Appraise Coaching Models for Practical Application
OLB 7007, Assignment 2
DuBose, Justin Z.
Dr. Jaime Klein
17 February 2019
Professional coaching is a multi-billion-dollar global industry and continues to grow in nearly 250 countries across the globe (Baaij, 2014). While organizations employ coaches for a variety of reasons, the effectiveness of coaches with adult learners has been studied and documented (Wise & Hammack, 2011). Egan & Hamlin (2014) concluded that the greatest strength of coaches was the flexibility and greater focus available in the “one-on-one” model of coaches and employees. Since coaching can be individually tailored, the growing enthusiasm for coaching is likely found in the richness of the dialogue and developmental exchanges (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). Sammut (2014), who discovered that coaching is most effective with adult learners in a one-on-one context, also reached a similar conclusion. Specifically, adult learners display measurable growth in areas of critical reflection of self and circumstances and placing current issues within a larger context (Sammut, 2014).
Thus, the greatest strength of coaching – and the area from which organizations benefit most – is the ability of coaches to spend focused one-on-one time with employees for the purpose of leadership development. Carey, Philippon, and Cummings (2011) noted that the value for coaching in organizations is found in the constantly evolving workplace which continually grows in complexity. Leadership development is an ever-present need for organizations operating in the modern environment, and coaching continues to be sought to develop these needed leaders. This paper, then, will examine the various models of coaching, including both internal and external coaches, and identify the best practices for coaches to maximize their impact in developing organizational leaders to navigate the challenges of the modern workplace.
Researchers have identified various coaching models utilized throughout organizations. Barner and Higgins (2007) provide four models for coaching: the clinical model, the behavioral model, the systems model, and the social constructionist model. The difference in the four coaching models is found in the relational and outcome differences between coach and coaching candidate. For example, the clinical coach endeavors to clinically diagnose the coaching candidate while the behavioral coach seeks to help the coaching candidate recognize behavior triggers and patterns to effect positive behavioral change. The systems coach works to identify negative thinking patterns and systems, and the social constructionist coach aims to aid the coaching candidate in understanding various social constructs at play in the organizational environment (Barner and Higgins, 2007).
Evaluation coaching is an additional model identified by researchers. Ensminger, Kallemeyn, Rempert, Wade, and Polanin (2015) particularly noted the unique role and benefit for evaluation coaching within organizations. When organizations have limited funds for coaching, external evaluators are beneficial to come alongside the organization and provide assessment and coaching of individuals. Ensminger et al. (2015) identified knowledge coaching, skills coaching, and personal coaching as the three types of evaluation coaching. They also noted that each coaching is focused on one of two outcome types: results coaching or development coaching. Ensminger et al. (2015) discovered that most evaluation coaches are hired as knowledge and skills coaches rather than personal coaches. Thus, evaluation coaches are external evaluators hired by organizations to work alongside employees and other coaching candidates to increase their professional knowledge and skills. The effectiveness of external evaluation coaches are often measured by the results generated from their relationships with employees (Ensminger et al., 2015).
Commonalities across models
Regardless of which coaching model is utilized, researchers have noted several common factors which exist across all coaching models. These commonalities are inherent in all coaching relationships and settings. Carey, Philippon, and Cummings (2011) noted five elements common throughout each coaching model: relationship building, problem-solving processes, problem-defining and goal setting, the mechanisms by which results are produced, and action and transformation. Additionally, they identified five factors which will impact coaching outcomes: organizational involvement and support, the coach’s attributes and role, specific obstacles to the coaching process, the selection of candidates for coaching, and the drawbacks and benefits of internal versus external coaching (Carey et al., 2011).
In addition to the five common elements, Utry, Palmer, McLeod, and Cooper (2015) noted that every coaching model shares certain commonalities regarding the goals of coaches. These commonalities include a shift in psychology for individuals receiving coaching and the addressing and meeting needs of constantly changing workforce which is increasingly connected and globalized. Reaching the same conclusion, Passmore (2014) noted that one of the primary expectations of coaches is the proper selection and management of interventions throughout the coaching process. Wise and Hammack (2011) also noted that the establishment and building of relationship between coaches and coaching candidates is the initial and most important priority of coaches and the coaching process.
Wise and Hammack (2011) noted that the establishment and building of relationship between coaches and coaching candidates is the initial and most important priority of coaches and the coaching process. Therefore, every recognized best practice in the field of coaching is contingent upon the successful establishment and building of relationships between the coach and coaching candidate. Best practices for coaches identified by Wise and Hammack (2011) include an emphasis on continual improvement, professional development, adaptation of coaching to different individuals, accountability to accomplish objectives, appropriate intervention, and regular interaction. While researchers conclude that most coaches are hired to develop the professional knowledge and skills of employees (Ensminger et al., 2015), the question remains as to whether one coaching model is more effective based upon its compatibility with the recognized best practices outlined by Wise and Hammack (2011). This question will be addressed in the context of a not-for-profit organization which provides both internal and external coaches to those employees selected for leadership development by organizational leaders.
Christian & Missionary Alliance
The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is a global not-for-profit organization which operates in 81 countries (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). While the organization is overseen by an elected board known as the Board of Directors, this board is chaired by an elected President (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). The current President of the C&MA is Dr. John Stumbo, and as President his responsibilities include not only leadership of the National Office but also of staff and offices around the globe (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). Within the United States, these offices and staff are broken down into geographical districts. One responsibility of each C&MA district is the training and licensing of official. In accomplishing this objective, the C&MA employs both internal and external coaches for their licensed official workers.
The internal coaches appointed by the district to coach those pursuing licensing are each tasked to ensure that the best practices identified by Wise and Hammack (2011) are faithfully and expertly executed. The emphasis on continual improvement is built upon the development of a relationship between the coach and coaching candidate. Professional development is carried out with regular meetings in which dialogue is based around a series of assigned readings and reflective exercises. These coaches are trusted to adapt their coaching to different individuals, sometimes in a one-on-one setting and, at other times, in small groups. Accountability is built into the relationship with a system of “checking in” between the coach and coaching candidate during the coaching process. Furthermore, regular interaction is mandated by monthly face-to-face meetings between coaches and coaching candidates.
These coaches are exclusively evaluation coaches in that their goal is to regularly evaluate the professional and personal growth of the candidate and assess their level of growth. While this relationship between coach and coaching candidate is ongoing, districts also employ external coaches to work with the internal coaches to ensure their conformity to national standards. The external coaches are representatives of the National Office, and their process of evaluation and analysis is a reflection of the coaching system utilized throughout the denomination. External coaches also serve as clinical coaches who work with the districts’ internal coaches to provide a diagnosis of the level of care and professionalism present in the relationship between coach and candidate.
This system of providing external coaching for internal coaches seems to ensure that the recognized best practices are carried out throughout the organization. Furthermore, by providing evaluation coaching to coaching candidates, accountability to objective and agreed upon standards of progress is maintained. While these internal coaches are granted latitude to exercise judgment in their tailoring the program to individuals and unique needs and circumstances, the objective and standards remain the same for all candidates.
Baaij, Marc G. (2014). An Introduction to Management Consultancy. London: SAGE Publications.
Barner, R. & Higgins, J. (2007). Understanding implicit models that guide the coaching process. Journal of Management Development, 26(2), 148-158. doi:10.1108\02621710710726053
Carey, W., Philippon, D.J., & Cummings, G.G. (2011). Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 51-69. doi:10.1002/jls.20204
Christian and Missionary Alliance. (2018). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.cmalliance.org/about/
Egan, T. & Hamlin, R. G. (2014). Coaching, HRD, and relational richness: Putting the pieces together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 243-257. doi:10.1177/1523422313520475
Ensminger, D.C., Kallemeyn, L.M., Rempert, T., Wade, J., & Polanin, M. (2011). Case study of an evaluation coaching model: Exploring the role of the evaluator. Evaluation and Program Planning, 49, 124-136. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.01.0020149-7189
Passmore, J. (2014) Mastery in Coaching. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Sammut, K. (2014). Transformative learning theory and coaching: Application in practice. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 8, 39-53. Accessed on February 17, 2018.
Utry, Z.A., Palmer, S., McLeod, J., & Cooper, M. (2015). A pluralistic approach to coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 11(1), 46-52. Retrieved from https://www.bps.org.uk
Wise, D. & Hammack, M. (2011). Leadership coaching: Coaching competencies and best practices. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 449-477. Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/JSL
NG, LR, NCU, USAR
My collection of personal papers written over the years