In 1.4, I suggested this research would generate new knowledge about peer-
coaching. This first study of the IOE’s peer-coaching service contributes to debates around learning and professional practice in HE. It also provides, in more detail, a theoretical perspective of the process of learning in coaching, how the coaches understand and facilitate this learning and, to some extent, the impact personally and professionally on the coachee.
New knowledge has been generated by taking an original methodological approach – that of analysing audio-recordings of actual conversations conducted by members of the coach-learning. Whilst this process was, in some sense, artificial, it was beneficial in that the research raises a number of issues, particularly for other HE institutions – or indeed, organisations in other contexts - considering implementing such a service. Peer-coaching, as a support for learning and change, provides positive benefits – particularly during times of constant change. What makes it unique, is being able to
coach one another without going through relationship building. Peers understand the organisation, its working and its politics. This can be an advantage as we saw
particularly in conversations four, five and six. It could of course, be a disadvantage, if coaches have difficulty remaining objective and collude with the coachee against the organisation, as we saw briefly in conversation four. It is useful for, practice, to be aware of this.
External coaches may be trained in different ways. They may not be aware of the focus we have on facilitating a learning process which engages with refection to develop a self-awareness leading to long lasting change. External coaches are costly, and are sometimes only available to Senior Management. Going back to the research question, peer-coaching at the IOE is non-hierarchical and is available to all staff, therefore I would argue, everyone is treated equally. We have a specific
approach to coaching – everyone has the same opportunity to learn.
In peer-coaching, we have an approach to learning which could impact positively on the organisation. Benefits include movitating colleagues in terms of CPD, career enhancement, better working practices and generally being happier and content. Tensions might be trying to encourage colleagues that this is a worthwhile service. I am aware that some colleagues in the IOE are still a little suspicious of coaching. I would argue that peer-coaching is an excellent form of support in any environment as it responds to the needs of the individual. It is possible for anyone in an organisation to potentially become a coach – thus important CPD.
If an organisation is committed to implementing a peer-coaching service, then it is important to highlight some practical issues. I suggest evidence of commitment would be the following:
For a service is to have integrity and worth, then CPD for coaches should take a more formal approach – it is reasonably informal at the IOE at this time. Perhaps a Coaching Code of Conduct should be drawn up, articulating clearly expectations of coaches in terms of, for example, attendance at supervision and CPD.
Coaches should be recruited from across the board. It is therefore crucial for potential coaches to be aware of the requirements, the commitment and the potential benefits. Coaches have to be ‘away from their desks’ for
considerable periods of time both to coach and to attend CPD and supervision sessions. In order to eradicate the inconsistency across practice (as
highlighted by this research) supervision is fundamental to CPD and therefore should be protected.
Peer-coaching, within an organisation, highlights issues with trust and confidentiality (Cox 2012). CPD for coaches should focus on this sensitive area. Coachees may experience difficulties when making changes within an organisational structure. Support within supervision sessions, to deal with issues arising, should be given priority.
CPD, coaching, attendance at supervision – all these activities impinge on workload. Organisations must consider workload issues. Coaches should not feel compromised – particularly from their own Line Managers – for being part of this service.
Being a member of the coach-learning group is a collaborative learning experience for the coaches. They may wish to pursue accreditation for this work and should be allocated time and perhaps funding to do this.
‘Transformative Coaching’ (Askew and Carnell 2011) has been an influential contribution to my research. I have developed knowledge further by exploring how aspects of Transformative Learning theory could be identified to help us understand the coaching context. The strength of this theory is that it provides a useful learning framework to understand more the processes a coachee experiences when learning about a situation and making changes. It is also useful to help understand the
underpinning reasons why some coachees perceive barriers to making positive changes. I have arrived at this position because I now have evidence that, despite following the same training, coaching practise is quite diverse. I also suggest an original aspect of this study is my theory that, within the IOE which is an organisation that supports learning, we practise a particular approach to coaching which engages with core democratic values of equality and developing autonomy and this should therefore be the learning model of choice.
I am now in the privileged position of having shared knowledge gained with
colleagues here in the UK and overseas. Contributing to the development of a peer- coaching service in other institutions is an exciting prospect.
This new knowledge provides evidence for the Staff Development Team (SDT) when arguing for the future of the peer-coaching service. Currently, there are plans for the IOE to merge with University College London (UCL). I am aware that SDT plan to extend the service to UCL and other colleges within the University. This study makes a positive contribution to that development. Critics may question the exploratory and relatively small-scale nature of this research. I believe its worth lies in that it opens a window into a traditionally closed environment. This is just a beginning and paves the way for further research.