Professor Tatiana Bachkirova

Organisational coaching is not the only field that has recently been challenged by the extraordinary developments in artificial intelligence (AI) with a threat of replacement of human practitioners by machines. The challenges of this field, however, are unique because the nature of coaching remains fairly elusive, making comparison between human coaching and AI coaching a complicated exercise. In this paper we conceptualise the essential characteristics of organisational coaching and propose a number of criteria according to which interventions can be identified as coaching. Our conclusion is that AI ‘coaching’ (AIC) does not meet these criteria. However, in considering various genres of organisational coaching along simple model-based types, we identify a number of elements in human coaching that could be augmented to various degrees by the use of AI.

Multiple theories of leadership postulate specific capability requirements with an expectation that leaders recognize the need for such capabilities and become motivated to develop them. In the workplace, leaders’ development is also expected to respond to the immediate demands of the organizational context. However, what leaders end up learning in the workplace remains largely unexplored. Hence our inquiry is into what leaders choose to learn, when they are in role and face the realities and demands of their immediate and wider environment. In line with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and concept of ‘perezhivanie’ we explore what actually becomes important for leaders to learn when they receive developmental support from a coach. We do this by identifying the content of coaching conversations: what is demonstrably discussed in coaching - the main themes of the actual coaching conversations and how the predominance of different themes changes over the coaching engagement. Based on the analysis of the sequencing of coaching themes in 153 organizational coaching engagements we discuss the dynamic interplay of the personal and the organizational agendas in the changing foci of leader learning. We propose a novel and theoretically-grounded explanation of leaders’ choices for learning in real complex environments. The results of uniquely gathered data and analysis challenge some current trends in the scholarship and praxis of leader development.

In the fast-growing field of organisational coaching many issues identified in research and practice can be traced back to the fact that the purpose of this intervention continues to be merely assumed. This paper undertakes a critical examination of the main conundrums in practice and research that arise from the lack of appropriately considered purpose of organisational coaching.  In order to generate a conceptual foundation for the necessary debates on these issues, a new framework is introduced that helps to identify and structure the essential layers of consideration concerned with the purpose of coaching. The proposed framework, together with a set of underlying principles, is designed to support meaningful integrations of coaching research studies as well as resolving some challenging issues for practitioners, educators and sponsors of coaching. As an example of using the framework I offer a way of defining the purpose of organisational coaching which should allow this practice to be better placed for responding to current and future challenges.

AI movement into the coaching arena continues to be steady and confident, meeting only rare and timid resistance. The progress of this movement can be explained by decades of technological advances, the entrepreneurial attitude of AI developers, and inherent peculiarities of the coaching business. The voices of caution are too quiet in ‘the noise of the progress’. However, there are important reasons for coaching communities to be apprehensive about the ways this movement could change coaching as a service and what this means for all involved. In this paper, I address potential problematic issues with the AI revolution in the context of a multitude of conceptual holes in coaching as a profession. I argue that dehumanising coaching under the guise of ‘enhancement by AI’ undermines human intelligence, which is desperately needed while the discipline of organisational coaching remains in its early stages of development.

Multi-rater feedback instruments have been an established way of providing feedback to employees in organisations for nearly three decades, yet it remains debatable whether the use of these instruments adds value for recipients or their organisations. In this paper we question some of the underlying assumptions behind the design of these instruments and challenge the way they are implemented. Our inquiry is based on critical reviews of the literature relating to multi-rater instruments and recent developments in theories of self and multiplicity of self, and an exploratory case study in an organisational context. Without questioning the value of the multi-rater feedback in principle, we identify prevailing assumptions that minimise its effectiveness and advocate for a different, more fruitful, approach.

Coaching supervision as a field of knowledge is at an early stage of development, even in comparison to the discipline of coaching. To support and stimulate further progress of the field, this fully inclusive literature review aims to create a comprehensive map of the themes and directions in contemporary publications on coaching supervision. Through the synthesis of findings in 68 selected sources we identified four main themes:  clarifying the concept of coaching supervision; the state of theoretical development demonstrated in the literature; the value attributed to supervision; and the nature of the current use of the supervision in the field. Based on our analysis we generate potential directions for further research, conceptualisation and theory building. 

A moral conundrum for philosophy of coaching is the noticeable parallel between the growth of the coaching industry and the unprecedented growth of mental health issues in western societies. Even if wellbeing of employees is not the only purpose of coaching interventions, they should at least not in any way be responsible for its undermining. Unfortunately, a number of ‘beautiful ideas’ which have become thematic in the coaching industry may be playing a detrimental role at both the personal level and for wellbeing of society as a whole. In this paper we focus on three: ‘Positive Psychology’, ‘Mindfulness’, and ‘Transformational Coaching’. On the face of it these ‘beautiful ideas’ appear to be unquestionably beneficial. However, they have been largely accepted into the mainstream thinking of coaches without too much critical consideration. The aim of this paper is to explore the shadow side of these beautiful ideas for the wellbeing of people in organisations and the role of coaching in relation to them. Our intention is to start a challenging conversation about a paradoxical situation in which that which is meant to scaffold our wellbeing initiatives may be making significant contributions to a lack of
wellbeing.

To enhance the value of coaching provision, coaching sessions are assessed as part of the accreditation of coaches by professional bodies and through the selection of coaches for programmes in organisations. However, the idea of the quality of a coaching session and a valid standpoint from which such an assessment can be made, remain problematic. Using constructivist grounded theory, this study explores how coaching sessions are perceived by three parties: clients, coaches and groups of coaches acting as observers. Analysis of the multiple perspectives on each of six sessions shows a significant discrepancy between them supporting the relevance of the Rashomon effect in coaching, based on Kurosawa’s (1950) film in which different witnesses provide conflicting accounts of the same events. The study questions the practice of prioritising first or third-person perspectives when the quality of a coaching session is assessed and addresses the potential implications of the identified issues for coaches, assessors and educators of coaching.

This paper offers a conceptual and developmental proposition based on the centrality of the practitioner’s self in the achievement of coaching outcomes. The central role of the self of the coach is established through a theoretical comparison with a competency (knowledge and skills) frame. Positioning the self in this way acknowledges the complexity and unpredictability of the coaching process and aligns with a complex-adaptive-system perspective on coaching. In turn, it provides a platform for a professional-practice view of the self as the main instrument of coaching and, further, a developmental proposition for the good use of self as an instrument. Three main conditions for the good use of self as an instrument are proposed: understanding the instrument, looking after the instrument, and checking the instrument for quality and sensitivity. Each condition is discussed, and the implications for coaches and educators of coaching in relation to initial training and the continuing professional development of coaches are considered. In keeping with the underpinning theory of self around which it is built, this paper gives witness to multiple voices: theory, practice, and development.

Objectives: This paper describes an independently conducted research study to develop appropriate measures and evaluate the coaching/mentoring programme that the London Deanery had been running for over five years. It also aims to explore specific challenges in the evaluation of a large-scale coaching programme and to suggest new solutions. Design: The challenges to evaluation included the need to use established but also context-relevant measures and the need for a rigorous but also pragmatic design that took into account a number of practical constraints. Overall it was a mixed method research design consisting of a within-subject quantitative study with support of a qualitative grounded theory methodology conducted in parallel. Method: The selected measures for the quantitative part of the study included employee engagement, selfefficacy and self-compassion. An additional questionnaire SWRQ (Specific Work-Related Questionnaire) was developed as the result of a qualitative investigation with stakeholder representatives. It included a selfestimation by the coached clients of the extent to which they could attribute each change to the coaching received rather than any other factor. The qualitative part of the study included interviews with stakeholders and the analysis of responses to an open question in the SWRQ. Results: 120 (78 per cent) of matched responses pre- and post-coaching were analysed and seven stakeholders interviewed. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis show improvement in all chosen scales. The analysis also shows that coaching was a major contributor to these changes. Conclusions: The paper argues for the development of additional methods in outcome research on coaching programmes that are aligned with the main principles and philosophy of coaching as a practice. Keywords: Coaching; evaluation of coaching; outcome research.

This article describes an exploratory study aimed at investigating factors contributing to the phenomenon of self-deception in coaches. Six experienced coaching supervisors were interviewed in accordance with the Conceptual Encounter research methodology. The results are presented in a model of self-deception in coaches. The model consists of three main sections, which include the nature of self-deception, contextual influences on self-deception and the focused influence on self-deception in coaching supervision. These themes are discussed in light of the structural analysis of the literature on self-deception performed from a pragmatic perspective. The paper concludes by considering how the results of the study add to current debates on the nature of self-deception and what implications the findings might have for coaches, coaching supervisors and other practitioners engaged in the development of individuals in organisations.

This paper presents the results of a project aimed at the development and the use of an instrument designed to identify differences and similarities across coaching approaches at the level of a specific coaching session. 41 professional coaches described one of their typical coaching sessions using this instrument and found it comprehensive. Q-mode Factor analysis suggests that there was one overarching shared viewpoint about the way a mid-engagement coaching session is typically facilitated. This suggests that there may be considerable similarities in how coaching is actually practiced in spite of the existence of a variety of coaching traditions, genres and contexts in which coaching takes place, leading to one extended conceptual definition of coaching.  We suggest that the tool makes possible a number of research projects, allows a clearer understanding of services typically provided by contracted coaches and assists in self-evaluation of professional and ‘on-the-job’ types of coaching.

Key words: coaching process, microanalysis, Q methodology, typical coaching session, identity of coaching

Organisations that use coaching programmes express their need for the assessment of coaches to ensure quality of provision. One solution to this need has been provided by professional bodies that assess coaches as part of their accreditation systems, often using competency frameworks. In this conceptual paper we open four specific debates in order to explore inherent problems associated with this approach. We start by highlighting the divide that seems to be emerging in coaching between academia and the professional bodies. We then move on to discuss the degree to which the gradation of coaching expertise in assessment is justified. The third debate concerns the extent to which competency frameworks are appropriate for coach assessment. Lastly, we question whether the existing paradigms, on which many assessment systems are based, effectively represent the coaching interaction. We argue that by seeing the coaching engagement as a complex adaptive system, a different conceptual approach to the assessment of coaches is needed, one that focuses on capabilities rather than competencies alone. A new model for the assessment of coaches is discussed, together with implications of the proposed change for professional bodies and educators of coaches.

This article address some concerns about the use of professional supervision in coaching.The ambition of coaching communities to become a "proper" profession in the light of current realities is being challenged. The author suggests a new role for coaching supervision that may lead the way even for other more established professions.

The Problem The interdisciplinary nature of the theoretical base of coaching creates practical approaches that are strongly influenced by organization-friendly theories, and fields such as counseling, psychotherapy, and philosophy. This eclectic use of theory creates uncertainty and sometimes leads to criticisms of coaching as being atheoretical and underdeveloped empirically. So, it is a difficult task for human resource development (HRD) professionals and particularly buyers of coaching to judge the relevance of numerous traditions of coaching and evaluate them for their HRD agenda.

The Solution We highlight the theoretical foundations of coaching and develop a structural analysis of coaching engagement to indicate the potential interplay between organizational and individual agendas and to help HRD professionals become better informed about the value of coaching in the context of wider HRD paradigms.

The Stakeholders HRD professionals, external coaches, internal coaches, and line managers who use a coaching approach, peer coaches, and leaders will benefit from the content of this article.