John noted that his wife first recommended that he get a coach. Natalie noted that she chose several years ago to become a coach. While John and Natalie will undoubtedly focus on their own immediate coaching issues, they might also reflect on the reasons for their work together. Would either of them have even considered coaching to be a legitimate profession ten years earlier? Where did the notion of professional coaching come from and why did it gain popularity during the late 1900s and early years of the present decade? Given this broader background, what expectations do John and Natalie hold as to the final outcomes of their work together? And what expectations were held by other leaders in John’s organization regarding the desired (and expected) outcomes of John’s coaching engagement?
If they are being honest with one another, John and Natalie would probably have to admit that both of them entered into their coaching engagement in part because coaching was “in” when they began working together. Most of us like to engage in activities that are “in)’ – that are accepted as “innovative” and “cutting edge” activities but are not “weird” or “inappropriate” (Rogers, 2003). Most of us, in other words, are vulnerable to certain “fads”- and professional coaching is by some accounts a “fad.” Like biofeedback, encounter groups, management by objectives and quality circles, professional coaching has been hot for a few years and may fade into the mist-or at least garner less front-page coverage in the Wall Street Journal or less frequently be addressed in lead articles of business journals. Like other fads, professional coaching may be guilty-as-charged regarding over-promising, building on personal testimony rather than carefully documented evidence, and focusing more on marketing and advertising than on product improvement.
We also see the ‘fad” orientation of professional coaching in the very word “coaching.” This term was borrowed (without permission) from the field of sports coaching. Like the terms “team building” and “game plan” the term “coaching” comes with all the conceptual baggage and expectations about outcomes that are to be found in competitive sports. While the explicit statements about coaching may focus on collaboration and win/win, there are the implicit assumptions about competition, with one winner and one loser. If there is a winner and loser, then who will inevitably lose? A social-critical (Continental School) analysis would suggest that inequitable treatment is inevitable (the new golden rule: “those rule who have the gold”). The British School (Tavistock) can identify ways in which organizations cover over or distort the true stories about competition for scarce resources. Organizational coaching may be not only a fad, but also a fad that inevitably contributes to victimization and disempowerment.
Some evidence can be offered suggesting that professional coaching as a fad is now past its peak (reached earlier in this decade) and will soon fade from view (Maher & Pomerantz, 2007). Attendance at many international meetings on professional coaching is dropping off. The fees being charged are now leveling off. VPs of HR are now asking tough questions about the impact of coaching on overall organizational performance. Using the metaphor of the “Old West” – the gold has been tapped out and the prospectors have folded up their tents, packed their wagons and moved on to another purported vein of gold (fad). This being the case, then perhaps John should look elsewhere for assistance. And Natalie should look for a more secure position inside an organization or shift to an alternative endeavor as an independent provider.
Download Article 1K Club
