Stretching the Coaching Model

Abstract

Th is article provides an orientation to a general coaching model employed within the NIH Offi ce of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative Resolution (OO/CCR), and explains how it fi ts within the framework of our interpretation of the ombudsman role and compares to other approaches in the coaching fi eld. Th e article describes steps that ombudsmen may employ as the coaching relationship becomes more established and as trust develops between the ombudsman and visitor. It also describes indicators of potential problems in coaching and how an ombudsman might respond to them.

State of Knowledge: Conflict Coaching Theory, Application, and Research

“…There are considerable overlaps among these areas. For example, reporting of conflict coaching within the National Institutes of Health by ombuds (Levine‐Finley ) relates to the government and health care categories, in addition to the use of conflict coaching by conflict resolution practitioners with broader professional identities. An effort has been made to categorize applications or proposed applications in the primary category in which they were originally framed.…”

“…It has been acknowledged that most first ombuds sessions are basically coaching sessions (Gadlin ), and the challenges of learning the organizational ombuds role include learning the role of coach (Myers and Witzler ). Levine‐Finley () presented the general coaching model used within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative Resolution (OO/CCR). Levine‐Finley described ombuds‐related coaching as frequently occurring (with coaching as the ombuds’ only intervention process in 44 percent of cases in a recent year) and consistent with the definition set forth by Brinkert (; Levine‐Finley ).…”

“…Levine‐Finley () presented the general coaching model used within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative Resolution (OO/CCR). Levine‐Finley described ombuds‐related coaching as frequently occurring (with coaching as the ombuds’ only intervention process in 44 percent of cases in a recent year) and consistent with the definition set forth by Brinkert (; Levine‐Finley ). Coaching by ombuds at NIH does not closely adhere to any one approach and is not formally taught.…”

“…Coaching by ombuds at NIH does not closely adhere to any one approach and is not formally taught. Levine‐Finley () noted that one influence is the solution‐focused or brief coaching approach (Szabo and Meier , applied to mediation by Bannink and Dingwall and Miller ) and rooted in work stretching back to the 1980s (de Shazer ). Many NIH ombuds have also had exposure to the detailed models shared earlier in this article.…”

“…Early on, it was positioned as a potential secondary or tertiary practice for those primarily trained in another conflict resolution process such as mediation (Brinkert ). Given the general attractiveness of dyadic conflict coaching and similar processes and the high proportion of the time they are engaged (Levine‐Finley ), as well as the sometimes inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of using other conflict resolution processes such as mediation (Bollen and Euwema ), the conflict resolution field should make a deliberate effort to move beyond “mediation‐centrism” (Yarn , 97). This is especially the case when engaging conflict coaching means upholding a key tenet of alternative dispute resolution by keeping the conflict process as close as possible to those directly involved (Yarn ).…”