The secret’s in the mix when it comes to internal coaching. While it is true that using internal coaches gives organisations much needed access to coaching expertise as well as opportunities that manager coaches cannot offer, internal coaching works best when combined with the use of coaches and/or external coaches.
This was the main conclusion of my 12-month research project into who is the most effective: internal coach or manager-coach? I also found that training managers acting as internal coaches for people they do not line manage helps organisations improve performance and develop both staff and managers. Internal coaching helps organisations shift from a traditional “command and control” to a participative leadership culture, with staff more prepared to discuss issues and uncertainties about their jobs with internal coaches than with their own line managers. In addition, coachees are more able to confidentially work out their own solutions free of other agendas, and also learn how to do this themselves, feeling more confident, motivated and empowered. And there is much for internal coaches to learn too. Many of those I surveyed changed how they worked with their own teams and how they worked with each other.
My research was undertaken as part of my masters in professional studies (coaching) with the i-coach academy and Middlesex University last year. It was carried out among 26 coachees and coaches from three further education (FE) colleges and one police organisation, which had developed and used internal coaches with the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) over one year. Internal coaching enabled three out of the four organisations surveyed not only to focus on business performance and leadership development, but also to reflect on how leadership is performed and how it affects capacity to change.
Significantly, while all four organisations used the same coaching programme, approach and Solutions Focused OSKAR coaching model (Jackson and McKergow), all concluded that a mixed system worked best for them, yet opted for a different solution. Organisation A opted for internal coaching as its primary choice and external coaching as its back up option. Boston College opted for internal coaching, backed up by the use of manager coaches. CONEL’s First choice was manager coaching, backed up by internal coaching and Organisation D’s primary choice was manager coaching, followed by external coaching.
Manager coach emerged as being more effective for skills and ongoing performance development, with staff finding internal coaches better for personal or leadership development. But internal coaches were better for some performance issues, bringing a fresh perspective which enabled staff to ask questions that the staff or line manager no longer asked or to discuss issues they could not raise with their manager. Time set aside for formal coaching also forced staff to have different types of conversation and look at things in a new light. Simple questions often led to amazing insights and solutions to long term problems.
Contextual variables such as the organisational culture, climate and power relations between line managers and their teams appear to have a significant impact. It seems organisations can maximise the impact of coaching by having both internal and manager coaches, using external coaches when necessary.
Case Study 1: Boston College
Boston College is a small rural further education (FE) college in Lincolnshire, whose senior management team were trained to act as internal coaches with their own teams. After six months of coaching volunteers from other areas, unexpected benefits included increased understanding of challenges facing others, greater communication between different areas, and opportunities to share best practice – all fundamental to the college’s core business of improving the learning experience of their students.
Any concerns about coaching staff who reported to coaches’ colleagues due to the college’s small size were overcome via guidelines on confidentiality and contracting between coach, coachee and line manager.
Feedback from coachees indicated that both the manager-coach and internal coaching systems worked. It made sense for coaches to choose according to their needs.
The key issues included:
- Confidentiality may be an issue with a manager-coach, so competency issues are not raised and the problem gets worse, especially if the manager is part of the problem.
- The manager-coach may have their own agenda which closes down options.
- Internal formal coaching is more able to offer a sounding board and “protected” time.
- Trust is often easier to develop with internal coaches.
Case study 2: CONEL
The College of North East London (CONEL) is a large inner city FE college which prefers to use manager-coaches. This fits with CONEL’s strategy to build a coaching culture and to ensure that the learning and development of others is an integral aspect of a manager’s role.
Senior managers at CONEL use coaching informally as part of their leadership approach, with some acting as internal coaches. The college is also training coachees who want to develop their own coaching skills.
Feedback from coaches was that manager-coaches’ structured approach often helps to get to issues quicker, and because they bring their own expertise to skills and performance.
But there were potential limitations:
- Manager-coaches often have vested interests and are less objective.
- Manager-coaches often do not have enough time.
- The hierarchy of the role often reduces openness and trust.
- Staff are less open – how can what is covered in coaching be unlearnt in appraisal?
- Advantages of internal coaches were:
- They bring fresh perspective.
- They can act as a trusted and confidential sounding board.
- They motivate coaches to find their own solutions.
- Their skills are more suited to personal development, with many of the advantages that external coaches can bring.
Learning Points
The desired output, the situation and organisational culture should decide the type of coaching and whether the coach is manager-coach, internal or external coach.
- This should not be a fixed system, but one with 2 or 3 options
- The type of coach is significantly influenced by the coachee’s perspective and readiness to be coached. There needs to be a credible match between the coaching competency and the role.
- Manager-coach is recommended as the primary coach to cover ongoing skills and performance needs, which usually requires a more directive approach. This can be achieved both formally and informally.
- Internal coaches can also cover skills and performance coaching, but are more suited to behavioural and professional development, which often requires exploring areas coaches are reluctant to share with managers.
- External coaches are best used for transitional and transformational coaching, where they arguably make the biggest difference and offer return on investment, but can also be used for other types when a “cleaner” role is required.
Reference
P Jackson and M McKergow. The Solutions Focus – The SIMPLE Way to Positive Change, Nicholas Brealey, London (2002).