In recent years coaching has become big business. Managers in many organisations have been put on courses to improve their coaching skills. Such initiatives are long overdue. Coaching provides a new skill set for many. However organisations must not get carried away with the holy grail of coaching ( a verb) as opposed to creating great coaches (noun). Being a great coach entails far more learning and development than becoming skilled in the act of coaching. Your managers have signature strengths. These strengths should be reflected in the way they coach and who they coach .
Miles Downey has described coaching as " the art of facilitating the performance, learning and development of another” .
Does a coach perform coaching as defined by Downey and Whitmore. My view is yes…and considerably more. When I adopt the role of a business coach, I seek to fulfil Downey’s definition. However, I adopt a much wider skill set than that advocated by Downey and Whitmore. This difference between being a coach, and recognising what coaching is, has probably confused many managers. It probably explains why many managers have not sampled the success that they were led to believe would flow from exercising coaching principles.
It is probably true to say that many established managers find it difficult to switch from tell ( problem solving focus based on the benefit of personal experience) to ask ( trusting the other to find their own solutions). Switching to a coaching style opens up new opportunities for many managers, providing ways to develop richer relationships with direct reports. However, managers can also find coaching both frustrating and unrewarding. They come back to the workplace fresh from a coaching course and within a week are complaining with phrases such as
‘It didn’t work!’ ‘They didn’t do what I wanted to do’ ‘They said they would do it but did something else’ ‘I have had to go back to tell to prevent anarchy’
Why doesn’t coaching always work? Well, part of it will be down to the application and skill of the manager. It takes time and considerable practice to become adept at coaching. Part of it will be down to the proposition that the use of coaching is not appropriate to all situations. Part of it will be down to a lack of integrity in the manager in his or her approach as a coach. This lack of integrity stems from the fact that their signature strengths are not congruent with coaching in its purest form.
Coaches do more than coaching. A coach will utilise more skills and approaches than those contained in the most comprehensive coaching handbook. In essence good coaches are good leaders. They adapt their style to suit a complex mix of the person they are, the person they are acting as coach to, the situation, the need and the outcome sought.
The role of the coach contains at least the following. (I am sure this list can be added to)
Many books have been written about motivation. These works can be boiled down to three words: Towards, Away from.
Towards motivation occurs when we are drawn towards something – something positive and attractive ( an exciting picture of the future, a caribbean holiday, a brand new leather sofa)
Away from motivation occurs when the potential pain becomes sufficiently acute that we need to do something to avoid more of it ( a punishment, feeling exhausted (so take a holiday) , a sofa that one can no longer sit on without getting a bad back!)
Your organisation is made up of people who are primarily motivated by either towards or away from motivators. In order to gain influence with them, they need to be led in specific ways. Certain styles will work best for certain people.
In his book, the New Leaders, Daniel Goleman (he of Emotional Intelligence fame) identifies 6 leadership styles. In brief these were (…in my words)
Coercive: the command and control type. These people are good at mobilising people in a crisis, but generally erode confidence in others through their ‘I am right’ style. They have a confidence about them, some wisdom and can influence people who are motivated away from problems. They are effective at wielding a stick. They do get things doe and get results. Used too much their approach will push people with ideas away and starve the organisation of ideas.
Pace setting…fast paced, action oriented, these people are great at energising the work place and new projects. Perfectionists, hard task masters with unrealistically high expectations of others they often burn their followers out. They do get results faster than others. They are action oriented. They do have considerable on the job knowledge that is extremely valuable to less experienced colleagues.
Coaching… a style that seeks to develop people to meet the future needs of the business. Requiring significant investment in time and a need to delay instant results, this style has a positive effect on the work place. These people value people. They value the future. They are giving of themselves for the good of others. They are true servant leaders.
Visionary… galvanising people around an exciting picture of the future, these leaders are great communicators, passionate and skilled at inspiring. Good at story telling, with a strong sense of purpose, these leaders can bring a group of people together around a common goal. They especially appeal to towards oriented people. This is the rarest and most valuable style of the six Goleman identified.
Democratic - a style used to value and include the views of others. Great for gathering commitment but can be slow and laboured in its approach. This style is best used with highly skilled and motivated people who are towards motivated.
Affiliative - people based style , using friendship and relationships to influence others. This is probably the most prevalent style utilised by middle managers. (Perhaps everyone likes to think of themselves as a nice person?). An effective style in non challenging situations, this affiliative power can easily be eroded by changes in human relations. Leaders who rely on this style become a prisoner to it and struggle to maintain consistency in the way they treat others.
In effect these six signatures are all different influencing styles. Their success, or otherwise, is dependent on the person the situation at hand and the outcome desired. Goleman argued that leaders need to find ways to obtain the correct balance between these styles. There are times when each of these styles will be appropriate. However, it is my experience that most managers will have a preference for one or two of the styles. This is understandable as each style is underpinned by distinctive values and leadership beliefs.
The skill will matrix is often quoted as a ‘coaching’ tool. It is probably better defined as a tool that coaches can use. The act of coaching fits within it, alongside the other influencing styles as identified by Goleman.
To illustrate see the skill matrix below. There are two axes on the skill will tool.
The diagram shows proposed dominant leadership styles in each box.
Low will Low Skill quadrant.
If a manager is faced with someone in this area, how is it best to approach them? If one defines the quadrant as follows:
Low skill – relative to one of the following: where the performer has been, could be, or as measured relative to the average skill level of their colleagues
Low will …relative to where they have been, or to what is expected of a high performing employee
In the diagram, the coercive style and pace setting styles are advocated. The accent being on the leader to tell. This might surprise some people who believe that the tell style should be confined to emergencies and burning platforms. However, someone in this area is unlikely to respond to coaching, at least initially. Clarification of expectations is of primary importance. Advocacy is the main weapon. Once expectations and targets are clarified, , managers can follow up the coercive and pace setting styles with subsequent ones which can contain more coaching based principles.
Why this route? Learning requires reflection. The tell style will be effective promote reflection in the performer. People in this quadrant are likely to be ‘away from’ motivated. That is to say they will react best to moving away from pain. Yes this might well upset the other person, but in some cases this will have more effect in galvanising energy and action than a cuddly coaching conversation. The performance agenda needs to be set and things need to improve.
Low will High skill
People in this quadrant are likely to have seen their will fall over a period of time. Their journey is likely to have been one of reaching high will/ high skill and then losing interest and consequent will.
These people need to be inspired and reconnect with a sense of purpose. Given where they have been, they can connect with a ‘towards motivator’. The visionary style will supply this. This can be followed by subsequent coaching conversations. To coach someone in the area without providing some visionary input is unlikely to supply the catalyst for change.
Low skill High will
These people will often perceive that their skill levels are higher than their manager does. They are likely to be towards motivated. However they may well respond best to the challenge of an initial push style to provide them with a context for improvement. They will require feedback to help them recalibrate their perception of skill and to map out a route that will optimise skill development.
Pace setting leaders inject energy into organisations, have high standards and detailed knowledge of how to get things done. Handling performers in the right way they can act as great mentors. They can accelerate the skill levels of others and help move them into the high will high skill area. They can do this faster than a skilled coach. The danger is that they can starve the performer of choice and learning. However, awareness of this on both sides can help to mitigate this, and furthermore input from multiple pace setters will provide an excellent grounding for a low skill high will individual.
In apprenticeships such individuals are called journeymen. In service based organisations they might be called mentors or even coaches. Their role is to share knowledge in an effective way that accelerate the capability of the organisation, whilst encouraging performers to think for themselves.
High will High skill
These people are likely to be towards motivated. Three styles will work particularly well in this quadrant.
Coaching will work particularly well in this area. The non directive approach helps the individual to create their own agenda for development with minimal advice or inputs.
The democratic style will also work with groups of high skill/ high will individuals, providing them with the necessary choice and involvement in decision making..
The visionary style is essential to unify these talented, valuable people around common goals.
What percentage of people in your organisation fall into each of the quadrants? Yes it will depend on particular skill areas and the definitions you place on skill and will. However, when we have posed this question in workshops, the general answer from managers is that 80% of employees will not reside in the high will high skill box.
Whilst coaching has an undoubted role in organisations, developing great coaches who can recognise adapt to a range of styles will have far greater impact on the whole working population.
We act with integrity when our actions are in accordance with our values. Each of the leadership styles has accompanying values. These values are precious and not easily discarded or re ordered. In brief the values are as follows
Much has been written about strength based leadership. The proposition being that in order to perform at our best we must each work with our strengths and find ways to mitigate our weaknesses. If we accept this principle then is it unreasonable to expect managers to be experts at coaching? It probably is. Perhaps a better way of allocating leadership is around the needs of the followers. Coaching has started to border on psycho babble with phrases introduced by trainers such as the need for coaches to have an ‘unconditional positive regard for others’.
In business, such expressions are, by and large meaningless. Work places accumulate emotional baggage and histories. They are imperfect and always will be. We cannot train people to become saint like. Surely it is better to work with what we have and go with the flow. This requires us to match people’s strengths to the business requirement rather than forcing people’s feet into shoes that don’t fit. I am not advocating one set of shoes per manager, but I am suggesting we recognise where best performance will come from.
Use the visionary style people in your organisation to act as coaches to high skill high will people. These are your high impact people. What some refer to as your talent pool. Ensure you retain them and continue to get high contribution levels from them through inspirational inputs, ambition and unbridled challenge
Use coercive and pace setting leaders in the low will slow skill quadrant to galvanise higher energy levels and higher standards of performance. Their natural style will highlight the need for change and urgency. Temper their natural urge to tell with some coaching awareness, but make it clear that coaching will work more effectively as will levels increase. Will levels generally increase with skill. Skill is a key value with pace setters who can help accelerate skill acquisition more effectively than other leadership styles.
Coaching is a leadership style that coaches adopt. It is not the only style. In fact coaches need to recognise the choice of leadership styles that are available to them and choose one appropriate to the situation. It is clear that to be a great coach requires more than coaching skills.
Individuals are driven by values that are reflected in their distinctive leadership characteristics. These values create both signature strengths and in certain situations signature weaknesses.
When identifying suitable coaches for individuals it is important to seek to match coach strengths to the need. Attempting to create coaches for all, may not work, as it sets up an incongruence in the coach which will be reflected in their resultant style. When selecting a coach it is better to be explicit about the situation and select accordingly.