I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about your statement that “the only position that counts is that of the person being coached”. If the manager is the coach, then s/he has an obligation to find a healthy balance between the needs of the coachee, the manager him- or herself, and the wider needs of the organisation. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s certainly possible to achieve this.

You hit the key when you stated:
“I think it ultimately comes down to the individuals and their levels of trust and genuine willingness to collaborate - these are things that can’t be quantified, and are not dependent on their job descriptions of the people involved.”

However, you are assuming I am degrading managers, and appear to defend them, when the only position that counts is that of the person being coached. You said “So I think you are doing a disservice to many excellent managers out there by claiming that “outsiders in organizations can and do provide much more effective coaching”.” The coaching process has but one priority. That of the client. If the client feels the manager is superior (regardless of actual fact) then real coaching will be very difficult to implement, because of the mental barriers placed by the client. Managers have a more difficult time “coaching” their subordinate/clients because of the perceived power and superior position and/or barriers. Can some managers convince their subordinates that they the managers are truly equal and totally focused on the complete unrestricted welfare of their subordinate/clients, no matter what the subordinate/clients say or focus on? Yes. But will a subordinate/client truly reveal everything to their superior who is also paid by someone else? Doubtful! So the quality of the manager-subordinate/client relationships will most often be affected by the positions they have in the organization.

Managers are paid to manage. Using coaching techniques are but one set of tools managers can use to ultimately perform as managers. Their first priority is to perform as managers. The only priority of a coach is their client. Period! How can subordinate/clients feel they are the total center of attention from their superior managers, who have multiple loyalties and are paid by someone else?

But in the final analysis, it does come down to the quality of the relationships and the quality of the person doing the coaching.

Thanks for your comment. You raise an important issue re status and also the difference between an internal (manager) coach and external (consultant) coach. In fact you’ve anticipated some of my later posts about the difference between these coaching roles - watch this space!

Re status - since coaching is an essentially collaborative relationship, an abuse of status (and the power that goes with it) can undermine it. So for example if a manager approaches a coaching assignment by claiming to be ‘coaching’ but in fact using his/her power to push the team member into a predetermined course of action, I would agree that that undermines the coaching process. However it seems a little uncharitable (and contradicts my experience) to assume that most managers will inevitably abuse their status in this way.

So I think you are doing a disservice to many excellent managers out there by claiming that “outsiders in organizations can and do provide much more effective coaching”. I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary, in the many manager-coaches I have worked with, who are more than capable of recognising and avoiding the pitfalls of their status.

As an external coach myself I am certainly sold on the benefits of this type of coaching! And I do agree that there are certain things an external coach is better placed to offer than a line manager - e.g. a completely neutral forum for discussion, and sometimes (although not always) it is easier for people to discuss sensitive issues with an outsider. However I also think the opposite is true - that line managers can offer things that we as external consultants cannot - e.g. depth of knowledge about individuals and the organisation acquired over time.

So internal and external coaches bring different qualities to the coaching relationship, but ‘different’ does not necessarily equal ‘better’ - they can just as easily be complementary.

I think it ultimately comes down to the individuals and their levels of trust and genuine willingness to collaborate - these are things that can’t be quantified, and are not dependent on their job descriptions of the people involved.

I have one fundamental point of contention with your definition of a business coach. I hope I am not stepping on any toes here. You stated: “Coaching is frequently delivered by line managers with their teams.” We have found that true business or life coaching rarely occurs when the coach and client are not equal partners. A manager is the person’s superior and has lots of power over the subordinate. Hence the client (subordinate) will be very reluctant to open up completely to the manager, for fear of judgment and possible reprisals. Clients will rarely accept true open coaching from anyone they feel is their superior.

The equal partner relationship is the key to why true coaching actually works. That is why outsiders in organizations can and do provide much more effective coaching. They can arrive and leave as equal partners and pose very little power threats to the people they coach.

But I’m sure you know what I mean