Transferencia, orden y construcción

5.1 Current Debates

The controversies or debates regarding EC are mainly around two themes: who practises (and who should practise) EC and how, as well as who should set the standards of EC practice. One of the longest-standing debates with regard to EC is about the role of psychology in EC and whether executive coaches should be psychologists or whether it is better if they come from other backgrounds (see Bono et al. 2009; Stern, 2009). Bono et al. (2009: 364–6) summarizes this debate around the following points. The one side contends that psychological training is essen-tial for executive coaches, especially since sustained behaviour change is the EC objective and psychologists’ training makes it more likely that they will be effec-tive coaches. Moreover, based on their qualifications, psychologists are able to screen the employees who are more ready to benefit from the coaching process.

The non-psychologists’ side contends that the lack of business experience is a sig-nificant shortcoming for psychologists who work as executive coaches.

Another topic of discussion in the EC literature is the ‘coach or couch’

debate (Filipczak, 1998: 34; Grant, 2009). Several articles discuss the similari-ties or differences between counselling, psychotherapy, and EC (see a list of rel-evant references cited by Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001: 210; see also Tobias, 1996; Filipczak, 1998; Passmore, 2009). Passmore (2009: 272) argues that differences between coaching and therapy are significant, particularly with regard to ‘the triad relationship within coaching, the critical nature of challenge, and the need for commercial knowledge, combined with an understanding about human behavior, cognition, and emotion at work’, and this significance should not be downplayed. Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001: 210) suggested that the differences rest in that EC ultimately relates to workplace performance and it appears to be more issue-focused than therapy and happens in a wider range of contexts in terms of types of interactions (ranging from face-to-face sessions to email exchanges), and locations. In addition, compared to counselling and psychotherapy where performance measurement is based on client self-report, in EC the measurement also

5

relates to bottom-line performance for the executive and the sponsoring organization (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001: 211). Furthermore, the typical duration of a coaching session is different from that of a therapy and—

compared to counselling or psychotherapy—EC data is normally collected from various sources, not just the individual executive (ibid.: 211). Moreover, EC tends to be more ‘directive’ and the coach–coachee relationship more col-legial (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001: 211). So, while there has been quite some speculation about the similarities and differences between coach-ing and counsellcoach-ing and the nature of the coach–coachee relationship, only recently has there been some empirical research. For example, Grant (2013b) examined this issue and found that in a coaching situation a goal-focused coaching style was a better predictor of coaching success than the autonomy support associated with a supportive counselling style of relationship.

Other debates range from discussions on the ethical implications of EC (Hannafey and Vitulano, 2013) or whether the coach should be held responsi-ble for making sure that the organizational goals are achieved (Stokes and Jolly, 2009: 231) to whether EC is just a fad. As Filipczak (1998: 31) mentions some observers regard EC as a ‘fashion accessory—a Rolex with ears’ and others see EC as an effort of psychologists to find new work in response to changes in the healthcare industry that hit the mental health field particularly hard (ibid.: 31–2).

The most recent data shows not only that EC is not a fad, but is instead a thriving field which appears unaffected by the financial crisis (Mann, 2013).

A final set of debates centres around the EC credentials and the measure-ment of EC outcomes. One debate is about who should set the guidelines for EC, with varying views, for example, as to whether organizations such as the International Coach Federation (ICF) or the American Psychological Association (APA) are more skilled to set the standards (e.g. it can be argued that psychologists by training have many of the skills that are required to provide executive coaching services) (see Brotman et  al., 1998; cited in Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001: 209). This relates to a debate around the differences in qualifications between executive coaches and psychotherapists and the need for the executive coach to be able to understand not only the psy-chological dynamics and adult development issues, but also leadership, busi-ness, management, and politics (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001: 211).

5.2 Coaching Standards and the Field

Several efforts have been made in the EC literature to establish a typology or guidelines for EC standards. See, for example, Wasylyshyn’s (2003: 105) typol-ogy of assessing EC engagements or Ennis et al.’s (2008b) competency model.

The recent shift towards evidence-based coaching is an effort in that direction.

Indeed, Griffiths and Campbell (2008: 20) observe such a movement and also a growing demand for standardization and regulation from the research field, the industry, and the marketplace. Recent self-regulation initiatives, such as the joint initiative by the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and the International Coach Federation (ICF) filing with the European Union in 2011 a common Code of Conduct with a view to serve as the benchmark standard for the coaching and mentoring industry (see <http://www.emc-council.org/webimages/EMCC/EMCC_ICF_joint_press_release_-_code.

pdf>), indicate that the coaching industry is becoming more and more active in its efforts to standardize its practices.

Overall, the effort for standardization of coaching is ongoing and is now spreading across the globe and contributing to the industry’s further mat-uration. However, the academic evidence on EC outcomes seems to be far less international. Looking at the existing EC outcome studies, we observe that the EC outcome research is dominated by the ‘Western world’ logic.

From our review we found that EC outcome studies come either from the US (e.g., Olivero et al. 1997; Hall et al., 1999; McGovern et al., 2001; Thach, 2002; Luthans and Peterson, 2003; Winum, 2005; Bowles and Picano, 2006;

Bowles et al., 2007; Baron and Morin, 2009) or some other developed coun-try such as Canada (e.g., Sue-Chan and Latham, 2004), the UK (e.g., Wales, 2003; Leedham, 2005; Feggetter, 2007; Hooijberg and Lane, 2009; De Haan et al., 2010; Gray and Goregaokar, 2010; Gorringe, 2011; Gaskell et al., 2012), Australia (e.g., Dagley, 2006; Libri and Kemp, 2006; Grant et al., 2009; Grant et  al., 2010), Sweden (Styhre and Josephson, 2007; Styhre, 2008), Norway (e.g., Moen and Allgood, 2009; Moen and Skaalvik, 2009; Moen and Federici, 2012), and Switzerland (Hooijberg and Lane, 2009). It is interesting that there are practically no EC outcome studies from the BRICS countries, with the exception of a recent study by Beets and Goodman (2012) from South Africa.

This is an important shortcoming in the existing EC outcome research that future research will need to address. The more diverse and international future EC outcome studies are, the better the EC field can be helped.

5.3 The Rise of the EC Profession and the Challenges for the Coaching Industry

The coaching industry has reached a key point in its maturation journey, driven by three interrelated forces: the accumulated coaching experience, the increasing entry of professionals into coaching from a wide range of backgrounds, and the increasing sophistication of management and HR

professionals (Grant and Cavanagh, 2004). This journey has not been (and still is not) easy. Clegg et al. (2005) empirically identified three main chal-lenges for the business coaching industry: (a) how to standardize the coach-ing practice without inhibitcoach-ing the flexible and personal orientation of the coaching process, (b) how the nature and benefits of business coaching can be more coherently perceived and better understood within the coaching industry at large, and (c) how more robust and durable coaching businesses can be established to lead the growth and development of the coaching industry.

On the one hand, the field is facing these challenges as a practice, but on the other hand, more and more companies and individuals are keen to expe-rience EC. As McKenna and Davis (2009:  244)  eloquently note:  ‘executive coaching is hot. In the past 15 years, what was stigma in corporate America (“You have a coach? Hmm . . .”) has become status symbol (“You don’t have a coach? Hmm . . .”)’. This shift in corporate world’s attitudes towards coaching is expected to influence how coaching services will be offered in the future.

For instance, Ennis et al. (2008a: 6) predicted an increase in better-trained internal coaches within companies and peer coaching amongst colleagues, group coaching sessions (both observations empirically confirmed by the 2012 Ridler Report; Mann, 2013), as well as more virtual or phone/video con-ference coaching.

This exponential growth of the field has led several scholars to debate as to whether EC can be described as a profession. Drake (2008) suggested that

‘the era of the artisan’ is now emerging for coaches where ‘coaches are seen as master craftspeople skilled in an applied art’ (Drake, 2008: 15). It is sug-gested that although EC was initially seen as a consultation intervention and a role function, now it is increasingly being seen as a profession (see Sperry, 2008)—a ‘helping profession’ in particular (Laske, 2004: 43). Unlike Laske (2004), Drake (2008), or Sperry (2008), Gray (2011) suggests that in order for coaching to become a ‘profession’ it must adopt a series of criteria such as

‘the development of an agreed and unified body of knowledge, professional standards and qualifications, and codes of ethics and behavior’. It has been argued that when assessed against traditional definitions of a ‘profession’, coaching has not yet achieved this status since many of the basic criteria for defining it as a profession have not been satisfied and it may be diffi-cult to attain such a status in any case (Spence, 2007: 261–3). This could be attributed to the fact that the EC field is subjected to multiple influences by multiple communities of practice. As described earlier, coaches’ back-grounds may range from psychologists to HR/organizational development professionals and from salesmen to executives or managers who decided to become executive coaches (see Grant, 2006b: 13). The list seems to grow (e.g., see the recent emergence of coaching psychology as an applied and academic sub-discipline of coaching; Grant, 2006b). Where the influences from these

different communities will lead the EC field is up for debate. Ennis et al.

(2008a: 6) suggests that in the future, the field will consolidate and the dif-ference between executive coaches who work for organizations and business systems and those coaches who conduct life or career coaching for individu-als will be more clearly defined. The development of communities of practice among coaches will grow and will become more formalized with knowl-edge sharing and collaboration (ibid.). On the other hand, Charan (2009) expressed the view that the coaching industry will remain fragmented until a few partnerships are developed with a view to build a brand by collect-ing top coaches in the field and creatcollect-ing a reputation for outstandcollect-ing work (Charan, 2009: 93). Charan (2009: 93) also underlines that a key problem professional coaching firms must resolve in the future is the difficulty of measuring performance and hence, the need to offer a methodology that clearly does so. Our literature review has showed that this is an area that the EC outcome studies are also really struggling with and effective approaches to measure EC outcome have yet to be proposed.

5.4 EC Synergies from the Use of Multiple EC Techniques and Approaches

The variety of communities of practice involved in the EC practice also explains the variety of theoretical approaches and practical tools and frame-works that are being applied to EC (as presented in Chapters 2 and 3). Passmore (2007b:  76)  invited executive coaches ‘to work in an eclectic way, mixing tools and techniques from methodologies, but with a focus on the primary objective of executive coaching; enhancing performance in the workplace’.

Eclecticism would allow coaches to effectively guide the decision-making and the coaching interventions at different levels (individual, interpersonal, or group-level) and at different stages of the coaching engagement over time (Turner and Goodrich, 2010).

The above observations essentially shift our emphasis from the EC tech-niques and approaches to how these are more effectively managed. Hall et al.’s (1999) study of what makes the EC work best, showed that the theories or frameworks employed in EC were not reported as important factors for mak-ing EC work—neither by the coaches nor by the coachees! Instead, inter-personal factors relating to the coach, the coachee, and the quality of their relationship, as well as issues relating to the coach’s skills and the coachee’s attitudes towards the intervention were reported as more important. More recently, Kemp (2008) and de Haan et al. (2010) also confirmed this, suggest-ing that other factors are more important, such as the quality of the coachsuggest-ing

relationship or how these approaches and tools are applied in terms of appro-priateness or timeliness. In particular, the importance of the coaching rela-tionship (Bluckert, 2005c; Critchley, 2010; Kilburg, 2010; and Cavicchia, 2010, as well as issues relating to trust (Kilburg, 2010; O’Broin and Palmer, 2010) emerge as recurrent themes in the recent EC literature.

5.5 Key Learning

• Key debates within the EC field are around which community of practice (e.g., psy-chologists, psychotherapists, counselling professionals) has the remit and legitimacy to influence the EC practice and standards, what are the ethical implications in EC interventions and who should be accountable in case of failure.

• Future trends for the EC field include efforts to better understand EC practice and its impact for individuals and organizations, to attempt to professionalize the EC field, to explore the synergies from applying a combination of EC frameworks and approaches, and to intensify focus on the coach–coachee relationship and how it determines the EC outcomes.

Leadership Theories