1.As a coach, how would you characterise Ian's dilemma? 4.Specifically, as Colin's supervisor, are there any ethical issues you would call out? 5.What would you do next, if you were Colin?

CoachingIan Calqhoun is a senior executive working for 3CA, a Melbourne-based telecommunications compa- ny. Nine months ago, Ian's CEO asked him to work with his counterpart in New Zealand to explore the possibility of implementing the Australian customer relationship management system across both countries. Ian conducted the study and submitted a report recommending the customer relationship management system be implemented in New Zealand. Three months later, Ian has had no response to his report from either the COO or CEO. He fears his reputation and effectiveness as a manager may be compromised as a consequence. Ian has asked Colin Harvey, an executive coach, to help him navigate the situation he finds himself in. This case invites you to consider Ian's predicament from Colin's perspective.

Introduction Colin Harvey is a practising coach who works with a variety of organisations, including corporate, government, and not-for-profit institutions. Some people would call him an executive coach, others an organisational coach. Like many coaches, Colin sources some of his work directly from clients and some work through in- termediary agencies. In May 2016 Colin was sourcing 80% of his work through CoachCo, a small Melbourne- based coaching organisation. On 7 May, Colin was contacted by CoachCo to participate in a 'chemistry check' with an executive at 3CA, a mid-sized telecommunications company. The purpose of a chemistry check is to provide both coach and coachee with the opportunity to see if they would like to work together. Chemistry checks are often held in informal environments, such as cafs, and generally last 45-60 minutes. CoachCo told Colin that the potential coachee was Ian Calqhoun and that he was looking for help in influencing senior stakeholders in the organisation. Chemistry Check Ian asked to meet Colin in his office rather than venture out into a less formal environment. Ian appeared to be quite stressed, and he launched quickly into an account of his situation. Ian was marketing and sales director for 3CA, responsible for increasing sales across all market sectors in Australia. 3CA was an inter- national organisation with offices in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Malaysia. Each country office operated largely independently, but they were encouraged by the global executive to co-operate where clear synergies were identifiable. Nine months previously, the country CEOs for Australia and New Zealand met at a conference. The New Zealand CEO expressed serious interest in the customer relationship management (commonly abbreviated as CRM) system that Ian and his team had recently designed and implemented in Australia. Implementa- tion of the system was believed to have contributed to an 8-10% improvement in customer retention over a Sage Paul Lawrence 2021 Sage Business Cases Page 4 of 7A Systemic Approach to Organizational Coaching

12-month period, and the system had been recognised as outstanding by marketing industry associations. Ian was regularly called on to talk about his work at industry events. The Australian CEO volunteered Ian to work with his counterpart in New Zealand to explore the potential benefits of implementing the system in New Zealand. Ian approached the task with great enthusiasm, but found his counterpart, a woman named Anna Williams, to be less enthused. She believed that their existing systems were fit for purpose and that to embark on a new systems implementation project would be a distraction to the business. She was nevertheless instructed by her CEO to participate in a joint study. In the early stages of the project Ian quickly realised that the Australian system would be relatively easy to install and would probably deliver similar benefits in New Zealand to those delivered in Australia. The biggest piece of work would be helping sales and marketing staff to understand how best to utilise the system, rather than the installation of the system itself. Anna did not put much effort into the project, but nor did she present any obstacles, allowing Ian to talk to all of her staff, most of whom became excited at the prospect of being able to work with the new system. At the end of six months Ian prepared a preliminary report outlining benefits, drawbacks, and risks attached to installing the new system. The report made an overwhelming case for moving ahead with implementation. Anna did not contribute much to the writing of the report, though Ian provided her with every opportunity to do so. Shortly before the report was completed, Anna went on maternity leave and was unavailable to sign the report. Ian nevertheless submitted the report to his COO who, he assured Ian, forwarded the report on to the Aus- tralian CEO. Three months later, Ian had received no feedback from the COO or CEO. He asked the COO several times for an update but had been told that the company had other immediate priorities. He would re- ceive feedback on the report after the executive team had time to address it. Meanwhile Ian was being pressed by his staff and Anna's staff in New Zealand. They all recognised the ben- efits of rolling out the system across both countries and felt they had invested significant time in contributing to the development of the business case. They were beginning to question Ian's capacity to influence senior management, and morale appeared to have deteriorated, particularly in New Zealand. Ian's employee en- gagement scores declined by 7% year-on-year, indicating declining employee motivation. To make matters worse, Ian had heard from one of his biggest clients just that morning, that their New Zealand business was impatient to take advantage of the benefits the system would bring. If implementation was so Sage Paul Lawrence 2021 Sage Business Cases Page 5 of 7A Systemic Approach to Organizational Coaching

straightforward, why did they not just get on with it? Colin feared that other stakeholders might also see the project simply as a hardware roll-out. Most of the work would be redesigning processes. Ian was concerned that his low engagement scores would impact his career prospects and he also worried that his reputation in the business and with clients had been compromised. Ian's team encouraged him to keep pressing the COO and to approach the CEO directly. But Ian enjoyed a good relationship with both ex- ecutives and did not want to start nagging for fear of those relationships deteriorating. Yet he felt he was going to have to approach them again, and wanted Colin to help him decide when and how to do so, and what to say. The purpose of the chemistry check was, of course, for Colin and Ian to decide if they wanted to work together. Ian quickly agreed to moving ahead and asked when they could have their first coaching session, and would it be possible to arrange something that same week. Colin agreed to coach Ian and they fixed a time to meet two days later. Ian made it clear he would be looking for some guidance from Colin as to what to do next. Decision Point Two days later Colin made his way to the 3CA offices, wondering how to approach the first session. Ian had made it pretty clear he wanted Colin to help him work out how best to influence the COO and CEO. Should he continue to explore the issue further, running the risk that Ian would become impatient, or should he shift into a more directive modus operandi, sharing possible approaches he had seen other coachees implement to great effect? 3CA was a big client for CoachCo and, were this assignment to go well, he could anticipate a steady stream of new work. He wondered whether he should suggest setting up a three-way meeting be- tween Ian, the 3CA COO, and himself to discuss the objectives for coaching. Such a meeting might throw up other factors pertinent to the case. He recalled Ian talking about his reluctance to further challenge the COO and CEO. The reasons Ian provided were logical enough, but he sensed Ian might have issues with conflict avoidance.