A recent survey of executive coach selection reveals smarter practices, but also evidence of commoditisation and excessive process. Carol Braddick reports
I watched the chair of a conference on executive coaching struggle to introduce his keynote speaker to delegates from blue-chip businesses.
Why? It was the labyrinth of terminology in the speaker’s bio and the hefty acronyms after his name.
The chair deftly ditched the bio and endorsed the ‘excellent’ speaker.
Just as conference delegates want great speakers, buyers in organisations, L&D and HR directors want excellent coaches – without having to hack their way through a jungle of jargon.
A strong, personal recommendation may be a shortcut that trumps all other credentials. These are two of the messages from a UK survey on executive coach selection conducted in spring 2010 among 40 major UK organisations and nearly 300 experienced executive coaches.
The survey examines timely issues such as, do the selection processes that organisations use enable them to find excellent coaches? Or have buyers – and the consultants they use – “turned the tables” and created a “process jungle” for coaches to hack through?
Buyers reveal concerns that it could reach this point, while coaches report it already has – and some are saying they won’t play ball.
The report, More Process, Less Insight, confirms two positive trends in selection: buyers are giving selection higher priority and are using more rigorous approaches. There’s more positive news: both buyers and coaches support more rigorous selection.
So far, so good but respondents, particularly coaches, also warn that this increased rigour has downsides, such as onerous selection processes that “miss the point”. Not even half of coach participants could say that selection has improved without adding weighty caveats. Just over 15 per cent say it has gone downhill.
Buyer and coach participants reveal how they gauge the effectiveness of a selection process. For example, both note the importance of buyers’ understanding of coaching – and worrisome gaps in it (see Table 1).
There are few surprises in participants’ comments on the potential advantages of assessment centres, for example, consistency of selection method and first-hand experience of coaches via sample sessions. However, they cite these same features as disadvantages. In particular, they view assessment centres as more likely to yield “clone coaches” and sample coaching sessions as too artificial.
Some coaches also object strongly to the promotion of assessment centres by consultants they describe as “opportunistic self-appointed experts”. A few deride knock-on commercial products such as courses to prepare coaches for assessment centres. This is a fair point if it’s a slick course that goads coaches into “performing to pass”. However, a course that enables coaches to be even clearer about their models and experience in terms that are meaningful to buyers might be helpful.
Respondents also offer robust feedback to ‘intermediaries’ – the coaching organisations that offer qualification and accreditation. Both buyers and coaches are frustrated by the number and complexity of schemes. They’d like to see more co-operation and less competition.
With thanks to the participants, we have a clear picture of who buyers and coaches want to do business with:
Brilliant buyers
- Understand coaching; have worked with a coach
- Create buy-in for coaching and selection before running it
- Use selection processes with “rigour that is fit for purpose”
- Look for coaches to address the full range of needs, including risk takers
- Manage the role of procurement
- Treat selection as an opportunity to build organisations’ brands
- Prepare selection team
- Are transparent with coaches before, during and after selection
Compelling coaches
- Present coaching model, areas of expertise, cases, track record and approach to evaluation in clear terms that help buyers see if and how they can make a difference
- Lead with these, placing qualifications behind the scenes as “hygiene factors”
- Walk away from work that’s not a good fit
- Proactively offer buyers guidance on selection and other areas of coaching
- Work within buyers’ processes for managing coaching
- Take initiative to learn about the business and culture
Savvy suppliers (eg, a coach broker or a firm with a pool of coaches)
- Clearly explain the ‘U’ in their USPs
- Know their coaches and present comprehensive profiles to buyers
- Provide in-depth information on how they source, select, train, develop, evaluate and monitor their coaches
- Add value by proactively bringing the benefit of their experience across organisations to buyers and coaches
Insightful intermediaries (eg, professional bodies that accredit coaches)
- Work on behalf of their stakeholders – buyers and coaches
- Proactively work with stakeholders to develop programmes that reflect buyers’ needs
- Collaborate with intermediaries on behalf of stakeholders
- Make it easy for stakeholders to understand and use their programmes
- Offer buyers education, guidance and practical tools
- Are vigilant about the quality of candidates they accept and pass in their programmes – they live or die by the value that stakeholders associate with their brands
What makes selection effective? | How are we doing? |
Is selection in the hands of buyers who understand and ‘own’ coaching? |
|
Are selection and coaching aligned with business needs? |
|
Does selection look at ‘what counts’? |
|
Is the approach practical? |
|
Would an experienced coach want to go through the process? |
|
Does the buying organisation offer useful, timely follow up? |
|
What’s the impact on the coach? |
|
What are the outcomes for buyers? |
|
Download the report, More Process, Less Insight, at: www.coaching-at-work.com/reports
Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 6