Evolution of Coaching as a discipline and contributions from allied disciplines

Pradipta K. Mohapatra and Ganesh Chella opened the conference at the Second National Coaching Conclave with a conversation about how they see coaching evolving as a discipline and what they see as the contributions and the lessons to be learned from allied disciplines.

Given below are excerpts of the conversation.

Do Coaches have a common identity?

Today’s executive coaches have entered the field from a variety of other professions including business, human resources, counselling, consulting, training and so on. What binds all of them together and gives a common identity is their deep intrinsic desire to help others. Therefore coaches are really helpers in an organisational context.

What is common between coaching and other allied disciplines?

a.   The rigor that is involved in training people to become qualified practitioners is beginning to become stronger in executive coaching, is much the same way as it is in other more evolved disciplines like counselling and therapy.

b.   The requirement of continuing professional development that are beginning to evolve in coaching are also akin to those in other professions.

c.   Coaches, like other helpers, share a common set of core values in terms of upholding confidentiality, being non-judgemental and non-directive.

What are the essential differences between coaching and other allied disciplines?

1. Coaches are working with executives who are highly successful, well adjusted and with the capacity to deal with a certain level of pressures and disturbances.
2. Coaches work primarily in a business and organisational context and are often working in engagements where there are clear sponsor expectations of outcome. To that extent, the boundaries of confidentiality need to be defined keeping in mind the review and reporting requirement of progress. This, of course, must be done without compromising ethical boundaries.
3. Executive coaches are expected to work under fairly well defined engagement time boundaries which necessitate that their own action orientation in terms of outcome must be high. This also means that coaches work under far higher levels of performance pressures.

What do we already know about what works in coaching?

1. We know that is that it is important for us as coaches to be facilitative and non-directive in our style. We realise that unless our coachees take responsibility sustainable changes do not occur.
2. We recognise that irrespective of who pays, we are in partnership with the coachee and will keep his/her interest in mind at all times.
3. It is also clear that respecting and upholding boundaries of confidentiality is very important because the coaching relationship depends on a foundation of trust that is built between the coach and the coachee. The extent to which the coachee sees the engagement as a safe space to explore his/her issues and dilemmas determines the success of the coaching relationship.
4. It also seems necessary for coaches to use their managerial skills to keep the engagement alive. This assumes significance given that coaching is done in real time and puts enormous pressure on the coach to help the client come up with strategies, complete the engagement, meet the goals, and come up with new ideas, new strategies and outcomes to move forward.
5. Finally it appears extremely important for coaches to have access to a peer guide in all their coaching engagements, given that coaches may not know everything and run the risk of making mistakes.

What do we not know about what works in coaching?

1. We are still not very sure if changes brought about through coaching process are permanent and irreversible, or at least sustainable over a long period of time. We have also not yet conquered the ever looming question about the effectiveness of coaching. Visible behavioral changes and changes in style seem to be inadequate measures for those who are looking for quantitative measures of effectiveness.
2. While the world of executive coaching is currently dominated by executives and professionals from the world of business we are not sure if practitioners from other professions like counselling and therapy can and will enter this space and make an impact.
3. We are yet to find a comprehensive approach to leverage the power of mentoring to work side by side with coaching, or to make coaching an organisational competence. These are likely to become important in the coming years.

Is there any difference in help seeking behaviour between western society and Indians?

• A large number of people in western countries seek help from formal sources such as therapists and counselors and this is regarded as socially acceptable. Executive coaching was therefore born in the context of a society where seeking help from formal sources was acceptable. To that extent when executive coaching grew in these cultures it borrowed from existing therapy models. We are therefore inclined to call this a “therapy minus” model.
• In India, seeking help from formal sources is nowhere near acceptable and there is a huge stigma attached to it. People in India would prefer to seek help from family members, elders, friends, old bosses and others whom they trust and value – most of them informal sources. In this context executive coaching has to build on some of the good elements of this informal approach. We therefore call this the “mentor plus” model where we leverage the informality and wisdom of the mentor - protégé relationship and add to it the assurance of a formal coaching relationship. (For further details, please refer to Ganesh Chella’s book “Creating Helping Organisation – 5 Engaging Ways to Promote Employee Performance, Growth & Well-Being)