When leaders are promoted into senior positions¹ they face serious challenges. Many fail to meet their objectives (Martin, 2015) or underperform (Sutton, 2008). Coaching is a strategy that is sometimes used to support recently promoted leaders, but there is a lack of empirical research around how a coaching intervention should be designed specifically to support career transitions. This research presents findings relating to when and how coaching should be used during senior career transitions and makes recommendations regarding tailoring a transition coaching intervention for senior career transitions.

Several theories of leadership career transitions, leadership levels and leadership developmental stages exist. The well-known ‘Leadership Pipeline’ model brought attention to the fact that there are different levels of leadership within an organisation with each level requiring different skills. Leaders transition through six levels: managing self, managing other, managing managers, functional managers, business managers, group manager and enterprise manager (Charan et al., 2011). Each stage requires leaders to let go of certain thinking and behavioural patterns and learn new ones. The focus of this research is career transitions at the higher end of this pipeline, including business, group and enterprise managers. At these levels, leaders have to learn to deal with higher levels of complexity and take a more strategic organisational view. The chances of failure at these senior levels are high and the impact of failure is significantly damaging to both the individual and the organisation (Manderscheid & Ardichvili, 2008; Martin & Gentry, 2011). Ensuring a successful transition therefore becomes an imperative and further highlights the need for support in the form of interventions such as transition coaching.

A different perspective on leadership levels is Jaques’ Stratified Systems Theory that defines work in organisations in seven strata on a basis of decision-making complexity where each level of work is related to the time span required by the executor of the task to complete the task (Jaques, 1996). This theory supports the view of Charan et al. that different skills and abilities are required by leaders operating at different levels and reinforces the view that change and transformation are required to successfully execute at a new level. By implication then, if a leader is promoted to the next level, the leader needs to adapt to the new level and will face challenges.

Some of the challenges faced by newly promoted senior leaders include their need to develop new patterns of thinking and behaving (Charan et al., 2011); their need to develop advanced interpersonal and social skills (Kets de Vries, 2006; Lombardo & Eichinger, 1995); moving from operational to strategic mode (Bebb, 2009); fear, anxiety and self-doubt (Argyris, 1991); lack of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996); lack of follow-through and overdependence (Denton & Van Lill, 2006); loss of identity, balancing people and tasks (Hawkins & Smith, 2013); misjudging the new situation and the leader’s strengths and vulnerabilities (Watkins, 2003); and getting buy-in from their new team (Martin, 2015).

Leaders’ abilities to cope at higher levels are linked to their abilities to perceive and manage complexity. Rooke and Torbert provide a framework that outlines seven levels of developmental action logics: Opportunist, Diplomat, Expert, Achiever, Individualist, Strategist and Alchemist. Each level represents a higher level of development (Rooke & Torbert, 2005). Kegan distinguishes between orders of complexity and people’s ability to cope with the increased complexity with his object–subject principle. He asserts that people are capable of managing only a certain level of complexity at a given time and that they require assistance to master the next level. Lack of support during transitions to the next level of complexity may result in suffering (Kegan, 1994) as well as low morale and financial loss (Martin & Gentry, 2011). The potentially traumatic nature of transitions clearly opens the space for considered support such as transition coaching.

In summary, significant theory exists regarding leadership and job levels and the challenges faced during the transition to a higher level.

To support leaders-in-transition, organisations are increasingly implementing leadership development programmes (Kates & Downey, 2005). Coaching is one form of support offered (Weinstock, 2011); however, although development of leaders is often stated by organisations as one of their primary concerns, there is debate as to whether enough is done to put words into action (Avolio & Hannah, 2008).

Executive coaching is a short-term interactive process between a coach and a leader aimed at improving leadership effectiveness by enhancing self-awareness and the practice of new behaviours (Kombarakaran et al., 2008). Transition coaching is a relatively new field of coaching. It is a specialisation of executive coaching that aims to facilitate career transitions by helping leaders identify critical issues they face as a result of the transition; define the expectations of their stakeholders; gain an outside perspective on their new role; and communicate more effectively within the organisation (Witherspoon & Cannon, 2004).

Transition coaching can play an important role in accelerating job transition (Sutton, 2008). Important considerations for transition coaching include the timing of coaching, the specific role of the coach, taking into account the business realities during the personal journey, understanding what skills and behaviours are required, increasing self-awareness, establishing goals and creating an action plan (Sutton, 2008).

Research investigating the role of transition coaching is limited with only one empirical study found thus far (Reynolds, 2011) and to our knowledge no such research has been published in the South African context. Reynolds used an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis approach with a sample of six recently promoted senior leaders, to explore the meaning that coaching had for them during their transition. The findings include evidence that coaching assists transitioning leaders in overcoming a sense of vulnerability, developing new personal, social and cognitive skills and finding new meaning and purpose in their lives. The research was limited to senior leaders and did not include the view of coaches, HR practitioners and line managers as is the case in this study. Reynold’s study also did not report on the coaching process but concentrated on the outcomes of the coaching only.

It is evident from literature that transition coaching could potentially play an important role during career transitions, but limited empirical research has been conducted on how the transition coaching process should be designed.

Participants were interviewed face-to-face as well as via telephone, given the remote location of some participants relative to the researcher and given the paucity of senior leaders who received coaching during their transition.

Purposeful, theoretical sampling, consistent with the requirements of grounded theory research, was used to identify 16 participants from various organisations (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Practically, this implied starting with the most likely source of data (a recently transitioned senior leader known to the researcher), leading on to coaches who practised transition coaching, followed by the custodians of coaching in organisations and concluding with line managers of recently promoted senior leaders. The sampling strategy was informed by the outcome of the constant analysis and comparison process prescribed by grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). In total eight senior leaders, five coaches, two HR practitioners and one line manager were interviewed in that order. The sequencing of interviews was deliberate and led to insights starting from the most direct (transitioning leader) to the least directly impacted (line manager). This sampling strategy collected data in accordance with grounded theory principles of constant data collection, analysis and comparison, giving preference to the richest source of data needed next to address the research question at hand (Charmaz, 2014). Although gender and race were not specific inclusion criteria in this study, all four SA racial groups (white, coloured, Indian and black) and equal gender grouping were represented in the sample.

Access to the recently promoted senior leaders was gained either through direct connection with the researcher or via the companies’ HR departments. In the case of the latter, official permission was obtained from the head of HR of the organisation. Coaches, HR practitioners and the line manager were sourced from the researcher’s personal network. In all cases the participants signed informed consent forms.

Irrespective of whether the idea of coaching was initiated by the recently promoted senior leader (P1, P5) or their line managers (P2, P3, P4, P6, P7, P8), in all instances it was undertaken when the incumbent had already shown signs of distress in the new role. This points to the fact that transition coaching is not something that organisations take seriously and apply in a pre-emptive manner. It seems to be used for remedial effect. C1 notes that the transition coaching she has done has been almost accidental as part of a ‘brushstroke’ approach by organisations to coaching their leaders, not specifically aimed at transitioning leaders. This is especially true for internally promoted senior leaders. In one instance, C2 only became involved 6 years after a promotion when issues of the person not adjusting to the new role reached crisis levels: ‘It is not front of mind for a company to say we are promoting you therefore we think you should get the support’ (C2, female, Coach). HR1’s company has no specific process for assigning a coach to a newly promoted senior leader. Instead the business can request a coach at any time, so it is up to the line manager to decide whether the incumbent needs a coach. Alternatively, if a person is nominated for a leadership development programme they may encounter coaching as part of design, but this is not necessarily linked to a promotion.

The question of whether to initiate the coaching before or after the promotion drew varied responses. On the one hand, P4, P6, C3 and M1 felt that coaching should start before the promotion. These participants agreed that there should be between one and five sessions before the promotion, a number of sessions in short succession shortly afterwards and then fewer and more spread out sessions for ongoing support for up to 2 years (M1, P1, P5, P6). C3 warned that transition coaching must be pre-emptive: ‘we tend to only look for help when there’s a burning platform’ (C3, male, Coach). This is echoed by M1:

Those who think that coaching should only start after the candidate enters the role (P7, C1, HR2) have different reasons for stating this. P7 feels that the candidate needs to spend a few months in the new position to understand what they are struggling with in order to optimise the coaching. C1 was concerned that transition coaching before a promotion could be confused with career coaching while HR2 was worried that transition coaching before a promotion could have legal implications should the promotion not materialise. C3 provides a pragmatic solution to this: ‘coaching should start as soon as the news is broken’ (C3, male, Coach).

While all the participants interviewed were unanimous that transition coaching should continue for an extended period of time of up to 3 years (HR2), only one participant experienced such an extended intervention of 18 months which he considered to be very beneficial to his learning process.

Most of the participants reported interventions ranging between 6 and 10 sessions over a period of less than a year. It was felt that this is inadequate:

The reasons for these limited interventions were cited as cost and a misunderstanding of the transition and transformation process. In HR2’s experience there is a perception from line managers that if the incumbent has not ‘made it after six months on the job as a leader then we shouldn’t have promoted him’ (HR2, female, HR practitioner).

Suggested solutions include initial frequent coaching sessions (every 2 weeks) for the first 3 months to assist with immediate issues and then less frequent sessions of once a month or even 2 months for up to at least 18 months, but preferably up to 3 years.

The process of selecting a coach varied between organisations. In most cases the coachee was given a choice of coaches either through an interview process or a so-called chemistry session (P3, P5), or by reviewing coaches’ CVs (P8). HR2’s organisation uses a panel of coaches and assigns a coach based on a specific skills-set needed in the intervention. The importance of coach selection was highlighted by P7 (an actuary) who stated that it was very important to him that his coach had the ability to think analytically and conceptually. The coach he selected was an engineer.

The issue of where and what time coaching should take place elicited varied responses. P1 preferred a location far away from work in a relaxed environment such as a restaurant or hotel and at a time of day that was convenient. The neutral location energised him sufficiently to allow him to engage in the coaching. P2 on the other hand was coached at her office, but she does feel that it would have been better to be coached away from the office as she would have felt more free to talk about ‘what is bothering her’. P4 concurred that even though he was coached at the office he would have preferred to be out of the ‘buzz’ of the office. P5 and P7 experienced both in and out of the office scenarios and both preferred the off-site location.

It would appear from the responses that off-site coaching is preferable, but C1 sums it up well when she states that: ‘… it is up to the coachee to make the call on what suits them and for the coach to be flexible and accommodating’ (C1, female, Coach).

All the coaches reported going through a contracting phase. In all cases there was at least one session at the start where an organisational representative provided input into the coaching process. There were some variations. C1 has two sessions with the organisation, one at the start to set goals and one at the end to provide feedback, although she has observed that for executive-level coachees the organisations seem to be less involved in the coaching process.

The importance of confidentiality during the contracting phase and throughout the intervention is stressed:

Goal setting emerged as an important part of the transition coaching process. Coaching goals provided structure (P1, P4) and helped coachees stay accountable:

C3 uses goal setting as a standard practice to involve line managers indirectly in the coaching process:

Two coachees felt strongly about the benefits of their coaches summarising the coaching sessions and sharing this with them. P5’s coach created a two- to three-page, typed summary after each coaching session. This was useful to him in that it allowed him to reflect on the coaching session between sessions, as well as serving as a reminder of coaching goals. Even after the coaching ended, P5 was using the coaching summaries (comprising some 40 pages) to remind himself of his journey and his progress to date. For P7 the summaries acted as reference to books and resources he could consult.

Active experimentation emerged as a strong sub-theme (P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8). P8 experimented with body and verbal language. P6 practised in a mirror to overcome her public shyness. P7 provided another example:

Reflection was used in various ways including obtaining clarity of thinking (P3), identifying alternative solutions (P4), feeling unjudged (P5) and creating awareness of positive thoughts (P6). C1 distinguishes between assisted reflection, led by the coach and self-reflection, performed by the coachee outside of the coaching sessions. C4 uses reflection to close the active experimentation learning loop.

In general, there seems to be a pattern of the coaching, creating awareness in the client, of the need to change, encouraging the client to practise and experiment with different behaviours to see what works and finally to reflect back in the coaching session on what worked or did not work and the reasons for it (C1, C2, C3, C4).

A number of participants valued the inclusion of theoretical models and frameworks in the coaching process by their coaches. Coaches shared cognitive behavioural theory (P1), leadership theory (P4), video clips (P5) and the Leadership Pipeline model (C1). For P7 as a technically minded individual it was crucial that his coach provided him with theoretical frameworks to allow him to understand what process he was undergoing. Socratic questioning helped him to listen to people instead of telling them what to do.

A number of participants reported using psychometric assessments as input into the coaching process. This include 360-degree review, Enneagram, Myers-Briggs, Insights, Organic scorecard and repertoire grid to name a few. The benefits of these assessments range from comfort that my coach knows me (P7), increased self-awareness (P8, C3, C5) and getting the coaching ‘unstuck’ (C4).

The classical three-way meeting between the coach, coachee and line manager at the start of the coaching process to align on goals and at the end to provide feedback were present in a number of instances (P1, P3, P5, C1, C3). For C3: ‘If the line manager does not enforce the shift to the desired behaviour it probably won’t happen’ (C3, male, Coach). HR1 feels it is sufficient to receive occasional feedback from the coach while HR2 feels that the organisation should take a backseat as the results of the coaching should be visible. If not she will intervene:

While being coached, some coachees found it useful to have a mentor. For some this was a formal process (P2) where their line manager appointed an internal mentor to support their transition, while for others it was an informal process. It would appear that using a mentor at the same time as being coached is not a standard practice, but for those who did have a mentor the effect was positive.

An interesting phenomenon that emerged from this research is where coaches C2 and C3 involved the newly promoted leader’s team in the coaching process. For C2 this was almost out of frustration because the transformation that her client underwent was met with suspicion by her team. It was only after three facilitated sessions with the leader and her team that trust was restored to some extent. For C2 ‘there is no other way of coaching people who are being groomed for leadership’ (C2, female, Coach) than to involve their teams at some point while for C3 involving the team was a way to bring in the systemic aspect of a senior corporate position.

P1 and his coach spent some time analysing his network:

C1 and C4 reported using a similar approach with their clients to help them build new relationships.

P3 expanded her network on a senior level, P5 spent time on his international network and P6 focussed on building networks outside of her regional office. All three participants found this exercise helpful in their new role. C1 advises her clients to build networks by meeting face-to-face either formally (using work as an excuse to introduce yourself) or informally (dropping in and introducing yourself as the new person).