There is no doubt that the global environment is in need of good coaches. Whether this concern is evaluated from sophisticated management approaches, or from the routine functioning of society, the consensus appears to be relating to people who are conscious about changes, and how to relate with the changes to get work done. There is no single attribute that can be said to describe good coaches, but if the basic explanation offered is relied upon, the description seems to describe good leaders as well. This paper seeks to review available literature regarding the concept of coaching and how it affects leadership. Good leaders should be able to demonstrate their leadership abilities beyond the company bottom line; they are expected to impart their insight about how to interact with people and the environment to others so that the process of success can be a continuous one, and unrelated to a single individual’s efforts.
A coaching process can pursue a rigid or free structure. Vien (2016) observes that effective coaches are supposed to adapt the coaching process to specific clients. That is followed by the application of certain techniques, for example, a coach can allow a client to reproduce on past experience, and then ask specific questions concerning targets and expectations. The coach then “acts as a sounding board for the client’s concerns” (Vien 2016). This approach has the effect of building a foundation for the ensuing engagement. The author explains that when the client identifies with the coach’s genuine demonstration about willingness to understand and provide direction, the opportunity is thus created to create a roadmap that will guide future coaching engagements. The same applies to good leadership, because by projecting a leaders experience on to a client’s situation, relationships are forged in the pursuit of a directional process for achieving success.
Casullo (2012) recommends the use of leadership assessments to arrive at a data-driven response to a client’s needs. The most common methods of assessment include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or 360-degree leadership assessments provide relevant information regarding a client’s temperaments and leadership styles. When coaches are aware of the client’s goals and personality information derived from the assessment, this greatly shapes the process of devising specific strategies for success. It is however cautioned against excessive reliance on external assessments, since the same may be unable to provide pertinent information concerning how the client interprets his or her relationship and interaction with different environmental stimuli in crafting a success strategy (Elmer 2015). Consequently, external assessment should be looked at as creating a coaching foundation, and the coach should exercise due diligence in deciding when and how to apply the results.
The coaching process should seek to provide general direction regarding how the process of interacting with a client can be useful in providing strategic sense and direction towards success. Segers (2011) warns that the process has been constantly abused, especially from a client’s perspective, since often the client approaches the coaching engagement with the expectation that the coach has to provide all answers. Curiously, the coach is regarded as knowing what works and what does not, and the danger with this approach relates to skewing the odds such that the client is inclined to just tell his or her story, and expect the coach to provide a narrative of what should be done. Although coaches may recommend some strategies, the coach’s role in the engagement should be to help the client realize that it is a joint task and the solutions rely squarely on both parties. Consolation is offered by researchers finding that coaching clients are hardly passive during the process, and that it is upon the coach to bring out the active side of the client (Read 2014). In such situations, coaches should provide guidance to the dialogue process and allow the clients to explore most of the probable strategies and scenarios.
In exploring if coaching can help in getting new partners and leaders off to a great start, Vien (2016) discovered that coaching can help new leaders transition quickly to their new roles. He also discovered that the process of coaching enabled the new leaders to develop soft skills and leadership capabilities. The coaching process had further effects based on the fact that since the new partners were leaders, it was possible to carry the soft skills learned over to the organization and influence the entire workplace. He recommended that the coaches be either availed internally where there is a department that has the relevant skills and experience, tasked with coaching responsibilities. Alternatively, coaches can be hired externally and individual coaches assigned to personal partners.
During an exceptional study about the coaching strategy applied by Coach Teri McKeever, the head coach of women’s swimming club of the University of California, Schroth (2013) discovered that the strategy applied by the coach displayed total departure from conventional coaching. The coach does not focus on winning, but rather emphasizes a growth mindset involving self improvement both for herself as a coach, and for her swimming team. Her approach strongly advocates for personality-team fit over and above swimming speed. This approach is paired up with constantly providing feedback, and encouraging complete honesty even when it is found to be inconvenient. Koltin (2013) considers this an exceptional coaching approach, since the emphasis on self improvement for the coach as well as the client, reinforces a mutual bond towards success.
Many characteristics of good coaches have been provided by researchers and other professionals, but Ready (2004) insists that a good coach should be able to keep at bay the discouraging intrusion of burnout during the success process. The author emphasizes keeping the passion for success alive throughout the coaching process and planning for a follow-up stage after active coaching. This view is also held by Moore (2013), when he observes that among the things that make a good board great is the ability of the board to nurture and sustain the spirit of continuous success. This is only possible when organizational culture entrenches continuous success as a strategic focus.
A fundamental issue in coaching relates to the models that are applicable in optimizing the process. Bowles et al. (2007) illustrate a common model their study revealed. They describe a generic coaching model that has five distinct steps. The first step involves the development of an intervention agreement. The second step involves the establishment of a coaching relationship. The third step deals with the creation and management of expectations of the coaching process. The fourth step involves the provision of an experience of behavioral masterly or cognitive direction over the concerns and sub processes. The fifth step involves evaluation and the process of attributing coaching success or failure. Kilburg (2006) argues that the five generic steps depicted in this model should not serve to give a strict prescription for a coaching process. He insists that the coach should exercise discretion in the choice of the steps to be followed depending on what each coaching engagement commands.
Barnett et al. (2008) describe a pyramid model that spells out clear factors as the pyramid foundation. These factors include the coach’s skills, personal attributes, environmental influences, and the coaching procedure. After the foundation, the next step in the pyramid is a process of empowerment that ensures that the client realizes deeper personal advantages which include articulateness and vision, building confidence, and inspiration. The next step ensures that the client becomes mentally prepared to aid the production of external personal remuneration which include skills enhancement, awareness and perceptive, and behavior improvement. The final step which marks the peak of the pyramid involves achievement of business results. Gerzon (2006) supports the pyramid model of coaching and asserts that the process of coaching is not a onetime event, and should demonstrate a gradual process marked with a clear framework for evaluating progress and offering corrective action.
Around the year 2006, a four-category coaching model was introduced (Horn 2008). The model describes the process with regard to the aims of the coaching task, range of effort, and the different industry approaches concerned. Each step of the model comes complete with interventions and recommended approaches, the profiles and providers’ styles, and precise goals relating to the varied requests of management and work teams.
The Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) model is a popular and recommended tool for the practice and research of coaching (Longenecker 2010). The model is also referred to as the competency-based coaching model and contains specific information. Firstly, it involves clear and concise individual and team-based goal orientation information. Secondly, it emphasizes a process regarding self-reflection and goal setting. Thirdly, a description of the process of building the capacity to work rationally, socially, and organizationally through maintaining situational and context focus. Fourthly, introduction of time limits, and the depiction of coaching as a contractual relationship with fixed timing. Fifthly, it proposes a statement highlighting how issues of power and influence will be addressed, and how they will be negotiated as part of the contractual relational process.
Research highlights that coaching is a discipline that is still developing, and has attracted interest across the board. The evolution of the process has received fundamental support from related disciplines including strategic management. As a result, it is not easy to draw a line between effective leaders and coaches. Often, it can be argued that one is a product of the other. The different approaches adapted in coaching, and the various models of the process, all indicate support for the process through allowing for effective debates and productive discussions on a relatively new field of practice and research.
References
Barnett, Bruce G., and Gary R. O’Mahony. "Mentoring and coaching programs for the professional development of school leaders." International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (2008): 232-262.
Bowles, Stephen, et al. "Coaching leaders in middle and executive management: Goals, performance, buy-in." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28.5 (2007): 388-408.
Casullo, D. (2012). What's your secret ingredient? How businesses can find—and harness—what makes them great. Employment Relations Today, 39(2), 65-69.
Elmer, V. (2015).Issue: Women in Top Management Women in Top Management.
Gerzon, Mark. Leading through conflict: How successful leaders transform differences into opportunities. Harvard Business Press, 2006.
Horn, Thelma S. "Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain." Advances in sport psychology 3 (2008): 239-267.
Kilburg, Richard R. Executive wisdom: Coaching and the emergence of virtuous leaders. American Psychological Association, 2006.
Koltin, A. (2013). The 10Cs of Great Leaders.
Longenecker, Clinton O. "Coaching for better results: key practices of high performance leaders." Industrial and Commercial Training 42.1 (2010): 32-40.
Moore, J. (2013). What makes a good board great? Board Leadership
Ready, D. A. (2004).The characteristics of great leader‐builder companies.Business Strategy Review, 15(3), 36-40.
Schroth, H. A. (2013). Coach McKeever. California Management Review,56(1), 89-99.
Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., Henderickx, E., &Inceoglu, I. (2011).Structuring and understanding the coaching industry: The coaching cube. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 204-221.
Vien, V. (2016).Coaching programs get new partners off to a great start. Coaching can be a powerful investment in your firm’s future.
