Room at the Top: Position Yourself for a Move to Management

Companies are struggling to find management talent—which means opportunity to rise

November 23, 2012 

By BETH HOWARD

It took over a year for Watchfire Signs, a maker of digital billboards in Danville, Ill., to fill a VP of sales position and nine months to nab a director of marketing. "Finding the right people is much more difficult than you would expect in this economy," says Randy Berg, the company's vice president for human resources.

Even as the unemployment rate hovers well above 8 percent, many experts report a growing gap in one key sector of workers—business's top ranks. "It's totally counter-intuitive," says business consultant David DeLong, coauthor of The Executive Guide to High-Impact Talent Management. "There is an increasingly critical shortage of executives qualified to lead complex, growing organizations."

Some 25 percent of the 330 human resources pros polled in a new survey by Deloitte Consulting say that a shortage of qualified talent is their foremost concern. And while almost half of the nearly 1,300 respondents to Price Waterhouse Cooper's 2012 CEO survey said they were confident about the prospects for growth, only 30 percent believed they had the talent on board to lead it. "The challenge of finding the right people is our No. 1 inhibitor of growth," says Tony DiBenedetto, chairman and CEO of Tribridge, a Tampa-based IT services and business consulting firm.

The shortage is partly a function of demographics. As baby boomers on the top rungs retire, there are not enough generation Xers (born from 1965 to 1980) to take their place. "That group is 30 million people smaller than the generation ahead of them," says DeLong. According to one study, he says, candidates in the age bracket that normally fills leadership roles are expected to drop 30 percent by 2015.

At the same time, the leadership pipelines in many organizations today are producing barely a trickle. "The need for succession planning caught companies by surprise," says Brian McGowan, executive vice president and managing director in Atlanta of the Chicago-based executive search firm DHR International. "Now there is a void as the senior level professionals age out."

Many executive recruiters and coaches see the trend as a boon for managers looking to move up the ladder. "The market for top talent is only going to get hotter," says Delong. How can you position yourself for an upward move?

Groom yourself to lead. "The biggest mistake I witness regarding promotions is that high-potential candidates wait for job openings, then apply for the position and start prepping for it," says Sarah Hathorn, CEO and founder of Illustra Consulting in Atlanta, which provides executive coaching and leadership development expertise to companies.

Slimmed-down, budget-minded employers can't afford to put people in high-powered positions and train them, Hathorn says. They expect "little or no learning curve when it comes to such things as your executive presence, your ability to build high-performance teams, and your knack for identifying talent in the raw and developing it."

That doesn't sound like you just yet? A career coach can help you identify your strengths and weaknesses, and how to develop your leadership creds and buff your image. Another idea gaining traction: Seek out executives you admire and ask them how they got there, job by job. This "backward career mapping" can allow you to better chart a course for your own rise.

If you work for a large company, it can be useful to talk with someone in succession planning, often a role of human resources. "Tell them you are interested in becoming an executive and would like feedback on things you need to be learning to reach that goal," advises Mary Key, head of Key Associates, Inc., a leadership development consulting firm in Tampa.

Then start acting like the leader you want to be. Volunteer to head up a task force or project. "Management is always happy with someone who says, 'I want more,' " says Connie Thanasoulis-Cerrachio, cofounder of SixFigureStart, an executive coaching firm in New York City.

The strategy worked for Jordan Brannon, until recently a sales rep at Coalition Technologies, a Web design and marketing agency in Los Angeles. In addition to developing new markets and consulting on products and services, Brannon saw a need for a set of standards that would help the sales team—for re-designing sales proposals, rewriting agreements, and documenting the sales process. He went to work creating them. After a few months watching Brannon's above-and-beyond performance, recalls the company founder and CEO Joel Gross, he realized he had found the executive to head up sales.

If you don't see ways to hone your executive chops on the job, look for opportunities off the clock. "We like employees who show initiative by taking leadership positions in organizations like the United Way or Boys' and Girls' clubs or through public speaking," says DiBenedetto.

Get training. Take advantage of leadership development seminars and workshops, including any training offered by your company. Tribridge launched Tribridge Academy two years ago to nurture leaders from within. It's worthwhile to work toward additional certifications and perhaps to get an MBA or other advanced professional degree. "The validation can make all the difference," says John Challenger, CEO of the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas.

Having a few initials after your name could also provide better job security. In 2009, when joblessness peaked, the unemployment rate for workers with a master's degree was just 4 percent, compared to 5.5 percent among those with bachelor's degrees (and 9.8 percent among those with some college but no degree).

Zigzag your way upward. People used to reach the top by working in one company, says Challenger, but today they do so "by deftly moving from company to company."

The secret is to be "deeply engaged in their networks in their field." He advises staying involved in professional and alumni organizations, and joining the programs committee at your firm to bring in experts who can speak on cutting-edge topics in your industry. You'll have a way to make unforced connections with industry influencers while expanding your network exponentially. McGowan advises using LinkedIn groups to pose questions and start a discussion.

Angela Raub's 20-year career is a testament to the power of zigzagging. "I call myself a professional mutt," quips Raub, now vice president of business development for Hotel Equities, Inc. in Atlanta. She's made mostly lateral and diagonally upward moves, from director of business development and client relations in telecommunications to director of corporate relations in higher education to vice president of business development in the hospitality industry.

The career tactic paid off when Raub was laid off from a position heading corporate relations at a business school in 2009. She aggressively tapped into her connections and landed three primo job offers in just three months—two as directors and one as vice president of business development at a non-profit.

The strategy also works within organizations. The model of linear, vertical promotions that take you up like an elevator is fading. To advance, executive-worthy employees need to develop an understanding of the whole company by working in different departments. "You can't be siloed in one area," DiBenedetto says.

Find a mentor. Seeking out a mentor, inside or outside of your company, is more important than ever, experts say. Having one "is a huge competitive advantage," says Thanasoulis-Cerrachio. "It gives you a perspective you wouldn't ordinarily have."

Mentors may also make you privy to otherwise private information, such as an upcoming job vacancy or new initiative where you can make a mark. And the higher your mentor is, the better. A 2010 study from Catalyst, a nonprofit dedicated to helping women advance in business, showed that men and women with senior-level mentors advanced further and earned more than those with less senior mentors.

Suzanne Garber first learned of a highly appealing job as chief operating officer for the Philadelphia-based Americas Region of International SOS Assistance, a provider of medical assistance and security services, from her longtime mentor. A senior vice president at the company where Garber worked as a manager, he heard about the position from an executive recruiter; it dovetailed with her passions for helping people and international travel. "My mentor received the fax for the job while I was sitting in his office, and he passed it over to me even though he knew it would mean my leaving the company," Garber says. He then provided a reference that helped seal the deal.

A Coaching Plan for Obama’s Second Term

Scott Eblin offers his take on lessons in the news and his advice on your pressing leadership questions. 

This post is based on a presumptuous and preposterous premise which is that I’d have the opportunity to coach the President of the United States. One of the occupational hazards of being an executive coach is that I have this habit of thinking about leaders in the public eye and asking myself, “How would I coach that person?” Naturally, in the wake of his re-election, my attention has landed on President Obama. If Mitt Romney had won, I’d most likely be thinking about how I’d coach him. Game planning how I’d coach the President is a harmless little exercise that gets my brain going and has no actual impact on national security. 

In the hope that some of my thoughts might be useful to leaders who aren’t charged with leading the free world but are facing some significant new challenges nonetheless, here are some questions and frameworks I’d share with the President to help put together a coaching plan: 

Two of my favorite question sets to ask at the beginning of a coaching engagement are: 

1. What are you trying to accomplish? If you were wildly successful, what would things look like at the end? What would be people be knowing, doing, believing, thinking or feeling that they aren’t today? 

My goal with these kinds of questions is to help the client paint the fullest picture possible of their desired future state. These are the results that we’ll want to align the coaching against. That sets us up for the second question set which is: 

2. So, how do you need to show up to make those outcomes likely? What are the main points you need to make? How do you need to make them in terms of your energy level, your tone of voice, your body language and other non-verbal factors? Who are the main people you need to partner with? Who has to be convinced? How does your approach change from person to person or group to group? 

The point of questions like these is to get the client past the script to the way the script is delivered. As we talk, I look for patterns and themes in my client’s responses that we can work with and build on. I’m also listening for what’s not said and point out to the client what I’m not hearing and asking if those things might be important as well. 

All of that conversation generates a lot of data. It’s usually too much to act on all at once so we need to use some frameworks to help structure the thinking and sequence the action that results from it. In the case of the President, I’d probably use the model of resonant (they establish connection) and dissonant (if overused, they create disconnection) leadership styles outlined by Dan Goleman and his colleagues in numerous articles on emotional intelligence and in his book Primal Leadership. 

With a bit of paraphrasing, here’s a quick look at the model and how I’d use it in coaching the President. 

First, there are four Resonant leadership styles: 

Visionary: This style turns on painting a compelling picture of the future and making it clear to people how they can participate in it. One of the criticisms of the President in his campaign is he didn’t say what he wanted to do with the next four years. This is a style that he’ll probably want to use very soon as he sets the agenda for his second term. 

Democratic: This is democratic with a small d, not a large D. It’s the style of soliciting input before decisions are made while reserving the right as the leader to make the decision yourself. By a lot of accounts, President Obama is skilled in this approach (seeMark Bowden’s reporting in Vanity Fair on the bin Laden raid for an example). On the other hand, it might be an overused strength for him. As I wrote here back in 2009, in the stimulus and health care debates, Obama seemed to turn over too much of the decision making to Congress. This is a style that he’ll probably want to dial back in a second term. 

Coaching: Part of this style involves motivating the team. As I wrote in a post on how to give a pep talk, Obama can be great at this. This style also involves developing people. Obama has shown he can put a great team together (and in this talk with his campaign staff on November 7 explains why that matters to him) but the President of the United States doesn’t have a lot of extra time for coaching people to higher levels of performance. He should hire the very best people available, point them in the right direction and make sure he’s getting the results he expects. 

Affiliative: This style is about establishing personal connection with people to build the relationships that make results possible. At the beginning of his first term, Obama had football parties at the White House for members of Congress but stopped doing things like that pretty early on. He’s taken some criticism for the number of rounds of golf he’s played by himself or with just a few close friends. The reporting suggests he doesn’t spend much time schmoozing foreign leaders. Everyone needs some alone time. The President could probably benefit, though, by using his personal charm and the trappings of his office to practice a more affiliative style with the people he needs to help get things done. 

There are two dissonant styles that have their uses, but if overused can create disconnection with people: 

1. Commanding: So, obviously, the President is the Commander in Chief. He’s the guy who’s ultimately going to make the final call on tough decisions. Obama used this style in his first term and will have to use it again in his second. I would encourage him to use more of it with the Democratic leaders in Congress as he promotes his second term agenda. At the same time, as the great Richard Neustadt wrote in Presidential Power, the greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade. To make his commands stick when the balance of power is in play, the President will also have to rely on some of the styles like visionary, democratic and affiliative leadership. 

2. Pacesetting: This final style is about setting deadlines and holding the team accountable for meeting them. A leader can use this to his or her advantage. For instance, it will be interesting to see how Obama leverages the deadline associated with the upcoming fiscal cliff. If pacesetting is the only style a leader relies on, people either burn out or quit paying attention. 

The research shows that effective leaders are adept at mixing and matching at least three of the six styles to accomplish their goals. Effectively mixing four is better than three, five is better than four and six is better than five. What I love about this model is it’s pretty easy to identify specific, tangible behaviors for each style. If leaders are clear about the mix of styles they need and why they need it, they are usually able to groove some behaviors that support those styles. 

Given the challenges he faces and who he has to work with, I would think the most important styles for Obama to draw on would be visionary, affiliative, democratic and commanding. If he was my client and we agreed that was the mix, my job would be to help him identify behaviors that align with those styles that are relatively easy to do on a repeatable basis and likely to make a difference. 

OK, if you’ve made it this far in this post, you are a true leadership coaching wonk. Thanks for reading!

Executive coach Scott Eblin’s goal is to help you succeed at the next level of leadership. Throughout the week, he’ll offer his take on the leadership lessons in the news and his advice on your most pressing leadership questions. A former government executive, Scott is a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and is the author of The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success.

Coaching Vs. Mentoring: a Common Confusion, Explained.

Post by Anirban Bhattacharya

8th November 2012

I often hear this - "Mentoring helped me deliver on my goals at 110% last year..." Or: "My coach helped me understand the value of developing a well-rounded personality..."

While the mentor or the coach in question may very well have done these, and helped the coachee/mentee achieve all that he/she wanted/needed to, these statements can be a tad confusing. And often, when working with corporate sponsors, we are asked to help "mentor" a "coachee", an arrangement that is a tad conflicting at basic levels.

So, what is Mentoring, and how is it different from what we do - Coaching? The difference, at one level, is quite simple - something like the difference between a benevolent uncle and a math tutor. Both may have the ward's (sorry for the archaic term) mathematics prowess in mind, but while the former is likely to be focused on the child's overall development and progress in life, the latter is expected to have a more specific goal-focus - to make the child do well in the next term exam...

Let me put it in another way. Mentoring is often delivered by someone who is an expert in the field and who offers advice, often, but necessarily, on a larger context. Coaching, on the other hand, avoids any advice and instead encourages independent thinking through questioning, with a specific goal in mind.

So, if coaching is more Pep Guardiola, mentoring is Shifu.

Or if mentoring is Robin Williams in 'Good Will Hunting', coaching is Denzil Washington in 'Training Day'... kapish?

Let me switch the above simple example. If the same child went to a teacher, who was mentoring him, and asked for the best way to deliver a lesson; the mentor would give some ideas and suggestions. If the same question was asked of a coach, the coach would ask a series of questions to get him to try and solve the issue himself. Not general guiding principles, but specific plans, steps, tools, inputs, to deliver on specific goals...

If one needs to see the differences in greater detail, there would be about five key aspects where the two processes differ.

1. Coaching is task oriented. Mentoring is relationship oriented. 

Coaching focus is on concrete issues, such as managing more effectively, speaking more articulately, and learning how to think strategically. 

Mentoring, on the other hand, seeks to provide a safe environment where the mentee shares whatever issues affect his or her professional and personal success. Although specific learning goals or competencies may be used as a basis for creating the relationship, mentoring's focus can go beyond to include things, such as work/life balance, self-confidence, self-perception, and how the personal influences the professional.

2. Coaching is short term. Mentoring is always long term. 

A coach can successfully be involved with a coachee for a shorter period of time, as long as is needed, depending on the purpose of the coaching relationship. Coaching relationships, therefore, are more concrete, clearly contracted, with predefined outcomes. In our practice, an average coaching assignment lasts 4-6 months, extended based on need.

For mentoring to work, the process requires time to go deeper and look at issues and challenges beyond specific problems. Relationship building, while important in coaching, is far more critical in mentoring, and the relationship covers much more than identified performance-related issues. Successful mentoring relationships last nine months to a year.

3. Coaching is performance driven. Mentoring is development driven.

The purpose of coaching is to improve the individual's performance on the job. This involves either enhancing current skills or acquiring new skills. Once the coachee successfully acquires the skills, the coaching agreement should cease, and may get renewed to cover other specific needs.

Mentoring looks to develop the individual not only for the current job, but also overall, with an eye on life in general and the future. 

This is the most important distinction, and also differentiates the role of the mentee's immediate manager and that of the mentor, thereby avoiding conflicts.

4. Coaching does not require design. Mentoring requires a design phase

This is somewhat of an artificial distinction, but can be true in cases. In some cases, based on the mandate, coaching can be conducted almost immediately on any given topic. In most cases, an amount of design is involved in order to determine the competency area, expertise needed, and assessment tools used, but this does not necessarily require a long lead-time to actually implement the coaching program. However, in our practice, most coaching assignments have lead-times to build on trust, comfort and credibility, as well as get necessary information from managers, peers, partners and other key relationships.

In mentoring, in order to determine the strategic purpose of the intervention, the design phase is critical, to build on of the relationship, the specific mentoring models, and the specific components that will guide the relationship, especially the matching process. 

5. The coachee's immediate manager is a critical partner in coaching. In mentoring, the immediate manager is indirectly involved. 

The sponsor in the coaching assignment is required to provide the coach with feedback on areas in which his or her employee is in need of coaching. This coach uses this information to guide the coaching process. This can be structured feedback, or general inputs.

Although she or he may offer suggestions to the employee on how to best use the mentoring experience or may provide a recommendation to on what would constitute a good match for the mentee, the manager has no direct link to the mentor and they do not communicate at all during the mentoring relationship. This helps maintain the mentoring relationship's integrity.

So, at the end, mentoring is more focused on general and overall development of an employee. Coaching, or, as in our case, Executive Coaching, is more specific and time-bound, with clearly set objectives and goals, with greater measurability of results.

Sources: Inputs from Management Mentors (www.management-mentors.com) and other sources.

'Executive coaching strengthens leadership pipeline'

May 1, 2012

"Executive Coaching helps successful leaders to become more successful. It is viewed as something special for 'High Potential Leaders' to do better in future and improve their retention rate", explained Dr. PV Bhide, President-Corporate HR, JK Organization during an interview with TJinsite, research and knowledge arm of TimesJobs.com. According to him, the Coaching Industry is growing exponentially in India and is estimated to grow from present Rs. 200 Crore per annum to Rs. 800 Crore per annum by 2014.

Perry Zeus and Dr. Skiffington (of the Behavioral Coaching Institute) defined executive coaching as a time bound dialogue between coach and coachee within a productive and result oriented context. In their view, it is about change and transformation that the coachee aspires, which emanates from asking the right questions rather than providing the right answers.

Rajendra Ghag, Executive Vice President, HR & Admin of HDFC Life christened executive coaching as 'Gold Mining Mentality'. It is brought into play to unleash the true potential of senior leaders and improve their performance by asking relevant questions. "We hire coaches, who are seasoned professionals from the industry. An ex-chairman of a big company is brought to train senior leaders of our organisation and reduce interference in their work", he added.

Earlier, executives were reluctant to be coached, but now it is viewed by candidates as a sign of being on an accelerated career growth path. Underlining the challenges of the executive coaching industry in India, Dr Bhide articulated, "There is a need for impetus in propelling research to identify what practices would be more effective from Indian coachees' point of view. As most 'Global Coaching Certifications' teach western coaching models and methodologies.

During one of the Skills Dialogue session, a series of high powered panel discussions organised by TimesJobs.com, industry experts pointed that there is absence of experienced coaches, who have finer business wisdom as compared to what theoretical coaching model based methodologies provide. And, on the demand side there is a need to sensitize CXOs and HR heads to focus on improvement, change, and outcomes rather than merely a feel-good factor.

Suggesting the way forward, Dr. Bhide advised organisations to identify specific domains that can be benefited most through executive coaching and create a culture of coaching by nurturing internal leaders and managers to become coaches.

Together, experts expressed the want to bring in more structure into this emerging industry to help define the engagement models and professional approach that this function requires in the Indian context.

Coaching is hot. Is it right for you?

Once seen as the last step for an executive about to fall off the ladder, leadership coaches now help smooth a promotion, teach outsiders about their new culture, and tune up talent.

By Vickie Elmer, contributor

August 29, 2011

FORTUNE -- When Ryan Harris, 44, started working with an executive coach two years ago, he knew he needed to delegate more work and act more like a strategist. The top human resources exec at a New York City-based health company saw his challenges as "managing up and managing sideways." So, on his own initiative, he began meeting with his coach, Nancy Mercurio, about once a month. Since then, Harris says, he has learned to focus on results and approach more experienced executives with confidence. "He's become a more effective leader who holds people accountable," says Mercurio. So much so that he's sold his boss, the CEO, on offering company-paid coaching to other senior executives. 

Once seen as a last-chance effort to turn around flagging careers, coaches for top talent are going mainstream. They're being brought in for newly hired senior executives, as well as for newly promoted department heads who suddenly must manage many more people. "Leadership coaching is the hottest thing these days," says Kate Wendleton, president of the Five O'Clock Club, which has turned some of its outplacement and career coaches into executive coaches because demand has been so strong. 

According to a July 2011 American Management Association survey, almost half of participating companies use coaching to prepare individuals for a promotion or new role. While half of companies provide coaches to midlevel or senior staff only, 38% make them available to anyone. Coaching's three most common uses, according to the AMA survey: leadership development, remedial performance improvement, and optimizing strong contributors. "A coach is like a personal trainer for business," says Erika Andersen, author of Being Strategic and coach to many media executives.

Most coaches meet with executives in person or by phone, either every other week or once a month for about a year, though they increasingly are available for emergency consults. At WellPoint (WLP), the $58-billion-in-revenue health insurance giant, about one-fourth of the senior leadership works with coaches, says Judy Wade, executive talent director. Typically Wade recommends a few, and then the individual chooses the best match. Hiring a coach "is an investment in people who we see as very solid performers," says Wade, who is taking coaching classes herself.

It's okay to ask for a coach rather than wait for someone to offer you one. But if you want your company to pay -- at $200 or more per hour -- you should make a business case just as you would with any other budget item, Andersen suggests.

Does coaching actually work? For all its popularity, companies are still struggling with how to measure its effectiveness. Some use 360-degree-feedback before and after sessions to look for changes in behavior or relationships. Others rely on evaluations from both the subject and his boss. 

The biggest mistake, says Charles Feltman, a leadership coach in San Luis Obispo, Calif., is expecting immediate results. Another huge error: not taking the experience seriously or cutting short or skipping coaching appointments.

Another challenge is making sure that you have the right match. One-fourth of respondents in a 2009 AMA-Institute for Corporate Productivity research survey say they have terminated a coaching relationship. Indeed, Ryan Harris's first coach was a bust, in part because their backgrounds and perspectives were too similar.

Mercurio, however, has proved invaluable. Now when he's in executive staff meetings, Harris is willing to lay out the drawbacks to an idea, even when he knows his CEO favors it. He's restructured his department and set performance standards and timetables; when one person couldn't meet them, he terminated the employee -- something he would have delayed in the past. "[Mercurio] has helped my career by leaps and bounds," he says. "I'm certainly more effective as an executive."

From the ICF blog: Code of Ethics

One of the reasons why the ICF model and approach creates a feeling of safety and trust with clients and coachees alike, is that everything disclosed is Confidential. This Code of Ethics is critical to build trust and rapport, and allow for honest and constructive conversations.

Code of Ethics & Confidentiality: Is it obvious what is right?

Posted on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 by International Coach Federation 

Most likely all of us think of ourselves as ethical. Then why might we look at someone else following the same rules and say they are unethical or walking the line of ethical? Because it may be we interpret and understand the same rule differently. Or as President Clinton once said, “It depends on what the definition of is, is.” 

Confidentiality is fundamental to coaching. If our clients thought we revealed their concerns, insecurities, and most private thoughts, it is unlikely they would engage in an authentic coaching process in the first place. But let’s examine what we mean by confidentiality. Let’s say I am coaching Sally Dooright, the VP of Operations at Troubled Corporation. Most of us would agree (I think) that when I promise her confidentiality it means I won’t discuss with anyone what the two of us share and mention her by name. 

However, would you say that sharing the conversation is acceptable in a session with my mentor coach? What if I don’t mention her name, but describe enough about the situation that it would be possible to figure out who she is even if I believe my mentor coach wouldn’t be motivated to do so? Or fast forward to 2 years later, I have done such a good job for Sally and have coached 20 executives at Troubled Corporation. The VP of HR at Troubled Corporation asks for my thoughts on the trends I am seeing among the 20 clients I coached. 

Do I share trends knowing that I am revealing some of the themes of private conversations among 20 people? Or how about if HR asks that I run a retreat session and use my understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the 10-member VP team (of whom I have coached 5) to build an agenda for the retreat. By implication am I revealing the weaknesses of the VP group – information I gathered in my confidential conversations….? Finally, what if after coaching Sally I meet the CEO of Troubled Corporation and he says, “Wow that Sally is a real go-getter, I would consider her for the President role next year – what do you think?” Is it ethical to advocate for my client or to affirm the positive perceptions of my client with the CEO without going into detail on any discussions I had with my client? 

We, as members of the ICF community hope to build an organization of coaches who are ethical and to ensure that the profession of coaching maintains an ethical reputation so as not to risk losing our client base and the ability to serve. 

My intention here is provoke our thinking about ethics. It isn’t enough to read the code of ethics and feel comfortable you walk the ethical line. I believe ethics require a process of continual definition. Ethic statements and rules need to be lived and challenged in the real world to subject them to on-going ground-truthing. As our experiences broaden and as our world provides new circumstances for interpretation we need to continue to communicate with each other about the meaning behind the words. Sandi Stewart, PCC 

The ICF Code of Ethics 

Applicable Code Sections: 

Section 3: Professional Conduct with Clients:

16) I will carefully explain and strive to ensure that, prior to or at the initial meeting, my coaching client and sponsor(s) understand the nature of coaching, the nature and limits of confidentiality, financial arrangements, and any other terms of the coaching agreement or contract. 

Section 4: Confidentiality/Privacy As a coach: 

22) I will maintain the strictest levels of confidentiality with all client and sponsor information. I will have a clear agreement or contract before releasing information to another person, unless required by law. 

23) I will have a clear agreement upon how coaching information will be exchanged among coach, client, and sponsor. 

25) I will have associated coaches and other persons whom I manage in service of my clients and their sponsors in a paid or volunteer capacity make clear agreements or contracts to adhere to the ICF Code of Ethics Part 2, Section 4: Confidentiality/Privacy standards and the entire ICF Code of Ethics to the extent applicable.

Can coaching kick-start your career?

By Susanne Gargiulo, for CNN

November 2, 2012 -- Updated 1249 GMT (2049 HKT)

(CNN) -- Bill Clinton had a coach, Oprah Winfrey used one to help her get to the top of her career and, of course, top sports stars have them. 

But the chances are you might have one, too, as according to a recent study by the Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM), coaches in the office are becoming almost common place. 

In the survey of 250 UK companies, 80% said they were using or had used coaching, and another 9% were planning to do so. 

"We were surprised that it was so widespread," says David Pardey, of ILM, "particularly because we did the survey in the middle of a recession." 

A 2009 study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development confirmed that even during the economic downturn coaching remained buoyant; 7 out 10 companies surveyed reported increasing or maintaining their commitment to coaching. 

Even the best need some advice now and then

According to Pardey, coaching is a tool that enables people to perform to their full capability. "It's the difference between knowing how to do something and actually doing it in practice," he says. "So from an organizational point of view it can maximize your potential and take you from average to excellent. If everyone in the company were performing as the best person, the difference would be extraordinary." 

For individuals like David Fitzgerald, executive vice president and partner at CB Richard Ellis New England, coaching elevates his game. "I like to win, and coaching helps me to win even more," he says. 

Coaching has been finding favor among companies for over a decade, according to Ginger Jenks, an executive coach, founder and president of Magellan Enterprises in Colorado. "Five years ago, coaching was in about 75 countries, now it is in about 110," says Jenks who is certified with the International Coach Federation, where she has also served on the board. Jenks believes that coaching is going where music and sports have always been. 

"If you want to get to the top, you need a coach. In the past, I was a leader's secret weapon. Now, a coach is accepted as a must-have for people in the top of their field," says Jenks. 

The reason for its growing popularity could be its win-win effect. The ILM study found that 95% of companies who used coaching said it has benefited the individual as well as the organization. 

There are a couple of hitches, however. One is assuring that a coach is fully qualified and a current lack of standardization means anyone can call themselves a coach. The second is cost. Coaching is not inexpensive, but that is a fact experts believe is pushing another growing trend in the industry; companies training and keeping their own coaches on staff. 

"This is where we are seeing the real growth happening in terms of business coaching," says Suzanna Prout, managing director of Xenonex Limited, an executive coaching and leadership development company. 

Pardey agrees: "If you train people, it will pay off year after year, and then you have people working continuously to help others perform better. It will be a significant feature of successful organizations." 

George Trow
of Doncaster College

That is what happened at Doncaster College in the UK, where principal and CEO George Trow, says coaching and management development has transformed the school from a poorly functioning one to a success story. "When I came here, the college had had seven principals in five years," says Trow, adding that both the student and financial performance of the school were inadequate. 

To turn things around, Trow put 70 managers through a coaching program and trained ten internal managers as coaches. He wanted to install a coaching culture and this made the program financially sustainable. 

Almost three years after the introduction of the coaching program, Trow says the student success rate has increased dramatically and the school is in a healthy financial state. 

"What has happened is that we are seeing a more effective performance from people, better conflict resolution, better communication, and we have been able to deal with a lot of thorny issues that had been parked for a while," he says. 

According to Prout, what coaching does is help show "an organization's blind spots." "It is about having that discipline to be asking yourself the tough, challenging and open questions that people often have a tough time asking themselves," she says.

HBR: What an Executive Coach Can Do for You

An interesting (and slightly dated) article...

6/13/2005 

Do you need an executive coach? Do your managers? Here is a useful framework for thinking about the role of coaching

from Harvard Management Update. 

by Paul Michelman

Is executive coaching at U.S. companies destined to play a role occupied by psychoanalysis in some Neil Simon version of Hollywood: a virtual prerequisite for anyone who aspires to be anyone? 

It might seem that way at some organizations, at least to the untrained eye. IBM has more than sixty certified coaches among its ranks. Scores of other major companies have made coaching a core part of executive development. The belief is that, under the right circumstances, one-on-one interaction with an objective third party can provide a focus that other forms of organizational support simply cannot. 

And whereas coaching was once viewed by many as a tool to help correct underperformance, today it is becoming much more widely used in supporting top producers. In fact, in a 2004 survey by Right Management Consultants (Philadelphia), 86 percent of companies said they used coaching to sharpen the skills of individuals who have been identified as future organizational leaders. 

"Coaching has evolved into the mainstream fast," says Michael Goldberg, president of Building Blocks Consulting (Manalapan, New Jersey), whose clients include New York Life and MetLife. "This is because there is a great demand in the workplace for immediate results, and coaching can help provide that." How? By providing feedback and guidance in real time, says Brian Underhill, a senior consultant at the Alliance for Strategic Leadership (Morgan Hill, California). "Coaching develops leaders in the context of their current jobs, without removing them from their day-to-day responsibilities." 

At an even more basic level, many executives simply benefit from receiving any feedback at all. "As individuals advance to the executive level, development feedback becomes increasingly important, more infrequent, and more unreliable," notes Anna Maravelas, a St. Paul, Minnesota-based executive coach and founder of TheraRising. As a result, she says, "Many executives plateau in critical interpersonal and leadership skills." 

So, should you have a coach? And which managers in your sphere of responsibility might benefit from working with an outsider to help sharpen skills and overcome hurdles to better performance? 

The right approach to answering these questions still varies a great deal depending on whom you ask, but input from several dozen coaches, and executives who have undergone coaching, does provide a useful framework for how to think about the role of coaching. 

The road to coaching runs two ways 

Although both the organization and the executive must be committed to coaching for it to be successful, the idea to engage a coach can originate from either HR and leadership development professionals or from executives themselves. In the past, it has more often sprung from the organizational side. But given the growing track record of coaching as a tool for fast movers, "We see more executives choosing coaching as a proactive component of their professional life," says Cheryl Leitschuh, a leadership development consultant with RSM McGladrey (Bloomington, Minnesota). 

Executive coaching is not an end in itself 

In spite of its apparently robust potential, the very act of taking on a coach will not help advance your career. In other words, don't seek coaching just because other fast movers in the firm seem to be benefiting from it. 

Coaching is effective for executives who can say, "I want to get over there, but I'm not sure how to do it," says James Hunt, an associate professor of management at Babson College and coauthor of The Coaching Manager (Sage Publications, 2002). "Coaching works best when you know what you want to get done." Perhaps, in spite of your outstanding track record, you haven't yet gained the full interpersonal dexterity required of senior managers—for example, you're not yet a black belt in the art of influence, which is so important in the modern networked organization. Honing such a skill might be an appropriate goal for a coaching assignment. 

But simply having a clear purpose won't guarantee coaching value, says Michael Goldberg. "You have to be open to feedback and willing to create positive change. If not, coaching may not be the answer." 

There are certain times when executives are most likely to benefit from coaching. Executives should seek coaching "when they feel that a change in behavior—either for themselves or their team members—can make a significant difference in the long-term success of the organization," says Marshall Goldsmith, a high-profile executive coach and author of eighteen books, including The Leader of the Future (Jossey-Bass, 1996). 

More specifically, the experts say, coaching can be particularly effective in times of change for an executive. That includes promotions, stretch assignments, and other new challenges. While you may be confident in your abilities to take on new tasks, you may feel that an independent sounding board would be beneficial in helping you achieve a new level of performance, especially if close confidants are now reporting to you. More so, you may recognize that succeeding in a new role requires skills that you have not needed to rely on in the past; a coach may help sharpen those skills, particularly when you need to do so on the fly. 

But coaching is not just for tackling new assignments. It can also play an invigorating role. Coaches can help executives "develop new ways to attack old problems," says Vicky Gordon, CEO of the Gordon Group coaching practice in Chicago. "When efforts to change yourself, your team, or your company have failed—you are frustrated or burned out—a coach can be the outside expert to help you get to the root cause and make fundamental changes." 

One increasingly common use of coaching for senior executives focuses on the challenges of managing younger workers, and on helping executives better understand and lead a new generation of employees whose work ethics and values are different, says Stephen Fairley, president of Chicago-based Today's Leadership Coaching and coauthor of Getting Started in Personal and Executive Coaching (Wiley, 2003). 

Coaching engagements should be part of a larger initiative 

"Coaching works when it's systematic," says Babson's Hunt, and many organizations use coaching as an integrated part of a larger leadership development program. Increasingly, firms incorporate "360-degree" feedback, using the results to indicate areas in which an executive might benefit from working with a coach. Has your feedback revealed an area in which you would like to improve? Is it a skill you need to refine in order to advance through the organization? Would you benefit from an outside perspective? The answers to these questions help gauge the potential value of coaching. 

Coaching can provide benefits not available elsewhere 

"One of the big benefits of a coach is that they aren't tied to the organization, your friends, or anyone else," says Washington, D.C.-based executive coach Linda Finkle. "They are tied to you only, so they support what you want and where you want to go. 

"Even our families, who want the best for us, can't be unbiased or totally objective. What you do or do not do impacts them, whether it's positive or negative. A coach is not impacted by your decisions, your wins or losses, or anything else." 

As Finkle notes, this doesn't mean that company goals aren't supported by coaching—indeed, the coach was most likely hired by the company to support the executive's efforts to achieve those goals. Even so, the role of the coach is not to represent specific company needs or interests. "The perspectives they provide, the alternatives discussed, and everything else has no agenda except to support the coachee," she says. 

For better or worse, many executives can't find this type of conversation partner—what Harvard Business School professor Thomas DeLong calls a "truth speaker"—elsewhere in their companies. 

Reprinted by permission from "Methodology: Do You Need an Executive Coach?" Harvard Management Update, Vol. 9, No. 12, December 2004. Paul Michelman is the editor of Harvard Management Update. 

Are There Organizational Risks to Coaching? by Paul Michelman

Ideally coaching is a three-way partnership between the executive, the coach, and the organization, in which all involved agree on specific goals and parameters. Even so, no one can really control coaching's outcomes. 

So should companies worry that the coaching experience will reveal to valued executives a motivation that leads them astray from the intended organization path—or away from the firm altogether? 

Here's one way to look at it. If an experience—through coaching or anything else—reveals an interest that leads an executive away from the firm, everyone stands to gain. The executive finds a better fit and, ideally, a space in the firm becomes available to someone who is motivated by the challenges at hand. It's much the same thinking that companies have gone through regarding leadership-development programs at large. The occasional departure of a manager in whom the firm has invested a great deal is offset many times over by the increased value of those who remain. 

Reprinted by permission from "Methodology: Do You Need an Executive Coach?" Harvard Management Update, Vol. 9, No. 12, December 2004.