Executive Coaching. Why – and why not?

It occurs to me on a regular basis that, even after a relatively long time, Executive Coaching remains a relatively new concept, and many businesses are still unsure or sceptical about its benefits. Surely if it comes with the promise that it will help managers and key executives to better manage development and change, it’s only right to wonder why there should be resistance when it’s presented as an option?

With many organisations reducing their workforce, leaving fewer people to do more work, coaching is being viewed as a way of fostering innovation, productivity and employee engagement.

It’s obvious that, more than ever, today’s managers are being stretched thin by full workloads and changing priorities: if positive and timely coaching interventions can deliver real value, then the potential upside is enormous. But while coaching is a sound business strategy whose time has come, we have yet to see it realise its full potential value.

Here is where I think the dilemma lies …

In response to a rising demand for coaching professionals, there is now a plethora of good, generalist coaches on the market. Many of these individuals have great interpersonal skills, and valuable knowledge across a range of topics that their client businesses can draw from.

But can these ‘good all-rounders’ effectively provide the right solutions for the modern business environment?

My belief is that the coaching profession – and it is now a profession, with entirely laudable professional bodies such as the European Mentoring and Coaching Council  (of which we are a member) – has to move up a gear and meet the demand for a more targeted, bespoke coaching support offering.

More than ever, leaders now demand a level of expertise and specialist knowledge that many generalist coaches – because of the very broad range of areas across which they have tried to spread themselves – simply don’t possess. Faced with specific dilemmas, they can offer only a universal panacea. What we need first and foremost is specialisation and depth, not generalisation and breadth.

But what is your view?

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine