“Of course, you need a coaching contract,” I can almost hear you screaming when you read the title of the text. But do you? Who really needs a coaching contract? The customer? The trainer? Both? Or maybe no one but coaching conversation reviewers? The International Coaching Federation has gone through an extensive job analysis process to update its core coaching skills. In the new skills we read: Although the criticality of a strong coach-client relationship has received considerable attention, this study represents one of the few studies on the coach`s behavior that affects the relationship. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we explore “contracting”, defined as the collaborative determination of the logistics, parameters and engagement framework of coaching, as an important basis for an effective relationship. We create a preliminary measure, the contract inventory scale, and examine the link between contracting and the coach-client relationship. In addition, we look at executives` views on procurement as “infrastructure”, a behavior that is necessary but does not in itself lead to excellent results, and discuss the implications, noting that this study provides a platform for future empirical work and useful information for coaching practice. Therefore, the contraction is very important. Paying attention to this can make the difference between a successful coaching relationship and one full of difficulties and misunderstandings. Consulting researchers have shown that a positive counsellor-client relationship is an essential element of successful counselling (Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, Symonds & Horvath, 2012; Gelso & Saturday, 2008). They argue that the relationship provides the context that allows the client to accept and monitor the advisor`s treatment and determines whether the advisor can exert social or interpersonal influence on the client, which helps to bring about change (Flückiger et al., 2012; Horvath and Greenberg, 1989). This relationship is a strong parallel with the objective of coaching commitments (Joo, 2005), indicating their potential usefulness in the context of coaching. Future work could create several subscales of elements for each of the contractual behaviors, which can then assess the relative importance of each individual behavior, which could be of interest to coaches to inform their contractual practice.
In addition, this work could determine whether there are circumstances in which certain aspects of procurement become critical (e.B. a clear understanding of the extent of confidentiality may be especially important if the leader has a difficult relationship with his or her boss). Such additional research can help us refine our understanding of contraction behavior and its effects. Hiring the coach and client in coaching practice is important. It establishes the basic rules of the coaching relationship so that both parties know their commitment and know what they “sign up” for. Above all, it has almost universally been assumed that the quality of the relationship between coach and client is an essential factor in the effectiveness of coaching (Baron & Morin, 2009; Bluckert, 2005; de Haan et al., 2013; Ely, Boyce, Nelson, Zaccaro, Hernez-Broome & Whyman, 2010; Frisch, 2001; McKenna and Davis, 2009a). Many experts even argue that the coach-client relationship is the most important tool coaches have to make changes (Bluckert, 2005; Gentry, Manning, Wolf, Hernez-Broome& Allen, 2013). Interview data were analyzed using a deductive content analysis, in which qualitative data are analyzed within an existing theoretical framework (Patton, 2002).
The main framework used in this study was the content and nature of the newly developed CIS, namely that procurement consisted of nine specific behaviours and had an impact on the coach-client relationship. Deductive content analysis is an effective analytical approach that allows researchers to test existing theories with newly collected data. The first and third authors independently encoded each interview transcript and searched for text related to the following categories: (1) evidence to support the nine newly developed contract elements (whether coaches are actually involved in these behaviors), (2) the presence of contractual behavior not covered by our measure, and (3) a perceived association between contractual behavior and the quality of the coach-client relationship. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were conducted and recorded by telephone. Leaders were asked about both open-ended and specific questions about the coaching relationship and the conclusion of the contract: (1) open-ended questions about their relationship with their coach (is it good and what are they basing themselves on) (2) all the behaviors/attributes of their coach that they believe influenced the relationship, (3) a general question on setting expectations and specific questions on the occurrence of each contractual point of conduct (if not already done from the Executive mentioned) and (4) the perceived impact of contractual behavior on their relationship with their coach. In addition, leaders were asked what they thought worked in coaching, what their coach could do differently, and what else they wanted to talk about. These questions should encourage them to discuss the general aspects of coaching and coach behavior that they believe would affect their relationship with their coach and the effectiveness of coaching. These discussions were important to our understanding of the role of contracting as well as to inform future research. The relationship between contractual behaviour and the different components of the coaching relationship was studied using two different assessments of contractual behaviour.
First, hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed, in which the contraction and relationship measures measured by survey were analyzed. Since our data came from more than one source, we included the source in the first step of the regression to account for and control for any systematic differences that might exist between groups. Given this information, it`s no surprise that when executives were asked directly about the impact of contracting on the coach-client relationship, they generally didn`t see it as a big impact. Executives` responses to the question of contractual behavior were coded as “yes”, managers saw a link between the contract and the relationship, or “no”, they did not. Only three of the 19 participants believed that contracting affected the relationship with their coach, although more than a third said they felt that contracting affected the effectiveness of coaching in some way (e.g.B did executives feel more responsible or did awarding contracts mean they were better mentally prepared for the coaching experience). For example, we found a gap between trainers` views on contracting (as evidenced by the literature) and the perceptions of these executives. In summary, the interviews supported the content of the contractual measure, while stressing that the managers did not attach much importance to the importance of concluding the contract itself. The coach will often moderate a three-way “triangular contract discussion” in which the goals the organization wants to expect from the coach`s intervention are discussed and agreed upon by all parties.
Although these goals are not discussed openly, they are considered “public” goals. While the above process may be reasonably simple if the coachee is also the “client” or the person who pays for the program, a new dimension of the contractual phase appears when coaching is paid by an organization for which the coachee works. In such a situation, the coachee and the client are actually two different entities. The purpose of this study is to examine the behaviors of coaches that could contribute to a successful coach-client relationship. In particular, we have set ourselves the goal of studying the behaviour of the trainer involved in the process known as “contracting”. Based on our review of the coaching literature and coaching practice models, we define contracting as the collaborative definition of the logistics, parameters and framework of coaching engagement, including the participation of others, as well as the goals, roles and responsibilities of each party. In some models, these types of activities include the first step or stage of coaching (Feldman and Lankau, 2005; International Coaching Federation (ICF) Professional Coaching Core Skills, 2012 and 2017; Lee, 2013). . .