mayo, A. In Praise of Coachees. Training Journal. Dec 2001.

Miller. J. Coaching to Solve Business Problems. InPower. 2002.

Mink, O., Owen, K. & Mink, B. Developing High Performance People. Reading, Mass, AddisonWesley. 1993

Minor, M. Coaching for Development. USA, Crisp Publications Inc. 1995.

Nelson, B. & Economy, P. Managing for Dummies. California, IDG Books Worldwide. 1996.

Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson, M. & McGrath, M. Becoming a Master Manager. USA, John Wiley & Sons. 1996

Smith, I. Towards Best Practice. Training Magazine. Jan 2003.

Whitmore, J. Coaching For Performance. London, Nicholas Brealey. 2003.

Author unnamed:

Coaching For Success, Personnel Today, CIPD website. Apr’01.

Making a Motivator. Personnel Today, CIPD website. Sep ’01.

Is Coaching Being Abused? Personnel Today, CIPD website. May ’02.

Safeway Sends 900 on Coaching Programme. Personnel Today, CIPD website. Aug 2002.

Coaching is Proving its Worth. Personnel Today, CIPD website. Jun ’03.

Coaching Media Section. Coaching Articles & Information, website. Nov ‘03


Are you interested in finding out about the courses and trainings offered worldwide by

Noble Manhattan Coaching Ltd.

Please contact our friendly customer care team

Contact Details

International Head Office

Noble Manhattan Coaching Ltd

No 5

105 The Esplanade

Weymouth

Dorset

DT4 7EA

Tel +44 1305 769411

Email info@noblemanhattan.com

Web www.noblemanhattan.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.noble-manhattan.com/

report coaching in the workplace

Documents