5 Myths of Executive Coaching (I): false rumors and myths

Myths of Executive Coaching

Many times professionals who are dedicated to executive coaching find myths or false rumors about this discipline. Misconceptions about what coaching is and what it is not are are frequent. On this occasion I would like to share with you some of these myths of executive coaching and contribute to clarifying the ideas around this development tool.

To this end, on this occasion, I have asked for the collaboration of excellent professionals, colleagues in the profession that I admire and, in this way, offer you not only my vision, but other opinions on this matter. I hope you find these ideas interesting and enjoy reading.

Of course, I would like to extend a very special thanks to all these great professionals for your work and their generosity in continuing to build around executive coaching.

5 myths about executive coaching

Myth 1: Coaching is only a process based on questions and reflections

According to Nevena Vujosevic, (Executive Coach, Business Strategist and Speaker), a good coach, more than anything, has to be 100% present, focused and dedicated to their client, especially in coaching sessions. Some in the industry insist that a good coach only offers intelligent questions to make the client reflect as well as possible.

Now, while a key question is absolutely a foundation of the process and an art in itself (its content, tone, timing, and much more) it is not the only value that a quality coach can offer to their coachee. My experience of more than 10 years in this sector and 20 years in professional/personal development has taught me that most clients want to learn a lot during a coaching program, and not just about themselves.

The coaching process

This can take the form of summaries, clarifications, anecdotes, suggestions, even sometimes in mentoring, advice and advice of various kinds, as long as it is done with great wisdom and care so as not to influence the client in the inappropriate way. In fact, large multinationals often require the coach to have executive experience even at high levels to hire them, because the experience and wisdom of having lived, learned, worked and achieved important results in such positions gives them the confidence that the coach will understand the needs, circumstances and demands of high-level executives well enough.

I think that, almost always, the responses of the customer themselves are the most impactful. But these revelations can come through a variety of avenues and a good coach should have the presence, experience, dedication and ability to use their wide range of training, experiences and knowledge to guide their client towards their own positive transformation.

Myth 2: The lack of ethics in the exercise of their activity by the client who performs the process does not affect the coaching process

David Gilling Casados, (Director of PSICO Psychology and Coaching and Member of the Aecop Ethics Committee) believes that regarding this myth there are several scenarios that we could imagine and of course in them we find multiple reasons for the unethical behavior of the coachee to affect their process. First of all, we must be clear that the coach does not have the function of being a guardian of his client’s ethics. However, if it is a witness you must decide where to accompany him.

Briefly, let’s look at two scenarios:

“I am aware that I am hiding from my coach something that I know is not right”: If this is the case, it is likely that the coach will feel at some point certain inconsistencies in his speech, if so, it is necessary to point it out and see if it is feasible to continue with the coaching work.
“I let my coach know that I am not acting ethically and I need him to help me achieve a goal in spite of it”: In this other case, the coach must evaluate very well how to act because if it implies any type of “complicity” probably, when reviewing our principles and values, in this case as a coach obviously, we have to finish the process or perhaps not start it.
In conclusion, in short, when a client acts unethically in their coaching process, it will influence its future.

Myth: lack of ethics in coaching process

On the other hand, regarding this myth about the influence of unethics in a coaching process, Marta Williams, (CEO and founder of Williams and Associates and Accredited Master Coach of Marshall Goldsmith), believes that employees do not learn to be ethical at work. It is something that they should have learned in childhood, and in the heart of the family. If no one taught them then, there’s little a coach can do to fill this gap. If it is already known that the person is unethical, a coach should not agree to do a process with a non-ethical. Never. Point.

Myth 3: The results of an executive coaching process are short-term

According to Juan Carlos Jiménez Remedios, (Psychologist, Coach and member of the Executive Committee of Aecop Catalonia and Certifier in the Professional Accreditation Commission of Aecop), this will always depend on the objectives of the process. If, for example, we are faced with the need to improve competencies that have to do with the development of certain specific relational skills, we would expect results not too late, as long as the coachee and his or her environment are inclined and prepared for intervention.

If, on the other hand, we are talking about a coaching process more related to relational attitudes within an organization, or to conflict resolution in a team, or to competencies that are required in the context of a context of culture change, among others, we would be at the opposite pole.

The key, (especially for the coach who has to intervene) is to know very well beforehand the context in which he or she has to move and help to define very well what you want, how you want it and when you expect to achieve it.

Myth 4: You can always measure results in executive coaching

Marta Williams reflects on the following: Has the coachee improved thanks to coaching? Who decides? Over the past 40 years I’ve seen a continual change of opinion about how to measure results and who decides if there’s improvement. And we have seen it all!

The coachee measures himself – “Have I improved? Yes!” No one took this self-assessment seriously for obvious reasons.
The same happens if the coach decides if there has been improvement in the coachee. – “Has my coachee improved? I say yes!” But being judge and jury has never made much sense. Nor does it have it in the coaching process.
Then they gave the decision to the HR Director, but no one believed that this person understood what the coachee had to improve, or that he was the right person to decide it.
Eventually they passed the decision on to the boss, even knowing that what the boss wanted often had nothing to do with what the coachee needed to improve. So it didn’t work either.

Improvement through coaching

What does seem fair and intelligent to answer this question has been to ask the opinion of the coachee’s stakeholders if there has been improvement. Stakeholders are the people around you (direct reports, bosses, etc.), who have known you well for a long time, and have suffered, for better or worse, your strengths and weaknesses. These are the people who really know if the coachee has improved, because they have experienced it in their own skin. This is what Marshall Goldsmith calls “Stakeholder-Centered Coaching” and is, for me, the best formula for measuring the success of a coaching process.

Myth 5: The Coach will give you the best solution to your problem

Raúl de Tena Rubio, (CEO and Founder of the Talentia Group and President of Aecop Extremadura) shares the following reflection: Many professionals with whom you work interpret that the work of the Coach, in their false belief that they are a “coach”, consists of telling you what you should do and how you should do it. Nothing could be further from the truth, since that would mean that the Coach should be an expert in the subject that may affect each coachee, and this does not have to be the case.

The Coach, through reflection, through questioning, accompanies the Coachee’s process of discovery, helping them to become aware of the situation they are addressing and how they are experiencing it. From there, it will encourage you to identify and calibrate alternatives, and, above all, validate them through action. In this way, it is the coachee himself who ends up finding the best possible response to his situation, taking into consideration his own personal and professional resources.