In the current situation of lockdowns and remote working, normal developmental processes such as CPD and lesson observations may have to take a backseat. However, this does not mean leaders should let their focus slip from longer-term goals, particularly when it comes to coaching - after all, the ongoing upheaval shows it is vital that staff are continually developing, as you never know what is around the corner that could impact school life.

For many schools, coaching has probably already been an established area of CPD, having rapidly gained in popularity within education settings. However the diversity of training methods and implementation techniques used by schools has led to a variety of outcomes.

This could be down to the lack of real understanding of the coaching process, or simply due to the lack of time to embed it properly. This is not schools’ fault, with even research into coaching, and what makes good coaching, being inconclusive.

According to Stober and Grant (2006), ‘‘While coaching has been immeasurably enriched by the injection of new ideas and techniques, it has led to increased confusion about the precise nature of coaching and what it is designed to achieve. Consequently, coaching has become increasingly difficult to define.’’

We should therefore set out to try to understand first what we actually mean by coaching. For this I would use three dimensions proposed by Ives (2008): directive or non-directive; personal-developmental or goal-focused; and therapeutic or performance-driven.

This essentially means that, depending on the context of the setting, the coaching philosophy and the individual, a certain coaching method could be used to fulfil a particular need. These dimensions are not mutually exclusive though.

For example, goal-focused coaching could play an important role in an individual’s personal development by linking a goal to personal values that require time for reflection and self-contemplation, which would lead to greater self-awareness and emotional intelligence. From this, I think the following definition of coaching can be used to guide us: coaching is a method of communication rooted in a values-based relationship that empowers forward movement, and personal and professional growth, in alignment with the uniqueness of the individual and their context.

So far, so good, but the next question is perhaps even more fundamental: who should deliver this coaching? According to the more established models of the coaching process, a coach should be someone external to the organisation who has no vested interest in the results and might come from a completely different background to the coachee.

However, for reasons ranging from cost and budgets to time, resources or circumstances - the current coronavirus situation being an obvious example - it could be that a headteacher, or another member of the senior leadership team (SLT), takes on the role of coaching other senior staff towards the goals set out above, within the context of their settings. This means, though, that the coach and coachee have a professional relationship with an inherent power imbalance, along with significant pressure to achieve results fuelled by the internal and external factors.

The question for leaders is, can you sustain non-directive communication around coaching that avoids feeling like disguised instruction or even manipulation?

There are several coaching strategies in existence that can help you to avoid this by putting a framework around coaching that provides the structure needed to guide the process and avoid these imbalances.

The most popular of these strategies is the Grow (goal, reality, options, will) model. This requires those involved to set a goal, discuss the reality of how to achieve it, outline the options around how it could be achieved and then agree the actions that will be used (summed up as the will to get things done).

It’s not the only model though. The Fuel (frame, understand, explore, lay out) model, in which you frame the conversation, understand the current state of affairs, explore the desired state, and lay out a success plan, is another popular one, while Facts (feedback, accountability, courageous goals, tensions, systems, thinking) and Oscar (outcome, situation, choices, actions, review) are also common.

Whatever model you choose, the key is to commit to it and use the structure it offers to establish a clear purpose to the coaching relationship. This should ensure there are definable outcomes and that both parties know what is expected of each other.

On top of this, though, there are also more fundamental things that leaders should focus on to ensure the benefits of internal coaching are derived as fully as possible.

1. Set out values and build relationships

Establishing values and building relationships are the foundations of a successful coaching process. If you were tasked with sowing seeds, one of the first things you would need to do is prepare the soil (loosen it, remove rocks and sticks, break large lumps, and so on) to ensure the best growing situation. The same is true with coaching - we need to create the right foundations by ensuring honest transparent communication that is built on mutual trust and respect, and a genuine understanding of the schools’ vision and values.

2. Invest in training

While you are aiming for in-house coaching, it would be sensible to start with external training for any member of the SLT planning on undertaking in-house coaching so that they have an understanding of various coaching models and approaches, how they can be implemented, and the benefits of doing so. While this may require a one-off cost or time out of school, the benefits to the outcomes will make it worthwhile.

3. Choose the right coaching model for your context

There exists a variety of coaching models and approaches. They are quite similar in many respects, although you might find some more appealing than others. It’s about asking questions to understand which will suit your staff best. What are you hoping to achieve? Which model would be the most appropriate? Which model will be easier for you/other staff to adopt and use within your particular context? These questions will help you to establish a clear understanding of how you are going to use coaching and what your success criteria would be.

4. Don’t restrict coaching conversations to the office

Formal, structured meetings between the coach and the coachee are important as they give a platform and time for reflection during school life. But at the same time, spur-of-the-moment informal coaching conversations can be important, too. As Greene and Grant (2003) suggest: ‘‘In-house workplace coaching lies on a continuum, from the formal structured workplace coaching at one end to the informal, on-the-run workplace coaching at the other - what you might call corridor coaching.’’ These few minutes in the corridor or by the photocopier have the power to change someone else’s day for the better - we should never underestimate the importance of listening, challenging, focusing on positive actions and asking questions as a tools to empower others.

Maria O’Neill is an executive coach who has worked with senior leadership teams in the UK and abroad. She has held various academic and pastoral leadership posts in state and independent secondary schools, and is currently in her final year of studying for a PhD

This article originally appeared in the 17 April 2020 issue under the headline “Get your in-house in order”