In my recent article “Boosting Engagement,” I acknowledged the criticism leveled by The Economist that business schools have done little to reform themselves in light of the economic crisis. Whatever else you might think about the causes of the crisis, it was clearly a failure of leadership. I agree that business schools share some of the responsibility for the crisis because we did a poor job preparing leaders to anticipate the hazards of hubris, excessive greed and vacillating ethics.
But how much responsibility does the executive coaching industry share for the crisis? To excuse them from any responsibility at all, we would have to believe that executives in the financial services and banking industries have never been coached. That might be true, but I find it hard to believe.
As the Wall Street Journal reported recently, the demand for executive coaches is steady despite the recession. So even if executive coaches bear no responsibility for getting us into the crisis, what is the industry doing to address the failure of leadership and prepare leaders to avoid a future crisis?
I’d love to hear from those of you that coach or have a coach. Has the crisis had any effect on the practice of the profession of executive coaching?
You should follow me on twitter here.
Provocative question, Bret. I think that all of us in positions of influence: teachers, deans, writers, bloggers, coaches and leaders to name a few have a responsibility to act and advise ethically. But the older I get, the less I think that ethics classes for adults do much good. Clear standards clearly communicated and consequences that are as inevitable as nature seem to do better.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Concur, Wally, about the effect of ethics classes. Ethics is a thread I weave through everything I teach when the topic is leadership. Also hear what you are saying about our responsibility to act with responsibility when we are in a position of influence, but I wonder about the market for responsible behavior. There will never be a shortage of experts willing to sell whatever the market demands, even if it is not the complete picture on what it needs. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
Hi Bret,
An interesting question! I’d be interested to hear more of your own opinion. In the meantime, since you so neatly convinced me on Twitter to comment, here’s what I think.
Firstly, for the record, I am a coach and therapist. I identify myself as an executive coach for the purposes of those who need me to put that definition on myself in order that they better “get” what I do.
And I do think that executive coaches are culpable for a lot of the mess we see going on today. Why? Because most coaches live within the system that feeds them and are not willing or capable of stepping beyond its paradigm and challenging it.
It takes a lot of hard work and graft, not to mention money, to be the kind of coach whose personal and professional integrity are paramount, and who has had enough life experience to be able to see the corporate system for what it is – ie an institution like other institutions with its own rules, its own dynamics, some of which will be useful and some of which will be shadowy – and to reflect and challenge from that place.
As you alluded to in your comment to Wally, the market prefers to hire coaches who collude with it and thus keep the status quo in place. They can be brilliant at teaching models and making senior executives feel that they’ve been taught and supported. But their own need to be liked; their own issues around acceptance and approval will ensure that they won’t step outside of their comfort zones.
To my mind the whole executive coaching thing needs to be thought about afresh in light of what’s happening in the economy, but I seriously doubt that will happen.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Christine, I REALLY appreciate your honest and detailed response. Your response is so rich and full of insight – I am very impressed. Your remarks about coaches colluding with the market is especially fascinating to me but also of great concern.
At least in B-schools we have a central accrediting body, AACSB, that is aware of our issues and will slowly (very) address them – I think. That does not exist for the coaching industry. It will take a fundamental shift in the market for real change, and again, I would not hold my breath for that.
Excellent – Thanks!!! Bret
[Reply]
Hi Bret,
I think the Executive Coaching industry could be implicated in the same way as many/most others – no more and no less. Just as those who followed the flawed leaders, and as are those who took flawed mortgages. Right now, I prefer to be drawn to seeing what all of this means for the future of my profession.
The implications for the executive coaching indusry to use what we know about the crisis, and how we might prevent being pulled into any future similar situations or implications is thought provoking.
Our profession is quite young. The popularity of executive coaching has exploded in only the last ten years or so. We are collectively going through growing pains, and executive coaching (or the broader “organizational coaching”) is evolving even as I write this. It might be an opportune time for us to have this discussion.
We need a lot of things. We need cohesion, we need research, we need standards. All of this is, and will, come.
Meanwhile, I’m with Christine, in wanting to hear more from you on how executive coaches might be culpable. For the majority, there is a constant self-questioning (and group questioning) to assure ethics and morality (including avoiding the more silent, but more insidious possibility of “colluding with the market”) in our profession.
There is an “accrediting body”, for better or for worse, for our industry. The International Coach Federation (ICF) also has an ethical code that members must agree to follow.
The ICF includes, but it is not specific to, executive or organizational coaching. It addresses all kinds of coaching (including life coaching). It is the biggest game in town, but stay tuned. This, too, may change. And it is a voluntary organization to join. At this point, there is not much in the way of a compelling argument for an executive coach to join and agree to or follow the ethical code.
Perhaps this crisis will force the executive coaching industry to look in the mirror. Do we, as an industry, have a long way to go? Yes. Can we improve? Absolutely. Are we, in some way, responsible for the crisis? Yes. Are we significantly responsible, or any more responsible than anyone else? I don’t think so.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I very much appreciate your perspective, Mary Jo.
Since you asked, here is my two cents. B-schools are very visible, get lots of funds and impact a lot of folks. They are an easy and well deserved target of criticism. We are horrible at practicing what we preach, which makes what we preach very resistant to change. We impact large numbers of leaders, but for the most part we are well down on the food chain. The exception is the high profile and high dollar executive MBA programs.
Executive coaches and consultants on the other hand have an impact MUCH higher up the food chain. That’s why they are called *executive* coaches. Not only do they get higher up, they get much closer to the action than b-school ever does. So I do have a very deep concern about the effect coaching had but more importantly the effect it will have going forward. I think the executive coach is in a powerful position of leverage and can either do great good or just make great money helping everyone feel good. My position is tough, I know, but it’s my honest opinion. I’m just very, very skeptical of the hired hand dance.
When folks show up in my classes, I don’t pull any punches. I give them my raw and tough advice and don’t have to worry about them firing me. But the flip side again is very, very few of the folks I see are executives.
Ok, that’s it! Thanks!!! Bret
[Reply]
Hi Bret:
Although I agree that negative influence on executives can come from their executive coaches, it can also come from their spouses, significant others, peers, colleagues, friends, and pastors. I don’t believe that a coach has (necessarily) any more influence than others IF coaches are following a code of ethics and have the training or background to coach properly, and is not abusing some presumed power they may think they have.
In fact, I might counter that a coach trained in, and using, true coaching skills, and subscribing to a code of ethics, has less “influence” on an executive coach than others in their work and lives. We may be more appropriately called “catalysts” to help executives up their game like Tiger Woods’ coach might.
You’ve made the case, at least in my mind, for organizations and executives to take the stance of “buyer beware”. A coach who is trained in the nuances of what it means to truly coach (not consult, not mentor, not manage) understands that a conversation built around inquiry is a powerful tool, and it is not the same as being a consultant, who use their professional knowledge and (perhaps) their knowledge power to influence. Trained coaches primarily use conversation and inquiry to help an executive make the decisions THEY (the executive) want to make.
This assumes the executive is ethical, moral, and fully whole. Capable of making his/her decisions based on a reflective conversation.
I can only speak for myself, and my own experience as an executive coach. Coaching is very personal for an executive. I don’t have the kind of conversations with my clients that might influence them with evil or amoral intent to scam the system or steal from their companies (in fact, I’m bound by my own code of ethics to run and report such activity, should I become aware of it). We discuss what they need to do to become better leaders, and work, using an action plan, on how they will do that.
I would say that the vast majority of executive coaches do the same.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I’m so glad you are helping us with the conversation, Mary Jo, because I respect you and value your opinion very much. No doubt in my mind you are the kind of coach I would hire for myself if I were ever in a position to need one.
But you hit a core point. You say “Trained coaches primarily use conversation and inquiry to help an executive make the decisions THEY (the executive) want to make.” I know this is a very fine line, but I think we can see that the assumption that executives are “ethical, moral, and fully whole” is not always valid. The proof is in the proverbial pudding.
It just seems all too convenient to me, too easy for coaches to excuse themselves from even greater responsibility and tougher choices.
But I must admit I have never coached or been coached, which is why your perspective is so valuable here. Thanks!!! Bret
[Reply]
Bret, thanks for your reply and for sharing your position on the question you posed about the role of coaches in the current economic crisis. I was also interested to read Mary Jo’s comments.
Part of the challenge of there being no credible regulation other than the ICF, which does a reasonable job, considering it’s run on a voluntary basis, is that anyone can set themselves up as an executive coach, irrespective of whether they’ve been trained or not.
Another factor is that the buyers of coaching vary greatly in their understanding of what it is. There are some forward looking businesses whose HR people (let’s face it, often the buyers) really get that coaching is a robust relationship in which people can explore and develop their true potential. And there are others who are more likely to hire “gurus” and/or former executives who have some profile and have decided to “coach” rather than retire. Or coaches that they personally feel less threatened by, least they form better relationships with the board than the HRD. The latter two forms of coaching will to my mind not result in the strong Adult-Adult kind of situation that good coaching demands.
You asked, Bret, what effects the crisis is having on us coaches. I was interested to read that, in the US at least, executive coaching remains steady despite the downturn, because that’s not my personal experience here in the UK, where many of the businesses with whom I have coaching relationships have cut, if not wholly withdrawn, their coaching budgets. This has saddened me greatly because I think that the people at the top need real coaching more than ever at this point in time. It also makes me question whether corporations can ever truly care for their people – but that’s another topic entirely!
At the same time, however, I’ve had a number of professional people seek me out for personal coaching on difficult work issues that have arisen for them as a result of the crisis. This is prompting me to rethink and reposition my offering as a coach, and this is very much work in progress as I write to you.
Best wishes
Christine
[Reply]
@Wally. Wally, sorry, I missed your comment here when I was reading through the comments. I entirely agree with you that ethics classes don’t cut it and that the way to teach ethics is real time consequence management. Best wishes, Christine
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Christine, thanks once again for stopping by and sharing your thoughts! I find your frankness fascinating and refreshing. Your comments about hiring a guru or safe coach are especially relevant to this discussion. I really appreciate the stuff that you, Mary Jo, and Wally have added to this discussion. Thanks!!! Bret
[Reply]
Bret,
Christine has highlighted what has happened in the UK. The bigger companies have cut their budgets for Executive Coaching or, as often called in Europe, Executive Mentoring. But several other things have emerged.
* Coaching is still used in rising companies rather than dying companies.
There continues to be the desire to employ coaches in the sunrise business. For example, digital marketing, social media, etc.
* Coaching is seen as okay if it helps leaders to improve the quality of their decision making and add to their repertoire of choices.
Great educators take this path. They encourage, educate and enable people to achieve ongoing success. This is an approach that particularly appeals to Managing Directors who, for example, may be 35 years old, hungry to learn and who want to expand their repertoires to leading businesses.
* Coaching seems to work best when allied to other relevant offerings that enable the company to achieve success.
Looking at my own work, for example, most of the coaching has come off the back of running super teams workshops throughout organisations. Then doing follow up with the leaders to ensure that people continue to focus on the story, strategy and road to success.
So think there is still a lot of work out there for coaches. But must be linked to ‘projects’, rather than just be one-to-one sessions.
Am sure there are lots of organisations out there who may have projects that need turning around, revitalising or landing. So onwards.
Mike Pegg
http://www.strengthsacademy.com/mikes-blog/
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Mike, thanks for the great information! I actually like the sound of what is going on there in the UK with coaching, making it linked to projects. Sounds like it actually demands more from the coach, more integrative thinking and skills that are focused on the collective organization and not just the individual executive being mentored. And I love your blog! Thanks for sharing! Bret
[Reply]
By mentoring everyone in a given environment, it has a cascading effect that can last for a very long time and also makes the people and that environment much more stable and a better place to work.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Ellen! Bret
[Reply]