Do we really know what we’re trying to achieve? An investigation into the real content of coaching conversations

Abstract

Purpose The paper aims to explore a divergence between organizational expectations of coaching and what actually happens. Coaching is assumed to start and end with goals and/or objectives that are intended to contribute to organizational performance. Exploring the main topics of coaching conversations and the way in which topics change within individual interventions, this paper questions the assumptions behind the commissioning, contracting and assessment of coaching interventions. Design/methodology/approach An initial stage explored coaches’ own descriptions of the content of coaching sessions at different points of a coaching intervention. A thematic analysis produced a taxonomy of 40 sample topics. This taxonomy was then presented to a wider coach population to explore shifts from topic to topic on a case-by-case basis. These shifts are illustrated with alluvial diagrams and principal patterns are discussed from a pragmatic interpretive perspective. Findings The coaching conversations studied tended to focus initially on organizationally sanctioned “competencies,” migrating to more personal development issues, in particular topics that relate to the coaching client’s sense of self and identity. It is suggested that contracting for such emergent outcomes may be beneficial to both organizations and practitioners. Practical implications The findings pose fundamental questions about the extent of organizational control exercised and the implications of coaching supporting identity work in leaders. Originality/value The topics addressed in real coaching interventions and how they develop through the relationship have not previously been studied empirically. The findings represent a significant shift towards an evidence-based understanding of the process.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.