Interviewing and selecting external coaches
Some key points to consider:
- Clarifying the need for coaching
- Coach competence understanding/evaluating?
- Value for money
- Assessing coaches: the options
- Contracting with external coaches
- Managing external executive coaches
- Evaluating external executive coaching
Executive coaches are used mainly by senior managers or professionals, to help them work on specific aspects of their performance. As a relatively expensive resource, it is important to ensure that:
- The need for coaching is clear
- The coach is competent at the level required
- The coaching assignment represents good value for money
The Anglo-American Executive Coaching Strategy sets out broad policy for using executive coaches. This guideline builds on the policy by providing practical advice, based on international good practice, on how to manage the coach selection process.
The coaching need
Some coaching at senior management level has been described as “Gucchi coaching” – a status symbol rather than a genuine need for learning. Some coaching may also be an excuse for leaders to abdicate responsibility for their self-development by ticking the box (Of course I’m investing in my development – I’ve got an executive coach.) Yet, when there is a genuine need and a commitment to learning, executive coaching can be one of the most powerful and cost-effective interventions in the HR toolkit.
The main reasons for looking outside the organisation for a coach are that:
- The coachee would feel inhibited in opening up and being honest with an insider
- The learning need requires specialist expertise or experience not readily available within the organisation
- There is a need for objective observation and feedback by someone independent of organizational politics and/or not influenced by the organization’s cultural assumptions
External coaching is not appropriate when:
- The coachee has a learning need that can be met with internal resources (though at senior levels the timing of internal training programmes may not be convenient)
- The issue is one that requires counselling or therapy
- There is not a clear change for the executive and coach to focus on
- The executive is not committed to coaching as a solution or at least, not genuinely willing to give it a try
Identifying the coaching need is therefore the first step in selecting an executive coach.
Executive coaching needs fit into three categories:
- Performance at specific skills or competences – for example, becoming more effective at public speaking/ presentations, chairing meetings or giving feedback
- Role transition – for example, moving from department head to director, or from a specialist to a generalist role
- Capability transition – making a lot of small changes across a broader range of competences (i.e. moving from good to great), or making a major shift in personal identity/maturity
All three categories can make a difference to an executive’s effectiveness in their role, but the skills and background of the coach are likely to be different. In the first category, it is important for the coach to have specific subject knowledge. In the second category, it helps for the coach to have relevant experience of similar transitions and to be able to relate to and empathise with the challenges of the kind of transition the coachee faces. In the third category, the coach needs in particular to have a strong understanding of the processes of behavioural change and the psychology of maturing, resilience and personality. While some coaches may have capability in more than one area, their practice and expertise will rest mainly in one.
It is important to have a clear picture of what kind of coach will be most appropriate for the specific need of the executive.
Coach competence
Assessment centres for coaches, which some companies have used in recent years, provide valuable information about the marketplace for external executive coaches. Some key findings:
- 70% and more of coaches hired by companies without formal assessment procedures do not have their contracts renewed after being assessed (roughly 5% are assessed as dangerous)
- There is no significant correlation between fees charged and coaching competence
- Coachee feedback is not a reliable measure of coach competence (unless the coachee is themselves an accredited coach)
- Coaching qualifications are “hygiene factors” – a starting point on the journey to coaching competence
- There is no credible evidence that external executive coaches are inherently superior to internal executive coaches
- Executive coaches, who market themselves well, are not necessarily the most capable, nor the best value for money.
It is therefore important to have credible process in place for assessing executive coaches before you hire them and as they undertake assignments. Some practical steps you can take are described below.
Value for money
Many organizations now apply bands to the fees they are prepared to pay for coaches, based on some or all of the following factors:
- The coaching competence of the coach (based for example on the level of their qualification, standing in the profession, or – ideally – on a formal assessment)
- The hierarchical level of the coachee, based on the assumption that the complexity of issues faced rises with increasing responsibility
- The kind of coaching offered – is it basic skills coaching, performance coaching, coaching for behavioural change or “transformational” coaching for deeper personal change?
- The availability/ scarcity of coaches with the appropriate expertise and experience.
Fortunately, with few exceptions, the difference in fees between a “world-class” coach and a basically competent coach is not great. Although it’s not possible to estimate accurately, a 20% extra cost can provide two or three times the value for money!
Assessing executive coaches: what are some of the options?
Option 1: Formal assessment centres. These are the most accurate way to establish how competent a coach is and they give you a ready-made pool of external coaches you can have confidence in. However, they are relatively expensive to set up and run and they take up a lot of time in interviewing coaches and observing them coach. A cheaper and only slightly less effective alternative to observation is to evaluate them as they describe how they would approach a coaching assignment, typical of those they might encounter in the organization. This option does require trained assessors, which adds to the cost.
Option 2: Coach pool providers: The Executive Coaching strategy outlines procedures for outsourcing the task of selecting coaches to one or more of provider organizations chosen by HR centrally. If you choose this route, bear in mind that:
- The quality of coach pools is highly variable and the assessment processes used by these organizations are often insufficiently robust
- Some providers insist on training coaches in a specific method. While this method may have applicability to some coachee needs (usually in the context of performance coaching), it may not be suitable for all coachees and situations
- However good a coach provider is, they cannot have the same level of understanding as you do of what kind of person will work best with your executives. The chemistry of matching can be very subtle and is most effective when the person making the match has knowledge of both people
- While you may delegate the process of selection and matching to an outside company, you cannot delegate the responsibility. It is important that you verify personally the suitability of coaches proposed.
Option 3: Build your own coach pool gradually. Selecting your own pool from independent coaches is the cheapest option, in both time and money, and overall value for money. But it takes more administrative time and effort on your part. If you are using one or more coach providers, who put forward suggested coaches, it still pays to establish a regular pool of coaches, who you know well and in whom you have well-founded confidence. The downside is that this may take several months.
The key steps in building a custom pool of coaches are:
- Have a clear process to evaluate applications from coaches, or coaches recommended by a provider. (See Table 1 below)
- Have an interview process to assess their safety and knowledge of coaching (See Table 2 below)
- Observe them coaching a colleague. (See Table 3 below)
Table 1: Criteria to evaluate applications. The questions below will help you filter potential coaches, to work out which are worth interviewing. You can expect to reject at least 60% of “cold call” coaches using these basic criteria.
| Criterion | What to look out (watch out) for |
| How long have they been coaching? | Less than 200 hours and they will be using your executives to learn their practice |
| What experience do they have of this industry? | They need enough to be able to understand the key challenges executives will face |
| What experience do they have of executive roles? | It’s preferable that they have been an executive themselves, but be aware of the retired executive, who calls himself a coach but is really a consultant! |
| What coaching qualifications do they have? | A basic coaching qualification is just a starting point, unless they are a coaching guru. Look also for one or more of the following: · An advanced coaching qualification · A professional qualification in counselling, psychology or a similar discipline · Contribution to the field of coaching, through publication or training other coaches |
| What have they done in the past six months to continue their development as a coach? | Serious coaches are constantly investing in their own development |
| What supervision do they have for their practice? | None, or peer supervision are not acceptable answers. A serious coach uses a professionally qualified coaching supervisor |
| How do they evaluate their practice? | Coachee feedback alone is not acceptable |
| What kind of coachees do they work with best? | Beware “Martini coaches” (anytime, anyone, anywhere). Effective coaches are very clear about who they do and don’t work best with |
| Which comparable companies have they coached executives for? | Having delivered other services for a comparable company isn’t enough, though it helps you to gauge the level of people they work with. Coaching with comparable companies at lower levels doesn’t mean they can coach effectively at executive level. |
| Have they ever had a coaching contract terminated before it was due to finish? Why? | Termination happens for all sorts of reasons, both positive and negative. An unacceptable answer is “don’t know” – a professional coach would always attempt to establish reasons. |
| References | Paradoxically, lots of coachee references would be a cause for concern. Ethical coaches protect the confidentiality of their coachees. Recommended good practice is to offer references from coaching supervision. |
Table 2: Interviewing executive coaches
Exploring the issues listed below (in addition to going into more detail on issues in Table 1) will give you a clearer idea of a coach’s knowledge of coaching, overall approach to coaching, business awareness and safety. You may decide that some of the coaches you interview aren’t suitable, for one reason or another (typically, at least one third of coaches selected by a provider organisation typically fall out at this point.) For the rest, you will have a clearer picture of where and how best to use them, based on their approaches and talents.
| Issue/ question | What to look out (watch out) for |
| What is your personal philosophy as a coach? | · Coaches, whose philosophy comes out of a textbook · Coaches who base their practice on a specific approach or technique (e.g. transactional analysis or NLP) · The most effective coaches have melded a great deal of learning into a genuinely individual philosophy |
| What models of coaching do you use? | Effective coaches have lots of models at their fingertips, but use them sparingly. If a coach talks mainly about using the GROW model, this is a sign that they are a relative beginner, even if they claim to have many hours of coaching experience. |
| What boundary issues have you met in your practice? | Effective coaches are able to articulate numerous instances and how they reflected on and learned from them. It is typical for a coach to meet a boundary issue at least once in most of their coaching relationships. |
| How have you used supervision to improve your practice? | Again, effective coaches are able to articulate numerous instances and how they reflected on and learned from them |
| What do you see as the main challenges to executives in Anglo-American? | Do they demonstrate a real interest in this business, or is it just another assignment? |
| What are your current learning goals as a coach? | Expect them to have a personal development plan as a coach |
| What are the limitations of coaching? | Effective coaches can provide a clear explanation of where coaching works well and less well. They articulate common myths of coaching, such as that coaches don’t need to understand the world of the coachee, and why these are myths |
| What training and experience have they had on using distance media (telephone, Skype, email etc) | This will be relevant if the some or all of the coaching is not to happen face to face |
| How do you think the executives in your organization will regard this person? Will they feel that s/he has sufficient authority, insight and competence for rapport and trust to build quickly? | This is one place you can trust your instincts, but do not let your instincts overrule major concerns on any of the other issues in this table |
Table 3: Observing the coach coaching
The aim of observation is to satisfy yourself that the coach doesn’t just “talk a good talk”. How effective are they in practice. You will need a volunteer, who has a real issue they want to explore and who is comfortable with you observing the session, which should be a minimum of 45 minutes. The criteria in this table are based on the competency framework of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council and on coach assessment processes, in which all the main professional bodies coaching have collaborated.
The concept is simple. The basic skills of coaching are readily observable. You can use a score of 0 – 3 to represent not demonstrated (0), demonstrated occasionally or at a low level (1), demonstrated substantially or with competence (2), and mastery (3). Only if a coach scores an average of 2 across all the competences, are they considered for additional points, in more subtle qualities – specifically, presence, authenticity, gravitas/ authority, humility, rigorousness, and appropriate adaptability. Additionally they should be able to maintain without noticeable effort the three simultaneous coaching conversations: the spoken conversation, awareness of their own thoughts and feelings and awareness of the coachee’s thoughts and feelings.
The key basic competencies are:
| Competence | Positive factors to look for | Negative factors |
| 1. Establishing the relationship/ contracting | Do they: · Explain what they will do as a coach and emphasise the confidentiality of the conversation? · Establish their credibility as a coach, with appropriate self-disclosure? · Rapidly build rapport? · Enable the coachee to talk broadly about what they would like to explore, without pushing them prematurely to defining a goal? | Do they: · Demonstrate insufficient genuine interest in the coachee? · Push the coachee to focus on a goal too soon? · Start addressing the issue without first ensuring the coachee is in a state of readiness for coaching? · Over- or under-disclose about self? |
| 2. Managing the coaching conversation | Do they: · Help the coachee articulate the kind of help they want/ need? · Provide a sense of structure and purpose to the conversation? · Manage the time effectively? · Manage the physical environment to ensure it is suitable for learning? · Work at the coachee’s pace? · Take stock at key points to check progress of the coachee’s thinking? · Clarify at the end of the session what they coachee has learned and what they intend to do with their learning? | Do they: · Dominate the discussion? · Over-steer the conversation? · Take a mechanical approach, using a coaching model? · Impose their own agenda? |
| 3. Listening | Do they: · Make effective use of silence? · Create a climate where the coachee feels able to talk openly? · Summarise and re-phrase at key points? · Demonstrate that they are fully attentive? · Use appropriate body language? · Use intuition to recognise what is not being said, and to identify “hidden presences”? | Do they: · Take copious notes? (Means they are not attending fully to the coachee) · Lose concentration? · Interrupt the coachee inappropriately? · Do more than 20% of the talking? |
| 4. Questioning | Do they: · Ask relatively few, but relatively powerful questions? (80%+ of the best questions are asked by the most effective 10% of observed coaches) · Pose questions from different perspectives? · Enable the coachee to identify their own questions? | Do they: · Ask more than one or two stock questions? (e.g. If you did have the answer, what would it be? Or On a scale of 1-10…) · Ask complex or multi-part questions? · Ask too many questions? |
| 5. General communication | Do they: · Use body language effectively? · Reflect back their own feelings and instinctive observations? · Recognise and respond to the coachee’s emotional state? · Help the coachee explain complex issues, through the use of drawing, metaphor or other communication tools? · Vary the tone and pace of the communication appropriately? · Demonstrate a high level of coachee focus and caring? | Do they: · Talk at or over the coachee? · Drop into telling (directive) mode, without asking for the coachee’s permission? · Fail to moderate their speech level (too soft or too loud) or mumble? · Ramble off into anecdotes? · Talk about their own experience or opinions, rather than focus on the coachee’s? · Appear to care too much? |
| 6. Use of tools, techniques and coaching approaches | · Employ an appropriate range of tools to facilitate coachee learning · Help the coachee link current goals to long term purpose and personal values · Help the coachee experiment and learn about themselves · Ask coachee permission before applying techniques and explain what is involved? | · “Clunky” use of tools / techniques · Limited range of tools/ techniques · Doing it to the coachee rather than working with coachee |
| 7. Contextual awareness | Do they: · Demonstrate an appropriate understanding of diversity and cultural difference? · Demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the challenges facing executives in this business? · Take a systemic perspective on the issues the coachee brings? · Help the coachee identify other resources they can call upon to embed learning and achieve sustainable change? | Do they: · Have a low level of cultural / diversity awareness? · Lack interest in the business and its context? · Focus on the presented issues, without exploring the wider influences on the executive and his/her situation? |
| 8. Quality of reflection | At the end of the coaching session, ask them for their opinion on: · How well the coaching worked overall · What they handled best and least well · In what specific ways they were helpful · The quality of their listening and questioning · How they will learn from this experience | The most common causes for concern are: · Widely differing perception of their performance to the observer’s · Generally poor level of reflection · They need prompting to refer to what they might take to their supervisor |
Working with your external executive coaches
Your external coaches are a valuable resource, but they aren’t always treated as such. Research into coaches experiences suggests that feel valued when:
- Coachees and sponsors understand what coaching entails and the language of coaching
- The business generally recognises the value of coaching
- They are recognised personally for providing value added
- Active but not intrusive involvement of an organizational sponsor
- The coachee is supported within the organization, in making changes
- Policy on confidentiality is transparent and consistent
- There are clear channels to raise concerns about the coachee or the organization (for example, if mental health issues arise)
- There are processes to measure both initial intended outcomes and other outcomes emerging from the coaching activity
- There is an opportunity to review the coaching assignment with the organization, both at the mid-point and at the end
It is HR’s responsibility to manage these expectations and to work with the coach in bringing about a coaching context that will benefit both the coachee and the organisation. At the very minimum, this involves:
- An initial detailed briefing to the coach
- Mid-point and end-point reviews, ideally with input from the coachee, their sponsor and any other feedback (for example, from 360-degree feedback)
- Being available to discuss any concerns either the coach or the coachee may have about the coaching relationship.
Qualifications in coaching vary widely in their value, with some of the most common having very little correlation with competence. Having a masters degree (not the same as a “master coach”, which may be based largely on numbers of hours coaching) from a reputable university correlates well with coaching knowledge, but not necessarily with the instinctive behavioural competencies of a really good coach.
© David Clutterbuck, 2015
Prof David Clutterbuck
Coaching and Mentoring International Ltd
Woodlands, Tollgate,
Maidenhead,
Berks, UK. SL6 4LJ
www.coachingandmentoringinternational.org
e-mail: info@coachingandmentoringinternational.org
Company registration number : 08158710