Tasks/Process

Tobias (1996: 87) suggested that coaching ‘is simply a repackaging of cer-tain practices that were once subsumed under the more general terms consulting or counseling’ and one of the advantages of coaching is that it implies an ongoing process, compared to most seminars and workshops which typically are of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ nature. While this comment may have been accurate when Tobias’ (1996) article was published, the current state of coaching practice is much more than just a repackaging and much more than a simple process. EC has emerged as a fairly well-understood and distinct methodology for creating purposeful positive change in executive and management populations. In day-to-day EC practice, this methodol-ogy is manifested in a very wide range of different formats or combinations of approaches and frameworks depending on what the coach prefers and which approach is most suitable to each specific coachee.

Yet, there are also certain key elements that appear to be common in any EC intervention. For instance, Laske (2004: 41) identified three generic coaching processes, common in any type of coaching, which coaches use in order to help their clients achieve their goals. These are: (a) supporting and guiding attention, (b) envisioning outcomes, and (c) enacting new behaviours and experiences.

Witherspoon and White (1996: 132) argue that all types of EC involve action research or action learning. Also, EC typically takes place in various forms, such as face-to-face, by phone, or email (e.g., see Kombarakaran et al., 2008).

Two more elements appear to be common in many EC interventions. From the organization’s side, there is often a set of pre-coaching activities, usually conducted by HR, which can determine whether coaching is needed, who the most appropriate coach would be, and also prepare the coach and the execu-tive for the process. From the coaches’ side, personal coaches often start their work using the technique of shadowing which entails following the executive for a few days and using the observations gathered as evidence in later discus-sions to showcase aspects of the subject’s behaviour. This allows overcoming the problem of dependency of the coaching process on reported behaviour (see Filipczak, 1998: 33).

Several studies in the coaching literature explore and discuss in more detail what exact steps a coaching or EC intervention typically involves (e.g., see Flaherty, 2005; Bartlett, 2007; Gregory et al., 2008). Great variation can be found among these studies. For instance, some studies suggest that EC interventions typically consist of three key steps, other studies mention four steps, others five, and so on. Some of them are consequently summarized (for a more detailed description, please see Appendix I):

EC as a three-step process: Thach (2002) suggested that the coaching pro-cess consists of three phases: contracting, data collection, and coaching.

Orenstein (2007) also described the EC practice as consisting of three phases. The first phase is entry, the second is about facilitating change, and the third phase is the concluding coaching phase.

EC as a four-step process: Saporito (1996) proposed a model of executive coaching, which consists of four stages:  (a)  ‘setting the foundation’, (b)  ‘assessment of the individual’, (c)  ‘developmental planning’, and (d) ‘implementation’. In a somewhat similar structure, Witherspoon and White (1996: 132) identified the following four steps in the coaching pro-cess:  commitment, assessment, action, and continuous improvement.

Feldman and Lankau (2005) and O’Neill (2007) also follow a four-step approach, however in their approach the final step refers to what happens after the implementation. Specifically, Feldman and Lankau (2005: 837–

8) note that although each coach shapes the coaching intervention in dif-ferent ways to fit the specific executive client’s needs, there is a sequence of four key activities that take place in any coaching relationship: data gathering, feedback, implementation of the intervention (which involves periodic coaching sessions), and evaluation. O’Neill’s (2007) proposed methodology of four phases of coaching includes:  (a)  contracting, (b) planning, (c) live-action coaching, and (d) debriefing.

EC as a five-step process: Under a humanistic approach, Flaherty (2005:40, cited in Bartlett, 2007) suggests that the ‘flow of coaching’ includes five consequent steps:  (a)  establishing relationship, (b)  recognizing open-ing, (c) observe/assess, (d) enrol client, and (e) coaching conversations.

Natale and Diamante (2005: 363–8) suggest that the EC process consists of five stages, too: (a) The ‘alliance check’, (b) the ‘credibility assessment’, (c) the ‘likeability link’, (d) the ‘dialogue and skill acquisition’, and (e) the

‘cue-based action plans’. Gregory et al. (2008) and Lee (2010) also include in their process description a debriefing step. Gregory et al. (2008) stressed the role of feedback in EC and proposed a five-stage EC model (with several of these five progressive stages being affected by individual and organizational level variables): stage one includes a catalyst for coaching;

stage two is about establishing the relationship between the coach and the client; stage three involves data gathering on the executive’s performance;

stage four is dedicated to utilizing feedback gathered through the various assessments and taking action on the basis of this reviewed and preted feedback; and finally, stage five refers to the outcomes of the inter-vention with regard to behavioural changes which are typically gradual and ongoing (for a detailed description of each stage see Gregory et al., 2008: 48–52). On the other hand, Lee (2010: 25) notes that all coaching uses ‘some version’ of the five-stage process he described: (a) Contracting, (b)  Assessing, (c)  Developing, (d)  Implementing, (e)  Reviewing, with stages used ‘fluidly and cyclically’ in an iterative manner.

EC as a six-step process: Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001:  208)  are more elaborate in their coaching process description and see EC as a process consisting of six stages: relationship building, assessment, feed-back, planning, implementation, and evaluation and follow-up. Ennis et al. (2008a: 36–7) and Ennis et al. (2008b: 80–6) also identified six—

similar—coaching tasks and skills: building and maintaining coaching relationships, contracting, assessment, development planning, facilitat-ing development and change, and finally, endfacilitat-ing formal coachfacilitat-ing and transitioning to long-term development.

EC as a seven-step process: Based on an empirical study, Judge and Cowell (1997: 76) identified the following list of components typically appear-ing in a coachappear-ing intervention: (a) receive a formal or informal assess-ment, (b) conduct a review of long-term goals and aspirations, (c) sign a contract for several coaching sessions (six to twelve over a period of six months), (d) meet with the coach (either in the coach’s office or in the executive’s office) at least once a month for several sessions and then less frequently as time passes, (e) spend time to prepare for ses-sions or practice skills between sesses-sions, (f) access and contact the coach between sessions via telephone or e-mail, and (g) receive sound advice and ongoing feedback from the coach. A structured and somewhat simi-lar seven-step process was also proposed by Stern (2004: 155), consisting of: (a) initial needs analysis, (b) contracting, (c) data gathering, (d) spe-cific goal setting, (e) coaching, (f) measuring and reporting results, and (g) transitioning to a long-term development effort for the executive and the organization.

And more . . .

Kilburg (1996: 141) identified a long list of twenty-seven different coach-ing methods and techniques, rangcoach-ing from assessment and feedback to role-playing to stimulation to empathy and encouragement (see Appendix I).

Based on the literature review there are some EC activities which appear to be very important within an EC intervention and both EC scholars and prac-titioners refer to them. Wasylyshyn’s (2003) survey found that the executives’

three highest-rated coaching tools in terms of order of preference were: coach-ing sessions, 360-degree feedback, and relationship with the coach. Also, more than 50% of the respondents in that study gave high ratings to testing and readings on leadership.

The key EC activities are discussed below:

Contracting. One of the key issues in the EC practice is that of confiden-tiality. During the EC process there are specific topics that are being discussed—such as career aspirations and interpersonal conflicts—that the executive may not want to share with the organization. Therefore,

among the challenges associated with EC practice are the conflict of interest and the legal issues relating to confidentiality and the honouring of code of ethics or terms of the contract that exist between the coach, the coachee, and the organization (Natale and Diamante, 2005:  362).

Contracting is mentioned as a key initial step in several descriptions of the EC process (see Judge and Cowell, 1997; O’Neill, 2007; Orenstein, 2007; Ennis et  al., 2008a; Lee, 2010). ‘Contracting’ ensures produc-tive outcomes, clarifies the roles, helps to prevent misunderstandings, establish learning goals, and define business and interpersonal practices (Ennis et al., 2008a: 50). The three major components of contracting are the learning contract, the business/legal/financial contracts, and the personal contract between the executive and the coach (for details see Ennis et al., 2008a: 50–1). An important part of the process is the ‘behav-ioural contracting’ which requires clarifying the coaching ‘terms and conditions’ and the desired outcomes for each stakeholder (McMahon, 2005: 10). The logic behind this is that since coaching is meant to pro-duce positive sustainable outcomes, these must be expressed in behav-iour terms and this ideally should happen by arranging a joint meeting between the coach, the coachee, and the corporate sponsor. McMahon (2005: 10) notes that often such meetings are not possible, and so the coach should at least meet with the corporate sponsor to identify con-cerns and expectations regarding organizational outcomes. A  similar discussion with the coachee would follow and the coach would need to ensure that all parties understand and agree on the intended coaching outcomes. The behavioural contract would then be drawn up to make the outcomes specific—without dictating, though, how coaching should happen—and the coach would need to mediate between parties (ibid.).

This is a particularly important process if one considers Grant’s (2013b) observation drawn from empirical research on the importance of both coaches and clients clearly defining the main focus of the coaching inter-vention, which must also be within the control or sphere of influence of the coachee. According to McMahon (2005: 11) the process of establish-ing the behavioural contract by talkestablish-ing with the organization and the coachee enables the coach to find out more about the coachee and their circumstances, the organizational culture, the type of individuals with which the coachee collaborates, the situations the coachee faces, and how he/she is regarded by others. Also, another important aspect that needs to be established early on is the agreement about the feedback that will be provided during and after the intervention and how to maintain confidentiality (ibid.).

Assessment:  360-degree feedback and other indicators. As part of an EC intervention, data can be collected by observing the executive in action at work, interviewing the executive and his/her peers, direct reports,

manager and other stakeholders, as well as by administering a formal 360-degree assessment. Particularly with regard to 360-degree feedback, Thach (2002: 206) and Jones et al. (2006: 586) note that earlier research has shown that the use of 360-degree feedback is one of the best ways of promoting increased self-awareness of a manager’s skill strengths and deficiencies (see also Wasylyshyn, 2003). Under the systems perspective, it is valuable to assess not only the executive, but also other stakeholders (Ennis et al., 2008a: 53) and 360-degree feedback helps in this. In gen-eral, several instruments, including personality, learning, interest, and leadership style indicators are being used in EC (Ennis et al., 2008a: 53).

Additional assessments would cover other important variables such as the organizational culture, team communication, organizational trust, quality, employee satisfaction, efficiency, and profitability (Ennis et al., 2008a: 54).

Learning tools. Since any type of EC involves learning (Witherspoon and White, 1996: 132), several tools facilitate this effort. The practices that the coach may apply are: problem-solving and planning, rehearsal (role play) and on-the-job practice, feedback, dialogue, clarification of roles, assumptions and priorities, teaching, and applying a variety of manage-ment and leadership tools and referral to other developmanage-mental resources (Ennis et al., 2008a: 22), purposeful conversation, videotaping, support-ive confrontation and inquiry, relevant reading, work analysis and plan-ning, and strategic planning (Ennis et al., 2008a: 58). The use of Socratic questioning has been suggested as a key part of the coaching interven-tion (Neenan, 2009).

Planning. According to Ennis et al. (2008a: 21), the coaching process may include the following actions:  pre-coaching needs analysis and plan-ning, contracting, data gathering, goal setting and development of the coaching plan, implementation of the coaching plan, measuring and reporting results, and transitioning to long-term development. Planning is also key in the final phase of the EC process, which is about the tran-sitioning to long-term development. It includes the joint preparation of a long-term development plan with future areas of focus and action steps, often passing it to the executive’s manager or another stakeholder who will monitor future progress in partnership with the executive (Ennis et al., 2008a: 61).

Who is typically involved in the process? Although the executive is the one who is coached, the EC process is about a ‘three-way partnership between the executive, the coach, and the organization’ (Michelman, 2004:  4). Therefore, under the partnership logic, the key stakehold-ers typically involved in the EC process are:  the executive’s manager, senior management, HR, organizational development or effectiveness,

executive development, peers (including strategic business partners from other organizations), direct reports, and other key people in the executive’s life (Ennis et al., 2008a: 22).

3.3 Duration

The duration of the EC intervention is an important factor. For instance, in an empirical study on workplace coaching, Grant (2007) compared two groups: one consisting of twenty-three participants (HR professionals, man-agers, and lawyers) who completed a thirteen-week coaching skills training course (weekly 2.5-hour workshops and action learning), and a second (more condensed) training process in which twenty participants (middle-level line and sales managers) completed a two-day ‘Manager as Coach’ training pro-gramme, (three-week action-learning break between day one and day two).

Using the same coaching frameworks, Grant (2007) observed that the par-ticipation in the thirteen-week training course was associated with increases in both goal-focused coaching skills and emotional intelligence, whereas the two-day block intensive training was associated with increased goal-focused coaching skills, but not emotional intelligence. Moreover, the magnitude of increase in goal-focused coaching skills was less for the two-day programme than for the thirteen-week programme.

As the literature review so far has demonstrated, the EC field does not seem to agree on the exact definition of EC or on what the process should include.

The same seems to apply with regard to the duration of a typical EC process.

Although, it is acknowledged that coaching has a predefined length and is short-term in nature—unlike traditional psychotherapy (Judge and Cowell, 1997: 75)—there is quite a degree of variation in the literature regarding the exact length of the coaching intervention as well as the frequency of the EC sessions. Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001: 208) mention that the dura-tion of EC varies and may last from a few months to a year or more. In the lower end of this range rest the findings from a survey conducted by Judge and Cowell (1997: 76), according to which a typical EC intervention includes six to twelve coaching sessions over a period of six months. In another study, the findings suggested that a typical coaching process is more extensive.

According to a recent empirical HBR study, which was based on a survey of 140 senior coaches, the typical duration of an EC intervention is between seven and twelve months (Coutu et al. 2009: 93).

Therefore it can be said that typically EC interventions last for at least six months or so. However, this is not always the case. For instance, within the context of executive education training or other leadership development

training, EC may be completed within a few consecutive days (see Grant, 2007; Hooijberg and Lane, 2009: 491). In such cases where coaching happens within a condensed period of time, the pressure is such that the demands from the coach may be different from those associated with a longer term EC design. For example Hooijberg and Lane’s (2009: 491) study of managers coached as part of an executive education programme of a European busi-ness school found that, compared to longer-term coaching, the coaching that happens in executive education context, requires more active participation in the intervention from the coach, guiding coachees to reach conclusions, interpreting results, and making recommendations.

With regard to the duration of each coaching session and their frequency, variations also exist among coaches. Grant and Zackon (2004: 7) surveyed (online) 2,529 coaches who conduct executive, workplace and life coaching and are ICF members. The survey findings indicated that individual coaching sessions are typically 30 minutes to an hour in length (59.2% of the respond-ents said so). The most popular response with regard to the frequency of coaching sessions was three times a month (39.0%). In terms of the duration of the EC process, the responses ranged from: between three to six months (33.2%) or six to twelve months (33.2%), with 53.2% reporting that they work with their client for more than six months. Last, the aforementioned HBR coaching survey calculated that the median hourly cost of coaching is $500 (see Coutu and Kauffman, 2009: 92).