LinkedIn profiles are full of terms describing the skills of Coaches, and this is good news: the profession works to ensure that its members, working according to the rules of the art, are recognizable.
However, the terms used do not always mean the same thing, according to the source. Here are synoptic illustrations to find your way around quickly.
A previous article took stock of the choice of coach, from the point of view of the beneficiary of the coaching. Here, we wonder about the choice of coach, from the point of view of the buyer of coaching.
The buyer is for example a human resources manager, a department/company director who has the related budget, a training manager, who builds a training course, including coaching.
Faced with an identified coaching need, how to choose the coach(s)? So that their service corresponds to the needs of the company?
To take a parallel, when you buy a yogurt, you expect a product of standardized composition and that has been kept in compliance with the cold chain. What about coaching?
This question comes up regularly, both on social networks and in discussions in companies or networks.
And that’s an essential question!
This decision-making has a stake, that of the benefits that the coachee will be able to obtain from his commitment to a coaching course. The benefits of coaching are also spread throughout the company, in particular thanks to a coaching phasing, the rule of the art of the profession.
Several approaches of choice can be considered, as well as their combinations.
We often hear about assertiveness, in a professional context or in a personal context. But what does this title cover? And how to assert oneself individually, in a collective functioning, being in a fair balance between the individual point of view and the collective point of view?