Even if international organizations establish their subsidiaries around the world, because the service is flourishing (one example: the newly opened AIMS International office in Bucuresti and Timisoara) managers from transitional economies still view EC as a way to fix something that goes wrong and sometimes confuse coaching for consulting or therapy. Another cultural obstacle is the way Europeans really are: somewhat more privy, less ready to share personal issues to others than Americans.
Also, the relationship can be damaged if the coachee fights for controlling the coaching process, is defending/justifying past decisions/behavior, is reluctant to pass on the truth about a situation or is competing with the coach. Other obstacles are the worry about confidentiality as well as the unworkable relationships by not matching the background, personality and coaching style between the coach and coachee. This can lead to misconceptions and lack of confidence. The coach has to be comfortable himself/herself with the industry and have experience in dealing with that specific need.
A certain openness can be traced in large companies (examples from Romania: the development of a permanent Career center in one of the largest mobile companies, CONNEX, to deliver permanent coaching programs and professional assessment and development, and SOFTWIN, the largest Romanian software company, which has implemented numerous in-house and also, outsourced coaching programs aimed at developing the leadership process and retain values in house) but for the process of in-house coaching, obstacles can be found in the culture of the organization itself: managers can feel protective of their sense of status and expertise and not be willing to pass it on. Another issue is the management line responsibility of the coach over the coachee.
What can be done is obtain openness to a flexible coaching style, adaptable to suit the level of confidence/competence of the coachee in a cascade-effect, from top down to the lowest level of an organization. This can develop respectful one-on-one relationships with final gain in improving rewarding, assessing and developing teams.
4.Coaching is designed to establish and achieve clear goals, which aim at business effectiveness both in terms of better individual performance and organizational change. In any organizations, and especially with the larger ones, top management is more than often a lonely business. Leaders often lack accurate feedback and might not be able to relate hierarchically downstream to obtain the recommendations for corrective action or simply open up to colleagues to obtain that feedback. In this context, EC is a tool for personal leadership development.
As seen before, in transitional economies where leadership still centers around the authoritative style (with certain flavors of consultative) the feedback and need for behavioral change is needed more than ever.
The only obstacle is the managers vision on EC by itself since they often perceive it as simple therapy, consulting and not as a leadership competency builder. As a powerful development tool, coaching has the capacity to motivate, focus leaders and fire-up from down to top entire organizations. And I see here not only the value of coaching a top leader, but having coaching programs to start leadership development involving all managers at each level of an organization and obtain the coach the coach format i. e. learn how to coach others. In this way a transformational change can take place in the organization by leveraging coaching at each level.
Here are several direct organizational benefits to be obtained in the process: faster innovation and results; improved efficiency in recruiting, development and retaining valuable employees in the organization; developing of a powerful organizational culture and implementation of a vision throughout the company; better responsibility triggering in each employee vis-i?? -vis of creating a vision of the company and improving the decision process; improved communication and team efficiency throughout organization; building responsibility for a companys success at each and every level in the organization.
Gurkov, Igor (1998): Leadership in Russian Industries: Mutual Expectations, Requirements and Claims during Systemic Crisis, paper presented at the 1st International Workshop on the Transition and Enterprise Restructuring in Eastern Europe,