search
Subscribe/Renew

CHEMICAL BALANCE

by | Sep 12, 2019 | Articles, Features | 0 comments

How do organisations match individuals and coaches efficiently and effectively and what have coaches learnt about how to approach chemistry sessions? In this two-part series, Eva Kovacs and Louise Sheppard share their recent research into best practice. Part 1: coach-client matching

 

In this first part, we describe how coach matching has evolved at GSK and what we have learnt from our research with other organisations and coaching providers on their processes and learning.

We started our research by conducting a review of the coaching literature on coach matching. A good coach-client matching process is a vital part of the coaching process and an enabler for a strong coaching alliance.

The quality of this alliance between the coach and client is the most important predictor of coaching outcomes, according to an empirical study on coach matching (Boyce, Jackson & Neal, 2010).

They highlight three important factors that influence matching effectiveness:

  • Commonality in personal characteristics or experiences
  • Compatibility in behavioural preferences (including personality traits as well as leadership and learning styles)
  • Credibility with coaching abilities and skills meeting clients’ needs.

Braus (2019) carried out a study recently, matching a pool of coaches with executive clients and concluded that higher attention needs to be given to the coach’s experience and results in coach selection. She recommended that to sustain momentum and support the coaching relationship, particularly in the middle stages, it’s important for the learning and development professional to carry out regular monitoring calls and review meetings.

 

The background

In 2010, global healthcare company GSK, established a centralised coaching function. Back then, coaching was viewed as an effective investment to support leaders through change, but the business was using coaches without any governance of quality, accountability for outcomes or financial oversight.

The coaching faculty established a clear vision and strategy for coaching at GSK. The vision was to use coaching as a strategic lever in the transformation and success of GSK. The strategy was to build an appropriate coaching infrastructure; grow leaders’ coaching skills; build internal coach capability, and manage quality through clear governance.

Coaching in GSK has evolved significantly since 2010, and today it is integral to talent and leadership development. It’s recognised as a critical development lever that supports individual and team performance and organisational priorities like diversity.

Externally, GSK is regarded as setting the standard in ‘corporate coaching’ and has been formally recognised for this, receiving a number of external awards, including the prestigious International Coach Federation PRISM award in 2016.

 

Individual coaching

Executive and director level

GSK executives and directors benefit from individual coaching services delivered by the GSK executive coaching faculty. More than 200 executives and directors take up this service annually.

The faculty consists of external coaches and a cadre of highly skilled internal executive coaches, all externally certified and with extensive client experience. All coaches have been rigorously assessed against professional standards. Faculty members are brought together and engaged as a community by the two internal executive coaches for the purposes of:

  • Building a good understanding of coaches’ working styles and skills to inform matching decisions
  • Keeping coaches up to date about the GSK context so that coaches provide a systemic approach
  • Collating common organisational themes from coaching to provide data for the GSK system.

 

Mid-level and senior managers

An internal coaching resource is available for mid-level and senior managers globally called Job Plus Coaching (JPC). JPC is free for those being coached. There are more than 500 active JP coaches and they complete about 1,500 coaching assignments globally a year.

JP coaches are GSK leaders who volunteer to train as a coach and provide coaching services within GSK, outside their team. Coaching is additional to the day job.

JPC reflects practice and standards in the external professional coaching world and JPC training is approved by APECS. Internal coaches need to comply with JPC standards of having continuous coaching client work, regular supervision and CPD.

 

Coach matching principles

Given the difference in scale and target client group, coach-client matching is managed differently for executive and JPC. However, the coach matching principles are the same across all services: professionalism, client preferences and fair balance.

 

Professionalism

This is about ensuring clean, safe and impactful coaching. To achieve this the internal executive coaching team responsible for coach matching:

  • Individually assesses external coaches before they join the GSK faculty
  • Checks the compliance of internal coaches with JPC standards annually
  • Continuously seeks and monitors client feedback after each assignment
  • Manages boundaries carefully.

Internal coaches are paired with clients outside their area to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and external coaches aren’t paired with clients from the same team or department.

 

Client preferences

These are actively explored and taken into account during matching.

 

Fair balance

This principle is more relevant for the internal JPC faculty but is also considered when allocating external coaches. The coaching team has a fine balancing act to ensure active and compliant internal coaches have at least one client at a time to maintain their practice. This is balanced alongside the other principles of professionalism and client preferences.

 

The matching process

Executive and director level – external coaches and executive internal coaches

Requests for executive coaching are managed carefully by the two internal executive coaches who work with clients in specific geographies. The requests are initiated by the client, HR or the line manager. The internal executive coach meets with the client to:

  • Explore what they want to achieve through coaching, their expectations of the coach and their learning style
  • Have a conversation about coaching. This is an opportunity to dispel any myths about coaching and help the person be open to coaching and to prepare for the chemistry meeting to maximise the investment
  • Discuss how to make the most of the chemistry session.

One positive benefit of these conversations is increased awareness about coaching, which builds GSK’s coaching culture.

Internal executive coaches use their knowledge of the external coaching faculty to select internal or external coaches who best ‘fit’ the client’s preferences. Initially, three coach bios were sent to an executive after the matching meeting to offer them a choice. This process has been revised as we found that meeting with three coaches took a long time and often the client chose the last coach that they saw.

Currently, the internal executive coach offers the client one coach bio, based on their preferences. The internal executive coach follows up about the ‘match’ after the chemistry session, and offers the client other bios if they don’t think the coach is a good match for them.

Mid-level and senior managers level – internal coaches

JPC is requested electronically. Clients initiate the process after discussing coaching with their line managers. The electronic system invites potential clients to think about whether coaching is the best intervention to support their development needs and if not, suggests more appropriate development interventions. Potential clients are asked to complete a request form about their:

  • Key coaching objectives
  • Expectations about the coach’s experience
  • Preferences for the location (face-to-face or Skype) and desired language for the coaching.

 

The system provides the key demographics of the client. The internal coaching team uses the data from the request form, as well as the database on JP coaches, to decide on coach-client matching. The client is connected with a JP coach via email and asked to meet for a chemistry session to decide if they feel mutually confident to progress the relationship. If not, they will be allocated another coach.

Internal JP coaches are asked to raise any concerns about the coach matching, for example, if there is a potential conflict of interest that was not obvious, based on the data available. The size and complexity of GSK requires this additional ‘safety check’, even though in practice, there have been very few actual conflicts of interest.

The current JPC matching approach works well as there are few requests to replace the matched coach. However, this process is resource intensive and GSK is currently exploring digital solutions to streamline JPC matching and free up internal coaching resources. There is an intention to keep the high-touch approach to executive coach matching at more senior levels in the organisation.

Findings from other organisations on coach-CLIENT matching

We found the majority of the L&D professionals we spoke to are doing the matching themselves. They offer the potential client one coach, with the option to meet a second one if they aren’t comfortable with the first suggestion.

Some L&D professionals still believe it is important to offer clients a choice of coach, however, they’re generally presenting a choice of two coaches rather than three, and are offering coaches with very different styles and approaches to make selection easier. One L&D professional confided that sometimes the coach that’s chosen isn’t necessarily the best coach in her view for that individual but at least the client has bought into the selection.

 

Next issue: Part 2 – chemistry sessions

The authors

Submit a Comment