Coach selection in many organisations involves presenting three or four options from the corporate roster and then asking the client to pick the coach they’d like to work with.
The fundamental flaw in this process is that the client usually has little knowledge of what makes a good or bad coach. Clearly, the client has to feel able to confide in the coach, so the relationship is important. But it’s best if the situation doesn’t get too comfortable. A coach has to be able to show a client reality – and that means there must be challenge.
Coach selection is not about finding a new best friend; it’s about matching a client to a coach who will listen to them in a non-judgmental way and raise awareness of their issues. The coach’s focus should be: “What do you need to move forward?”, not “How can I get you to like me more?”
If the client chooses “someone they like”, the relationship may not necessarily produce results or a return on investment. Yet, because they like the coach as a person, the client may well recommend the coach to a colleague.
And so the cycle continues. Although the coach remains gainfully employed, this behaviour actually does a disservice to the clients, to the organisation and to the wider coaching profession.
Why is this allowed to happen? It stems, in part, from abdication by the sponsor (“I’ve done my bit and found three possible coaches, now you choose”). Also, with the blame culture that exists in many organisations, sponsors can cover their backs by saying, “Well, you chose that coach”, if things don’t work out.
The situation is not helped by the fact that the coach has a vested interest in the outcome. In any selection process, the coach is trying to win a contract. Some of them will say or do anything to secure it. In an ideal world, a coach would turn down a contract if they felt they were the wrong person for the job. Such integrity is key to the profession being taken seriously. But in the current economic climate, many coaches are understandably grabbing whatever work they can.
So who should choose the coach? The “take responsibility” option is for the sponsor – or HR – to stand up as the expert and to select the best coach for the individuals concerned. The “empowerment” option is to educate clients in what they should look for in a coach – and why. That way, they can choose their own coach from an informed position.
Both of these options involve outlining to the client, prior to the process, how coaching works, why they will benefit from it, what they can expect and what they should look for in a coach. This will include how they want the coach to work with them, how they will assess the success of the coaching itself and how they will know whether their behaviour and performance have changed.
It can sometimes be difficult for a client to admit to HR or the sponsor that their coaching isn’t working. They may feel like a failure. Organisations need to have a ‘no blame, no fault’ culture whereby if the relationship doesn’t work out for whatever reason, a new coach can be selected from the approved pool. However, the sponsor or HR should enquire why things didn’t work out. Was it the relationship? The goals that were set? Or was coaching the wrong intervention in this instance?
If organisations want less administration, less confusion for the client (because they are presented with a valued and trusted solution) and fewer fruitless pitches for coaches, then they should consider whether responsibility or empowerment would improve their selection process.
Alan Ward is director of coach education at Performance Consultants, which has been running university-partnered qualification programmes in coaching and development since 2003.
www.performanceconsultants.co.uk