A633.8.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            Coaches provide value to their clients in several ways. The first is they serve as a means to provide accountability to the individual. They may not have to draw up a contract, but a certain level of prestige is carried between an executive and executive coach. Next, the executive coach acts as a ground to the situation. The executive is already successful, however sometime it helps to have a checks and balance, or simply a sanity check. This can be mindful of both professional and personal goals. Lastly, a coach will provide an outside opinion, someone removed from the situation that generally should not have a vested interest in the outcome. This will therefore provide an unbiased opinion.

            Coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy as it serves as a significant enabler. Further, “executives must play their leadership styles like pros – using the right one at the just the right time and in the right measure” (Goleman, 2000). Executive coaching provides leaders with goals, motivation, and even inspiration to meet the organizations strategy. However, “there is a paradox in coaching’s positive effect on business performance because coaching focuses primarily on personal development, not on immediate work-related tasks” (Goleman, 2000).

            Since coaching is focused on the individual, it is often difficult to link the progress of coaching to having made a difference in an organization. With that said coaching can’t take place with an individual and have the expectation to be a game changer for the masses. However, if coaching is part of the organizations standard operating procedures and is done on a collective level, whether that involves everyone or key positions, the results would be outstanding. If the whole system is engaged by a coaching strategy there is an increased likelihood that the organization as a hole will grow.

            My organization practices counseling similar to coaching that would take place in an organization. Superiors should provide their subordinates with an initial counseling outlining their expectation and performance objectives. This is followed up by quarterly counseling ending with an annual evaluation or review. The sad aspect, although this is mandatory, it generally doesn’t take place. Counseling’s have a negative connotation, and many “leaders” use them more for  punitive purposes than balancing between positive and negative elements. Executive level or senior leaders generally have more of an unofficial mentor, being a previous superior officer they would like to emulate. Overall, if counseling protocol were followed more attentively it would address the issue of accountability while improving productivity.  

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.