Developing Coaching in Organisations

TRAINING JOURNAL-ELY-, 2003

2017

The present paper follows on from the Acuity paper of 2016. Coach interventions are reported that create learning experiences in the coachee. The rationale for the selection of the interventions is based upon: 1) observed levels of coachee’s psychological states and, 2) coachee-learning as expressed by coachee-language (using the REPROCess model), where psychological shift is classified according to the model. Examples link separate coach interventions to specific learning and the perceived level of state-change (as determined by observations of the coachee). The methods here provide a means of training advanced coaches and also, assessment of coaches based on coachee-change, rather than present-day, skills-observation of coaches alone. This paper suggests that further efforts towards the assessment of coaches, based upon what is achieved in the coachee, should be fruitful.

Acuity, 2016

A model is shown describing different levels of psychological processing in coachees, in terms of observable physiology. Physical manifestations in the coachee are described for both intellectualizing psychological states and for internalized, experiential, psychological states. This work suggests strongly that certain coach-interventions induce significant state-change in coachees. Five of forty facilitative coach-intervention skills are described, in order to illustrate their practical use in facilitating significant psychological change. Linkages are made between facilitative coaching interventions and neuroscience; how relevant changes in biochemistry are accompanying stimulation of the brain during coaching. These linkages are intended to help describe a (work-in-progress) concept of ‘coaching underpinned by neuroscience’. An attempt to describe such a concept is made in order to create discussion; it is averred that a new discipline may arise, where links between the understanding of how facilitative coaching interventions work and their possible influence in neuroplastic change, may align in the future.

A model is shown describing different levels of psychological processing in coachees, in terms of observable physiology. Physical manifestations in the coachee are described for both intellectualizing psychological states and for internalized, experiential, psychological states. This work suggests strongly that certain coach-interventions induce significant state-change in coachees. Five of forty facilitative coach-intervention skills are described, in order to illustrate their practical use in facilitating significant psychological change. Linkages are made between facilitative coaching interventions and neuroscience; how relevant changes in biochemistry are accompanying stimulation of the brain during coaching. These linkages are intended to help describe a (work-in-progress) concept of 'coaching underpinned by neuroscience'. An attempt to describe such a concept is made in order to create discussion; it is averred that a new discipline may arise, where links between the understanding of how facilitative coaching interventions work and their possible influence in neuroplastic change, may align in the future.

The under-fives have traits that can help us understand more about the needs of coachees. Coaches can also learn from an understanding of child traits. In this article we explore some of these traits and how they can widen our perception. This may help HR professionals to review structures and communication needs. It may also help coaches to create or modify their mindsets (for coaching) and thus help coachees risk more and achieve faster. The metaphor does not invoke understanding about Transactional Analysis (TA, where people are assumed to have a number of behaviour traits based upon three states, parent, adult and child). Child Traits and the Coachee There are numerous traits that may make a coachee more or less amenable to, and productive in, coaching. Here are a number that arise from using the child as a metaphor:  Trepidation  Reluctant  Anxious  Needy for attention  Needy for support/advice/help rather than facilitation  Displacement Activity (tics, humming etc)  Fear & Flight  Emotional  Stubborn Whatever the definitive list may be, what is it that HR Managers and the coach can do to reduce the likelihood of these traits becoming counter-productive? Ideally, we want to establish a good working relationship between coach and coachee and hope to stimulate coachee progress at the highest possible level.

Competency-based coach training and assessment implies that coaching skills andeffectiveness are closely related. But who is best placed to determine 'effectiveness’? While there are some studies comparing coach and coachee evaluations of coaching, none compare a coachee’s evaluation with a coach trainer-assessor’s rating of the coach’s competency in the same encounter. Neither are there studies using coach, coachee and assessor triads. This paper reports on research that examined how closely the evaluations of coachees, expert-assessors and coaches correspond. The research used a novel multi-method approach to triangulation including Clean Language interviewing (CLI) to explore coachees’ experience and evaluation of coaching. Assessor and coachee evaluations of the same coaching session were often at variance, both in terms of descriptive evaluations and numerical ratings. This suggests that compliance — or not — to a coaching methodology does not necessarily guarantee coachee satisfaction. While coach and coachee ratings showed no clear differences, in every triad coaches rated their own coaching considerably better than did the assessor. Practical implications include the need for multiple sources of evidence to establish coach effectiveness and certification standards, the need for coaches to develop calibration skills so they can be more responsive to the coachees’ in-session evaluations, and the usefulness of CLI together with established tools in evaluation research. Keywords: coach competency assessment, evaluation research, coach effectiveness, Clean Language, Meta-Coaching, triangulation, calibration.

Performance coaching and mentoring are both gaining wider appeal with more companies starting to develop these skills in their staff by seeking training programmes and procuring external provision of these services. Sometimes these are delivered together. There is still a lot of confusion in the organisations about what coaching and mentoring are with the words used interchangeably. So let’s begin with what have now evolved as definitions of coaching and mentoring and how both disciplines are now applied at the top level. Coaching & Mentoring Coaching is a facilitative process, stimulating and challenging a coachee to new perceptions about their current issues (and goals) with a clear target in focus. A facilitative process means that the coach does not provide answers and solutions, but stimulates the coachee to find new and motivated thinking to meet their goals. By contrast, classical mentoring is a process of ‘show and tell’ but still concerned with current issues and future aspirations. Mentors are often colleagues or retired colleagues with considerable knowledge of the sector and the internal politics.

Coaching Education and Training falls broadly into three disciplines: psychology management and adult education. Which discipline the starting point is matters less in my opinion than a “theory to practice approach”. This paper positions coaching in organisations as an adult learning activity (rather than a ‘therapeutic’ or managerial one), that it includes the whole person-in-the-world (we don’t leave ourselves at the door when we go to work), a strength-based orientation rather than a problem orientation and embedding in a systemic framework of interdependence (or “spirituality”). These assumptions create three arenas for coaching learning: 1. The systemic landscape: a systemic model to include the coach/coachee/organisation interface shapes structure of the coaching conversation. The context of the learning is as important as the individual who learns. 2. A crucible: the heart of coaching and coaching learning is relational. With the presence of psychological safety (trust) a coach can encourage exuberant learning by using subtle microskills to shape a relationship of creative tension. 3. A toolbox: a variety of skills and tools that help broaden and deepen the learning.

International Journal of Contemporary Management , 2018

Background. Coaching is a popular training method known especially for a specific, non-directive communication style. The non-directive character of communication techniques has a clear target – it unblocks, brings out and maximises a coachee’s potential without giving ready solutions. Coaching constitutes a frequent subject of research, both theoretical and empirical. It proves its effectiveness in various branches and areas. The coaching process is analysed less frequently, and the analysis of implemented non-directive communication techniques is quite a novelty. Research aims. The main research aim is to analyse the frequency of the non-directive communication techniques used by coaches in the coaching process. Methodology. The research was conducted on the basis of the survey method with the use of the questionnaire technique on a group of 100 respondents who took part in the coaching process with at least three sessions and when the coaching process had already been finished. Key findings. The most frequently used non-directive communication technique in the coaching process is coaching tasks, and the shadow procedure is the least frequent one. The choice of a coach (external coach, internal coach or direct supervisor as a coach) has an influence on the frequency of using particular non-directive communication techniques.

Research in Engineering Design, 2009

Global product development teams work in ambiguously complex dynamic networks.