Six is the magic number (of coaching sessions)...or is it?

My first exposure to the variety of coaching approaches happened right at the outset of my initial training. Excited by this new, compelling world, I got hold of a book recommended by a friend - Co-Active Coaching - and dived right in to stretch my mind.

It didn't take long to encounter a dose of cognitive dissonance. I struggled to reconcile the talk of weekly sessions making up an indefinitely-long coaching relationship with the strict six-session approach I'd been taught, and I couldn't find any evidence anywhere to say which was The Right Way.

So, which one is best?

Thankfully, I've since discovered the joy of embracing the ambiguity of there not being only one Right Way, although I recognise the value in coaching processes that meet the specific needs of coachees in a targeted way:

• A set number of sessions communicates that the coaching has an objective, implies a time-bound sense of focus to allow for a lower-pressure post-coaching state and minimises the risk of co-dependency
• An indefinite relationship places the focus on the individual sessions as time to think, empowering the coachee and building a deeper relationship, all of which is particularly important with more senior coachees
• Standalone, on-demand coaching sessions can be immensely powerful, particularly with less experienced coachees about to encounter a new situation

Regardless of the approach taken, I stand by my instinct that there at least ought to be some logic behind why a coaching engagement lasts for one, six, or sixty sessions. From an organisational perspective, that considered and consistent approach acts as a constant against which other factors can then interact, whether coach quality, coachee readiness, coaching models used or something unexpected like cultural backgrounds.

A space in coaching for compliance monitoring

I understand why many people in the coaching industry shy away from compliance monitoring and quality assurance - adding judgement to an industry that defines itself as non-judgemental is like asking someone if they'd like salt in their coffee - and yet there have to be boundaries within which that industry is defined. More specifically, organisations' own use of coaching comes with boundaries whether we like it or not, some of which are imposed more consciously than others.

So I believe it's important for organisations to define precisely what matters in their use of coaching, and to monitor compliance with that consistently across the entire coaching pool, for both internal and external coaches. For example:

• Length of coaching engagement and factors for early exit/extension
• Length of individual sessions
• Coach matching, chemistry sessions and 3/4-way contracting
• Accreditation, professional body membership, CPD and supervision

Of course, this presents challenges. Accurate data capture, responses to non-compliance, capacity to monitor and what this means in terms of the organisational impact of coaching are all subjects for another day. Those concerns aside, the opportunities presented by increasing the consistency and oversight of coaching activity would seem to me to justify the effort, and naturally I'd be really pleased to have a conversation to help move that thinking forwards.