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

This issue: outsourcing – buying coaching from whom and for whom?

As coaching has expanded over the past decade, so too have the ways that we contract coaches. Non-traditional coaching organisations have grown. These clearing houses or coach dating agencies find coaches for organisations that have neither the time nor the inclination to find competent coaches themselves. But with pressure mounting to cut in-house costs, coaching procurers are increasingly wondering if their roles can survive.

Intermediaries between coach and client appear to have a lot going for them. They argue that they source and quality-assure coaches. Their depth of experience ought to mean that they can quickly match the right coach with the client. And they offer a one-stop process for managing the coach’s invoices, rather than dealing with a multitude of providers.
The attraction for coaches is obvious. I know very few who enjoy selling themselves – their passion is coaching! Also, using an intermediary means a coach can have access to a wide range of organisations via a company that is effectively their agent.

Is there a catch? Well, it all depends. For a coach or coaching company, dealing direct with an organisation means a higher return because they cut out the intermediary. Of course, the coach still has to manage the intermediary. Should they be reliant on that one company for their work, they become dependent and vulnerable to change – the same as in any business relationship.

Intermediaries offer one way of sourcing coaches. Yet most coaching companies usually offer a selection of coaches who vary in price, experience and qualifications. The main benefit is reduced staff overheads for the organisation that outsources. The cost of the coaching could be higher, as intermediaries will have their own costs to cover. And if coaches receive less for their services, what impact will that have on their commitment to clients through intermediaries as opposed to those they contract with directly?

From my perspective, looking at this issue in financial terms neglects the real business benefit of using coaching. The relationship between the organisational representative and a coach often produces insight into the state of organisational development.

Of course, confidentiality is an issue, but using a neutral third party to gather feedback from coaches that is then fed into the organisation often provides valuable and anonymous organisational intelligence.
Personally, I prefer minimising the number of relationships in a system. Having direct organisation-to-coach links reduces the risk of information being filtered by an intermediary – and that goes both ways.

For now, I’m open-minded but unconvinced that these intermediaries offer anything that isn’t already available. Their emergence is simply another facet of the coaching industry learning how to do business.

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 4