“Coaching Works, We Have Proof”
Hi, everyone! I’m Mary Wayne Bush, and I work in Coaching Research under the moniker ‘The Foundation of Coaching.’
True to our name, we believe that research is important – foundational, actually - in building a body of knowledge to support the claims that we make as coaches.
What are these claims? For one, that coaching works. For another, that coaching works as well as, or better than other forms of “helping” (training, mentoring, therapy (in some cases). Or that coaching – and coaches – comes from a theoretical framework that shows up in how we coach, and what we aim for in coaching.
There are also questions to be answered, for our own information to further our development as coaches and to continually improve our field. These kinds of questions are wide-ranging, like: “Is coaching different in different cultures?”“Is one method or school of coaching more effective in certain cases than others?”
“What is the impact of using telephone coaching as compared to ‘in person’ coaching?”
“What happens 6 weeks/6 months/6 years after a successful coaching engagement - is success maintained over time or do the results taper off after a while?”
The answer to these broad questions can inform the whole field and help us all to become better coaches by sharing the results and best practices.
The questions that we ask about the field of coaching are not just for academics or scientists. We believe that it is important for coaches to be savvy about research so they can examine their own practices and add valuable data to marketing and training – and their own development! This is the model of the “scholar-practitioner”: a coach who regularly reflects and examines his or her own practice using short research projects.
So … what are the kinds of questions that YOU are interested in asking about your practice (or about coaching in general)? What would help take your practice to the next level of excellence, or help you reach more people, or feel more confident about what you are offering? Let us know – post a comment and we’ll be sure to consider it!
Popularity: 29% [?]
Comment by we coach on 18 April 2008:
What blissful post-modern complexity is coaching and if, where, how, and why it works! Shades of gray abound in our coaching practices (in no matter what field or domain we practice) and we acknowledge and even embrace this “blurriness” yet spend (and many students of the field) oodles of time considering if there is a “right” black or white answer to those questions. I suspect we all know that sometimes coaching doesn’t “work”… and sometimes there isn’t a “right” way to define it. We love it because, more than not, it does do something very positive, very inspiring, and very new for those who have discovered and so-named it. We are afraid of linking it to an existing (process/relationship/profession) definition perhaps because it may mean - or be - criticism. We are desperate to build definition to help us explain, market and legitimize the concept.
Based on my gleaning of this thread so far and your thoughts therein, I have this resulting definition: “Coaching is an informative, thought-provoking and creative process or relationship that inspires alignment, effectiveness and implementation of (client’s) personal and professional potential…” (a definition which certainly won’t be “right”, but I’m provoked into sharing and joining the conversation).
Based on that definition (as a case in point) are we not “coaching” each other in some form in this forum? We cannot really provide advice here and are egoless even as we spout opinion, hunches and options… we are engaged in informative, thought-provoking and creative process. Delightful! Coaching is, as I see it, related to many parts of current social phenomena where dynamic relationships and processes provide opportunity for information, thought-provocation and creation.
Thanks to you for providing pieces of these above definitions.
On the verb/noun front, my preferred term is “coaching”: it is an “ing” word, and therefore a very comfortable “action noun” (gerund). Thus, it is, in this form, partly noun and/or verb… and I like it that way. Coaching is so named, and so works <> when it is “informed” through theory and practice, and <> it is enough that it just is a relationship or a process that works for people in a “coaching” way (that is aligning, effective implementation). This is very broad - but some of us can be (and are) paid handsomely for providing it.
In my professional case… I am well-experienced, well-educated, well-liked and certainly successful _______ (I typically fill in the blank with one of about 20 terms that fit the niche in which I work). I sometimes say we coach, sometimes call myself a coach, but I am <> coaching (using the above definition). Like most successful people involved in coaching, I am very well respected for my own unique and diverse set of experiences, interests and credentials (none of which is specific to coaching). Given that, I have had no idea which “profession” “conference” “association” “community” or “certification” to link myself to - I pay no fees, have no cards, and yet I feel and am identified as connected to these communities anyway. I wish I could link them all together, and maybe that is a calling emerging for those involved in coaching and these discussions…
Comment by Mary Wayne Bush on 13 April 2008:
Hi, Vikki - while I haven’t personally seen as much evidence that coaches talk “disparagingly about othe professions”, your post reminded me of Esra Ozkan’s comment that coaches spend more time distinguishing what coaching IS NOT than what it IS (i.e. “Coaching is not therapy” “Coaching is not mentoring” “Coaching is not consulting”, etc.) Could it be this focus on “distinguishing” that is coming across as “disparaging” to some?
Comment by Rey Carr on 2 April 2008:
Hi, Linda:
I like the idea you have about examining the relationship between executive coaching and coaching in sports. Since you are seeking possible participants for your study, we might be able to help you find qualified people in our Peer Resources Network and coaching mailing list.
In order to determine whether your study qualifies for distributing a request, we have established criteria on our website at http://www.peer.ca/researchguides.html
If you’d like to review them and let us know your answers to those questions, we can start the process of considering letting our members know. To be clear, we receive more requests than we accept as many graduate students (and other researchers) have not done enough pre-work to make it worth our members time to participate.
Best wishes
Rey Carr
Comment by Linda Melnick on 2 April 2008:
Good afternoon to all,
As indicated earlier, I am conducting research on executive coaching for my master’s which explores how a sport background fits within this profession.
The title of my research is “From Playing Surface to Workplace: Exploring the Impact of Sport Coaching on Executive Coaching effectiveness and approach.
I am sending out this posting to enquire if there is anyone who would be willing to be part of my research. Participants must have previous elite coaching experience and have been an executive coach for no less than 6 months.
I am conducting qualitative research that consists of an hour long interview and some follow up.
If anyone is interested please email me at the following email address. Linda.Melnick@guelphleadership.com
Comment by Linda Melnick on 31 March 2008:
Hi,
Thank you for the above replies.
In response to your comment John - there is no doubt that having business expertise is important to the effectivenss of an executive coach. In fact Berman & Bradt (2006) believe that “training or experience in the upper levels of the business world is essential to developing the capability to help corporate leaders with a broad range of needs and situations in which they find themselves” (p. 244). Just because I know how to coach volleyball, doesn’t mean that technically I can coach football…..but I would argue that credible and authentic sport coaches can motivate, goal set, capitalize on strengths, collaborate, problem-solve, enhance teamwork….which regardless of the sport are essential ingredients for performance improvements.
I have found, as indicated by Vikki that different professional disciplines in an attempt to determine effectiveness “talk disparingly about other professions” e.g. Found in an article in Harvard Business review “many executive coaches especially those who draw their inspiration from sport, sell themselves as purveyors of simple answers and quick results (2007). That was one of the nicer ones!
Most of the literature consistly repeats that there is no true definition of what makes for an effective executive coach - yes there are characteristics and skills that appear to be more valuable than others. Really in many cases it is about fit in addition to expertise.
Although I am not currently an executive coach I have coached in sport for many years and have spent the last 6 years working as a business manager and am thinking this may be a career change for me. True to the literature on executive coaching regarding psychology - I am not educated in ways to deal with an executive who many have an underlying psychological issues - but as stated by Kilburg, (2004) if the “focus of executive coaching nearly always remains on how to help people who have already demonstrated a great deal of competence and success get better at what they do” (p. 202). Then maybe the fit for me does exist. Hence - the reason for my research.
Thanks
Linda
Comment by Stacey Basting on 31 March 2008:
David,
I’m intrigued by the idea of coaches as artisans. Having come to coaching from the field of education, I have witnessed the negative consequences (No Child Left Behind) of what may have begun as a well intentioned call for standardization and quantification. I being to wonder…Does the pursuit of quantification truly serve us our efforts in the field of coaching? What needs might it not be meeting? How might a non-scientific metaphor enhance our research efforts?
I can’t seem to pull up the COACHING journal on the web. Can you provide more info on how to find your article?
Comment by John Agno on 29 March 2008:
Linda,
Successful sports coaches have been good team leaders on the court or field but that does not translate directly to excellence in executive coaching and mentoring…probably because they lack the corporate experience of being a general management leader in a business climate.
For the desired characteristics of an executive coach, go to: http://www.MENTORINGandCOACHING.com and click on “personal coaching” at the top left of the home page.
Comment by Vikki G. Brock on 28 March 2008:
Hi Linda,
I am completing my dissertation research on the history of coaching and have seen sports coaches portrayed as teachers and instructors rather than coaches as they are defined in business or personal coaching. In my research I found that Tim Gallwey, author of The Inner Game of Tennis (1974) merged performance coaching with humanistic and transpersonal psychology principles. It is his approach that has been brought into business and personal coaching.
In 1986, Werner Erhard, with Jim Selman, brought together sports coaches Tim Gallwey, “Red” Auerbach, John Wooden, and George Allen to identify the uniform distinctions of coaching regardless of the subject being coached. I actually saw the video of this discussion. They were talking about coaching as a paradigm for interpersonal communication.
What I find in executive, leadership, business and personal coaching is that we have tended to talk disparagingly about other professions in an effort to legitimize what we are doing as different and somehow better. What this does is diminish our credibility as human beings and coaches. This may be what you have seen in the literature of executive coaching.