Organisations everywhere have become more educated in the types and uses of coaching and are choosing more carefully. This is having a positive impact since it helps to raise standards, expectations and results. Opinions at the forums, attended by representatives from companies such as Coca-Cola, Nokia, Ericsson, Citigroup and Motorola, were polarised between desiring a uniform standard, such as that set by the International Coach Federation (ICF), and believing that more robust educational qualifications were required.
Educational norms differ from country to country. In the US there are a higher number of coaches with PhDs and master’s degrees in psychology. In France, however, having a psychology degree is not necessarily considered an asset for a coach. In other countries a degree is not readily available to the general population and so certification is seen as a viable alternative.
All three regions looked at who should receive coaching. Senior leaders, high-potential managers or special groups such as expatriates were the most targeted, but several discussions centred on the need simply to show a clear business rationale in how coaching is used. In Asia, where the focus is on high potentials, there were heated discussions about whether this was the talent pool where coaching could have the most impact.
Many organisations want to see coaching results in a short time frame. Typical programmes in the US now run for six months, down from 9-12 months a few years ago. In Europe and Asia-Pacific, however, coaching engagements may still take nine months or more.
While best practice suggests that coaching engagements should end when learning objectives have been met, many multinationals aim for consistent timelines worldwide. Some said this could create frustrations. One UK HR manager of a US multinational said he had to “beat to the same drum as the parent company”, and enforce a hard stop to coaching interventions at six months.
In Bratislava, Stockholm and most locations in Asia, many forum participants were still educating themselves and others on the value of coaching. Some had never used it. Others felt it was still perceived as remedial, rather than as a means to aid fast-paced development.
In the Brussels forum, the audience comprised many different nationalities who viewed coaching as developmental. They were more experienced with coaching as a leadership development intervention, and were focused on the need to identify the right coach and to manage the process effectively. Metrics for evaluating its impact were also important, although it was agreed that this is still not an exact science.
Another area of common interest was how to position coaching to senior management. It seems to be a harder sell in some central European countries and in parts of Asia-Pacific, where it is still relatively new.
Many participants in Europe wondered when to use an internal coach or a mentor and when to use an external coach. Many agreed with Hay Group’s 2005 Best Companies for Leaders study, which concluded that external coaches added more value at the executive level, while internal coaches were more appropriate for mid-level managers. A number of US firms seem to be developing internal coaching capabilities as a way to reduce cost and gain greater accountability over the process.
Many companies in Asia are working on internal coaching skills for managers or relying on mentoring schemes. Several attendees reported that developing internal capability was embraced at first but often abandoned when the commitment to coach took second place to other priorities, was “too difficult”, or too labour- and cost-intensive. Because of this struggle, a number of people in several US locations asked how to create a coaching culture as a core activity.
In the UK and the US, coaching is now widely accepted, and is moving from a focus on individuals to a more systemic approach. Making this shift requires considerable project management and infrastructure, a clearly defined process and a consistent way of measuring impact across business units and geographical boundaries.
Although coaching is still coming of age in much of the world, it is widely seen as a critical development tool. Research into changing demographics predicts an escalating global battle for talent and effective leadership. Companies must address the critical issues we have revealed here to sustain the credibility of coaching interventions, regardless of geographic location.
David Peterson is senior vice-president and leader of coaching services, Bobbie Little is director of worldwide coaching services, Susan Mistler is a senior consultant and Emma Pearson is vice-president and director, development solutions EMEA, all at PDI.
GLOBAL TRENDS IN COACHING
Across Europe, Asia-Pacific and US:
- Increased sophistication in use of coaching
- Focus on coach accreditation/qualifications
- Recognition of need to be more strategic
- Senior leaders, high-potential managers and special groups such as women and expatriates are the most targeted employees
Asia-Pacific:
- Growing focus on high-potentials
- Coaching relationship lasts nine months upwards
- Pressure to demonstrate return on investment to senior management
- Coaching sometimes still seen as remedial
- Use of external coaches not widespread; organisations concentrating on internal coaching skills for managers or mentoring schemes
US and UK:
- Coaching relationship reduced to six months
- Growth in development of internal coaching capabilities to reduce costs and gain greater accountability
- Shift from individuals to a more systemic approach
Volume 3, Issue 2