Coaching caveats: Part 1: organizational context.

As coaching has become an accepted part of an organization's development offerings, training and development professionals have become more sophisticated in screening coaches and pairing them with case and coachee characteristics. As a healthy sign, coaching's popularity has not overshadowed a reasonable appreciation of when coaching is likely to be effective and when it is not. Some organizations even have a designated position focused on bringing greater discipline and cost-effectiveness to contracting and delivering coaching services. Part of that discipline is to evaluate pending coaching cases for any obviously compromising characteristics, such as lack of motivation in the coachee or a boss's avoiding his or her feedback responsibilities. What about less obvious variables? What should we look for to determine whether coaching is the intervention of choice at any particular moment?

All experienced coaches have been involved in long-shot assignments. Some of these probably should not have been started at all; in others, obstacles may not have been understood or appreciated as coaching began; in still others, unanticipated variables emerge later that derail progress or threaten the entire effort. To the extent negative indicators can be identified in advance, both coaches and their organizational sponsors can "pass" on some assignments. Even if the decision is to proceed when concerns are less severe, with clearer identification of "risk" variables, more accurate expectations for progress can be set. Caveat emptor applies to coaching too.

Based on my experience as an executive coach and the experiences of other coaches I have polled, two broad categories of problematic variables emerged:

1. The organizational context (i.e., issues external to the coachee), and

2. Characteristics of the coachee as an individual.

Under each of these headings are unique variables that can trip up or slow down coaching. A few of them are insurmountable challenges (toggles); when they are present, coaching is so unlikely to be effective that a different intervention should be selected. Most are "scalable," representing challenges that may exist to a greater or lesser degree. Given the expense of coaching, each potential case should be evaluated with these variables in mind.

In this Perspective, we look at the organizational context. In the next issue of Human Resource Planning we discuss the five characteristics of the coachee.

Part I: The Organizational Context

Five variables external to the coachee threaten the progress of coaching: One is a go/no-go toggle and the remainder are scalable as to their degree of threat.

1. Equivocal organizational commitment

2. Organizational upheaval

3. Sponsor-coachee relationship

4. Highly political organizational climate

5. Coaching as part of a mandated program

Equivocal Organizational Commitment (Go/No-Go Toggle)

Gerry, BioPharm's Director of R&D, had grown into his management role as the organization grew, but his leadership skills had not kept pace. Recent staff departures and morale problems had pushed senior management to consider options for dealing with Gerry. Coaching was the favored intervention, but also being considered was reclassifying his job onto a "technical ladder" or biting the bullet and offering him a severance/outplacement package.

Concern about one's job can be a motivator, but for coaching, this is true only up to a point. There is an important distinction between linking performance improvement to job payoffs versus linking the status qua to overt job jeopardy. When job loss, or even reassignment, is actively being considered, motivation to develop is truncated; employees cannot be expected to stretch toward growth when they are not even sure their organizations are willing to give them chances to improve. As Maslow pointed out years ago, threats to sustenance trump all other motives.

Equivocal organizational commitment is not always patently obvious but it usually can be discerned during coach-sponsor discussions. Sponsors in these situations express doubts about the coachee's ability to change fast enough, or significantly enough, to satisfy key stakeholders. They may mention that structural options, such as reassignment to another job, or even outplacement, are being considered. When this variable is in play, coaching should be delayed until the sponsors sort out how the coachee is viewed and what actions they favor. Coaching should not begin without a commitment to the coachee's development. Even in situations that are intensively remedial, when the coachee needs to change significant negative behaviors, the organization should commit to taking no personnel actions for at least six months, and preferably longer. If that commitment cannot be made, success of the coaching will be undermined.

Sometimes these discussions between coaches and sponsors reveal that the structure of the job or the organization is not conducive to the coachee's successful performance. The function may be understaffed or under-resourced in some other way, poorly positioned for organizational leverage or influencing, have vague or changeable accountabilities, or have other job structural challenges. Such factors may be contributing to poor perceptions about the coachee but are outside of his or her direct control. As long as sponsors recognize these challenges, and they accept that part of coaching may be to help the coachee advocate improvements, coaching can proceed. If coaches and sponsors are likely to be at loggerheads about the impact of organizational constraints, coaching is unlikely to be effective. Coachees only weave straw into gold in fairy tales.

Organization Upheaval (Scalable)

The merger of Premier Bank with a regional rival was viewed as good for future business and for stockholders, but resulted in major uncertainly for managerial employees. There were obvious redundancies in the staffs of the two companies and it was unclear which group, or individuals, would win the game of musical chairs. At the same time, coaching was a valued tool at Premier and some in HR felt it could be very useful in helping managers make the transition to the merged organization.

Organizational structure can be in significant flux for many reasons, such as merger, acquisition, downsizing, outsourcing, or hiring a new CEO. All of these events can have a major impact on employees, their jobs, and their careers. Organizations also go through less severe changes, such as those driven by cost cutting, job re-evaluations, re-engineering, or more minor structural changes. Even in a large-scale change, a potential coachee's function or business unit may be affected to a greater or lesser degree.

From a coaching standpoint, when organizational change results in fears about jobs and confusion about goals or direction, coaching will not get the attention it requires and probably should be delayed. Although there have been "transition coaching" programs aimed at post-merger environments, experience has shown that even these do not engage until well beyond when the program designers expected. Basically, when people are excessively worried about their jobs and performance standards are in flux, much less attention is paid to professional development. Sponsors and coaches need to be sensitive to organizational changes that can create uncertainty and detract from coaching's effectiveness.

Sponsor-Coachee Relationship (Scalable)

Abby had transferred into the southeast division of Global Foods with the expectation of bringing sorely needed marketing expertise; however, three months later, her staff was lodging daily protests about her interpersonal style, pace, and empowerment, and coaching was being considered. Her boss was known to be conflict-averse and had not disengaged from his prior relationships with Abby's direct reports. She clearly needed help but did not respect her boss and he was not extending a hand to help her. A compounding factor was that the HR function at Global operated as "order takers" and did not intervene in leadership challenges.

All experienced coaches understand that a key influence on a coachee's behavior, for better or for worse, is the coachee's boss. More obscure, and harder to adjust, is the quality of their relationship. When the boss-coachee relationship is characterized by conflict, lack of respect, or avoidance, a critical leverage point and reinforcer for coaching is diminished. Even less overt impediments, such as having a new boss or physical distance from a boss's work location, can slow down coaching's progress. Although coaches can help bosses encourage new behaviors, they have much less leverage when the relationship itself has impediments. A particularly frustrating variation on this problem is the boss with poor communication or interpersonal skills. Not only does this remove an ally for the coach, but also it sets up a poor role model for the coachee and gives the coachee the age-old out: "My boss needs coaching more than I do!"