The third in our series of columns by an anonymous coaching buyer takes a thought-provoking helicopter view of what’s going on in the industry.

This issue: ‘bad’ coaching

A colleague commented recently that the leadership development industry focused almost solely on how to be a good leader, rarely addressing what they termed “toxic leadership”.

I was struck by the similarity with coaching. There is little written or said about “bad” coaching, perhaps unsurprisingly given that there is no single benchmark for coaching. Which leaves the question: what does bad coaching look like?

In my view there are two aspects to bad coaching. The first is poor or unethical practice, however well intentioned. The second is the results the coaching delivers against the requirement.

As an organisational buyer I have a duty of care to ensure my clients are not exposed to a practice that will do any harm. I also have a duty to ensure that I get the best return from my investment.

I want to focus on poor or unethical practice. One differentiator of coaching compared with other helping interventions is that clients are often successful and mentally healthy.

One may argue that, given the context of coaching, clients would feel able to challenge poor practice; my experience is the opposite. Often clients do not understand what coaching involves and assume those organising it have done due diligence on the coaches.

For a client to question the quality of the coaching once the relationship has started is a challenge in itself, and one they are reluctant to do because it threatens their self-esteem to say they made a mistake with their choice of coach.

I think the education of clients is key: they will understand what is involved, what to look for and how to think about working with a coach. It also helps stakeholders, usually in the management chain, to understand what coaching can or cannot support. Finally, educating coaches about what you expect will help them appreciate your context and reasons for using coaching. External coaching programmes and accreditation provide a means to differentiate between coaches too.

However, where there is bad practice, no matter how unethical, you cannot stop that coach from working altogether. In the absence of regulation the only recourse is independent action to stop giving them work.

I have a trusted peer community and where we have concerns a quiet conversation over coffee is an effective filter. It may seem harsh to undermine reputation from the shadows, but my responsibility is to my organisation and not the coaching community.

In the absence of rigorous, reliable methods that take multiple contexts into account, the most effective risk management approach to ensuring the quality of coaching interventions rests with buyers understanding the limits and opportunities of coaching. Educating clients and stakeholders and properly briefing coaches on what is expected of them is also vital. In the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, caveat emptor – buyer beware.

This column was inspired by the title of the book A View from the Balcony: Leadership Challenges in Systems of Care by G de Carolis, M Linsky (foreword) and R Heifetz (foreword), Brown Books, 2005.

Heifetz urges leaders to move back and forth between the operational field and the balcony view to get a better perspective (see also R Heifetz and R Neustadt, Leadership Without East Answers, Harvard University Press, 1994.)

Let us know what you think at: thefacelessclient@coaching-at-work.com

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 3