Life at the Bar LLC Blog

By Julie A. Fleming February 16, 2007 1 Comment

Sherpa Coaching LLC has published the results of its 2007 Global Coaching Survey.  The full results, available here, reveal some interesting information about executive coaching.

Value of coaching
This report discusses the survey results concerning the value of coaching.  44% of survey respondents ranked the value of coaching as “very high,” and another 46% ranked it as “somewhat high.”  Interestingly, it seems that the value of coaching is monitored primarily by anecdotal evidence (56%) , which another 35% of respondents reporting no formal process for such monitoring.  There’s no other information about how “no formal process” is used, such as whether anyone is actually monitoring value or whether value is assessed by the self-perception of the person being coached.

Method of coaching delivery
And this report discusses the methods through which coaching is delivered: in person, by telephone, and email/instant message/webcam.  According the the survey results, 44% of executive coaching is delivered in person and 37% is delivered by telephone.  (I am surprised to find that 19% of executive coaching is delivered otherwise, with email taking the lead at 15%.)  The survey further reports that 70% of executive coaches find in-person delivery most effective, and 96% of those who’ve worked with an executive coach consider in-person coaching to be best.  (And Sherpa Coaching, which conducted the survey, doesn’t provide any telephone coaching.)

Certification/experience
Sherpa Coaching found that executive coaching clients view business experience and coach-specific training or certification as being equally important.  (See pages 8-9 of the full report.)  Although 65% of those who purchase coaching services (HR professionals, other purchasers, and coaching clients) see “formal certification for executive coaches as absolutely essential or very important,” there’s little consensus on what organization should do the certifying.  (Sherpa Coaching provides coach training and certification.)

What does this mean for lawyers and lawyer coaches?

Kudos
The survey results support several conclusions I’d reached through my own anecdotal experience about the value of coaching and the skills and experience necessary for a coach. 

Those who have been coached or who have purchased coaching tend to find significant value in the results attained.  (And, after all, results are the key measuring stick: for lawyers, the questions include whether coaching has helped the client to clarify the strategy for success on her career path, to strengthen his client service skills, to find a sustainable balance between work and home life, etc.) 

Many coaching programs teach that a good coach can work with a client without understanding anything about the client’s business.  However, I believe it’s critical for lawyer coaches to at least understand what the practice of law entails.  Otherwise, too much time is wasted on explaining context and translating jargon.  My bias holds that an attorney coach should have both a background in law and coach-specific training.  (And that’s the profile of the coach I hired when I was practicing law full-time and with whom I still work now that I practice only part-time.)  Though the survey reveals certification as an important qualification for coaching, I suspect that most lawyers are more interested in the coach’s training and experience, and that a lawyer will likely evaluate for himself whether a coach has the necessary experience and skills to help him navigate through practice challenges.

Questions
I question the survey’s emphasis on the benefits of in-person coaching, however.  I’ve provided coaching and been coached in person and by telephone, and I’ve found both to be quite effective.  In-person coaching is simpler in some ways, since body language is readily observable, but with practice it’s quite possible to “hear” body language.   I often find myself saying, for instance, something like “your voice really dropped its energy when you said that, and I wonder whether you’re slumping now.”  I prefer in-person meetings when I’m coaching someone on interviewing skills, but I’ve successfully coached clients on even those skills by telephone. 

Although I do provide in-person coaching on request, I’ve found that telephone coaching has certain significant benefits, some of which may be particularly strong for lawyers:

1.  Confidentiality.  Many clients prefer not to let others know that they’re being coached.  One client calls me a “secret weapon.”  While I have no problem maintaining confidentiality, my presence in a client’s office could raise a question that’s easily avoided by meeting by telephone.  (Or meeting in another location.)

2.  Easy scheduling.  It’s often easier to keep a telephone appointment than an in-person appointment.  There’s no concern about traffic or the travel time.  Lawyers who travel frequently are able to make it to telephone coaching sessions much more regularly than in-person appointments.  And I’m willing to offer very early morning appointments by telephone that I would not offer for an in-person meeting. 

3.  Flexibility.  Although it’s important for clients to keep their scheduled coaching appointments, life sometimes interferes.  It’s much more simple to reschedule a telephone call on short notice.

4.  Cost.  Some coaches charge a premium (stated or unstated) for in-person meetings.  Others build the cost into their fee structure for all clients.  Much like the cost differential for buying music as an MP3 rather than as a CD, face-to-face coaching involves certain costs that telephone coaching doesn’t.  At this time, I don’t have a higher fee for in-person coaching, but it isn’t difficult to imagine changing that practice in the future.

5.  Removal of geographic restrictions.  Clients can select the coach who best meets their needs regardless of geography when coaching is provided by phone.  For instance, one of my clients lives in Canada and travels to the Philippines on a regular basis, and we would never have crossed paths but for her enthusiasm for telephone coaching. 

For these reasons, among others, I have elected to be coached by telephone even by coaches who live in my city.  All of this said, good coaching can occur either in person or by telephone — or both.  The client’s personal preference should govern the method of delivery, given all of the surrounding circumstances. 

I hope the survey results, and my thoughts about them, are useful for those of you who are considering hiring a coach.  As always, I’d be delighted to answer any questions or to discuss any concerns you may have. 

Julie Fleming Brown coaches attorneys on professional development, career management, and client development issues. Please visit www.LifeAtTheBar.com for more information, or contact Julie at 800.758.6214. Julie is offering free Success Strategy sessions during the month of February. More information is available on this blog or on the Life at the Bar website.

If you haven't already done so, please consider signing up for the Life at the Bar blog's RSS feed. Or you might like to receive the posts by email or to subscribe to the weekly email newsletter Leadership Matters for Lawyers, and you'll see subscription forms for both in the middle column. I promise that I won't rent, sell, or otherwise provide your information to anyone else and that your email address will be used only as you request.

Thanks for visiting! (And don't worry... You'll only see this note the first 3 times you visit the blog.)

Coaching for lawyers, Coaching in general

Permalink Comments RSS