On the contrary: for more than 15 years Coaching has been an essential part of my professional activity and, as a young man, I had the good fortune to be able to actively follow the coaching discussion in different countries right from the beginning. Enthusiastic about the possibilities opened up by this subject and supported by an innovative employer, I was already able to present a large publication on this subject in 1987 (Grundlagen des Coaching (Principles of Coaching), Munich 1987). Who was already thinking about this subject back then? Geissler and Günther had just written a short article for the business journal “Blick durch die Wirtschaft” and Looss presented his ideas in “Manager Magazin”. About two to three years later, the first big coaching boom took off in Germany.

At this time, I went into business for myself – not as a coach, but as a consultant for change projects and the introduction of personnel development processes. And it was precisely my experience with complicated major projects that brought me repeated enquiries for coaching. My company grew strong in the following years and the number of coaching sessions we carried out increased. To date, several hundred managers have already received support from hauserconsulting coaches.

A lot of time has gone by since then and coaching has a firm place in the world of advising. A lot of good has come about due to this and a lot of important things for managers and companies. But an inflation of the term coaching has taken place, which Rauen (2000) rightly describes as populism.

In my opinion, even the serious coaches have stopped posing themselves critical questions about their product. At least in the literature, considerations such as those of Sievers (1991) now tend to possess a certain rarity value. But, in coaching, as in most other subjects: there is no light without shadow. And only if we take a look at the downside of development, will we be able to influence this positively.

In this contribution, I would like to limit myself to a coaching segment that, in terms of quantity, now certainly represents the largest proportion of coaching volumes in German-speaking countries: coaching by an external coach in middle and upper management, i.e. integrated into a larger organizational context.

An essential question, which in my view has not yet been satisfactorily and bindingly answered is: what actually is coaching quality?

Hypothesis 1: The understanding of success and quality of coaching is diffuse and varies greatly depending on the person's interests and situation.

In the course of the past ten years, a whole range of coaching quality criteria has taken shape, despite all the dilution of the term “coaching”. These include professional clarification of the order, a shared and realistic definition of aims, transparent invoicing and – with restrictions – demarcation from psychotherapeutic work.

These are all quality criteria relating to the process and the ancillary conditions of coaching. Little attention, however, has so far been given to the question of how the quality of coaching can be defined in the sense of the benefit to be obtained. The success or failure, and thus also the quality, of the coaching can be seen very differently depending on the standpoint of the observer:

Has coaching succeeded if …

• the coachee is satisfied?
• the client is satisfied?
• the coach is satisfied?
• the personnel department is satisfied?
• he/she functions better?
• the goals have been achieved?
• the company receives benefit?

Our customers are usually surprised when we ask them these questions. Clients often openly admit that they have never thought about these questions. But this demonstrates a very practical problem: whereas the satisfaction of coachee, client and personnel manager can be enquired about relatively easily, the question of the benefit for the company can be very much more difficult. Normally, a theoretical auxiliary construction is used: if the coachee experiences the coaching as valuable, then it is automatically of value to the company. But is that really the case?

Hypothesis 2: The fact that the coach, coachee and personnel departments like something does not mean that it is useful for the company (the silent alliance)

An essential element in the great success of coaching is the individuality and intimacy of the process. Coaching in companies reflects a wider social trend: individualization and extension of the private. The reduction in households of more than one person, the growth of the market for finding oneself and experiencing oneself, and the turning-away from political commitment are just as much consequences of this social development as are “cocooning” as a fashion trend and the major problems that sports associations have in attracting new members.

In this self-orientated world, people have become lone fighters in the “pursuit of happiness”. Ulrich Beck (1995), Oskar Neuberger (1985) and others already pointed to the results of this individualization early on. In the context of organizations, “micropolitics, regarded empirically, is unavoidable and it is – under the given conditions – indispensable.” (Neuberger 2003). Micropolitics is defined by Neuberger (2003) as

• “Machinations
• for one's advantage,
• by means of which, in polyvalent, intransparent social relations,
• the aim of control of uncertainty and the future is pursued,
• in which tactics are employed
• in which the moral evaluation of the protagonists and those affected diverge in many ways.

Coaching fits into this world particularly well: top performers receive the opportunity to improve their initial position and chances of success within the organization – totally without risk. Because the conversation takes place with an outsider in a framework of confidentiality – the coach is bound to a kind of medical secrecy. If the coachee and coach are satisfied with the process, then the HR specialists are normally satisfied as well – after all, they have usually suggested the coach that has been called in. And what else can they do, after all, the contents of the coaching conversations are taboo. The whole thing is paid for by the company, but does the company always benefit? This creates, unconsciously and unintentionally, what I call the silent alliance: a shifting of conflicts and problems into the private sphere. Fields of tension in the organization are personalized (“If he does not understand that, then he has a problem”), trivialized (“You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs”) or naturalized (“Organizations are just like that – you can’t do anything about it”) 

The interesting thing is that coaching obviously benefits all those involved: the coachee receives esteem and personal advantages without having to take a risk; the client delegates the task of development and performs a good deed into the bargain; and the coach receives his fee. Who would want to alter anything in this situation?

Hypothesis 3: If coaching is intended to benefit not only the individual but also the company, then the coach must understand how this company functions.

The coaching market is booming and more and more people are striving to stake a claim in this market. Coaching courses are shooting up like mushrooms and hardly a single adviser still thinks that he can get by without the label “coaching”. Career-changers from social professions, psychotherapists and supervisors are seeking their professional and financial well-being in coaching. This is natural and perfectly in order – as long as we measure the quality of coaching by the individual personality development. But if we add benefit for the company as a quality standard of at least equal priority, then from my standpoint it is vital to have some understanding of commercial enterprises. I would go even further: he must understand how this company in particular functions. But, normally, he cannot learn this from coaching one particular individual.

We have always been able to carry out coaching particularly successfully in companies that we already knew from other contexts: in accompaniment of change projects, from management trainings or team development sessions. As coaches, we had a deeper knowledge of the mechanisms of that particular organization and could thus support our clients much better. But we were also able to discover more quickly and precisely when the coaching was intended to cast a veil and a taboo on organization-internal fields of conflict.

Hypothesis 4: A good coach is not dependent on giving coaching.

This sounds paradoxical and almost self-contradictory, because, for example, a baker is dependent on baking bread. However, even after 15 years of dealing with this subject, I have not been able to discard my skepticism towards coaches who are only coaches. Coaching is similar to NLP in that it is primarily a method, and not content. The coach, however, becomes valuable to the coachee due to his knowledge and experience; if he can convey this content in a methodically sound way, then so much the better.

Young people regularly apply to us who want to do coaching, preferably exclusively. Most of them have attended one of the many training sessions in which they have been talked into believing that they have thereby acquired the tools to become a successful coach. And the disappointment is naturally great on both sides if it turns out in the interview that there is still too little usable content in the professional case. I then recommend to these people that they put their career choice of “coach” to one side for a while and ask themselves the question: “What do I have to offer that would be of real benefit to people and companies in their development?”

Hypothesis 5: Responsible coaches need clear values and positions (even on the question of whether or not coaching is the wrong method).

The greater the acceptance and spread of coaching, the more important it is for coaches to develop a clear position and inner attitude towards certain questions of values. Especially during a period in which many companies are fighting for sheer survival, coaches need clear answers to the question of what they are taking responsibility for. They need answers to the question of who they want to place at the center of their work: the individual person, the company or both. I am convinced that, above all, they need a good eye for just the type of support that this person in this company now needs. This could be coaching, but it could also be the case that this individual method is precisely the wrong way and will make organizational interaction more complicated instead of easier. It is astonishing how many coaches describe themselves as “systemic” coaches and then quite happily work exclusively with the individual. To recognize these systemic connections, to address them openly, and to recommend something better requires knowledge of the organization, experience, inner independence and the courage to do the right thing, even when it is against one's own interests.

back