Case Studies In Coaching
By: Michael Crystal, Ph.D.

We would love to say that every coaching assignment begins with great expectations and concludes with a happy ending, but unfortunately that is not the case. Following are three very different engagements from the perspective of initial expectations, results, and lessons learned. 

Case Study #1:  Positive Expectations, Positive Results 

As part of a development initiative for a group of high performers, I was assigned to coach two executives with very different needs. After meeting with each and with their shared manager, we established concrete objectives and goals—around communications, leadership, and process-management skills. The development plans were tailored not only to the individuals’ goals and objectives, but also to their schedules. One I met with once a month, with phone contact between sessions, for six months. The second I met with weekly for nine months.

Reticent because this was their first coaching experience, each asked, "Is this because I’m doing something wrong?" These were valued employees for whom coaching was being provided as a perk. Once they realized we were working on enhancing the good and sustaining the excellent, it reinforced the idea they were good and could be even better. That gave the process traction, and both found the experience and endgame to be very positive. A month after we concluded, one called to report he’d been promoted.

This was a win-win, but there is a lesson:  To make the intervention successful, the coach has to be very accommodating because there is no single formula that works.

Case Study #2:  High Failure Potential, Positive Results  

After a foreign owner acquired an American firm, I was assigned to coach a functional Senior Vice President under consideration for promotion. A high performer from the American firm who was now managing a cross-cultural team, he was not behaving in a way that was acceptable to the culture of the acquiring institution. Feedback revealed he had a tendency to walk into situations with his mind made up and dig his heels in. This personality issue exacerbated the cultural clash, putting him at risk with the new management. The objective was for the executive to become both flexible and adaptable.

We began by agreeing to definitions: flexibility—being able to go into situations without preconceived notions; adaptability—being able to change course or direction when required yet not lose effectiveness. I was able to gain his trust through empathy. In my corporate life, I had managed a team similar to his, so he recognized I came to him with a real-world perspective. The more he began to trust, the more he began to realize I could help.

He allowed me to collect feedback from key people on his staff but tended to react to it with excuses or denial. This is where a good coach recognizes that instead of getting behind and pushing, you need to get in front and pull the coachee toward a better place. It took time, but I got him to recognize that the best way to objectively determine how he behaved with the group was for me to sit in on a few staff meetings. We positioned it as an effort to better understand and improve the functioning of the team. My written observations were descriptive, not evaluative, in recognition that success depended on letting the executive draw his own conclusions and see the need to change his behavior.

We slowly gained momentum and he began to respond. The key was an incremental approach that allowed him to work on one thing at a time. I would collect feedback from the team, which provided positive reinforcement. Once he saw that something was working, he was very good at execution.

The process took more than a year. As the intense work neared conclusion—I’m now working with him once a quarter for reinforcement—I went back to the team members who had provided feedback a year earlier. I asked the same questions, to get an-apples-to-apples comparison, as well as a few new ones. The feedback revealed a real win for the executive, the team, and the process.

We did not go into this engagement with high expectations for success. For the first four months, the executive wasn’t convinced coaching would work. Had he persisted in his habitual ways, he undoubtedly would have suffered the consequences. The lesson here is the importance of taking it a step at a time and pulling rather than pushing.

Case Study #3:  Positive Expectations, Negative Results 

As a consultant, I counsel client organizations to assess senior executives on how they’re doing against behavioral expectations as well as goals. The two have to be in balance. This engagement proved to be a classic case of what happens when an organization doesn’t balance both sides of the ledger.

We were called in to coach a highly successful rainmaker who, we were told, needed to improve his leadership skills. For a variety of reasons, we were not able to do a 360° assessment up front but we soon discovered this was someone who broke all the rules. Each session revealed increasingly antisocial behavior. Eventually, his behavior became so objectionable the executive was suspended. A condition of his continued employment was seeing a psychotherapist twice a week while continuing weekly coaching.

My job was to work on getting him back into the organization. But we came to a point where we both questioned whether, given the bad blood he had caused, the "soil" wasn’t too poisoned to allow him to be "repotted." No matter how much he was willing to change, would the team accept him back? I expressed these concerns to the CEO, who granted me the opportunity to do a 360° with the team. Although I concluded and reported that my concerns were justified, the CEO was committed to bringing the executive back. Finally, when the team approached the CEO and threatened to quit, the company recognized it couldn’t sacrifice the group for one individual.

From the coaching perspective, this was a lose-lose. All management could see was incredible performance against goals. It didn’t recognize the deleterious effect of the negative behavior on the rest of the organization until almost too late. We weren’t given enough information up front to recognize the depth of the problem, but we also didn’t ask enough—or the right—questions. The lessons learned?

• When you see even a little smoke—even an anecdote or a fleeting perception—look for fire!
  
  
• Do a 360° by interview as early as possible to try to get the whole picture. The push, these days, is to execute—pull the trigger. But in coaching, that can be disastrous. We sometimes have to do a deeper, more thorough discovery if we are going to be of optimal value to the person we’re coaching and to the organization.
  
  
• It isn’t that often that a coachee needs both thera- peutic counseling and coaching. But as a coach, you must be able to recognize the need when it arises.