Chapter Seven: Discussion
7.2 Simultaneous individual and group coaching
In summary, the key findings from the study concerning the simultaneous use of individual and group coaching are that the experience is reported as positive and beneficial. There were specific benefits derived from individual coaching and distinct benefits reportedly derived from group coaching, and the interplay between individual and group coaching brought additional benefits. The use of topics to anchor each group session created a focus for the session and for some groups this enabled a deep, intra- and inter-personal
discussion and collective experience. For other groups, this did not happen with the group discussions staying at a relatively surface, pragmatic level. For the participants who had experienced the deeper conversations often some aspect of the discussion was then taken
126 back into their individual coaching sessions where it was unpacked and explored. There were even examples of elements then taken back again into the group sessions and reintroduced into the check-in session at the next group coaching session. This interplay between individual and group was very much dependent on many variables – the cohesiveness of the group (Florent-Treacy, 2009), the relationship with their group
coaches, the participant’s relationship to their individual coach (Cox et al., 2014a) and their willingness to do deeper work (Bachkirova, 2011). These findings reinforce and extend the extant research in this area demonstrating the benefit of combining individual and group coaching of Florent-Treacy (2009), Ely (2011), Kets de Vries (2014) and Ward (2014).
It is clear that the individual coaching provided the women with a way of dealing with the pressures of work and life by giving them time and space for reflection, away from their normal environment. The benefits of coaching in providing people time to reflect and the positive impact this has on coachees is not new as Kline (1999) stated in the title of her book: it is a ’Time to Think’ (Kline, 1999). Equally, using individual coaching for pausing and reflecting in organisational settings is a well-documented positive benefit of coaching (Passmore, 2015b; Passmore and Fillery-Travis, 2011; Passmore and Rehman, 2012a;
Wasylyshyn et al., 2012; Western, 2012). What the analyses demonstrated was that the women found benefit in taking the time out to reflect on their own lives, their own situations and to consider, often for the first time, what they really want out of their lives and their careers. It was this realisation that taking the time to stop and to almost bring themselves into the internal conversations they were having about themselves was part of the value that individual coaching afforded them. Having a mirror held up, to really see themselves as others see them, was for some an emotional and rare occurrence. This mirroring function that coaching provides can be transformative for individuals whereby the coach supports the coachee to find their authentic selves: identity, meaning and values by taking the coaching stance of what Western (2012) calls ’the Mirror to the Soul’
(Western, 2012, p. 210). However, as Western (2012) acknowledges, coaches work across different discourses and stances and that is reflected in the range and scope of the experiences of the individual coaching reported. Other participants reported using the coaching conversations to discuss their career strategy reflecting the Role Coach stance whilst others reported benefiting from the coaching as revealing networks and
connections, reflecting the Emergent Strategist stance (Western, 2012, p. 210).
127 The breadth of the benefits that the participants reported from the individual coaching sessions reflected the range of coaching styles and particularly their relationship to their coach. There was a considerable range of experience in the coaches who conducted the individual coaching – from JPCs, who are relatively inexperienced and whose competence is relatively untested, through to Internal and External Executive Coaches who are highly experienced and competent. The relationships they built with their coachees were again varied and depended to a great extent on the chemistry, trust and willingness to be open between the two individuals concerned. These findings reinforced the extant literature on the importance of the coaching relationship (O’Broin and Palmer, 2006; Gyllensten and Palmer, 2007). What was interesting in this study was that the ability to have a deep, connected relationship, which was considered highly important, did not appear to be related to the experience level or type of coach – these type of relationships were reported by coachees with JPCs, as well as with Executive Coaches. This revelation, whilst not surprising in terms of the experience of coaching on the coachees, has potentially significant implications for organisations as it opens up the possibility of reportedly highly effective coaching becoming possible utilising JPCs, who are significantly less costly and more accessible than external, or internal, Executive Coaches. The internal JPCs were able to develop, in some cases, a relationship they deemed significantly deep, with their coachees, as did the Executive Coaches, and they received similar feedback in terms of effectiveness. This finding supports the reports that internal coaches have even been found to be more effective due to the ’insider’ knowledge of organisational culture and climate (Jones et al., 2014). This opens up the possibility of providing a potential source of development for leaders within organisations, from coaching at a less experienced level than Executive Coaches. Whilst this arena of internal coaching in a sophisticated form is new to organisations, it is growing and studies to date have confirmed both the potential to be highly productive as well as issuing some warning bells around confidentiality and governance (Jones et al., 2014; Ellinger and Kim, 2014; Wasylyshyn, 2003).
The majority of the participants reported finding the individual coaching to be useful and a positive experience and most, but not all, reported that they found additional value in having the group coaching. Specifically the group coaching afforded them the opportunity to ’go to places I wouldn’t go on my own’ and to use the other women as sounding boards and means of support, feedback and challenge. The group coaching design enabled the women to gain these benefits which accrued over the length of the programme, i.e. 18 months. Participating in six group coaching sessions over this timeframe enabled trust and
128 relationships to be built and tested and for behaviours and actions to be tried out between sessions. This extended period of time, coupled with multiple sessions, distinguishes this research study in the robustness of the findings and the longevity of the perceived impact.
The participants were interviewed twice following the completion of the coaching, after three months and after six months, demonstrating the impact of the coaching was still resonant and evidence of the group connections tangible even after a significant amount of time had passed.
These findings highlight the perceived value of group coaching and take forward the growing body of evidence propounding the relevance and potential effectiveness of group coaching (Kets de Vries, 2014; Ward et al., 2014; Florent-Treacy, 2009) and specifically for women in organisations (Ely et al., 2011). One differentiating factor of this study is the semi-contextual setting in which the group coaching takes place (Bryant, 2016). The findings highlight the reported value of group coaching when carried out within an organisation, as opposed to the de-contextual setting of a business school programme research (Kets de Vries, 2014; Ward et al., 2014; Florent-Treacy, 2009).
The group coaching provides a safe setting within which trust and development has been built – albeit to varying levels. Where the participants reported ’going deep’ and
consequently feeling highly impacted by the sessions, the group coaching may be seen to constitute a ’holding environment’ (Kahn, 2001). The participants reported experiencing being supported by others in the group in a trusting, generative, constructive and mutually reinforcing manner – effectively the constituent components of a holding environment (Kahn, 2001). The safe environment generated within the group coaching sessions allowed the participants to share intimate details of their lives without fear. The degree to which participants were able to move toward each other, and the coaches, within the sessions was influenced by their previous history and upbringing. Those who had been ’held well’ – physically, emotionally and psychologically – in their childhood being more likely to move towards others and to see the group as a form of ’secure base’ to which they feel, albeit temporary, attachment (Bowlby, 2005).
The current economic situation and highly pressurised work environment that characterises the climate of many organisations today creates the need for holding environments, broadening the concepts from the therapeutic realm into work place situations (Heifetz, 1994). The group coaching supplied the conditions required for holding environments to be created – trust was built between group members and the coaches
129 which allowed people to move towards each other, the coaches provided safe and
competent holding which reduced the sense of risk and uncertainty and they received empathetic acknowledgement and listening which enables participants to make sense of their experiences and gain perspective (Kahn, 2001). Additionally, the ability of the group members to listen and receive the sharing that occurred from the coaching also allowed them to ask for support while maintaining a core sense of self-reliance. This requires the ability to manage the paradox of holding onto oneself while being held by others (Smith and Berg, 1987). The semi-permeable structure of the group sessions allowed a sense of containment and safety, whilst at the same time allowing for fluidity and movement to accommodate emergent themes and requirements of the group, which are necessary factors in establishing a holding environment. The resilient boundaries in place in the group sessions, such as no mobile phones, topics not randomly introduced, agreed times for breaks adhered to and everyone knowing they will have space and time to speak, ensured optimal safety for the group (Schneider, 1991). The presence and construction of the group coaching sessions therefore provided a much needed and perceived highly effective holding environment for the participants (Ghosh et al., 2013).
There is scarce extant literature on the complementarity of group and individual coaching, with the majority of existing studies focused on one-day group coaching, followed by one or two individual coaching sessions as part of a Business School Programme (Kets de Vries, 2005; Ward, 2008) or in the form of group coaching combined with written coaching assignments (Florent-Treacy, 2009). While these studies identify a positive experience from having group and individual coaching, the nature of the complementarity is not examined in great depth. The current study’s findings of interplay between the two types of coaching from individual to group and back again highlights the true complementarity of the coaching mechanisms. For many participants the topics raised in the group sessions ignited questions and insights that they then took to their individual coaching and pursued in depth. For a few participants, the group sessions were experienced more as ’stand-alone’ sessions whereby topics covered during the sessions were kept within the group boundaries, and not taken to individual coaching. For the participants who carried the threads of ideas and constructs from one type of coaching to the other and back again, the benefits were clearly identified with extraordinary and ’transformational ‘ experiences reported. The impact of experiencing both types of coaching simultaneously and the amplifying effect was observed not only by the participants but also by the coaches and members of the Steering Team.
130 It is useful to consider the related discipline of therapy as it has more history of group and individual methods of deployment. The results of studies using both types of therapy, individual and group, demonstrate that the combined therapy approach produces
increased impact and effectiveness (Gans, 1990). However, other factors, such as increased drop-out rates (Dickhaut and Arntz, 2014) in combined therapies can offset the gains in effectiveness from having both the individual and group interventions. Additionally, depending on the nature of the condition the therapy is being used to treat, sometimes clients express a preference for individual therapy as opposed to group therapy (Gans, 1990; Manassis et al., 2002). Given that whilst therapeutic interventions are introduced to address specific conditions, the generalisability of results needs to be treated with caution.
However, the evidence suggests the combination of having individual and group coaching simultaneously, over an extended period of time, can be seen as an amplifying mechanism for the development of female leaders.