In-house or External Coaches?

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to speak with a company about their need for an agile coach. One of the key questions that I ask is “Why do you want an agile coach?” In other words, “what is the problem you are trying to solve?” In this case the answer was lukewarm at best. They had just regaled me with how amazing the teams are at collaborating, communicating, problem solving, and in general working as a team. And in response to my question they merely said “there is always room for improvement.” And later I received feedback, which I always appreciate, about why I wouldn’t be a good fit. I won’t share all of it with you but I will share one comment that fits directly with the topic for today’s blog.

You see, I had already run into some other trigger statements in the previous month that led me to write “Blog: In-house coaches” on my personal kanban board under “To Do.” The comment that I received in this particular instance was that when giving them examples of coaching successes and failures I referred to the teams that I coached as “they” or “the team” while removing myself from the equation in their eyes. This was a showstopper for them because “everyone is part of their team.” In reality, it is not that I was saying the coach is a deity unto itself and above the team, but the coach must keep an objective view, and even if closely embedded with the team for coaching, they are NOT a team member in an agile team.

Interestingly I had also had the reverse conversation with someone that same week about how to build a coaching practice within their consulting firm to offer to their clients and how this would logistically work, because in the past they had not created a dedicated practice, but rather just tossed a coach at any project that potentially needed one. And while I didn’t think throwing a coach in with the package of a team was the ideal solution, there are warning signs about creating a coaching practice that has prescribed methods and canned approaches to ensure that all of the coaches are coming at the engagements in the same way. Formulized coaching is dangerous. Coaching in and of itself is not prescriptive.

Coaching is not prescriptive to be successful

So let’s unpack this a bit. As I was preparing to write this article, a blog popped up in my newsfeed. The InfoQ article goes back a few years and discusses Centralized versus Decentralized Coaching. Then there were bounce back articles in response with further analysis and some great graphics (links below). In this article it is talking about the risks and silos of centralizing coaching and when it is and isn’t appropriate (Hint: The list for the pros is pretty short). In centralized coaching, there is a PMO-like atmosphere where coaches become a department with rules and policies and run the risk of turning into a single-focus silo. Now why is this relevant to my article about in-house and consultant coaches?

What makes the most sense and will yield the best results?

The argument about how to structure coaching within an organization is similar to the argument about having in-house or consultant coaches. What makes the most sense and yields the best results? The centralized versus decentralized argument is relevant for many of the same reasons that I suggest that organizations look long and hard at why they want to make the agile coach an employee. There are inherent risks. The biggest one is that when a person is an employee of the company, there is an unstated (sometimes stated) expectation that this person will align completely with the mission and values of the organization but also tow the line that leadership wants. And this is problematic if in the course of coaching it becomes apparent that some or much of the problem lies within leadership, their communication or even the core values of the organization. What does the employee who is tasked with coaching the teams do then? If they speak out, will that be the end of their job? Will they just have to go along to get along? What is the recourse?

Can employees remain objective as coaches?

Now, these topics are always sensitive when they need to be raised with leadership, but someone who is not receiving their paycheck from the very organization they are supposed to be coaching immediately has a different perspective. Even if you think you are the best in the world at putting aside organizational pressures or biases, as an employee they are there. As a consultant, while we don’t throw diplomacy to the wind, we are not beholden to the key stakeholders for our ongoing employment and benefits. We have options and avenues to take if things go wrong when we try to guide the organization even through the biggest landmines in the upper echelons of the organization.

But are there other issues with in-house coaching? Is it just a paycheck or allegiance issue? Of course not, Another potential risk is that when a coach is hired into an organization as an employee, they are already vetted for culture fit or if they are going to work as “part of the team” as was suggested to me two weeks ago. There may also already be prescribed methods of coaching or core practices that the organization wants to use. It could take away the flexibility to try new approaches. Just like with centralized coaching in the referenced articles, there is a risk of being held to KPIs, metrics, and other already established measures which can lead to a culture of gaming the system to look good. And when you are embedded in the organization this is a definite risk.

Can a consultant get close to the action?

But in decentralized coaching one of the benefits is that the coaches can get close to the action. They have first-hand accounts of what is happening. They are deeply engaged with the products and services and can see the patterns of behavior and the direction things are going. But hey wait a minute! Wouldn’t that be a pro for an employee coach? After all, they would be one of the gang. No, not really. That implies that only an employee would be accepted and can get close to a team - that somehow there is a wall that goes up to keep out the evil forces from penetrating the team. But if a team’s culture is about transparency, change, and flexibility when needed then accepting a coach into the mix shouldn’t be a barrier, but should be encouraged. And let’s face it, should we use a friend as a professional therapist? No. Do surgeons operate on their families? No. There is a reason for this and the same goes for coaching. There is being close to the action and then there is being blinded by what is right in front of you because you are too close to it.

So we have two topics - centralized vs decentralized coaching where decentralization will avoid the trap of silos, metrics for the sake of policy, and disconnections between the coach and the teams. And then we have the topic of in-house vs consultant coaches where often the word consultant has left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, because large consultancies put low-level coaches into the mix with often disastrous results, but in reality a consultant coach of the right caliber and quality can bring a fresh perspective and approach to the organization. So to overcome this, those of us in the coaching world have to make the argument for consultant coaches rather than employee coaches when it is appropriate just like we have to make the argument to decentralize coaching. We have to demonstrate the quality of coaching that should be expected by an organization. We have to lead by example in our field and we have to use our own agile approaches to how we approach consulting contracts. What are your thoughts on in-house coaches vs consultants?

Further reference material:

Centralized vs Decentralized Coaching Key Takeaways
Why An Agile Center of Excellence is a Bad Idea
Should You Centralize Your Agile Coaching

If you want to learn more about our coaching and consulting approach, schedule a FREE consultation today to talk about the problem that you are trying to solve.

Schedule a Call

About the Author:

INDRA A. BOOKS

Connect with us