Travis J. Kemp

It has been argued previously that facilitating effective coaching outcomes for clients may in part be impacted by coaches ability to they themselves engage in the process of reflecting upon ‘self’. This introspective process involves identifying, surfacing and managing one’s own unique behaviours, cognitions, perceptions, emotions and schemata within the coaching relationship (Kemp, 2008). Furthermore, it is hypothesised that effective coach’s actively utilise this awareness to manage both the positive and negative impacts of these traits on their clients’ developmental processes (Kemp, 2008). Similarly, the current paper proposes that effective and impactful leaders also engage in an ostensibly similar process as their coaches, often within the context of leadership coaching. Indeed prominent leadership theorists such as Boyatzis and McKee (2005) have proposed that coaches working within the context of leadership, like the leaders they are coaching, must build resonant relationships with those with whom they lead. Most importantly, this requires the ability of the leader and coach to develop the core competencies of compassion, mindfulness and hope within oneself prior to attempting to support others in their growth and performance efforts. If this is the case, the conceptual and functional structures observed within effective coaching relationships and effective leadership relationships may well be very similar. Hence, in an effort to stimulate future thinking and research into the coaching and leading alliance, this paper outlines a theoretical proposition that highlights the similarities in development process, structure and function of the coaching and leadership alliance. The paper proposes a schematic framework for the building of effective coaching and leadership alliances and concludes by encouraging both researchers and practitioners to reflect upon the coaching and leadership alliance from the phenomenological context of relationship in support of our efforts to broaden and deepen our understanding of both practices beyond the current limitations of models and competencies.

Full article: Volume 4, Issue 1 pages 105 - 110