How can we improve the effectiveness of the coach-client matching process? Sophie Bruas shares lessons from a programme in Africa
Designing an effective coaching programme raises many questions about how best to match clients and coaches, such as how do you achieve best fit and what role does the coach’s qualification, gender and culture play in the coaching’s success? Our research into coach-client matching drew some fascinating conclusions – including surprising results on the impact of personality fit.
We organised a coaching programme for 24 CEOs and C-Suite executives in the financial services sector in the wider East and Central African regions. The aim was to give them an opportunity to experience the impact and value of coaching for leadership development and to derive personal benefits.
At the same time, we wanted to examine the pairing process in more detail and look at how we could better identify coaches who would be best suited to meet the client’s specific needs. To achieve this, we took the programme a step further by adopting a research-based approach in our pairing up.
Our goal was to assess the impact of the different factors used in matching and then measure how these contributed to achieving a successful coach matching outcome.
Twelve senior-level coaches underwent a rigorous selection process that included a pre-selection interview, personality assessment and a final selection interview. By building on research findings from Hogan Assessment Systems on personality matching, the personality assessment results of the coach and clients provided a practical means of examining compatibility. We looked at behavioural preferences, credibility of the coach’s abilities to cater for the client’s requirements and commonality of personal characteristics, values and motivations. We reviewed existing research to inform our approach and measured what we subsequently did to produce data on what works best.
WHAT THE EXISTING RESEARCH TOLD US
Pairing is defined as the “attempt to identify a coach tailored to meet the needs of a client” (Wycherley & Cox, 2008) and selective criteria should aim to increase the chances of the coaching being a success. Our awareness that the coaching relationship influences the outcome of the coaching, provided a strong theoretical understanding of the importance of paying attention to effective matching – but just how would we do this in practice?
Other than research into the established positive impact of the therapist-client relationship (De Haan, 2013) or mentor-mentee relationship (for example, Clutterbuck, 1998), deeper research on specific matching has only been undertaken in the past eight years.
Research generally agrees that “an effective client-coach relationship results in successful coaching outcomes” but doesn’t guarantee success (Baron et al, 2009); leaving questions about key factors that need to be considered when designing a programme, and how to measure them.
Boyce et al (2010) identify three factors that influence pairing: compatibility in behavioural preferences, credibility with coaching abilities meeting client needs, and commonality in personal characteristics or experience. Others focus on interpersonal fit, skills, competencies and qualifications.
Perception shapes our experience and we can look at these factors as key aspects influencing conscious or unconscious formation of any relationship (Bolen et al, 2015). In a coaching context these may affect rapport and trust (Boyce et al, 2010), and the Bolen et al, 2015 study indicates that personality characteristics influence client perception of both effectiveness and the value and usefulness of the coaching relationship.
The coaching’s success is determined by the relationship’s quality (defined by Boyce et al) in terms of commitment, trust and collaboration and the positive outcome on the client’s agenda. Bluckert (2005), argues executives who trust their coach are likely be more committed and that translates into behavioural outcomes (Boyce et al, 2010). And, unlike psychotherapy, it appears positive outcomes in coaching are not only the results of the relationship, but also the coach’s ability to facilitate learning (Baron et al, 2009).
DESIGNED PAIRING IN THE EAST AFRICA PROGRAMME
We wanted to pay close attention to the pairing process and broke it down into three phases: coach and client selection, the matching process and chemistry.
We designed our programme around a two-day workshop which offered multiple opportunities for client and coach to interact formally and informally and complemented it with a group action learning session, 360-degree feedback and Hogan personality assessments (HPI, HDS, MVPI).
Quantitative and qualitative data was used to measure the perception of change. Data was collected at different stages of the programme, specifically on the coach-client relationship, and a 360-degree survey was used before and after coaching which extended that perception to other stakeholders.
FINDINGS
We had three key questions we wanted to look at:
- Was the coaching programme perceived as effective in meeting its original objectives?
- Was pairing perceived as successful?
- What specific pairing aspects in this programme design positively influenced the relationship?
For the leadership coaching programme, the results of the 360-degree surveys delivered after six to eight months of coaching and used to measure the specific degree of behaviour change in each client, showed that 92% of the participants demonstrated change against their original objectives, providing strong evidence of the programme’s effectiveness.
For our pairing exercise we observed our findings through two lenses: the criteria influencing the relationship (for example, coach credibility, personality traits, or previous similar experiences) and time.
PREDICTIVE FACTORS FOR PAIRING
Clients often assume that a good ‘personality match’ will be the key reason for choosing a coach. However, our research suggested personality fit is not important and that you might be better off being coached by someone who is unlike you.
As a coach, having shared experience with your client can be helpful in building rapport early on. Our research pointed to the coach’s skill as having the biggest impact on coaching success.
We think this offers a useful insight for coaching programme coordinators on panel pre-selection, and that our findings imply that:
- Holding credentials indicates a noticeable level of professionalism and standards but does not guarantee success for the relationship.
- Coaching experience (hours) and measurable results of change should be a greater focus in coach selection.
- Similar experiences are not a significant enough factor of selection to ensure a successful coaching relationship. In fact, as stated by Clutterbuck (1998), it could create a barrier to effective coaching by increasing tendency of mentoring.
RESEARCH RESULTS
All our participants found value in the assessment tools (Leadership Versatility Index 360-degree and Hogan personality, motives and values assessments) with 67% citing them as extremely useful in setting their agenda and overall participants maintained this agenda.
The time invested in one-on-one social interactions and goal setting at the programme’s start contributed greatly, with 80% reporting a high perception of rapport.
Despite a high level of motivation to engage in the coaching relationship (88% reported at the start), the most cited challenges were related to scheduling: time and conflicting priorities being the most common reasons given.
Though clients are motivated, we learned this does not guarantee success and that environmental factors must be considered when contracting.
Absence of face-to-face coaching was the main barrier to sustaining rapport. Poor telecommunication networks could be to blame.
During the programme, the perception of the relationship changed following an inverted bell curve. Overall, pairing was perceived as a success, with only one of 24 participants indicating dissatisfaction with the proposed pairing and one expressing a potential mismatch at the end.
At the relationship’s start, 96% of our participants felt confident about their coach choice, though reserved a ‘wait and see’ attitude. At the midway review, while overall satisfaction was maintained, some frustration had crept in for both parties, mainly because of connectivity challenges and agenda conflicts. Towards the end, a heightened positive perception was revealed.
- Sophie Bruas is a member of faculty at Career Connections/Academy of Executive Coaching East Africa
References
- E Allworth & J Passmore, ‘Using psychometrics and psychological tools in coaching’, in J Passmore (Hrsg.), Psychometrics in Coaching. Using Psychological and Psychometric Tools for Development (2. Aufl., S. 7-24). London: Kogan Page, 2012
- L Baron & L Morin, ‘The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study’, in Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, pp85-106, 2009
- R M Berry, J S Ashby, P B Gnilka & K B Matheny, ‘A comparison of face-to-face and distance coaching practices: Coaches’ perceptions of the role of the working alliance in problem resolution’, in Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(4), pp243-253, 2011
- P Bluckert, ‘Critical factors in executive coaching – the coaching relationship’, in Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(7), pp336-340, 2005
- H M Bolen, K M Fuhrmeister & K S Nei, Practical Recommendations for Enhancing Leadership Coaching, Symposium conducted at the 30th Annual Conference of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, PA, 2015
- L A Boyce, R J Jackson & L J Neal, ‘Building successful leadership coaching relationships’, in The Journal of Management Development, 29(10), pp914-931, 2010 l C Brett & T Newton, Coach Supervisor Training Coaching Development, 2015
- D Clutterbuck, Learning Alliances: Tapping into Talent, London: CIPD, 1998
- E De Haan, A Duckworth, D Birch & C Jones, ‘Executive coaching outcome research: the predictive value of common factors such as relationship, personality match and self-efficacy’, in Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 65(1), pp40-57, 2013
- D E Gray & H Goregaokar, ‘Choosing an executive coach: the influence of
gender on the coach-coachee matching process’, in Management Learning, 41(5), pp525-544, 2010 - E F I Holton, R A Bates & W E A Ruona, ‘Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory’, in Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), pp333-360, 2000
- E Nelson & R Hogan, ‘Coaching on the dark side’, in International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), pp9-21, 2009
- I M Wycherley & E Cox, ‘Factors in the selection and matching of executive coaches in organisations’, in Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), pp39-53, 2008
KEY FINDINGS
- Personality and 360-degree assessments are effective at facilitating the client’s learning and to support the coaching process, for example, in goal setting or progress measurement (Allworth, 2012). Allowing enough time for the coach to understand the tools and the data will increase the coach’s confidence and potentially positively impact the relationship.
- Using a personality assessment tool in developing effective pairing was not fully proven. Personality may be one factor influencing the relationship; but more important is the coach’s abilities to facilitate results, learning and credibility. So, in coach selection more thought needs to be given to the coach’s experience and results than personality fit.
- To retain momentum and to support the relationship, the programme’s design needs to nurture the relationship in the middle stages, for example, through regular monitoring calls, review meetings and efforts made on scheduling.
- Enough time should be allowed, preferably off-site, to build rapport and design the coaching agendas and contracts.
- Embrace a systemic coaching programme design to address the potential client environmental issues. Such issues to be considered here include client selection, engaging with a sponsor, openly discussing potential time and priority conflicts at contracting level.
- In the absence of reliable communication networks, face-to-face meetings should always be encouraged.