3.14.1 Sequence
The process of collecting data was designed to uncover the necessary information in order to answer the research questions. Based on case study methodology (Yin, 2003) the unit of study in the research was the coaching pair (see above). The overall process worked by sequentially revealing layers of narrative feedback from the coach and coachee about each
146 other so as to identify critical relationship factors and how these evolved based on increasing levels of information and personal interaction.
The first level of data generation was to share information about the coaches with the coachees and vice versa, based on written information and to generate feedback based on such information. In organizations coach/coachee matches are often formed using CV or biographical data. The individual manager in an organization tasked with selecting a coach for a particular executive may use a process using only written information. In this field- work, the type of information was reproduced for each coach and coachee who was asked to review the three possible partners, provide feedback on what they read, and then rank the three in order of preference.
The next level of interaction was through the speed-chemistry meeting process. Often in organizational settings the coachee might be offered chemistry sessions with a number of coaches, typically from a choice of three. Therefore, for this stage of the data collection, three coaches and three coachees would conduct chemistry sessions to gather information on which of the three they would like to coach or be coached by. This was based on Finkel and Eastwick’s work (2007) in speed-dating. They started the process in coach/coachee pairs, conducted a speed-chemistry meeting for five minutes and then each participant completed a feedback form on that brief session. The coachees then moved on to the next coach in the group, repeated the five minute meeting/five minute feedback process with each other and then moved again to the final pairing. At the end of the three speed-chemistry meetings they completed their feedback forms and, again, ranked the coaches or coachees according to preference.
The ranking outcomes then allowed for the formation of some ‘ideal’ coaching pairs. The aim was to form one ideal coaching pair from each set of three speed-chemistry meeting groups. In order to do this and to represent real practice as closely as possible the primary
147 consideration was the first choice of the coachees. Where it was possible to match a
coachee’s first choice with a coach’s first choice this was deemed an ‘ideal match’. Where this ‘first with first’ match could not be made, a coachee’s first choice was prioritised. These coaching pairs were asked to conduct three ‘real’ coaching sessions within the following three months. The first of the coaching sessions should be face to face, but thereafter if it was more convenient the session could be conducted by telephone (or other virtual option).
During the course of conducting these coaching sessions each party in the pair was asked to keep a reflexive diary. The purpose of the diary was to capture feedback on factors relating to the coaching relationship only. In order to preserve confidentiality and attend to other ethical considerations of the research, the content of the coaching sessions was not to be examined except where it was germane to issues of the relationship and in agreement with both sides of the coaching pair. Entries to the diaries were made either into a physical notebook diary or electronically to a confidential email address.
Finally, once the three coaching sessions of each pair had been completed each participant was subjected to a semi-structured in-depth interview, again concentrating on the elements concerning the coaching relationship only. This was to uncover as much richly descriptive data as possible as to the factors involved during the formation of the relationship, the evolution of the relationship and the view of each participant as to whether they felt that their original decision would be upheld.
The above sequence took place in three main sets called T1, T2 and T3. T1, the first of all the sets, differed from the others only in that it was conducted in a group of six coaches and six coachees. This was felt by the participants to be too many ‘rounds’ to be effective as, by the fourth and subsequent pairings, there had been an element of rehearsal and the
conversations from there on became unlike a real situation. Sets T2 and T3 were all carried out in groups of three. In T2, over a period of six working days, seven groups of three
148 pairings were conducted and in T3, five groups of three pairings took place. From T1 two coaching pairs were formed, from T2, seven pairs were formed (one from each group of three), and from T3, five pairs were formed (one from each group of three).