Looks at the importance of achieving a match between coach and client. Explains the parameters for a successful match, which should lead to a greater success in the coaching process
Sam Humphrey and Sue Holland

In the first of our two part special report on matching we ask what are the elements of a successful match between coach and client? Can matching increase the effectiveness of intervention.

Matching coach to client is very often either overlooked or not given the serious attention it requires. Most matching (and coach assessment) seems to happen in the space of a  short, semi-structured interview where the HR business partner or even the client meets with a prospective coach to find out a bit more about their background and to assess chemistry or fit. Invariably, this is also the only point at which a coach’s capability is assessed.

Clearly, chemistry and fit are important parameters in matching but they are not the only ones. Some organisations simply appoint a coach to a client with very little thought about matching other than the coach’s availability and reputation. HR business partners’ skill in  carrying out matching tends to be seriously underdeveloped and we have not experienced any coaching stables that have made this a key feature of their offering,  let alone done it well. One of our basic premises regarding coaching is that defining its purpose is crucial to the success of any coaching intervention. Matching plays a significant part in the coaching process. As we all know, executives and leaders do not easily give up time for developmental activities. Also, the cost of coaching senior people, both in terms of the cost of the coach and the cost of the senior person’s time, is significant.

Matching enables coach and client to get into a position to start coaching as soon as possible, rather than having the coach do all this themselves. While there can be risks associated with poor matching, there is also a bigger prize to be won by increasing the effectiveness of the coaching intervention matching is a way of leveraging that effectiveness.

The challenge of matching

The matrix in Figure 1 illustrates how we work with clients on the challenge of matching. It is important to note that this matrix will only have relevance for those who have already tackled coach assessment, assessing the capability of the coaches the organisation intends to deploy and therefore developing a clear view of where and how these coaches could be used (see ‘In the Bag’ Coaching at Work, issue 3). The matrix is designed to help identify the key roles that influence matching and the main matching  parameters. Not all of the parameters require input from each of the roles and where this is the case, the box is shaded out. This does not mean that this role cannot make a contribution to that discussion; it only means that in our experience, their input is not crucial.

In using the matrix, we identify the role of the incumbents and have a conversation with each of them about the parameters that are relevant to them. In an ideal world, both the roles involved in a coaching intervention and the matching parameters would be  clear, defined and aligned. In our experience, this ideal world scenario rarely represents the client’s current reality. In the spirit of meeting clients where they are, we would use this matrix to understand where the client is and work with that, rather than try to get them to tick all the boxes.

Parameters for a successful outcome  Each matching parameter serves a unique and important purpose when looking to match a coach to a client. Each of these are explained separately but clearly are all inextricably linked to create the overall matching outcome.

1. Context

We take a systems approach to look at the environment in which the coaching intervention is going to happen.
Some basic questions to ask about this matching  parameter could be:

  • What is the organisational context we are currently in? (Decline, growth, transition, for example.)
  • How have such issues been addressed in the past?
  • Is coaching the ‘right’ intervention based on past history and future aspiration?

The purpose in asking these questions of all the roles is to look for the level of congruence in the answers given.

2. Purpose

Clearly this relates to the answers that emerge from the context questions in that they will indicate the purpose the coaching will serve, eg, performance, transitional, transformational. Clarity on the purpose of the coaching is, in our view, the first coarse cut at matching, in that you deselect those coaches whose purpose is not that identified.

3. Diagnosis

This parameter relates to clarifying the domain of the coaching within the context identified. For some, this may be outcome-focused, for others an emergent process. At this point we are again looking for the level of congruence between the roles because this greatly affects the contracting and coach selection parameters.

4. Coachability/contribution

This relates primarily to the coachability of the individual, working out how ‘up for’ coaching they are. It may relate to the level of self-awareness the client demonstrates, personal development history and personal context, to name a few. As coaching is often a self-directed learning intervention, we have found that a ‘warm up’ to coaching and self-directed learning beforehand can avoid time being wasted by those who have little experience in this form of learning.

5. Coach selection

Selection in our matrix is a distinct activity from coach assessment. This is a finer form of matching where the HR business partner must decide how the final selection will be made. Does the HR business partner make the selection and seek agreement from the individual or do they give the individual choice from a small selection of coaches? We used many tools to assist in the process, eg, MBTI, Learning Styles, possibly 360 degree feedback and structured conversation, depending on the clients’ knowledge and ease with such tools.

6. Fit/chemistry

Even when paying attention to all the quantifiable elements, our experience has shown that what is most important to the client is relational. Only the client can truly judge this and in order to get the best possible result, the fit has to be right. In our experience, this is equally relevant and important to the coach, who will also have a right to refuse. If all the previous matching parameters have been handled well, one can rest assured that the individual cannot make a ‘bad’ choice.

7. Contracting/boundaries

While this is largely a matter of process and logistics covering off fees, timing, duration, confidentiality and so on, we have found that spending time on tightly defining the boundaries paradoxically unleashes a bigger space for meaningful work rather than restricting it or closing it down. All the previous parameters should inform the contracting process so that there are no unexpected issues further down the line that could have been resolved up front. Also, the coach will work better and quicker if they have a full and rich picture of all these factors. If every coach has to gather this data themselves, imagine how much time is repeatedly not being spent on coaching.

Having set out the matrix we use, the following examples demonstrate its use. In one organisation, the conversations with the role incumbents yielded the data set out in Figure 2 for the first four parameters. For this coaching intervention there were some clear disparities between some of the roles on three of the defining parameters. The primary function of the matrix is not to force the roles to concede their view in pursuit of alignment, more to highlight the differences so they can be discussed in an informed way. In this instance, it was the conversation between the line manager and the individual that was key. By discussing the differences in how they perceived the purpose, outcome and their contribution they were able to set up the coaching intervention in a way that would meet their joint needs and expectations.

After they both reached clarity, an appropriate selection of coaches could be made against the needs of these parameters. In this case, the HR business partner had the individual meet three coaches and allowed the individual to choose which one he wanted to work with. Finally, additional issues for contracting were made explicit; in this case, the line manager was shown how the coaching would work and how he could support the individual through it. In terms of matching, the other differences were not relevant for securing a good match but proved to be extremely useful data in terms of managing this issue at a holistic level.

Conclusions

Our experience has highlighted the need to pay attention to the potential for collusion and to keep the pool of types of coaches as wide as possible. It is important to look at how the organisation can ensure it limits the possibility for collusion at an individual and organisational level and to avoid limiting the type of coach or coaching approach it is willing to use, as this will significantly reduce coach selection. In practice, HR business partners should consider working with more than one coaching stable to ensure they have a good mix of type, style, approach, underpinning and so on.

There is still a lot to pay attention to when trying to match a client and a coach. Where the basis of the work is so heavily grounded in the relationship, it is difficult to develop a quantitative process that could guarantee success. That said, exploring a number of key matching parameters can make matching a more meaningful and value adding activity which, if done well, can leverage more success from a coaching intervention.

Learning Points

  • Effective matching helps maximise effectiveness of the coaching intervention.
  • Take a systems approach to establish and assess organisational/environmental context Establish purpose of coaching,eg, performance, transitional, transformational
  • Clarify the domain of coaching within identified context, such as outcome-focused
  • Establish how ‘coachable’ the client is
  • Decide how to make the final selection of the coach
  • Make sure the fit is right and that both parties have the right to refuse to go ahead
  • Take steps to limit potential for collusion at individual and organisational level
  • Avoid limiting the type of coach or approach you are willing to use to ensure a good mix of type, style etc.