Conference report – 1st European Mentoring and Coaching Council Research Conference, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 7-8 July 2011
Researchers in the US have taken initial steps towards developing a taxonomy of coaching styles.
The coaching community has no taxonomy to describe and differentiate styles, and many practitioners struggle with how to describe their own, said John Bennett.
Bennett, director of the Master of Science in Executive Coaching programme at McColl School of Business at Queens University of Charlotte in the US, shared the results of a preliminary study he carried out with research assistant John English.
The pilot set out to identify the words, terms and phrases used by external executive coaches to define their style, and also to develop a model for describing those styles.
The study consisted of literature reviews, analysis of 35 executive coaches’ archived profiles and eight one-to-one semi-structured 30-minute interviews with coaches. All were working in financial services organisation Wachovia in the US.
The study produced a definition of coaching style: “The way coaches engage and interact with their clients as opposed to the method or steps you take in the coaching process.”
It also identified the following key influences on the development of executive style: training and education; communication style; theories and models; worldview and personality.
Five elements of coaching style emerged:
- Consistency (situational; dynamic/more rigid)
- Relationship (connection to client; trust)
- Pace (push/tentative/challenging/silence/speed – fast or slow)
- Structure (directness – direct or indirect; formulaic/organic)
- Orientation (time – long- or short-term; acceptance; action; self-awareness; behavioural: systems – holistic; developmental-individual/organisation.
Bennett invited conference participants to describe their coaching style. Terms included nurturing, playful, present, challenging, systemic, provocative, best friend, trustworthy, emergent, results-oriented and solution-oriented.
Bennett said there were many similarities with the 48 terms that emerged from the study, including flexible, fluid, partner, success-oriented and unstructured.
Study participants found it difficult to talk about style as it wasn’t something they’d thought about: “So often, coaches are coaching without paying attention to what they’re doing; they are unconsciously competent.”
Bennett acknowledged the study did not include clients. He suggested further work might seek coaching style descriptions from clients and compare findings from coaches and clients; explore the possible link between style and client preferences and consider the impact of style on coaching effectiveness.
Coaching at Work, Volume 6, Issue 5