The luxury giant cruise ship, Costa Concordia, has been lying on its side for weeks and is now expected to be there for months, a sad reminder of the loss of lives, property, reputations and trust. However, what appears to have caused the most furore and become the focus of worldwide media attention, has been the behaviour of the captain. He is blamed for causing the accident by recklessly steering the vessel too close to shore, not managing the evacuation and abandoning ship before the evacuation of more than 4,200 passengers and crew was complete.

The debate goes further. It has become a debate about corporate ethics, safety regulation and the degree to which individuals are responsible for what happens on their watch. Does this seem familiar? It certainly reminded me of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the fall of many mighty financial institutions across the world.

So what is the link with coaching?

Get the coach off the bridge!

Well, coaching while the disaster is unfolding at rapid speed is NOT advised. This is one of the few times, when coaching may in fact be counter-productive. This is not a time to learn and develop; this is a time where practiced exercise drills, quick decision making and the right values should cut in to avoid the disaster escalating further. The captain and the crew on the bridge have plenty to think about. A coach would simply be in the way at that point.

A coachs time is before and after the disaster.

Could a coach have averted the disaster?

So the big question: Could a good coach have helped avoid the disaster?

Very possible actually! The executive coach is often one of the few in a position to challenge top leaders about their mindset, their assumptions, the culture they encourage in their organisation and their own behaviours. There are of course many challenges: Would the captain in this case have displayed the nonchalant arrogance and daredevil macho attitude on previous occasions, or was it just a moment of madness ? Would the subject have been within the agreed areas discussed? Would the coach have been brave enough to challenge? Etc.

The aftermaths

After the disaster follows the blame game! This appears to be human nature, perpetuated by the hunger for a scapegoat (and more sensational news). Then usually follows a huge effort to introduce new regulation, more oversight and tougher consequences. It does however often feel like closing the gate after the horse bolted.

What remains, though, is that the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual in charge, and whether they make sound judgments in the critical moments; and critically, whether they have built a culture and a team around them, willing to challenge their decisions.

Alongside this media, blame and regulation frenzy, coaching can quietly contribute hugely to the learning, development and implementation of change particularly where this relates to changes in mindset, behaviour and culture. This is home turf for good executive coaches.

What are your thoughts? Have you been involved in the lead up or aftermaths of disasters? Did coaching play a role and did it make a difference?

Jan Bowen-Nielsen