Coaching for Commitment Webinar on HR.com

I finally after a week got around to listening to Cindy Coe, my fiend and colleague's webinar on HR.com entitled: Coaching for Commitment: It Will Revolutionize the Way You Think about Coaching!

Here's how it is described on the web page:

Never before has there been a program that so clearly distinguishes coaching as a singular role or a tool (CSI) that allows people to assess which role they gravitate toward (mentor, manager, instructor, coach) while measuring the “coaching gap” between performing other roles and being in the coach role. From assessing your coaching skills to learning new ways to coach and teach coaching to others the Coaching for Commitment Program is designed to help you achieve better results as a manager, a business owner, as an employee, a parent, etc. The Coaching for Commitment program includes proven techniques along with a clearly defined coaching process, model and skills. This program is unique in that it encourages you to look at coaching in its purest form. Get ready to make the shift!

This archive is available to every member - which is free to register. I highly recommend taking the time to visit the webinar. Cindy and Amy have done a great job of revamping this material and putting together a great package. The model they have designed is simple and comprehensive. I like their five competencies. They do a real short live case and work through the five competencies and how they could be applied. Brilliant.

Another Coaching Article in the Newspaper . . . blah , blah blah

Do I sound a little jaded? The Sunday Times Online used the following title in this Saturday's article: Bosses let coach take the strain -The move from sport to industry advising is now big business in Britain

No wonder I feel a little fed up with everyone getting excited about mainstream reports on coaching. This title makes it sound like coaching is a direct off-shoot of sports. The expert source for the article is Jez Cartwrigth a former sports coach and psychologist. No wonder the article makes coaching sound like a cross between athletic coaching and on-the-couch therapy. Personally, I don't think that this gives coaching a good image and is rather misleading. While Cartwright may be perfectly trained to do therapy, less trained coaches are not qualified to do so. Readers may make the mistake of hiring someone who plays amateur psychiatrist.

Andy Winterburgh,. . ., admits he was wary about letting a coach into his office, but had heard good things about Cartwright and, besides, it was his boss’s idea.

“I was both interested and wary,” said Winterburgh. “I’m quite open about training and personal development, but I found some of it quite difficult and I was quite suspicious of why he was asking all these questions about my childhood and how that related to the work I was doing.”

. . .

“It was quite hard-hitting,” said Winterburgh, explaining that Cartwright had unearthed a particularly telling childhood memory that had influenced not only his own self-image, but the way he had interacted with people ever since.

Forget the money he's charging: "Cartwright’s programme of eight one-and-a-half-hour sessions will set you back £6,000. " I will give him credit. Either he is the greatest thing since sliced bread or the greatest salesman!

"Coaching might have a significant and important influence on the results achieved by companies, but there is virtually no hard evidence to prove it."

Last October, I wrote about the connection between corporate coaching and return on investment. Recently Gary Platt posted an excellent article on the British site of The Training Zone entitled: Coaching: A Faster Way to Lose Money Than Burning It. Not only is the article well written but the ten comments to date are well presented as well.

n the 2005 CIPD report it states; 'Coaching isn't a cheap option. There are significant costs involved in implementing coaching initiatives - so what might be the best way forward for coaches and host organisations to ensure that the former is behaving ethically and the latter is spending its money sensibly? I propose asking two very simple questions which either party could pose at the early stages of proposing and contracting and I suggest that these issues are recorded in any agreement between the parties.

"Like virtually every other form of HR development in the UK the predominant approach to assessing effectiveness (of coaching) is anecdote, opinion and, as the CIPD defines it, 'beliefs'."

The first question is why? Why do you want to introduce coaching? What is the intention and purpose? . . .

The second question is how: how will success be measured? How will progress be tracked during and after the introduction of coaching? The answers to the first question will provide the focus of this, but it is important to set formal methods for assessing movement towards the targets outlined.

Thank you Gary!