Management coaching

The analysis does not produce automatic rules of behaviour. It provides material for one’s own positioning: which message does which stakeholder group need, which change goals matter, which immediate measures are due and how are reactions observed? The leader decides how to shape the relationships in the specific context.

In the review, both sides compare the development with the expectations agreed in the contracting. Coaching is therefore not detached training, but a recurring comparison of the leadership task, one’s own behaviour and the impact on the environment. Which formats and time frames are suitable is agreed for the specific mandate.

The stakeholder analysis asks concrete questions for the coaching: who exerts formal or informal influence? Who has resources? What dependencies exist, which claims collide, and how are those involved connected? A constellation with figures can represent this web spatially. From this, opportunities, risks and possible key messages for individual groups can be discussed.

The manager then develops a position paper with change goals, immediate measures and monitoring. In parallel, they look at their own profile. This includes potential, stress risks, motivators and competence as a mixture of knowledge, motivation and ability. External perceptions can add what remains invisible in the self-image.

As the process continues, concrete steps are tried out in everyday leadership. Reflection conversations do not only ask whether a plan has been worked through, but how the environment reacts, what the person learns about their impact and which alternative course of action results from this. On-the-job support is one possible format. In the review, the observations are linked back to the original contracting, so that the client and the manager can distinguish between coaching that has taken place and a leadership task that has actually been addressed.

We attach great importance to clarifying the mandate between the manager, the client and the coach. At the outset, a distinction is made between which expectations are discussed openly and which part of the conversation remains confidential. This boundary makes it possible to work on strategic goals and personal development at the same time. In coaching, the manager can look at their environment, their own strengths, risks and possible alternative courses of action. An important decision or an upcoming conversation is then prepared in concrete terms and reflected on later.

The result is not a general personality judgement, but an expanded capacity to act in the respective role. If a problem arises from contradictory responsibilities or decision paths in the company, it is identified as an organisational issue. Individual coaching can make such a condition visible, but cannot change it on behalf of the organisation.

Conflicts are a common topic in coaching. External or internal triggers lead via frustration to stress, and people react to persistent stress in different ways: with action, such as increased busyness, with regression such as brooding, repression or rationalisation, or with aggression, which can be open, displaced or directed against oneself. We distinguish four basic conflicts. Rejection conflicts touch on respect, self-worth and identity; needs conflicts on security, trust and independence.

Domination conflicts revolve around position and status, distribution conflicts around money, tasks and privileges. In coaching, a conflict is first analysed and defined; indicators are performance gaps, conflicting goals, confrontation or the formation of opposing camps. The next step is its transformation: compromises, integration, alternatives and synergies are examined.