First, our groundbreaking model, "Triadic Coaching," determined that the boss – subordinate relationship was pivotal to the success of our coaching.
Our model highlights the criticality of the boss's role of both gatekeeper and facilitator of the objectives that are the focus of the coaching.
In both of those roles the manager of the client needs feedback and assistance from the coach. A recent study in the Harvard Business Review concluded that even the best executive coaches touch base too infrequently with the manager. We long ago recognized that shortcoming. Our approach was also selected by the prestigous Library of Professional Coaching as a "best practice." Link to article: http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/best-practices-foundations/the-coaching-jigsaw-puzzle/
The HBR article proposed clear goals and quantitative measurements.
We can calculate the benefits of coaching. That is, if appropriate, we colaborate with the sponsor to validate a metric that is congruent with the action plan of the client.
For example, if a goal of the client is to "be more of a people developer" then we measure this criterion before the coaching begins and at the end. We collaboratively determine what specific behaviors should be measured.
We can tie the executive’s goal with a business growth metric. This will provide a ROI for the sponsoring organization and maintain a line-of-sight for everyone involved.
We are sticklers about ensuring that all parties are in sync concerning the needs and timetable of making changes.
We try to begin the coaching by bringing the client and the boss together so that there are no misconceptions or poor interpretation. Coaching thereby becomes clear, goal-oriented and positive enabling executives to be at their best and act consistently with the culture of their organization.
Moreover, starting with personal strengths and organizational realities will lead to longer-lasting changes and outcomes. We've returned years later to confirm the positive outcomes of the executive coaching.
The Harvard Business Review article on executive coaching, alluded to above (see particularly section headed "Key Success Factors"), concludes: when choosing a coach the buyer should select one who has "prior experience coaching in a similar setting, and he or she should be able to clearly explain the method employed and why."
On the first account, JMCA has over 30 years of experience in executive coaching covering a wide range of experience and firms.
Second, we stipulate that we will tailor the method to employ both an inside/outside as well as an outside/ inside technique.
As "thought partners" with our client, we question and probe to unearth self insight into what the client believes is likely the work, plus, we provide options to considers when the client is stuck. Executive coaches with less experience will rarely be comfortable or effective in using the second option.
Finally, Steven Berglas of Harvard Medical School probably said it best:
In an alarming number of situations, executive coaches who lack rigorous psychological training, can do more harm than good."
As a trained I/O psychologist, Jeff Cohen is morally and ethically bound to first do no harm.