White Paper: Coaching is for winners

Who should we spend time on or coach as line managers – our performers or those who are not making the grade? Who should we invest in, either ourselves or via external coaches?

Something that has always intrigued me is how many people believe coaching is for fixing people, people who are not performing, people who have shortcomings. Now, to the extent that all people have shortcomings, this may be true – an old joke that did the rounds was that the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement! And it’s true, isn’t it – we can all improve our skills, our capabilities, our performance, and our effectiveness.

But just how much time and money should we be investing in under-performers? Coaching is not cheap – should we be investing our budgets on ‘remedial’ coaching in order to get our under-performers up to speed? Would this be money well spent? Would our time with under-performers be well-spent?

I don’t believe so. Let’s start by looking at the logic of this approach. In the chart alongside, I have provided for a team of ten people with seven performers and three under-performers (the numbering on the axes is not important for current purposes). A look at the arrows gives us an idea of how much time and effort is required to get performers and under-performers up to optimal performance. Bear in mind that performers tend to have better skills already, a better work ethic and work habits. The result? Seldom do under-performers get to the optimal levels that performers do. Time spent with under-performers all too often, at best, turns them into average performers!

Ironically, many managers invest so much time with their under-performer/s that they don’t have time to spend with their performers! Of course, at the time, this normally seems “okay” to them because the performers normally take care of themselves!
My hypothesis here, however, is what if they spent this time with their top performers? What more might they be able to achieve? At the very least, what if we shared our time as managers more equitably developing all our team members.

What I have said up to now is probably equally true whether the coaching is conducted by a person’s line manager or by an external coach. It does, however, beg the question of whom coaching works best with, and whether everyone is potentially a suitable candidate for external / executive coaching.

The framework clearly shows that coaching is more effective and helpful to those who are already successful:

• Excellent coachability is not so much about the absence of negatives but by the presence of strong positive factors like a powerful commitment to improve continuously, a hunger to learn and a drive to be the best one can be.
• Good coachability – people don’t reach senior positions unless they have a strong results focus and responsibility drive.
• Average coachability – most companies have been raising their expectations of performance for some time now and what they used to regard as acceptable has changed, leaving some people stranded or fighting for their jobs.
• Poor coachability – companies should be careful that they don’t offer coaching to someone who has, in reality, been written off by the organisation. When the coaching client has serious performance issues, coaching is unlikely to contribute a great deal.
• Inappropriate coachability right now – the people in this category appear to have psychological and medical problems like depression, severe anxiety and addiction and should rather be referred to clinicians from the medical and mental health services.

This is all good and well – but what does it really mean? Who are likely to gain most from coaching? In The Case for Coaching, the authors / researchers found that, for coaching to work most effectively, coachees should:

• Be willing participants in coaching;
• Be well-informed and well-educated about what coaching requires of them;
• Have a level of self-awareness – the ability to reflect and consider alternative points of view without becoming defensive and rejecting them without consideration;
• Lack serious psychological problems;
• Have the ability to give and receive feedback;
• Have learning preferences what are catered for by their coach;
• Have the ability to undertake an analysis of their own performance and explore factors that influence their own behaviour and help or hinder change;
• Have the ability to action plan and draw up a viable personal development plan that can be applied in the context in which they work;
• Have problems / issues that are suitable to be addressed by coaching;
• Have the ability to use a network of support for developing their skills and improving performance.

Where coachees lack these attributes (other than the first two items on the list), coaching may still be viable, although it might require a longer framework.
In conclusion, therefore, my suggestion is that:

1. Coaching should be viewed as being for winners rather than losers;
2. These winners should understand what coaching will require of them; and
3. Whoever coaches them, their manager or external coach, should be suitably skilled in the art of coaching.

Bibliography:
Bluckert P: Psychological Dimensions of Executive Coaching (2006)
Buys L: Management by Coaching – 7 Basic Keys (2011)
Jarvis J, Lane DA, Fillery-Travis A: The Case for Coaching (2006)