To RoI or not to RoI!

By: Pradipta K. Mohapatra

As in every other profession, we have in the field of Coaching, the good Coaches and the not so good Coaches. It is therefore legitimate on the part of the Coachee, and more importantly, the client Organisation to ask, ‘How effective was the Coaching initiative?’ The process of measuring Coaching effectiveness is barely mature and is still undergoing a lot of experimentation. At a somewhat pre-mature stage, the ongoing debate in the Coaching world is ‘Can you measure the Return On the Investment made?’ This is a legitimate question and here are some tentative but legitimate answers!

Let me start by narrating a very successful Coaching engagement. This Coaching journey was narrated to CFI in a private gathering by a former CEO of a US $ 2 billion global technology company. Let’s call him, Larry Norton.

When Larry took over as the CEO, the company had a rather modest global revenue of US $ 250 million. The Board recognised that the company would generate significant shareholder value if it were to achieve a revenue of US $ 1 billion in three to five years.

Larry being a first time CEO had two concerns: how would he achieve growth rates which were several times that of competition and how would he get the entire Organisation focussed on this single objective? With the Board’s advice, Larry hired one of the most outstanding Coaches in the world, Prof. Ram Charan. As is now well known Prof. Charan has been a Coach to Jack Welch and many other global CEOs.

Prof. Charan accepted the assignment and helped the Coachee arrive at the Coaching goal: ‘Four times revenue in three years.’ His fundamental construct of Coaching was that, the Coachee would focus his entire managerial processes of planning, execution, review and rewards on this single objective. Prof. Charan would make himself available for one day every month and that day would be spent in reviewing this single strategic goal. It was said that Prof. Charan accepted his remuneration only after the company had crossed revenues of US $ 1 billion and had been listed in the American stock market!

How difficult it is to measure the RoI of Prof. Charan’s Coaching assignment with Larry? Elementary, one might say! The return in this assignment is not only clearly measurable but amounted to several thousand times the investment made. So, why can’t the RoI in every Coaching assignment be measured as well as in Larry’s assignment? The reason is that Business Coaching works on hard business objectives and is therefore amenable to numerical measurements, thereby easy to arrive at RoIs. 

The difficulty is in measuring RoI in the area of Executive Coaching. This is more so if Coaching involves behavioural changes. We have some models such as The Kirkpatrick model which indicates that behavioural changes must lead into results and productivity and therefore into a tangible RoI. In the four level Kirkpatrick model, Level 1 evaluates “Reactions”, Level 2 evaluates “Learning”, Level 3 evaluates “Behaviour” and Level 4 evaluates “Results”. As of now, there is limited data to indicate how soon behavioural changes can transcend into increased financial returns for the enterprise! Fortunately, re-administering the 360 degree assessment is working out to be an extremely fine tool as a surrogate to measuring the RoI.

Here is an interesting case. John Farmer, 38, joined Asian Business Group to take charge of its new diversified businesses, after a long stint as an investment banker with a European Bank. He soon brought in an investment proposal for a power plant and was nominated as CEO of the new company. The power business began to yield significant profits and Mr. Farmer began to ask questions as to when will he be elevated to join the main board. This was the beginning of trouble for John as well as his employers!

In the words of Mr. Hastings, John’s boss, representing the majority stakeholders in the power company, ‘John is an excellent manager but may never reach the main board. He has a chip on his shoulder, he is as cold as a dead mackerel to his colleagues and cynical at the best of times. Nobody knows who the real Mr. Farmer is, and as far as I am concerned I can’t place him and therefore can’t trust him.’

While I will document John’s Coaching experience and learnings in some other paper I must say that in the 360 degree assessment almost everybody agreed with Mr. Hastings comments, but felt that trustworthiness was not the real issue. The real issue was probably a deeply embedded loneliness in John Farmer. He was considered a private person. In an unusual gesture John volunteered that the Coach could include his wife in the 360 degree assessment. She not only agreed with the views expressed by his colleagues that Mr. Farmer was a private person, but added many insights on how he was misunderstood as somebody with a low concern for people.

Eight months and eight Coaching sessions later John agreed to a closing 360 degree assessment. His colleague and CFO for the group summed up their views thus: ‘We knew that John had a Coach but we didn’t realise that Coaching could make such a transformation in such a short time!’ Mr. Hastings somewhat reluctantly decided to invest in one more new project proposed by John Farmer. In order to raise additional funds Mr. Farmer publicly listed his company and as a result shareholder returns doubled overnight. In his closing lines Mr. Hastings says, ‘I always trusted Mr. Farmer’s effectiveness as a manager. I now trust his intellectual integrity. He is a man for the future of the group.’

The wealth created through the IPO of the power company was clearly an excellent reward for John Farmer’s employers. As a Coach, I can boast of a superb RoI! Sadly, however, IPO or shareholder’s returns were not part of our Coaching objectives and I don’t wish to be boastful about it. As far as the Coach was concerned, a dramatic and sustainable behavioural change on the part of John Farmer was reward enough. Mr. Hastings change to a vote of trust for Mr. Farmer was a source of joy for the Coach and the Coachee.

In this instance the Coachee’s and the sponsor’s objectives were achieved. It is also true that the behavioural changes in the Coachee led to a relationship of trust between him and his employers. All this resulted in superior shareholder return.

Can the Coach legitimately claim credit for the shareholder return? Is it fair? That’s the debate in the minds of many Coaches around the world. To RoI or not to RoI!!!

Pradipta K. Mohapatra is a CEO Coach and Co-founder and Chairman, Executive & Business Coaching Foundation India Limited

Systems Perspective as a differentiating Coaching competency

By: Ganesh Chella

Will the approach and perspective of a counsellor, counselling a client, who is an adolescent, be different from the approach and perspective of a counsellor who is counselling a couple, having marital problems? I certainly believe, "Yes"! 

While the range of skills and the processes adopted by counsellors would be similar in both situations, the contexts of the two clients are very different. In the former, I believe that the counsellor must be cognisant of the challenges of adolescence, the role of the family, the impact of societal pressures, key relationships at play and so on to achieve effectiveness in the counselling relationship. In the latter, the counsellor must be cognisant of the socio-psychological drivers of marital harmony and discord, the role of economics or extended families, in addition to other critical contextual factors. This approach of seeing the client not in isolation but as belonging to a holistic system and understanding the impact of the various sub-elements of this system on the client, is what is called a Systems Perspective, also called Contextual Knowledge.

What is relevant to the field of counselling is equally relevant to the field of Coaching. Coaches need to possess the right values and skills, adopt the most appropriate processes and use the most effective tools. They also need to have the right Systems Perspective in order to be effective in their Coaching relationships. In an Executive Coaching context, Systems Perspective will mean knowledge about the organisational processes, business processes, strategic imperatives, cultural factors, climate factors, environmental factors and most importantly career life stage issues, needs and dilemmas that impact the client and shapes his or her behaviour.

The importance of a Systems Perspective for Coaches goes beyond mere effectiveness – it seems a pre-requisite. It has been our experience in CFI that when Organisations seek out Coaches, they almost subconsciously seek out not just the most skillful Coach but the Coach who brings the greatest Systems Perspective to their Coaching engagement. They do this by seeking our Coaches who have “been there and done that” - Coaches who have experienced or witnessed all or some of these system issues and dilemmas. In this article, I would like to examine the subject from a variety of perspectives so that Coaches are able to nurture and develop this dimension and also leverage it in their Coaching engagements.

Executive Coaching Context

Executive Coaches are focussed primarily on helping Executives in Organisations solve problems and achieve their full potential and through that make a difference to their Organisations and themselves. In that sense, Executive Coaching engagements are initiated for some very strong Business and Organisational reasons that must be well appreciated.

It must also be understood that for Executives who are seeking Coaching support within the boundaries of an Organisation, their performance, effectiveness and even level of engagement are influenced by a multitude of systemic factors. For Coaches to be effective they will therefore need to have a sound appreciation of this Systems Perspective.

Let us now understand the various dimensions of this Systems Perspective in an Executive Coaching context especially as it relates to CXO Coaching

a. Business perspective

Executives at the CXO level are very deeply concerned about and are held accountable for the success of the Businesses they are leading. The key Business levers of growth, profitability, diversification and structural changes impact the client and the client’s work quite often which has a lot to do with impacting these dimensions. Coaches who are able to appreciate how these impact their clients are likely to understand their world better and be a lot more empathetic to their situation.

In addition to these key Business levers, even Business ownership patterns have a profound impact and influence on Executives and their own performance and effectiveness. The ways in which a family business works is quite different from the ways in which a global corporation works. Coaches who are cognisant of these subtle differences are able to spot the impact of these contexts on their clients and help them, especially when clients have migrated from one ownership context to another and are struggling to cope.

b. Functional perspective

Closely linked to the Business perspective is the Functional perspective as it applies to the client. Clients quite often belong to some function or profession and as a result many of their beliefs, concerns and challenges, are influenced by the function or profession they belong to. Therefore, when a Coach is dealing with the Head of Sales & Marketing, it would help if the Coach had a broad appreciation of the contours of the Sales & Marketing function, an understanding of how it works and what its key imperatives are so that the Coach is able to ask the right questions and gain a deeper insight about the context at work.

Similarly, when a Coach is speaking with a CFO client, it would help if s/he had a basic understanding about the role of a CFO and some of the typical dilemmas that a CFO might face in fulfilling their responsibilities.

c. Career life stage

As Executives progress in their careers, they pass through various career life stages and transition points. There is a large body of knowledge about the typical needs, issues and dilemmas at each of these career life stages.

For example, a Functional Head who is taking on a cross-functional responsibility, would have a certain typical set of needs and concerns. A Manager migrating from an operating role to a strategic role would have certain typical dilemmas. So, also a first time CEO would have his/her own typical challenges and developmental needs.

Coaches who have experienced or observed these career life stages and transition points are likely to be very quick in understanding their clients and diagnosing the needs of their clients and be a lot more empathetic in their interactions.

d. Organisational process

Clients work within Organisations and are most deeply impacted by a whole range of Organisational processes and behaviours. The way in which the Organisation plans, takes decisions, collaborates, manages and evaluates performance, rewards people, shapes careers, manages change and upholds values has a huge impact on effectiveness of the client. The client’s efficacy is also largely impacted by the extent to which these Organisational processes are aligned to their own values and beliefs and their professional way of working. The client’s dilemmas and development needs can easily be understood by Coaches who have experienced these Organisational processes and can relate to it.

Leveraging the Systems Perspective

How does a Coach leverage his/her Systems Perspective?

Firstly, Coaches can use their Systems Perspective to empathise with their clients. They can ask better questions and help their clients tell their stories more completely and concretely. They can also use this insight to help their clients gain new perspectives and zero in on the agendas that will give true leverage. Most importantly, Coaches are likely to establish a far higher connect when their clients perceive them as someone who understands where they are coming from.

Developing and Nurturing a Systems Perspective

Executives who have ‘been there and done that’, tend to naturally find it easier to bring the Systems Perspective into their Coaching engagement. Many Executive Coaches tend to be independent professionals and come from varying backgrounds. While some may have held Executive positions at senior levels, others might have held Executive positions at middle to senior level before having migrated to become trainers, facilitators and consultants.

Whatever might be the background, Coaches must find ways to constantly stay alive to Business and Organisational realities at all times. Given the rapid changes in the Business environment, even experienced Executives must ensure that their perspectives are current and not outdated. From this point of view the right balance between Consulting and Coaching will ensure that Coaches are able to bring insights from their Consulting to their Coaching conversations, just the same way they would carry the power of their Coaching skills into their consulting assignments.

CFI actively encourages its members to share Coaching cases with their peers and learn valuable lessons about what their clients need and what their context looks like. By working closely with clients through its consulting practice, CFI ensures that it keeps its Systems Perspective alive and brings the benefit of this insight to its CEO Coach  training. 

Limitations

The real dangers of a Coach with a strong Systems Perspective is that they could end up telling their client ‘what they have to do’ or might even be too prescriptive in their diagnosis. This is a watch out for all Coaches in general but more so for those who have ‘been there and done that’.

I must also clarify that a System Perspective does not mean that the Coach must be familiar with the intricacies and Business specific domain know-how of their client or even the nuances of the client’s role. What I am talking about is a very broad understanding which can be developed and nurtured through formal managerial education as well as through constant interface with those in Business.

Coaches spend a lot of time and effort to become more and more skillful in their conversation, conversant with the right processes and proficient in the use of data to forward the Coaching agenda. If they also have a sound Systems Perspective, they will make a remarkable contribution to their clients.

Ganesh Chella is Co-founder and Member Governing Board, Executive & Business Coaching Foundation India Limited and Founder & CEO, totus consulting

What is wrong with giving advice

By: Ganesh Chella

The Coach is listening intently to his client as he narrates in great detail the specifics of the problem he is facing at work. The Coach is deeply attuned to his emotions, his experiences, his intentions and his state of being.  The empathy is complete.  However, the Coach begins to go beyond empathy because he “has been there and done that”.  In his mind, he is very clear about what his client needs to do to solve this particular problem.  While his training as a Coach has led him to believe that giving advice is strictly forbidden, his training as an executive is leading him to believe that it is a sin not to tell the client what he should do to solve his problem and allow him to struggle with it. 

In all my conversations with the coaches we train, and the existing coaches with whom we engage in a supervisory relationship, the subject of giving advice always comes up.  Many wonder if this self imposed restriction on giving advice is a western idea and even suggest that in India, our culture strongly encourages people to pass on their wisdom to others, especially because the recipient is more than willing to receive it.  They also argue that they have been chosen by their clients for their credentials and wisdom and it would be unfair not to share it with them merely because they have to adhere to some norm about advice which seems hard to accept.

In this article, I would like to share some of my perspectives about the place of advice in an Executive Coaching relationship.  I would like to look at this from two perspectives – the context and the timing.

The context of advice

Advice is a form of challenge, support and encouragement and has its legitimate place in a coaching relationship.  Also, in many helping relationships the helper is not merely a coach but also a manager, a consultant, a skilled expert, an advisor and so on.  In other words, in settings outside of pure executive coaching relationships, the subject of giving advice assumes real significance.

In his classic, “Essential of Skilled Helper” which is CFI’s prescribed reading for its Coaches, Gerard Egan has identified information sharing as one of the challenging skills for coaches. 

Gerard Egan clarifies that sometimes clients are unable to explore the problem fully, set goals, and proceed to act because they lack information of one kind or other. For example, when clients tell their stories it might help them to know that they are not the first to have a problem of that kind.  Similarly, when clients are examining what they actually require, sharing relevant information of a factual nature would help them clarify the possibilities and set clear goals. Similarly, at the stage of action planning, information sharing could help clients become aware of the typical bottlenecks that they might face.

Gerard Egan sees information sharing as a challenging process because it shows clients new perspectives and is meant to push them to act.

Gerard Egan looks at information sharing as both giving correct information and correcting wrong information. He also sees information sharing as a source of confirmation and support for the clients.

Gerard Egan, however, draws a clear distinction between information and advice.  He sees information as professional guidance and advice as “telling clients what to do”.

Therefore, my view is that it will be useful to stay within the realm of information sharing or professional guidance and refrain from using the term ‘advice’ which tends to focus on telling people what to do.

The timing of advice

Having understood the real meaning of advice which we will now begin to call “guidance”, we can now turn our attention to understanding when such guidance should be delivered.  It is my experience that many of our clients’ problems and unused opportunities arise out of their inability to see their situation completely or accurately or see it through a whole series of mistaken beliefs and assumptions. People tend to think in one manner and continue to do so as they are not aware of the implications of this manner of thinking and its impact on their effectiveness. In this context, you must now start examining the role of guidance in helping clients and when such guidance should be delivered.

When a person is yet to recognise and confront some of his mistaken ways of thinking, it is not likely that he will accept guidance to act differently.  For example, if an employee has been failing in his job because of a mistaken way of thinking about customers, peers, team members and his manager chooses to advice him on what he should do, he certainly is not going to change because at that moment, he is still seeing the problem as caused by others and not by his mistaken ways of thinking.  This is where guidance/advice when timed badly, can either be of no use or even destroy the helping relationship over a period of time.

In this context, it would be useful to pay attention to Gerard Egan’s three stage skilled helper model.

In Stage I, when the coach is helping his client tell his story and tell it completely and then beginning to challenge him, so that he gets new perspectives, his entire focus is on understanding and challenging.  There is very little place for advice at this stage except where information is used as a means of challenge.  If the coach has succeeded in helping his client in challenging himself in helping him see new perspectives, the client may come around at examining what change will give him leverage.  At this stage, the client begins to look at defining the change agenda and making commitments and taking actions.

Having crossed this stage, the client is looking for strategies to implement the change agenda.  This is the stage at which appropriate professional guidance by way of a range of ideas and solutions can be useful.  Even here, the emphasis is on generating ideas, sharing information and correcting misinformation. The focus is not telling the client what he should do.

In summary, guidance of any kind is most effective after clients have challenged their ways of thinking and not before that.  We all recognise that we live in a world of information overload.  The average executive has significant access to every source of information and insight.  He also has access to several sources of self help. Yet, we all know that none of these translate into new behaviours.

Therefore, the real benefit that a coach can bring to his client is through his ability to help him challenge himself rather than jump to give him advice on what he should do.  Of course, well informed professional guidance delivered at the right time is always useful.

Ganesh Chella is Co-founder and Member Governing Board, Executive & Business Coaching Foundation India Limited and Founder & CEO, totus consulting.

Referral is an important form of Coaching

By: Dr. B. J. Prashantham

This issue of the Coaching Digest focuses on a variety of “On the Ground” implementation issues in setting up Coaching engagements and making them work.

In this context, it is important for the sponsors and Coachees to be familiar with a key dimension in Coaching – referral.

This article attempts to answer three important questions regarding referral during Coaching of any type. 

Those three questions are:

1. What is referral 
2. To whom should those needing it be referred to
3. How referral should be done

What follows are not hard and fast recipes but helpful guidelines to be utilized always keeping in mind the Coachee’s interests and bearing in mind the premise that Coaching is Coachee-centric.

What is referral?

The following two Dictionary definitions may be a good starting point to answer this question:

a) [noun] A recommendation to consult the (professional) person referred to;
"this patient is a referral from Dr. Bones"

b) [noun] The act of referring (as forwarding an applicant for employment or referring a matter to an appropriate agency)

Referral is to refer an individual who comes to get some help to some other helper, particularly the one who is more likely to have the expertise, or the skill or the ability, or even for that matter the time. Referral is based on Coachee’s need and goals.

Referral is also an ethical obligation of any helping profession, be it psychology, be it medicine, and be it any form of consultancy. Referral is an expression of genuine concern for the needs of the Coachee and is one of the possible interventions, along the various phases of Coaching.

Referral may occur right at the beginning, or at the very first session, when it becomes clear to the Coach and/or the Coachee that the needs of the Coachee can be best met elsewhere, and it takes a certain amount of confidence and awareness on the part of the Coach to recognise this need of referral for the Coachee.

Why?

Coaching is a Coachee-centric helping process. Since human needs are many, a helper like a Coach may or may not have the time, the expertise, or the training to undertake the type of Coaching or other forms of help that the Coachee may require. Sometimes, the Coach may also use referral to augment or complement what he is doing with the Coachee.

Sometimes it can happen that even though an individual is a suitable candidate for Coaching, personal chemistry may not click. One may have a distinctive discomfort or dislike for the other, whereby working together may become difficult, for a whole variety of reasons. It could be transference; it could be counter- transference, it could be other possible reasons. Under these circumstances, as mark of respect, understanding and commitment to the welfare of the Coachee, the Coach may decide to refer.

Sometimes a Coach based on his sound judgment may realise that what the Coachee needs is not Coaching, but mentoring, or counselling or psychotherapy. You may ask what these fine distinctions are; Passmore (Passmore P. 2007, p.21) has outlined these fine distinctions between Coaching and the related fields very well using the metaphor of driving a car

1. "A therapist will explore what is stopping you driving your car.
2. A counselor will listen to your anxieties about the car.
3. A mentor will share tips from his or her own experience of driving cars.
4. A consultant will advise you on how to drive the car.
5. A Coach will encourage and support you in driving the car.”

Under such circumstances, an ethically-oriented Coach will then refer the Coachee to a person whose expertise is most needed and also available. 

Even if the need is Coaching, the Coach may realise during assessment that the Coachee will benefit from a deeper self understanding through the use of some psychometric testing in which the Coach may not have training or may not be certified to do, such as Myers Briggs Type Indicator or some other personality inventories. There again referral, while continuing to Coach, for that specific purpose will be quite appropriate. In this case, the Coach will deftly use the information gained from those tools in arriving at a greater understanding of the Coachee’s likes, needs, preferences and styles.

To whom?

Having understood what referral is, we will now look at to whom Coachees should be referred to.

Coachees may be referred to another Coach or specialist with expertise for psychometric testing. If the additional need is Business Coaching, the Coachee could be referred to those who are knowledgeable in business aspects. If it is a health problem, the person may be referred to a medical practitioner.

If it is a deeply rooted psychological problem, the person may be referred to a psychologist, who either specialises in counselling or clinical aspects of the work.

Sometimes the Coachee might need information about a particular domain or a sector of the organisation. In such cases it is appropriate to refer him to a domain specialist.

Similarly, if there are any conflicts of interest, then it may be ethical that the Coachee is referred to another Coach. One could also refer the Coachee to another Coach to obtain a second opinion on a complex issue.

It is useful here to be a bit more specific about the psychological issues that necessitate referral. Persistence of negative features or personality traits that are making the person dysfunctional would be a prime situation calling for referral. When there is a dysfunctional personality, the Coach could then refer to a psychotherapist. When it is a persisting distress, the Coach could refer to a counsellor, and when there is the desire for growth and development, it is within the primary domain of Coaching.

In some instances, if the person is very emotionally troubled and requires psychiatric help, it is wise to involve the family so that the referral may take place and that person gets the right type of benefit.

Pathological symptoms or situations like threat of self harm or harm to others is not discussed here as most Coachees tend to be in the normal range of functioning successfully and having the desire to reach the next level of excellence at this stage of their life.

Given the seriousness of these circumstances, refusal to refer when needed is not a mature way of handling one’s professional responsibilities.

For sustainability of change, it may be important to refer people to groups, communities, role models and places where appropriate.

How?

Finally, I come to the most important aspect of how to do referral. Referral is not like putting up a signboard with an arrow mark showing which direction to go! There can be many emotional reactions involved on both sides of the table, namely in the mind of the Coach and the Coachee.

In some instances, referral may take place easily and effectively while in some it might be more difficult. A good referral has two important components (a) acquaintance with the persons or agencies for different needs, their strengths and limitations and policies (b) competence in sound Coaching procedures to facilitate the referral.

In order to confidently refer to others, it’s necessary for the Coach to have some bits of personal knowledge about the people to whom she or he would be referring their Coachees. This can take many forms and shapes. One is getting acquainted with some professionals in your area, so that if the need arises you not only refer, but refer intelligently, knowing the strengths of different referees in their domain expertise, their history, their reputation, and the testimonials of others about them.

At the heart of referral is sensitivity to the Coachee’s feelings. Is he/she feeling fine, or is the Coachee carrying expressed or unexpressed feelings like “Oh you have abandoned me”, “I trusted you or I was referred to you by someone I trust, so whoever he trusts, I trust, you are rejecting me and I am hurt”. Under those circumstances, it is important to pay attention to the feelings of the Coachee by allowing them to ventilate. It is also good to clarify that you’re not actually abandoning and that you’re having the best interest of the Coachee in mind. There could be related feelings of rejection, hurt, annoyance and a skilled Coach will be able to handle them with non- defensive listening and high levels of empathy in preparing the Coachee. It’s important to prepare the Coachee properly and ensure emotional support. The other important aspect is that, the Coach who does not want to refer and who wants to cling on to his Coachee has something to cope with and may use a guide or supervisor’s help.

We want to help people with commitment and concern but not be possessive and unwilling to let go. What is important here is not who Coaches a Coachee, but is the Coachee getting the right help.

So in the matter of doing a referral, it is very clear that it be done with great concern for the Coachee, giving due regard to the feelings of the Coachee, giving due opportunities for the Coachee to express himself or herself and providing the right information.

What are the feelings the Coachee is likely to experience? He could experience a sense of rejection and hurt, he could have a degree of mistrust in the person being referred to or a debilitating sense of the fear of the unknown. Therefore till they get together, it may be good for the Coach to be open to different ways of connecting. One can always use any amount of creativity in doing this. Sometimes a phone call, a note, a meeting or a personal introduction to the Coach might be advisable; whichever the situation calls for. Despite all this, the Coachee can always reject the offer. The Coach should do his part well and respect the final choice of the Coachee.

Even after the Coachees accept the referral, it won’t be a bad idea to keep in occasional touch and learn what they are doing without fostering inappropriate dependency.

Listening, assessing the need, empathy, self-disclosure, accepting one’s limitations, preparing with care, encouraging, information sharing, resolving resistances, sometimes gently confronting, willingness to let go, and supporting the Coachee through the referral process makes referral as challenging as actual Coaching if not more.

Summary

• We can attempt to understand all
• Help some
• Refer some
• Endure the rest

Reference:

Passmore, J. (Ed.). (2007). Psychometrics in coaching: using psychological and psychometrics tools for development. London: Kogan Page.

Dr. B. J. Prashantham is Director Institute for Human Relations, Counselling & Psychotherapy, Christian Counselling Centre, Vellore. He is also an Honorary Member of CFI’s Governing Board

Setting up a Coaching Relationship – the inside story

By: Ganesh Chella

Befitting the theme of this edition of the Coaching Digest – Coaching On the Ground, this article focuses on some of the ground level issues involved in setting up an effective relationship between a Coach and the Client or Coachee. At CFI we refer to this entire process as the pre - engagement phase or the phase before the actual Coaching commences.

Coaching is a very personal process and therefore does not follow a single universal flow or sequence. Different individuals and Organisations have their own unique needs and contexts and therefore the process adopted in setting up a Coaching relationship can be quite varied depending on these needs and contexts. 

However there are certain universal principles that if adopted can help establish a robust Coaching relationship. This is the purpose of the article. 

The search and empanelment process

Setting up a sound Coaching relationship rests on the ability of the Organisation to first establish a robust search and empanelment process. Organisations with a mature Coaching history tend to have a fairly well established process for the search and identification of potential Coaches and empanelling them. This empanelment process protects the Organisation from the risk of hastily scouting around for and assembling a team of Coaches after the need has arisen and Coachees have been identified.

While some Organisations have well evolved methods to manage this empanelment process many others may not have this process at all. In my opinion this is a very desirable process but it will be quite a while before Indian Organisations get there. This subject however merits a separate article!

Two-way or three-way relationships

At the heart of setting a Coaching relationship, is the awareness about the issues surrounding the three-way and two-way Coaching relationships. In most corporate settings Coaching relationships are three-way. In other words, there is always a sponsor who would be the immediate manager, the Coachee who would be the client and the Coach who is the expert. Of course there would in addition also be the HR leader or the L & D leader who would act as a facilitator.

In a more entrepreneurial setting or when the Founder or CEO himself / herself is looking for a Coach it is a simple two-way relationship because the sponsor and the Coachee or the client are the same. At CFI we have seen many entrepreneurs seeking Coaching support for themselves. We have also seen executives with a pressing agenda or dilemma seeking Coaching help on their own accord.

At CFI, we have had enough experience in reviewing two-way and three-way relationships and on this basis are able to come up with some generalised guidelines.

The Two-way Coaching relationship

In our experience, a two-way relationship has a significantly higher potential to succeed as compared to a three-way relationship, for the simple reason that the Coachee has taken the initiative of seeking Coaching help on his / her accord and is not being encouraged to do so by anyone.

In a two-way relationship we have seen a fair level of motivation in the Coachee to achieve something. This motivation ensures the commitment to get value out of the engagement. The Coachee’s willingness to bear the cost of Coaching is the ultimate test of his motivation.

In addition to commitment, in a two-way relationship the Coachee always has a reasonable sense of what he / she wants out of the Coaching engagement. This makes it much easier for the Coach to zero in on the Coaching goal.

Most importantly in a two-way relationship there are no conflicts between what the Coachee would like to achieve and what anybody else believes he / she would achieve. To that extent there are no alignment concerns.

While a two-way relationship has many benefits there are also problems:

• The lack of a sponsor leads to the absence of a broad system perspective about the Coachee. In other words, we may not get a sense of how the Coachee fits in to the Organisation or the eco-system. 
• We may also not have access to quality information about the Coachee’s performance in a two-way relationship.

However, in my opinion the merits of working in a two-way Coaching relationship far exceed these constraints.

The Three-way Coaching relationship

A three-way Coaching relationship is certainly more complex for more reasons than one. Here are a few:

• Despite best efforts in building awareness about Coaching, the Coachee may believe that his manager is asking him to undergo Coaching because something is wrong with him.
• The Coachee may wonder how it will be perceived by others and might even believe that it may not be perceived well. 
• If the relationship between the Coachee and his or her manager has not been open and transparent, it is likely that all or some of the Coaching needs articulated by the manager to the Coach in the intake meeting might come as a total surprise to the Coachee. 
• It is also quite likely that what the manager sees as the Coaching need might be seen as an Organisational failure by the Coachee, and he may not take responsibility for it.

In summary a three-way Coaching relationship has a lot more challenges compared to a two-way relationship because the Coachee has not initiated the Coaching process and there could be lack of agreement on what the Coaching needs are.

Having said this, three-way relationships are likely to be more common than two-way relationships and we must learn to make them work.

Closing the gaps

HR has a very important role in closing the gaps and ensuring alignment while setting up a three-way Coaching relationship. The following are the possible ideas for HR leaders to pursue:

• Given that Coaching is a very new and untested helping relationship, HR needs to regularly run several “getting acquainted” seminars and help it’s leaders within the Organisation appreciate and understand the values that they can obtain from Coaching.
• HR can ensure that Coachees and managers have had adequate dialogues and discussions about the need for Coaching and the potential agenda well before they invite the Coach for the intake meeting. It can be very embarrassing for all people involved if differences between managers and Coachees get surfaced in front of a Coach during the intake meeting.
• HR must uphold the principle of Coaching being a voluntary process and give the employee the freedom to accept or decline it based on his / her readiness.
• Most importantly, HR must be sure that the employee being considered for Coaching is indeed ready for Coaching and ensure that Coaching is not being applied inappropriately. (Please read Dr. S. Sabesan’s article on this subject in this issue.)
• HR can explain the process clearly to the Coachee and answer any questions he / she may have about how it will unfold.
• At a more operational level, HR can help put together all the necessary information about the Coachee for the Coach so that the intake meeting is productive.

A discussion about setting up a sound Coaching relationship will not be complete without mentioning two specific aspects:

1.      The intake meeting

2.      The difference between the Coaching agenda and the Coaching goal.

The intake meeting

The intake meeting is the first formal meeting where the Coach meets the Coachee and the sponsor. It is in this meeting that the broad outcomes expected from Coaching are discussed and agreed upon. It is in this meeting that the Coach and Coachee also meet each other and affirm their comfort in working with one another.

In this meeting the Coaching process is clarified and confidentiality boundaries are reiterated. It is quite likely that some part of the intake meeting will be three-way (and maybe even the HR leader) and some part might be only between the Coach and the Coachee.

It must be clarified that the intake meeting must not be used to assess the credentials of the Coach. This should happen prior to the intake meeting.

At the end of the intake meeting the Coach and Coachee must be ready to sign off on a formal Coaching contract.

The Coaching agenda and the Coaching goal

The success of a sound Coaching relationship depends on the extent to which there is clarity about the Coaching agenda and the Coaching goal.

I have seen enormous confusion even in the minds of practitioners about difference between the Coaching agenda and the Coaching goal.

When a manager or an Organisation decides to find a Coach for a Coachee, what they have in mind is only a broad Coaching agenda. A Coaching agenda is a very broad understanding of the nature of the Coaching intervention that is likely to be of value to the Coachee.

The Coaching agenda could also be defined as the broad genre under which the Coaching engagement is likely to fall. For example, if an individual is identified as a potential leader and is being given the benefit of a Coach, then the Coaching agenda may be called Coaching for leader development.

On the other hand, if a manager believes that an individual could do much better in the current role with coaching help then the Coaching agenda could be called Coaching for performance enhancement and result orientation.

A Coaching goal will evolve from the Coaching agenda. To move from an agenda to a goal Coaches undertake a lot of assessment, examine a lot of data and have detailed discussions with the Coachee to explore their dreams, wishes and causes.

For example, while the agenda is performance enhancement and result orientation, the specific goal could be around overcoming the desire for perfection (that is inhibiting action and result orientation).

The Coaching goal will be very specific, measurable and time bound.

The idea is to start with a broad agreement on the agenda and then narrow down to a specific model, namely, ‘The Gerard Egan Skilled Helper model’ that we at CFI are inspired by. Egan calls the agenda, the ‘Story’ (stage I) and the goal as the ‘Change agenda’ (Stage II). He recommends that we help clients tell their story, derive new perspectives from these stories, identify what will give leverage, establish commitment to change and then zero in on the change agenda.

In establishing a Coaching relationship, the intake meeting is likely to build clarity on the Coaching agenda. The goal will evolve in a few sessions. Many Organisations and sponsors may seek a review soon after the Coaching goals are finalised and this we believe is good practice as it is quite likely that the Coaching goals that finally evolve might not be aligned to the Organisation’s envisaged agenda.

Conclusion

The pre-engagement phase in a Coaching relationship in many ways can determine the success or failure of a Coaching relationship and how well it is set up. As outlined in the article, two-way relationships are easier to set up compared to three-way relationships. However, three-way relationships are likely to be more common in Organisational settings and we must learn to make a success of it.

HR can play a very important role in setting up this relationship by doing adequate preparatory work well before the crucial intake meeting.

Having clarity about the difference between a Coaching agenda and a Coaching goal can also make the intake meeting a lot more realistic and give the Coach the flexibility to work with the Coachee to evolve the final Coaching goal.

Coaching is indeed a very personal helping relationship with a huge emphasis on confidentiality. However in the name of confidentiality, we should not treat Coaching as a secretive art where the Coach or the sponsor cannot explain what happens in the relationship and how it will unfold. Clarity about setting up the Coaching relationship can demystify Coaching while also upholding professional standards, the respect and dignity of the Coachee. This is the cause CFI is committed to!

Ganesh Chella is Co-founder and Member Governing Board, Executive & Business Coaching Foundation India Limited and Founder & CEO, totus consulting