February 8, 2023

How Organizations Support Coaching Readiness

By Ken Giglio, Principal of Mindful Leadership

Organizations spend more than two billion dollars a year on leadership coaching according to some estimates.

With such big dollars being spent on coaching, which is predicted to continue to increase, organizations could do more to maximize their investment. It is a mixed bag, from my experience, in terms of how well organizations set the conditions for the coaching readiness of their leaders. In the best-case scenarios, executives walk away from coaching with permanent shifts in thinking, upgraded leadership habits, and strategies for self-coaching. In the worst cases, the coaching never gets off the ground, leading to frustration for the leader and coach, wasted time and resources, and potential damage to the value proposition of coaching in the organization. The criticality of organizations paying more attention to coaching readiness is equally important with investments in team and group coaching.

To be clear, the coach and leader have the primary responsibility, and accountability, to forge a successful coaching partnership. Leadership coaching at its best produces observable and sustainable behavior change and business outcomes. However, too often opportunities are missed to clarify the organization’s role in the success of coaching, especially before the coaching engagement begins. Here are three ways organizations can support coaching readiness:

Consistent Messaging – Coaching is a Strategic and Cultural Imperative

When it comes to coaching in organizations, all eyes look up to the C-Suite. Does the CEO and their team use coaches and how do they talk about the purpose and impact of coaching? Top leaders support coaching readiness by consistently communicating coaching is a strategic and cultural imperative. It supports the strategy to the extent it is taught, encouraged, and practiced to develop employees and hold them accountable to accomplishing their individual and team goals.

Top leaders along with their HR and OD and L&D teams are also in the position to model what good coaching looks like, from brief, spot, conversations to longer, in-depth touch points. As one senior HR leader shared with me, “we are aiming to build a culture of coaching where coaching happens every day to build people up to their potential and hold them accountable to doing what they say they’ll do.”

Coaching readiness is positively impacted when coaching is framed in organizations as an investment in the future versus a correction of the past.

Rigorous Vetting – Is Coaching Needed or Something Else?

Organizations that take an intentional approach to vetting their coaching requests have fewer misfires when it comes to the coaching readiness of their leaders. These are the organizations who have HR, OD, and L&D professionals who know what coaching can and can’t do to support individual, team, and organizational effectiveness. These professionals are often trained and certified coaches themselves, and they don’t allow reactive leaders to push them into no-win coaching assignments. Instead, they will ask tough questions and provide direct feedback to the leaders who think of coaching as a problem-solving exercise for hard-to-manage employees.

Organizations that slow things down when coaching requests roll in and proceed with due diligence process often unearth performance problems disguised as development needs. Sometimes a brief internal coaching intervention or mediation between a manager and their direct report can break a logjam. A proper vetting can also reveal the coaching need is more for the manager of the candidate versus the candidate themselves.

Clear, Transparent Communication on Why Coaching Now

When I meet executives at the beginning of a coaching engagement or during the chemistry fit meeting, I ask a version of this question – what is the reason for your coaching now? I want to know what was communicated, or not, about coaching and how the executive is taking in the information. Here are the three most prevalent reactions and answers I get to this question when clear, transparent communication is missing:

Bewilderment – I have no idea and no details about why I am meeting with you other than my manager thought it would be a good idea to get some coaching to support my development.

Frustration / Anger – I only know my last performance review was excellent, and I was told to “stay the course.” And, HR has suggested and my manager supports me working with a coach. When I asked why, my manager said he got coaching and it helped refine his leadership style, whatever that means.

Fear – I have been struggling with one of my peers, and my HR business partner said this was a good time for me to engage with a coach to work on my communication skills. Funny, my peer didn’t get the same offer for coaching.

Organizations that do well with clear, transparent communication have these approaches in common:

• The direct manager of the coaching candidate is clear about what’s behind the coaching request. The manager clearly articulates the reasons for the engagement and doesn’t delegate this responsibility to HR. This means having a direct conversation with their team member and avoiding generalizations about the behaviors that need to shift with the support of coaching. The head of the organization’s coaching programs and/or the HR business partner can help the leader with their communication by posing some straightforward questions. A simple coaching intake form can also be a helpful guide for managers to set the stage for a successful assignment. What are the known strengths this leader needs to use more and build on? What gaps in awareness are limiting this leader’s effectiveness?

• The reasons behind the coaching assignment is made clear to the coaches being vetted for the assignment, be they internal or external. This step is crucial in avoiding the three scenarios above. Everyone needs to be on the same page around what the coaching is about. As an external coach, when bewilderment, frustration, or fear are present, I simply suggest the coaching candidate return to their manager for clarity. The organizational system needs to create the clear purpose for the coaching, not the leader being provided the service or the coach.

Without clear communication and full transparency about the reasons for coaching, trust in the process will dissolve and the leader’s buy-in for coaching will be compromised.

The organizational system needs to play its part in preparing its leaders for impactful coaching experiences. Coaching Readiness doesn’t happen without organizations paying attention, taking responsibility, and being accountable to set the right conditions for successful coaching engagements.

What are you seeing in organizations that supports coaching readiness? And, what are you seeing that gets in the way of preparing leaders for a meaningful and impactful coaching experience?