Descripción de los errores

Several studies have sought to explore what coaching and EC in particular entail, what is the ‘profile’ of professional coaches (e.g., see the empirical stud-ies by Grant and Zackon, 2004; Liljenstrand and Nebeker, 2008). A number of studies have also discussed what background and skills a coach should have to be competent for the role of executive coach (e.g., see Fontaine and Schmidt’s (2009) discussion on industrial–organizational (I–O) consultants/

psychologists’ transitioning to EC roles]. Some key observations from the lit-erature are summarized here.

The Role of the Coach’s Background

Overall, it is difficult to reach any definitive conclusion about the role of the coach’s background in an EC intervention, since there are so many parameters that define the quality and success of the engagement. Undoubtedly, the field

is characterized by the strong diversity of its professionals. Grant and Zackon (2004) surveyed (online) 2,529 coaches (who conduct executive, workplace, and life coaching) and are ICF (International Coach Federation) members.

They observed that 57.3% of them hold some coaching credential, but only 19% an ICF credential. Also, before becoming coaches, many respondents had other careers such as consultants (40.8%), executives (30.2%), managers (30.8%), teachers (15.7%), and salespeople (13.8%). Some 18.8% of respond-ents had backgrounds in social work (4.1%), psychology (4.8%), or counselling (12.7%).

It has been suggested that the type of background that a coach has really differentiates the type of coaching provided. Liljenstrand and Nebeker (2008) found that there are differences in the way coaches coach, which vary accord-ing to their academic background. Specifically, an interestaccord-ing observation was made:  coaches with a background in psychology tend to be hired by organizations, use the title of Executive Coach or Consultant, tend to rely more on their academic training when they coach, attend coaching specific seminars or workshops less frequently, and appear to be less interested in coaching-specific certifications or licensure. On the other hand, those trained in business or education or within a number of different fields (e.g., life sci-ences, engineering and law) tend to be hired by individual coachees and they tend to offer predominantly personal coaching.

While it would be valuable to obtain a better understanding of the role that a coach’s background plays on the outcome and quality of the coach-ing intervention, this cannot be easily assessed. The problem with any such research that aims at sketching the profile of the EC professional is that it can be quite idiosyncratic because in many studies the sample sizes are often small or skewed and frequently no definitive conclusions or generalizations can be drawn.

Coach Selection Criteria on the Basis of Education, Credentials, and Traits

According to Stern (2004: 156) the professional executive coach should com-bine: essential knowledge and expertise in psychology and in business as well as other targeted knowledge and expertise important for the coaching inter-vention (ranging from conflict mediation and development of values, vision, and mission to team development to stress management). Similarly, as part of their proposed EC competency model, Ennis et al. (2008b: 74–9) identi-fied four core competencies of the executive coach (psychological knowledge, business acumen, organizational knowledge, coaching knowledge) and the following attributes and abilities (mature self-confidence, positive energy, assertiveness, interpersonal sensitivity, openness and flexibility, goal orienta-tion, partnering and influence, continuous learning and development, and

lastly, integrity) (see Ennis et al., 2008a: 36; for more details see also Ennis et al., 2008b: 87–95).

Broadly, the above observations have been empirically confirmed.

An empirical study by Wasylyshyn (2003), which included a survey of eighty-seven executives who had participated in EC, showed that the top three credential and experience criteria for executives in choosing coaches were:  (a)  graduate training in psychology (82%), (b)  experience in/under-standing of business (78%), and (c)  an established reputation as a coach (25%) (p. 97). With regard to coaches’ key traits that coachees see as impor-tant, Passmore’s (2010) empirical study showed that coachees seek not only particular behaviours, but also certain personal attributes in a coach. These are: ‘common sense confidentiality’, being collaborative, setting take-away tasks, balancing challenge and support, stimulating problem-solving, effec-tive communication, staying focused, containing emotions, helping develop alternative perspectives, using a variety of focusing tools and techniques and using the self as a tool. Lastly, another recent empirical study showed that the qualities most appreciated in a coach are: listening, understanding and encouragement, followed by knowledge and then empathy, authenticity, and involvement (de Haan et al., 2010).

What Makes an Exceptional Coach?

Kombarakaran et  al. (2008:  79)  describe effective coaches as those who

‘understand contemporary organizational issues, human motivation, and the impact of emotions and interpersonal style on executive leadership’. It has also been suggested that asking the right questions is one of the most criti-cal skills in conducting effective EC interventions since the aim should be to encourage coachees to reflect instead of providing them with answers (e.g., see Neenan’s, 2009 discussion of the use of Socratic questions in EC interven-tions). This has to do more with the coach’s skills and ability to facilitate the discussion rather than what EC approach he/she takes. Empirical data seem to support this observation. Most recently, Grant (2013a) empirically found how important reflexivity is in developing leadership skills via EC. In an attempt to identify what makes an exceptional coach, Dagley (2010) conducted an empirical study, which involved structured interviews with twenty HR pro-fessionals who are EC services purchasers for their organization. The author identified the following exceptional coaching capabilities: credibility, empa-thy and respect, holding the professional self, diagnostic skill and insight, approach flexibility and range, working to the business context, a philosophy of personal responsibility and skillful challenging (Dagley, 2010: 63). Another survey of executives who had participated in EC showed that the top three personal characteristics of an effective executive coach were: the ability to form a strong ‘connection’ with the executive (86%), professionalism (82%),

and use of a clear and sound coaching methodology (35%) (see Wasylyshyn, 2003: 98).

Peterson (2011: 83–4) seems to have a somewhat different view on this, sug-gesting that exceptional coaching relates more to the coachee and the outcome rather than the coach himself/herself. Specifically, Peterson (2011: 83–4) notes that there is a distinct difference between what makes a ‘good’ coach and what makes a ‘great’ coach and while it is relatively easy to be the former, it is relatively difficult to be the latter. He provides as an example a question that he usually asks to the participants of his coaching workshops (usually these are managers, HR professionals, and coaches). Specifically, he asks them to list the characteristics of each category of coaches (good versus great) and always finds that in the former category participants tend to list the traits and activities of the coach whereas in the latter category (i.e., great coach) partici-pants tend to focus on the person being coached and the achieved outcomes (ibid.: 83).

Peterson (2011: 84–5) distinguishes between good and great coaching in the following way: ‘good’ coach is the coach who has successfully completed at least thirty coaching engagements, whereas ‘great’ coach is the coach who demonstrates mastery and deep expertise, much more than ten years of coach-ing experiences and the coachcoach-ing of hundreds of clients, includcoach-ing the success-ful management of difficult cases. Drawing on Dreyfus and Dreyfus’ (1986) five-stage model (which consists of: novices, advanced beginners, competent performers, proficient performers, and experts), Peterson (2011:  85)  places the good coach at level 3/competent performer and the great coach at level 5/expert. It is complicated to really decide on what makes an exceptional coach, since the success of a coaching engagement may also depend on parameters beyond the control of the coach. Peterson (2011: 84) regards ‘an understanding of how people learn and develop’ as the most important qual-ity for an exceptional coach.

The Role of Gender in Coach Selection

One of the themes examined in the literature is EC and gender. In an empiri-cal study about coachees’ reflection and justification of the choice of coach in terms of gender, Gray and Goregaokar (2010) found that although a minor-ity of male respondents displayed sexist attitudes in their comments on the selection process, subsequent quantitative data analysis revealed no statistical significance in gender choices (i.e., no bias towards the choice of either female or male coaches). This is despite the fact that their earlier qualitative data analysis showed that female coachees tended to prefer female coaches, partly as a role model of business success, whereas male coachees tended to justify the selection of a female coach as more approachable for the discussion of sensitive, personal issues.

The Role of Context

In any effort to map the key characteristics of successful executive coaches, a key parameter that needs to be taken into account is the role of the context within which EC takes place. Context considerations are important in every step of the coaching process: from the drafting of the behavioural contract agreement for a coaching intervention to the EC intervention itself. Empirical evidence confirms the importance of context specific coaching. An empirical study of coaching high achievers in business (executives) and sports showed that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to coaching may be inappropriate and a number of factors need to be taken into account when coaching high achiev-ers (see Jones and Spooner, 2006).

The context of the EC intervention can be perceived in very different ways.

One is to identify what need must be addressed and then apply the most suita-ble coaching approach. For instance, based on the client’s need, Witherspoon and White (1996: 126–32) suggested that the roles of executive coaches can be distinguished to the following four types: coaching for skills, coaching for performance, coaching for development, and coaching for the executive’s agenda. Within each of these types of roles, a specific set of coaching skills and knowledge are required and specific coaching activities should be under-taken (for a description of what is required per each of these four coaching roles see Gray, 2006: 478–9).

Moreover, context may be defined as the particular point in time during the coaching intervention when a certain coaching tactic may be more appro-priate or not. For example, Lewis-Duarte and Bligh (2012) recently drew on Yukl’s (2002) study of distinct proactive influence tactics in the leader–follower relationship to conduct a survey of 110 coaches that explored how executive coaches use proactive influence tactics to create behavioural change in their clients. Lewis-Duarte and Bligh (2012) found that in executive coaching, influ-ence tactics—including coalition, consultation, inspirational appeals, and rational persuasion—were more frequently associated with client commit-ment. They also found that consultation was more frequently utilized during initial influence attempts whereas pressure was more frequently utilized during follow-up attempts (Lewis-Duarte and Bligh, 2012). Furthermore, according to that study, coaches report using different tactics depending on the desired out-come of the influence attempt. Specifically, it was observed that coalition and pressure were utilized in order to change behaviour whereas consultation and rational persuasion were used to both change behaviour and assign work (ibid.).

Context may also relate to the complexity of the situation in which a coach is invited to intervene (e.g., are there enough resources to ensure the continu-ation and completion of the EC intervention? Are the coachee’s seniors sup-portive enough?). For example, even if a customized approach is taken by a highly experienced coach, the role of context might be so pervasive that the

outcome of the intervention may be doomed. Peterson (2011: 86) discussed the role of the context in making a coaching intervention successful, since this is when the coach’s expertise can really make a difference. As the author notes, when situations are simple and straightforward (e.g., the coachee is motivated, the environment is supportive and his/her developmental needs are also straightforward), the demands from the coach are rather small (in terms of expertise) (ibid.: 86). However, when more complex situations need to be handled (such as balancing the demands of multiple stakeholders, organizational politics or a very challenging business environment) or more urgent situations (e.g., limited time provided to the coachee to develop) or more unfavourable (such as hostile and competitive environment), it is rather likely that even a highly experienced coach would fail (Peterson, 2011: 86). It is in the in-between cases where the coach’s expertise can make a difference in making a successful coaching intervention when a simply competent coach would fail.

Finally, the ‘setting’ within which coaching can take place is very impor-tant and equally diverse. For example, the use of EC interventions in leader-ship development has been found to be particularly useful in clinical settings.

Gorringe (2011: 19) proposes the use of the ‘coaching in context’ approach where of particular importance is the use of evidence-based method, with predetermined evaluation measures, monitoring and programme evalua-tion for the duraevalua-tion of the intervenevalua-tion. According to the ‘coaching in con-text’ model, each coachee is enabled and facilitated to four key intervention areas: the self, the work team, the organizational environment or culture, and the external environment (Gorringe, 2011: 20–1).

Overall, the role of context on EC impact is an area that has not yet received adequate attention in the existing coaching research, although it is a theme that has a lot of potential for future development. The findings in this area could provide important new information on how to improve the quality and the outcome of coaching engagements.