When coaching leads to a resignation, is it really a failure ?
23.02.2024
The investment in professional coaching is always significant, financially due to the direct cost of the service, but also in time and energy. Fortunately, seeking the intervention of a coach generally proves very beneficial for the person accompanied as well as for their company. However, it happens that the impact of coaching is not the one initially expected, with regard to the objectives determined in the meeting between the three parties. Extreme but real case, the process concludes with… the resignation of the coached person.
To see more clearly, if there is no simple principle or definitive rule, there nevertheless exist elements of appreciation which allow, while taking into account the specificities of coaching, to set as precisely as possible the conditions of success, on the one hand, and to define the respective responsibilities, on the other.
WHAT IS SUCCESSFUL COACHING?
Coaching aims to identify, reveal and develop the potential of the accompanied person. It is based on a professional approach and proven methods. But, beyond these objective criteria, it is a multidimensional approach, complex because deeply human, therefore proper to each one and intrinsically subjective.
Thus, to evaluate the results of coaching, one must first be clear about the objectives of the undertaken approach: better organization, development of posture, time management, resolution of a specific problem… The aimed course, like the indicators of results, must be precisely established. Quite naturally, one could then summarize the issue as follows: coaching is successful when it makes it possible to achieve the objectives set at the beginning of the process.
SO WHAT TO THINK OF COACHING THAT ENDS WITH A RESIGNATION?
If coaching is intended to be a springboard, it sometimes unfortunately is… towards the outside! But, in this case, can we then speak of coaching failure?
On this matter, two points of view clash. The first considers that since the objectives were not reached, one can only observe and regret a situation of failure. The second notes that the work carried out led the coached person to question their adequacy with the company and their projection into the future. In this case, coaching finally turns out to be the accelerator of a process that was already in germ. It simply highlighted the inadequacy of the accompanied person to their position: this person was in reality not in the right place, not in the right functions, even not in the right company, in factual conflict with its objectives, its organization, its culture, its values. In this case, their departure is in some way a “good thing” for everyone. And in this sense, one can say that the coach was good.
Different points of view, but nevertheless acceptable, which lead to a broader questioning on two points… Who is the client of the coach in the context of professional coaching in a company? Some coaches designate the coached person as the main client and the company as a secondary client; others consider on the contrary that the main client is always the “payer,” therefore the company. And what is the limit to the obligation of means behind which some coaches sometimes hide? Coaches are today subject to an obligation of means. This means that they are responsible for the quality of the intervention framework that is theirs. They must respect codes of ethics and make available to the process all of their skills. Companies could, on their side, demand an obligation of result. Their reasoning would be understandable, since the coaching approach is part of a commercial service relationship. But how to make the coach responsible for the decisions of the coached person, and more broadly of the company? Let us recall that they only work from what the coached person brings in session, tangible material therefore, which cannot engage their sole and entire responsibility!
These two questions today fuel debates within the different communities of professional coaches. And the opinion of companies would moreover be very useful to advance the reflections.
In conclusion, professional coaching is always an investment that could logically call for a return on investment. But a taboo must be lifted: the company that orders and finances coaching for one of its employees must be ready to accept, among the possible scenarios, that of a chosen and voluntary departure of the coached person. This is fortunately neither the initially sought objective, nor the most frequent case. Such a situation is deeply uncomfortable for the coach. But it also reminds us that professional coaching remains subject to emotional hazards, that it has its own parameters which prevent it from being evaluated solely with purely objective criteria. It also reminds us of its goal: to ensure that the right person, in the right place, flourishes and unfolds all their potential.