14
Quality of the Business Coaching Relationship
University
Title
Author
Date
Professors Name
Introduction
The coaching relationship between a coach and the coachee forms an essential premise in the course of ensuring the success of the process of executive coaching. The empirical investigation of this underlying relationship reveals a positive critical link between the process of coaching intervention and the overall outcome of coaching success. In essence, as organizations expand in the modern business context, the need for executive coaching has become a necessity as opposed to an option. The approach has gradually become a common skill-development method as firms globally attempt to improve the overall skill levels among the employees. The total membership globally of individuals who form part of the International Coaching Federation has been undergoing constant growth with the aspect of coaching being embraced across more than 90 countries. However, the successful outcome of this coaching process depends entirely on the coaching relationship, which is the most critical factor in the process of achieving the set coaching outcomes within a business setting.
The Process of Developing Coaching Capability in an Organization
Coaching relates to the focus on training and the development of employees’ skills and abilities, which aims at ensuring that such individuals achieve success at the individual and the corporate level. The process of coaching often leads to an improvement in employee morale and the achievement of the organizational objectives. Coaching often fosters the support of the development of an individual’s awareness of the organizational culture and the goals, objectives, and vision that makes such a business (Bluckert, 2015). The process of coaching allows for the empowerment of the employees or workers towards becoming an important part of the organization’s growth trajectory. The coaching process is also able to create an enabling environment within the firm an aspect that is critical towards ensuring that the employees exploit their maximum potential. An important observation that is also important to note relates to the fact that employees who operate within such a friendly environment can foster empathy when dealing with the various stakeholders in the broader business context. The assumption made in this case is that in the course of dealing with the complex issues within the organizational setting, employees may lack the motivation to push boundaries.
The coach in such cases becomes the missing link, where the coaching process focuses on the need to ensure that the working environment becomes a constructively challenging environment where each member of the organization serves an integral part in the actualization of the organizational objectives. The coach in such cases provides a platform through which the workers can move away from their ordinarily destructive cycles of work and into a season of reflection (Bluckert, 2015). The coaching process allows the employees to emerging from their immediate frenetic paces of work and therefore allows a season of self –a reflection of the individual being. The coach can, therefore, be the source of inner reflection where the employees can seek to re-evaluate their approach and commitment to the achievement of set organizational goals. The coach is also able to ensure that the employees review their routine operations and question the possible strategies that may be derailing their ability to maximize the various outcomes.
Eventually, the coach can also task the individuals towards an evaluation of their approaches to work in the past as the basis for the reassessment of such employees’ commitment to new performance and renewed approaches to the achievement of the set organizational objectives (Bluckert, 2015). The coaching process may also serve a vital premise on which to realign the individuals’ priorities with the company’s targets and set standards.
The Coaching Relationship
As the coaching culture becomes a more common activity within the organizational setting such firms are now demanding a higher return on the coaching investment. The demand for greater extents of productivity, effectiveness, and innovativeness after such coaching periods may be at the center of the need among coaches to change their approaches to coaching as a way of ensuring efficiency in the coaching outcomes. For this reason, being specific about the coaching process is vital in the course of providing that the coach attains the highest levels of issues as pertains to the overall coaching process (Brand & Coetzee, 2013). The quality of the coaching relationship stands out as being among the most common concerns for any coach. Studies affirm the reality that in the absence of an idyllic coach-coachee relationship the organization may not be able to attain the set objectives. The power of the coaching relationship in the course of ensuring success is perhaps, best viewed from a partnership point of view. The question that emerges is the possible extent to which such partnerships can determine the overall success of the business process.
Essentially, having assessed the implications that coaching has on the individual, it is important also to appreciate that the coach may be unable to achieve such levels of change without the existence of a personal relationship between the coach and the coachee. The relationship, in this case, must elucidate an extent of mutuality in a way that allows the coach to express both satisfaction and displeasure in the course of fostering a path towards change in the mentor (Brand & Coetzee, 2013). The argument, in this case, is that before the process of coaching can commence, the coach and the coachee must be able to establish an association at a personal level. The reference to the underlying relationship as the single –most important factor is because the mentorship process would be impossible without the existence of a relationship.
A relationship introduces trust between the mentor and the mentee. The coach must enjoy a certain level of confidence that allows the employees to engage in meaningful and honest conversations, which may become the basis on which the process of change and transformation becomes plausible. The development of a relationship in this context is critical because it becomes the premise for the formation of trust and confidence between the coach and the coachee (Brand & Coetzee, 2013). The process of developing a relationship may be limited by the underlying trust issues. However, when the coach and the coachee can build their relationship based on trust, then such a relationship can yield long term beneficial outcomes. The extent of trust formed in the course of fostering a relationship between the trainer and the trainees may serve an essential purpose towards introducing tangible results in the personality development process.
1.1The Coaching Model
The coaching process entails a wide range of factors, systems, and structures that often determine the outcome in the modeling of practical approaches that align the goals of the company with those of the employees (Van Woerkom, 2010). The model presented above is an indicator of the central role that the relationship plays in the overall success of the coaching process. In essence, when a firm initially requests the services of a coach such organizations already admit to the lack of motivation and useful frameworks within the work context to ensure the successful learning and development process (Sale, 2012). The learning relationship forms an integral part in the linkage between the workers and the necessary skills that make such employees achieve the set goals and objectives (Brand & Coetzee, 2013). The coach first links the client with the essential learning and development opportunities, which become the premise on which the company begins the change process.
The employees in such cases can learn and understand the various weaknesses that may limit the career development process. Essentially, this then becomes the basis for the process change and readjustment. The workers can trust the coaching process and are therefore able to undertake the process of change with utmost commitment. The framework in such cases allows the client to undergo the process of a successful transition as they challenge the underlying status quo.
In essence, once the employees can develop the highest levels of skills, the coach can take the employees through the process of ethical development as the employees gradually readjust to the new work context. The learning relationship, in this case, forms the basis on which change occurs. The change process, in this case, occurs through the ability to harness relationships between the coach and the coachee (Brand & Coetzee, 2013). The learning relationship in this context means that both the trainee and the coach are willing and ready to be part of the shared perspective in the course of coaching. At the center of work as an essential context is the ability by the coach to develop meaningful relationships that are important in the course of understanding the complex and whole person as a means of developing personal relationships with such employees.
The outcomes in such cases allow the coach to develop a practical background of the work setting as the premise on which to understand and foster a common path towards communication. The relationship in such cases allows the process of communication to be simplified and streamlined. The coach-coachee relationship, therefore, introduces specific long and short term opportunities to maximize the partnership and thus deliver on the set organizational goals (Brand & Coetzee, 2013). The underlying coach-coachee relationship often depends on some critical issues that perhaps, play a crucial role in the determination of the quality of the partnership.
The Reference to Quality in the Coaching Process
The reference to quality, in this case, introduces an aspect of condition or nature that describes the coach-coachee relationship. Ideally, the argument is that every coach has an existing relationship with the coachee, which often forms the basis for the assumption that such a relationship is not as important (Kemp, 2012). However, the underlying reality is that quality is at the center of the coaching relationship development process. First, the coach must focus on the structure of the relationship.
The element of quality in the establishment of the structure of the relationship focuses on the need by the coach to be deliberate about the kind of relationship they develop with the coachee. For instance, it is often possible to have a situation where the coach adopts a coaching structure where their approach is unquestioned based on their perceived authority in the given situation (Grant, 2013). The outcome in such cases is that the quality of the relationship suffers severe constraints. The coachee gets used to viewing the coach as a superior individual with a grander view and is therefore rarely willing to engage such a coach. The outcome of such a superior view is often the development of an unstable relationship, which has a comparable implication on the issue of the coaching relationship.
The reality is that the kind of relationship structure in existence between the coach and the coachee often determines the coaches’ success in the course of moving the coachee towards the achievement of high impact goals. The quality of the structure, in this case, must be a critical point of reference in the process of fostering relations (Kemp, 2012). The coach must, therefore, seek to understand the best approaches that may be central in the course of promoting an environment that supports a friendly structure of engagement where the coachee can relate with the coach professionally but also from a personal point of view (Grant, 2013). The reality is that the quality of the coaching relationship will often determine the willingness in the coachee to change. The assertion implies that when the coachee can observe and realize that the coach does in fact, view the partnership more from a relational point of view the chance that such a coachee will end up developing a commitment and a willingness to change is high. The quality of the coaching relationship is the best premise on which to determine the success of the outcome because it is often by understanding this relationship that the structure becomes formidable. The reality is that when the coach understands the importance of the coaching process, they then become keen on the extent of relations at the coachee level.
In such cases, the coachee appreciates that the existence of the relationship is not one based on equals. However, the coach also recognizes that direction and the pace of the coaching process may most likely be determined by the coachee. For this reason, both participants will often purpose to have utmost consideration for the other party as long as the relationship is well defined (Grant, 2013). Arguably, this means that the outcomes of the coaching process are not just dependent on the having a link but more importantly on the ability to ensure that such relationships are well-defined in a manner that acknowledges structure and configuration as a critical element in the course of enhancing quality.
The definition of a relationship is often merely the basis upon which two or more people are connected. The assertion means that even within a coach –coachee type of setting, there already exists a relationship by virtual of the organization hiring such a coach and the employees being subject to such a coaching process. For this reason, it is assumed that all coaching processes exist based on the underlying relationship. However, the success of the coaching process and the ability of the coach to attain the highest level of positive outcomes depends on the quality they harness in the coaching process. Scholars note that such consequences must be based on the recognition of shared interests and values. In the actual sense, this is what defines the quality of a relationship (Grant, 2013). The success of any coaching process must premise on the quality of the relationship that the coach and the coachee harness through the appreciation of the shared interests and the collective values. In such cases, the coach identifies and appreciates the fact that the organization spends a considerable investment in the hiring of a coach. Consequently, the organization’s desire to achieve a return on such an investment must be reflected through the coach. The coach must, therefore, purpose to also ensure that such values and objectives are also shared by the coachee.
A quality relationship means that every day, the coach will find ways and means of ensuring that the coachee derives meaning from the coaching relationship by nurturing an understanding of the shared values and interests. The outcome of such a relationship is a greater extent of commitment and devotion to achieve the set objectives. The quality of the link in the coaching process, therefore, implies a general recognition of the fact that both the coach and the coachee need each other.
The acceptance that each of the parties has a role to play in the success of the coaching process then allows each party to focus on the need to protect the shared interest and values in the process. The aspect of communication can never be sidelined when addressing the quality of the coaching relationship (Mik-Meyer, 2017). As noted, a relationship may be any connection whether passive or active. However, a quality relationship entails the existence of a dynamic and deliberate communication process between the coach and the coachee.
The conjecture in most of the coaching processes is that the coach exists a singular, all-knowing individual who lectures the coachee without any prospect for contradiction. The assumption means that the coach ends up often becoming the sole decision maker even on matters that would directly affect the outcome of the process. Quality communication often determines the quality of the coaching process and ultimately the success of the coach in achieving the organizational goals. Good communication means that the coach can routinely provide insights on the process to communicate their expectations and express their assumed path towards achieving the desired outcomes.
On the same note, the communication process allows the coachee to communicate their fears, argue their presumed idea in the course of achieving the set objectives and describe their weaknesses and limitations. The approach will often accomplish the set goals because the coach and the coachee understand each other in the coaching process (Mik-Meyer, 2017). Communication is in fact, the element that binds, all other components that makeup quality coaching. Studies note that quality communication can be central to the process of expressing shared interests and values. The coach in such cases can routinely remind the coachee of the shared interests and values while providing the coaching process with the much-needed direction through the constant communication of the benchmarks and milestones achieved at each stage.
Research indicates that the extent of success in the coaching process also often depends on the underlying reality regarding the quality of the relationship as perceived by the employees or the coachee. Continuity comes to the fore in such a case. Continuity may refer to the extent to which the coach and the coachee spend quality time in the course of fostering a relationship. Quality relationships are defined based on the amount of shared time and anticipated future interactions. The assertion means that even in coaching relationship the coach and the coachee must harness the feeling of continuity as a measure of the quality and the anticipated possible future success of the process. In essence, the coaching process is almost always bound to fail when the coach adopts a temporal view regarding the process.
The temporal view, in this case, means that such a coach focuses on the short term gains as opposed to preparing the employee or the coachee towards achieving long term gains. The quality of the coaching relationship in such cases must always exist based on long-term benefits and the need to ensure that the coachee also feels like the process is continuously beneficial. Ideally, the decision to focus on coaching as opposed to single undertaking workshops is based on the need to provide a long-term image in the growth and the development of the employees’ capabilities. Studies reveal that the existing assumption of continuity among employees is essential towards building other critical outcomes in the process such as trust and utmost respect. The development of a relationship in such contexts allows the coach to develop a premise of trust and compliance with the coachee a situation that guarantees the success of the coaching process (Passmore, Underhill, & Goldsmith, 2018). The arguments presented above, therefore, indicate that the existence of the trust, communication, continuity, structure, direction, and willingness in a coaching relationship depends on the presence of a quality coaching relationship. In essence, without such quality relationships, coaches may never experience the desired success.
Cons of the Statement
The need to underscore the importance of the quality of the coaching relationship based on studies that have often focused on the process rather than the individual coachee. The rebuttal to the statement that the success of the coaching process depends on the quality of the relationship as the sole determinant is based on the fact that before the coach develops such a relationship, the individual coachee must equally play an important role towards making the process successful. First, the success of the coaching process begins with the existence of a heightened self-awareness within the employees regarding the process of coaching (Gregory & Levy, 2013). The assertion takes cognizance of the various internal issues that stand out in an organization including organizational culture and the related work dynamics within such a setting.
In reality, when such an organizational culture is not set in a way that nurtures self-awareness and the collectivist approach to issues, such employees may end up struggling to identify with the need to develop relationships with coaches they consider to be outsiders. The assumption that quality relationships emerge in the course of coaching is misplaced and subjective. The working environment must also be open to personal learning and development from the begging as a means towards harnessing relational growth. The reality is that in most cases companies lack an inherent organizational culture that motivates personal growth and development (Gyllensten, 2018). Consequently, when such organizations introduce coaches, the anticipation of success is obscured by the realities of limited extents of motivation and gaps in the individual self-awareness attributes.
The argument against the reliance on the quality of the working relationship as the most critical component in the success of the coaching process is based on the fact that such coaches lack an understanding of the internal limits to relationship building. For instance, when the employees lack the motivation to work due to domestic issues such as low salaries or poor working conditions the success of the coach is automatically limited regardless of the attempt to build relationships a the personal level (Gyllensten, 2018). The reality in the case of coaching is that ultimately independently of the underlying relationship between the coach and the coachee the success of the coaching process is measured based on the ability to achieve the set organizational goals and objectives. The assertion, therefore, reflects on the fact that in cases where other underlying factors internally and externally are not addressed sufficiently, the coach may fail to attain the coaching objectives set.
Conclusion
The research findings that affirm the role of the quality of the coaching relationship in the attainment of success in the coaching process are broad and provide the coach with an integral point of view in the course of structuring the coaching plan. This paper affirms that a quality coaching relationship has the potential of improving communication, trust, continuity, structure, and direction. For this reason, the existence of the quality of the coaching relationship has a significant implication on the success of the coaching process. The assumption does not, however, categorically single out quality relationships in the coaching process as the most critical factor. The rebuttal states that there may be a need to deal with the other internal factors such as motivation and the working environment as equally essential in the process of achieving eventual positive outcomes.
Bibliography
Bluckert, P. 2015. Critical factors in executive coaching – the coaching relationship. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(7), pp. 336-340. doi:10.1108/00197850510626785
Brand, H., and Coetzee, M. 2013. An Explorative Study of the Experiences of the Coach and Coachee during Executive Coaching. Journal of Social Sciences, 34(3), pp. 247-256. doi:10.1080/09718923.2013.11893136
Grant, A. M. 2013. Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and goal focus in the coach-coachee relationship: which best predicts coaching success? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(1), pp. 18-38. doi:10.1080/17521882.2013.850106
Gregory, B. J., & Levy, P. E. 2010. Perceived Quality of the Employee Coaching Relationship Scale. PsycTESTS Dataset. doi:10.1037/t09819-000
Gyllensten, K. 2018. The Coach-Coachee Relationship. Coaching for Rational Living, pp. 105-116. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74067-6_6
Kemp, T. 2012. Building the Coaching Alliance: Illuminating the Phenomenon of Relationship in Coaching. Advancing Executive coaching, pp.149-176. doi:10.1002/9781118255995.ch7
Mik-Meyer, N. 2017. The psychology-inspired context: coach–coachee. The Power of Citizens and Professionals in Welfare Encounters. doi:10.7228/manchester/9781526110282.003.0007
Passmore, J., Underhill, B. O., & Goldsmith, M. 2018. Mastering executive coaching. Mastering Executive Coaching, pp. 3-9. doi:10.4324/9781351244671-1
Sale, J. 2012. Coaching, mapping motivation, and changing values. Mapping Motivation for Coaching, pp. 132-151. doi:10.4324/9781351257121-9
Van Woerkom, M. 2010. The Relationship between Coach and Coachee: A Crucial Factor for Coaching Effectiveness. Learning Through Practice, pp. 256-267. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3939-2_14